c3k

Matt, I've got the Glantz book on Mars which I think is the one covering that action. I thought it'd be great for a campaign idea or op. For my .02, if you're going for an historical operation, keep it historical. Isn't there an option in operations design to add points to one side or the other to balance this very type of operation? In other words, if the Germans lose a lot of ground and a lot of troops, they could still win, depending on how many Russkies buy the farm and exactly how much ground they yield. I could be totally wrong. It's happened before! Ken

Gents, A statement in another thread caused a question to arise in my febrile mind. For that alone, I am grateful. Does the cover given by some terrain vary based on the weapon firing at a unit in that cover? E.g., given a squad in a Heavy Building, will a 100 firepower attack by SMG's have the same impact as a 100 firepower attack by a .50 cal? Were I in that building, I know I'd much prefer to be getting fired at by SMG's. In reality, a heavy building's walls would probably stop every 9mm round. (Assume some sort of solid masonry construction.) In reality, the Ma Duece could, and would, dismantle entire buildings. Okay, I can live with an abstract, "a lot of 9mm rounds went into windows and ricocheted around and hit your guys" answer. CM is, after all, a game. But, if the cover value were some sort of threshold which the rounds needed to overcome to have an effect, that would show the real benefits of a full powered cartridge versus, say, a pistol round. Is anything like this modelled? Or is it just a straight percentage of cover yields a percentage decrease in firepower on target? Thanks, Ken

Another idea: A Unit save feature. At the end of a scenario or operation, I'd like to have a one step process to save all the units. (A separate file for each side.) Then, I can be able to access those units with the scenario editor. Be able to track total kills. Change status - add replacements for casualties or change from, say, green to regular. Change HQ stats. As units gain battle experience, give them a status upgrade. This would make tracking a unit VERY easy. My idea would apply to a long-term campaign. (Not necessary for the game to implement.) I could set up a battalion or regiment and create a long series of battles and operations and not be limited to the unit status at the end of the last battle. To add back in men for replacements I envision a "counter" function with a "+" "-" key. I.e., after a battle a 12 man squad is listed as having 7 left. Save the units. Open the editor, access the unit file, select that squad. I want to simulate the unit getting replacents, so I click the "+" key several times. Now the squad has 10 men. (The weapons allocation would be identical to current implementation. Currently the infantry tries to retain weapons based on firepower(?) as they get reduced. Simply reverse the process.) Ken

Hmm, perhaps it's a phonetic spelling, not the real spelling. I'll give it a shot. Okay, it seems to be like this: FF' - dame - ye - trower A little work with my dictionary and some other stuff yields this: F-ing - dame - your - trouser Okay, finally, since these things aren't literal, here's a good first translation: "Do you have a f***ing dame in your trousers?" The modern translation would be: "Do you have a banana in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" All in jest. Good luck!! Ken

JasonC, Thanks for the post. Any chance we could get you to list authors and titles of those books? Ken

Excellent idea! I'd love to see a Passenger indicator added in. Yes, I use Shift-V, with Bases on, but that's a work around, as is individually selecting each vehicle then hitting Enter. Ken

Dr Juzzy, Info on 60th Rifle Division, from Charles C. Sharp's "Soviet Order of Battle: World War II" series, Volume IX, "Red Tide", p.11. Formed from 1st Moscow Militia Division, 26SEP41, hence, many changes through unit history. Eventually, assigned to 47th Army, usually operating under 125th Rifle Corps HQ. (It was reconstited/rebuilt at least several times. Ignoring the 1st Moscow Militia Division period, by 22FEB42 one of three rifle regiments was disbanded due to casualties, the other two were down to 427 men and 658 men.) I do not know under which shtat it was operating during the timeframe you're looking at. An assumption would be the same as the 76th RD, with the same rebuild/strength level. At the time of its formation in September of '41, the following units are listed: 1281st Rifle Regiment 1283rd Rifle Regiment 1285th Rifle Regiment 969th Artillery Regiment 696th Sapper Battalion I would assume the rifle regiments and possibly the arty regiment remained assigned to division as it reformed under the various shtat as the war progressed. No info for unit commanders. I thought all Soviet units followed the same numbering scheme. Battalions numbered sequentially with regiment. Companies numbered sequentially by type. Ken

Dr. Juzzy, Some info available from Charles C. Sharp's "Soviet Order of Battle: World War II" series. The total 12(?) volume set is available from Nafziger's web-site. Extremely well recommended if you have any interest in the subject matter. (Nafziger can be found with a simple search, or this may still be good: http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/index.html ) No luck with the 60th RD. The 76th RD is listed in Volume X, "Red Swarm", p.26. 93rd Rifle Regiment 207th Rifle Regiment 216th Rifle Regiment 80th Artillery Regiment 100th Anti-Tank Battalion April '44 its rifle regiments were at virtually full strength, using 04/550 shtat. Late April '44, 47th Army was transferred, and 76th RD spent last year of war in the 125th Rifle Corps in the 47th Army in the 1st Belorussion Front. Some other bits possibly available. Regards, Ken

(Still waiting for the fix for my double-post syndrome. D'OH!) [ June 11, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Another thought: Battle/Operation organization. Currently all Battles and Operations are listed alphabetically with a little blurb, and number of turns/size. I'd like to see the date included. In fact, I'd like to see the following listed: Sides, date, force size (points for each), force type (all inf, all armor, combined, etc.), map size, battle type (meeting, assault, etc.), and a summary description. Finally, I'd like to be able to select how I organize the scenarios based on the above criteria. If I want a summer of '41 battle, let me arrange the list by date. Click. Or, hmm, I'm ready for the mother of all battles. Click on "size". There's a 10,000 pointer! Thanks, Ken

Edited to note that it would be good if CMX2 would eliminate the dread "double-post" syndrome. Ken [ June 11, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Some more thoughts for CMX2: The current "To Kill" mechanism for armor is pretty good. (Understatement!!) However, the process "To Hit" needs to be vastly improved. Turret hits are given a basic percentage chance. It doesn't matter if it's a T-70 frontal aspect or the side of a King Tiger's turret, the chance of hitting the turret is the same. The actual, currently visible/exposed surface area of the different portions of the tank need to be calculated and used. Aiming techniques and weapons scatter would bias the spot on the tank which is hit. Using the same area calculation for soft vehicles would allow them to actually be hit by HE rounds, instead of using blast effect. Right now, if I zap a high-velocity HE round at a truck and it goes through the side, it will carry quite far, resulting in no effect. The aim point now is a spot under the truck. An added benefit of using actual profile area calculations would be exposure criteria. If a vehicle is hull down, instead of the current "all hull-down or no-hull-down", the variable percentage would be used. A deep depression would be more valuable than a shallow depression. The trajectory of rounds does not (as far as I know) matter. The range (therefore velocity) and aspect angle matter. Take an 88L71 round impacting a target 200 meters away: if the target is straight on to the gun, on level ground, the angle of impact from the vertical is solely dependent on the target's armor. (The shot is assumed to hit parallel to the ground if both target and firer are on level ground.) Now take a 75L12 gun. Same target, you need to loft that shell. It's impact angle would be dramatically different. That's not taken into account. (If the target front were sloped, the stubby 75 shell would actually hit with less effective slope than the 88.) Another issue is high-trajectory fire targeting dead ground. I see a house. I cannot see the ground beyond the house. I am reasonable confident that the ground beyond the house exists. My tactical sense tells me that the enemy is massing a platoon back there. My 81mm mortar cannot fire there. I should be able to do so. I typed well more than I should've. If anyone other than JasonC actually read all this, and followed it, thanks. Comments? Ken

If memory serves, the Demyansk terrain was extremely swampy - at least in the area where the Germans held a small neck into the pocket. That was the same area which was the location of the two-pronged counter-attack. Obviously not true during the winter months, but much more so during the spring thaw. Sorry, no references immediately at hand. Offwhite- outstanding map. Any chance of getting them on a disc? Ken

Gents, Adding another wish (other than using my mouse scroll-wheel to directly control gun elevation), the ability to see EXACT unit stats while purchasing units. Just like the unit INFO screen while playing, but in the editor and purchase screens. As it is now, you get a very brief description at the bottom of the page. I'd like to see a unit 3-D picture and all the other beautiful stats and numbers. Also, blast and penetration data for the infantry secondary weapons (grenades, MC's, 'fausts, etc.). Ken

Gentlemen, Thank you for taking the time to point out the flaw in my thinking - and doing so politely. I shall now shuffle back to my seat in the back corner and refrain from raising my hand for the rest of class. Thanks, Ken

A thought occurred as I read the mathematical models being presented. (If my following assessment is wrong, my apologies.) It seems as if there's a basic flaw in the "to hit" probabilities being calculated. Assume the muzzle of the firing weapon is 2 meters above a level field. If the shrapnel round is fired on it's "cannister" setting, it will explode approximately 10 to 20 meters away from the muzzle. From that point, all the splinters and shrapnel balls will expand in a cone (whether weighted to the center, annular, or equally doesn't matter at this point). Let's assume the angle of the cone is such that for every 10 meters forward, the base of the cone expands by 2 meters. (Obviously this could be changed, but it allows for a concrete example.) So, 10 meters after the charge detonates (let's say from 10 meters away from the muzzle), so at a muzzle distance of 20 meters, the cone has a radius of 2 meters. The bottom-most set of "balls" will impact the ground at this point. I'll use a range of 110 meters for my example. At 110 meters from the muzzle, our expanding cone will have a radius of 20 meters. Since the muzzle is only 2 meters above the ground, the bottom 18 meters of the cone will have been absorbed by the ground. (This leads to a very rough approximation that about half the "balls" have impacted the ground by this point.) Now that we've looked at the bottom of the cone, let's look at the top: at 110 meters from the muzzle, the cone has a radius of 20 meters, measured from 2 meters above the ground (muzzle height). Hence, the top of the cone is 22 meters above ground level. I know of very few personnel targets which could be situated at that height above ground. In essence, all targets would be located from ground level to a height of 2 meters. This is just a sliver of the total projected area. In fact, it could be approximated as a rectangle measuring 2 meters by 40 meters (diameter of the cone at 110 meters from muzzle). Given the area of a circle with radius, r, of 20 meters is approximately 1250 square meters, and that the rectangular portion of the cone has an area of about 80 square meters, or as a percentage of the total area, 80/1250 = 6.4%. So, take the .5 square meter target area given for a human target, and place it in a region with only 6.4% of the shrapnel "balls". I believe all the models assumed the targets were randomly located _anywhere_ within the cone. I hope I've gotten my point across. If I'm totally wrong, feel free to let me know. Thanks, Ken

Okay, now that v1.03 has been released, it's time to start griping, err, suggesting about what to include in v1.04 (the really, really, I mean it this time, final patch). I'll start: Cannister vs. Shrapnel issue Ammo allocation for organic 45mm guns in Dec '41 Targeting of HQ tanks Targeting based on unit cost I'll expect an official BFC announcement on v1.04 within a few hours. Thanks, Ken

BFC, Guys, thanks for the continued support. It's nice that you keep honing this game to a better and better state. Ken

Visom, Thank you. I just did that and found that, indeed, I cannot select my objective flag. So, if you create a map in the scenario editor with the "Dynamic Flag" option and then import that map into a Quick Battle, you cannot use your HQ to select your objective flag. BFC - any chance a tweak for this could go into the final patch? Ken

Joachim, I jumped into the scenario editor and made it a, eh, scenario. I've just tried repeatedly to create a Quick Battle with a Dynamic Flag option. I don't see how that can be done. In fact, I don't see any way to have ANY control over flag numbers or points in the Quick Battle creation process. (It seems to be based on the map size and/or unit point selection and scenario type. All controlled internally by the creator.) The scenario editor lets you pick the number and point value of flags. Within that system you can select the "Dynamic Flag" option. Have you used the Quick Battle creator to create a battle with Dynamic Flags? If so, how? Thanks, Ken edited because I need to relearn my punctuation rules. [ May 27, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

I just did a test; v1.03c(beta) using a '41 German Infantry Battalion setup versus a Soviet Infantry Company. 4 Dynamic flags. I selected the German Battalion HQ and used the (Oops, forgot the command) appropriate command to change each of the "Bogus" flags into the objective, individually, in turn. All this in the "Setup" phase. It seems to work correctly. Edited to add: The command is "Activate Flag". I did an additional test using two independent German Infantry Companies. (To see if there would be a problem with two co-equal highest HQ's.) Either/both of the two company HQ's were able to "Activate Flag". Again, I did not note the problems the others have had. Both tests were "Axis Attack". Ken [ May 27, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Convoy; follow vehicle; and follow road. That's what _I_ want. In RL, I say, "Follow that winding road to the village. Stop next to the church. GO!" Within 10 seconds the truck is driving away from me. Great. In CMBB, I select the truck and, using "Fast Move" create the 97 waypoints necessary to follow the curves of the road. The truck is still in command delay paralysis as the scenario ends on turn 50. New command: "FTFR" (Follow The Road) Ditto for multiple vehicles - set the movement order for the first one. Select the second vehicle and "target" the first one. A drop-down menu opens asking for the "follow" distance. Something, in steps, from 20 to 100+ meters. Ken

Not sure about the TO&E, but, I do remember some stuff off the top of my head. The Soviet Penal Battalions were attached at different levels. Now, I'm not sure, but I think each Army had a Penal Battalion, and each Front. The Army level battalions were reserved for lower ranking personnel. The Front level were for the high ranking individuals. So, a divisional commander would find himself in a Front Penal Battalion, a cook would be in the Army Penal Battalion. There was a, albeit, small chance of rehabilitation. Although, the honor of leading the Front's attack was consolation enough, one supposes. Now, all the above is dimly remembered. Ken

Guys, I just did a search for something (?) called a "MasterGoodAle". It seems he posts here regularly. I'm trying to contact him for the following reason: For the last several weeks he's been sending me emails with a "Turn 67" attachment. He's quite insulting as well. As I'm not PBEMing him, I have NO idea why he keeps sending this turn to me. Unless he's TOTALLY inept. :mad: :mad: :mad: Ken

MikeyD, "A Warm Place to Sleep" was my first CMBB scenario. I played it about half a dozen times, both sides, trying to learn the way CMBB differs from CMBO. It was a fun scenario. (Even after all the playings!) Thanks for the work! Ken