Vanir Ausf B

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: When you see a ball bowled down the crease at over 150 mph...<hr></blockquote> I assume you meant 150 kph. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Cricket speeds seem at least comparable and in many cases appreciably higher.<hr></blockquote> While I agree with your basic arguement that Americans don't have a monopoly on strong throwing arms, the latter half of the above statement appears to be in error. Going from the page you linked to, the fastest cricket pitch recorded was 160.57 kph by a JR Thomson in 1976. This compared to Nolan Ryan's 1979 baseball record of 160.64 kph. It is interesting to note that a half dozen or so recent baseball pitchers have reportedly been clocked at speeds above Nolan Ryan's record, up to 164.8 kph. But they are "unofficial" figures for whatever reason. The 108-135 kph figure given for typical baseball pitching speeds is misleading, at least at the professional level. It is true to a point because most pitches are curveballs, sliders, change-ups, ect. where the pitcher is not trying to throw the ball as fast as he can, but rather is trying to make the ball move through the air in a certain way to confuse the batter. It is misleading because nearly all professional pitchers can throw a fastball in the 144 kph range. Many can hit 150 and the fastest will often hit 158. BTW, you need to remove the "." at the end of your first link for it to work. [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

That would be a command I would be extremely reluctant to use if it were in the game. If the other player decided to move his tank a large distance that turn your men could end up chasing it quite a ways over open terrain getting chewed up the whole time.

Other people have addressed the original poster's points well, but I'll add a few thoughts. One thing that could be improved in CM is the near impossibility of hiding tanks in LOS of enemy units. I realize this is in part a engine issue that cannot be fully addressed at this time, but I have suggested previously that tanks that begin the game in trees be made significantly more difficult to spot until they move, at which time the bonus disappears for good. As it is tanks are just not as cost effective as AT guns on the defense. Making the QB maps deeper is a huge plus, but it will all be for naught if the flags are not staggered more front to back allowing for true defense-in-depth. This would be a logical change to make with the deeper maps, so I am hopefull.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford: It would seem from the above that Panther glacis plate armor was fine until mid-1944, and then brittle or reduced effectiveness armor may have appeared on both the Eastern and European Fronts.<hr></blockquote> OMG. It now appears that CM in not 100% totally wrong after all (only 97.3% wrong). Anybody seen TSword? This will be a terrible swift revelation for him. WARNING: The preceeding post may contain sarcasm.

If you are using a GeForce 256 card, use the 3.90 drivers.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford: CMBO played it conservative, two plates together act like one plate with same overall thickness.<hr></blockquote> Actually, Charles did adjust the Jumbo armor thickness down somewhat in the last patch because of this, but as you say, it's probably debatable how correct the current numbers are (hint: TSword).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: In fact. One reason less to complain.<hr></blockquote> Yep. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>TSword: So to set the Panther (and almost all other german tanks at 85 % armor quality) is more then questionable.<hr></blockquote> "Almost all other"??? A quick survey of German tanks in CMBO shows only the Panther, Jadgpanther and Hetzer with 85% armor. [ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I remember rexfords book says the HVAP should have a worse performance on angled hits than APC or ADPS, that isn't modeled in CMBO and hurts Panthers and other angled German armor.<hr></blockquote> Look again at the in-game penetration stats for HVAP. It is modeled.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: Different weather and time can bring some life back into Quickbattles.<hr></blockquote> Very true. Random weather is what makes MEs worth playing, IMO. Unlike attack/defend, adverse weather effects both players equally. It also makes you pay close attention to vehicle ground pressure ratings.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: I find the QB maps the computer makes to be pretty challenging and interesting most of the time. Some of them I've even wanted to keep and play again in the future. Hopefully in CMBB that will be possible.<hr></blockquote> I agree. Computer maps occasionally do have illogical features, and they do have a somewhat generic appearance to them. But the one thing they have going for them is that no two are the same. Each presents it's own unique set of tactical challenges. For me, that is what CM is about: the tactics. This is why some people never grow tired of QBs, despite their limitations. With the new QB features coming up in CMBB, we may never stop

A few more quick comments: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99: 1) Valid point about people liking to buy their own, as many do. Not that any field commander ever got a bundle of play-cash and an oob and 15 minutes to cook up a nasty force combination to crack the roadblock over the hill.<hr></blockquote> Computer pick is available for people who don't like the idea of purchasing their own. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My self worth is not a function of my T-House ranking.<hr></blockquote> That's good to know. I'd be willing to bet the same could be said of the large majority of those who actually have a T-House ranking as well. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>OTOH, randomly generated maps are ugly at best and illogical at worst, and the fantasy force combinations, flag rushes, and complete lack of reinforcements or non-standard units makes QBs a wash to me.<hr></blockquote> To say there is a complete lack of standard units in QB is not true by a long shot. Flag rushes are a function of the opponent you play, not the type of game. You can rush a flag in a scenario just as easily as in a QB. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Panzerman: I may be called anti-QB, because I enjoy making and testing battles, but QBs are more for, sorry to burst your bubble, new players.<hr></blockquote> That is your opinion, and nothing more. I know a lot of people who are still playing QBs who have been playing CM for a long time who would have a very different opinion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes: Why QBs are a travesty: 1. Gamey force selections 2. Rules to prevent gamey force selections 3. The less cost effective units are never used 4. QBs are sooo predictable 5. Maps are way too similar<hr></blockquote> Fortunately, 1-3 will all be taken care of in CMBB, and I strongly disagree with you about 4. Despite the current limitations, I much prefer QBs to scenarios. For ladder players such as myself they are the meat and potatoes of CM. But to each their own.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Vanir, I'll give you the fact that sharpshooters shouldn't have a higher rate of fire than infantry, but as is right now they have a slower rate of fire, don't they? It's been my experience that they fire once every 15 seconds or so...at least at tank commanders.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, they do fire slower. I'm not sure why that is exactly. I suspect it has something to do with them having only 10 "shots". They could run out of ammo very quickly if they fired faster. In my expirience it is rare that I want a shartshooter to fire more than once per turn at a specific target, so it usually works out well. I think all units should be able to fire faster at units that are charging at them. This already is modeled to some degree in CMBO, but will be better in CMBB, at least for MGs; I don't know about other unit types.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: I have to say though, the sharpshooter especially needs to have a higher ROF. I can't understand why this wasn't simulated.<hr></blockquote> There is no reason why the sharpshooter should have a higher ROF than an infantry squad. Sharpshooters shot more accurately, not faster. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Echo: So in theory he would fight hand to hand, lob grenades when the situation dictated, and fire on an immediate, deadly threat that is less than 100 yds away.<hr></blockquote> No. Sharpshooters are not Rambo. The most important thing for them is to stay undetected. They will fire on targets under 100m if they are detected and fired at, but otherwise they will try to stay alive. This is not FUBAR, this is smart. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Tank shots (single shot calculations) arent abstracted, why is a single rifle?<hr></blockquote> They are a type of infantry unit, so the game engine has to abstract their shots like all other infantry units. As has been pointed out 1000 times on this board before, 1 "shot" from a sharpshooter represents several shots in real life. I have seen a sharpshooter in CM hit 3 men in a running squad with 1 "shot". How's that for ROF? [ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

To the best of my knowledge the only Allied tanks on the Western front that could turn in place were the Churchill and Cromwell, and tanks based upon those chassis. On the German side only the Panther, Tiger and KT could, as well at TDs and other vehicles based upon those chassis.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by phil stanbridge: Vanir, Are you sure about that? You can choose 5000 points, but if you increase the advantage by say 100% you just wait and see what happens.<hr></blockquote> Boot up the game and see if you can select more that 5000 pts for a QB. Of course in any attack/defend game the attacker gets more points than that. That goes without saying. It's still a 5000 pt game because that's the setting you select.

On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't say anything. [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by phil stanbridge: To throw something else in, when/if you play 3000 pointers how many turns do you have? I would imagine you'd have to have the maximum (60) in order to fully justify the point size. I know you could do it with less, but I can't imagine the time you'd spend plotting the battle.<hr></blockquote> That's what I thought before I played them, but after playing quite a few I've decided that 35 turns is best for 3000 pts. Anything more than that is pointless as the battle is over by then anyway. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Finally, what is the biggest QB anyone here has tried? If I remember, I think mine has been around the 8000 point?? Is that possible I ask myself now <hr></blockquote> No, 5000 is the largest QB you can do.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

I would be a little surprised if BTS ran out of stock in the first 2 weeks again. They know how many copies of CMBO they have sold, so there is no reason for them to be taken by surprise again. For people living in Hong Kong or something, there probably isn't much that can be done about them having to wait. There is only so much BTS can do. I know BTS actually ate some of the shipping costs for people in Australia and probably a few other places.

3000 pts works best for me. I've mostly stopped playing anything smaller than 2000. Commanding a company is fine for learning the ropes, but at some point it's time to take a battalion or 2 and play with the big boys

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bastables: I think you'll find the biggest single killer of Panthers during Normandy and the Ardennes was abandonment due to lack of fuel.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Puff the Magic Dragon: Have I missed it in your post, or have you forgotten to mention that a lot of German vehicels of all kind were victims of the Allied air superiority?<hr></blockquote> Sounds like good arguements to start modeling Allied air superiority and German tanks running out of fuel/breaking down. Reality is the objective, right? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Ari Maenpaa: Well, there are lots of other German armor surfaces which are 80mm too. Panzer IVH and J frontal hulls, StuG late and StuH late model FHs, StuG IV FH.<hr></blockquote> A small note here: According to Rexford the Mk IVH armor was actually more vulnerable to US 75mm AP than what CM shows.

IIRC (and someone correct me if I am remembering incorrectly), BTS had problems with some of the CMBO preorders. As someone else pointed out, the credit cards were charged when the game shipped, not when the preorder was recieved (not sure why this is, it may be a law, or it may be conforming to GAAP). Anyway, what happened is that some of the credit cards expired between the placing of the preorder and the shipping date. This led to headaches for BTS and the customers involved. It doesn't seem to me that preordering would make much difference in how soon you recieved the game anyway. Perhaps a day or two. No biggie. PS - Phil, your debit card should work just as well as a credit card for ordering. I paid for CMBO with a debit card. [ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

Nice Judging from the setup zone I'm guessing that is a meeting engagement QB? This is somewhat off-topic, but would you guys consider moving the setup zones for MEs further back from each other? This would make it less likely for opposing units starting the game in LOS of each other, and would limit the current "rush to the flag as fast as you can" nature of MEs.

All your concerns are belong to us, eh? Alrighty then, In Matt We Trust.