Vanir Ausf B

Try hitting Shift-I.

Leaving a foxhole does not effect the ammo level of any infantry unit. They start with 40 and keep it until they fire it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: In CM, the 'later' shots doesn't show a higher tendency to hit the target then the first shot, also if the target was already hit once.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In all fairness to Scipio, he does say something here that others have pointed out as well. Namely, the fact that scoring a hit does not seem to increase the to-hit chance of later shots any more than a miss does. Of course, this is not something unique to the 88. It's just the way the gunnery model works. [ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I think that the M2HB should definately be abandoned like a mortar, but an MG42? It is not that heavy to grab and run. Neither is the 1919.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, if they are not that heavy to grab and run, then why are they not allowed to run in CM? Seriously, I suppose it would be more the ammo slowing them down rather than the gun itself, but if you abandon the ammo, for game purposes, they might as well have dumped the gun, cuz the unit is now useless. [ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

If a mine layer couldn't lay mines would it still be a mine layer?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Soviet AT defence belts at Kursk were massive, some sources put them at 470 AT guns per km, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't wait to see that scenario in CM2. Those Russians were some gamey bastards.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: So basically it doesn't really help spotting to have multiple observers. I've been wondering about that before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lewis: Well yes it does. look up at my example above with the X's and Y's. Each X is getting a chance at spotting the Y's. Its shared information if one of the X's gets a spot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well this may be what your example says, but it doesn't seem to be what Steve's says: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve: Basically, the highest spotting value "wins". For example, various spottings of a single Enemy unit over time... Unit A spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 10. Unit B spots Enemy unit with value 20 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 20. Unit C spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value remains at 20. The current spotting value determines what the friendly side gets to see/know about the Enemy unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve's example above suggests that there is not a seperate spotting check done for each unit in LOS. Rather, the highest spotting value of any single unit in LOS is used when doing the check. If the result comes up as "spotted" all units in LOS spot it. Having more than one unit in LOS could help in that the more units, the higher the likelyhood of one of them having a higher spotting value, but it does not increase the number of checks made. If this is correct, that would mean that 1 unit with a spotting value of 20, would be more likely to spot that enemy unit than 6 units each with a spotting value of 10.

I meant to say 234/1. I've had no bad experiences myself. I've simply read enough of others to know not to risk it except in very particular situations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Could this possibly be reflecting the use of the ambush command by my opponent where the area I moved to has, in effect, been pre-sighted and therefore gives an advantage to the ambusher. Regards<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I did this in a PBEM a while back. I used it with a 251/1 to nail a Greyhound on the first burst, but it was very short range, like 100m. It's the only time in recent memory I've used ambush with a vehicle (a practice I try to avoid).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: I meant, we should not discuss if something is worth to be coded, but of cause we should discuss if a 'problem' is caused by the coding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only thing I see here that I would like to see changed, is MGs being allowed to abandon. [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: I guess it's still operable, but the crew has run for cover, cause the situation was a little bit to hot. ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is not necessarily the case. Steve has said that if a crew abandons a gun having sustained few or no casualties, the gun is assumed to have been damaged. If they have taken serious losses they are assumed to be too rattled to go back a few minutes latter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is only true of MGs, and is due to a coding issue (MGs are considered infantry in the CM engine). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) why can a machinegun not be knocked out with a surviving crew? Is a MG not so vulnerable like a 60mm mortar?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> See above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>d) Maybe a surviving crew would be able to man the weapon of another - maybe killed or routed - crew? Maybe they could even man an abandoned enemy gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think you would have the opportunity to use this feature often enough to make it worth while. If you can actually get your own routed crews all the way over to where the other guy had his own guns, you've probably already won the battle. I can just see people charging their crews across the map, braving MG and tank fire to make it to that abandoned enemy 88 on that back hill... bleh [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: What about this extra 65mm of armor on the mantlet? Is this true? Would give kingtiger 185mm + 65mm armor thickness. Maybe an add on in the field?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look at a picture of a KT and see for yourself. As Rexford said, the mantlet obviously only covers the area immediately around the gun opening. It doesn't even come close to covering the whole turret front. In fact, I just looked over at Achtung Panzer and they list the KTs front turret at 180mm at 9 degrees.

I wonder if Madmatt gets the same crap over at CMHQ? AFAIK he doesn't run his submissions through an accuracy filter either. I don't know of any site that does. Bottom line is that there are always a few wackos out there with their own weird agendas and ideas. You just got to blow them off and keep your eye on the larger picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: It is not possible to "lose" ID info, nor is it possible for a unit of x type to be better/worse at identifying units of y type than z type unit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it is possible for a unit of x type to be better at identifiying other units also of x type than z type units, right? In other words, I think you did say that armor units are better at IDing armor than infantry units. I'm just trying to clarify here. [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: a) Why does a tank don't detonate AP mines? Maybe they don't cause trouble to the tank, but the minefield would be uncovered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may have a point here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> IMO, damage on tanks/HT isn't modeled very good <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may have a point here as well, but I'm not sure. I once saw someone post the average number of penetrations needed to kill various tanks, and they seemed higher than in CM, but I haven't done any tests to confirm this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know it about Alied tanks, but it was possible to remove the onboard MGs of some German tanks/HTs very fast, so even an escaping Crew (if not paniced) could be a usefull unit with a MG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Game engine limitation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FOW - Generally, I think we get to much information about enemy units. I can't even say if I fight with Regular or Elite troops if it wouldn't be shown in the display, so how should I know it about the enemy troops? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM2 will have an additional stage of FOW that will hide the information you mentioned. [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Titan, aren't you the #2 ranked guy at Rugged Defense? Thinking of jumping ship?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phil stanbridge: Don't forget here that Widows 98, and maybe even ME do not utilise more than 256mb RAM. NT and 2000 yes, more memory the better, but the "home" o/s cannot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure about ME, but Win 98 uses up to 512 MB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Amazing that there are so many front turret hits on that thing. The allied tank gunners must have amazing aim! I will have to check this out and do a test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Freak, keep in mind that CM does not model different hit location probabilities for different tanks. In other words, the chance of hitting the turret of a KT is exactly the same as hitting the turret of a Mk IV, a Sherman, whatever. According to Steve this is a limitation of the game engine and won't change in CM2. I actually did do a test on this and found that the turret is hit about 30% of the time on a non-hull down tank in CM. The upper hull was hit about 50% of the time with the last 20% divided between lower hull (12%), track hits and gun hits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shatter: So there it not because I am a drunk. Shatter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, what you're saying is that even if you were sober you would do the same thing. Ok, I understand. No problem. But, hey, be careful going down those stairs

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Me to, wonder when this was discussed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was being sarcastic. It hasn't been discussed before.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fieldmarshall: WHAT WAS IT FOR AND WHAT WAS IT MADE OUT OF???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've never seen a complete recipe, but the primary ingredient was sawdust.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Sorry Rexy, but I thought this subject had been done to death.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess I somehow missed all the other tungsten core shatter gap threads.

You're doing something wrong. 300 pts for armor in a 1500 pt game is what you get with a Combined Armes setup. Unrestricted would be 1500 for everything except arty. Make sure your game is version 1.12 or the unrestricted category will not be available. I get the impression you have not played the game much. You may want to join a ladder and actually play some before deciding the Germans are disadvantaged. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but most expirienced ladder players think the Allies are harder to win with than the Germans, an opinion I share (I'm on the Rugged Defense ladder). [ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DasBaron: Why not just a point total that can be used any way you want? Now as I've mentioned before. I'm 99% sure I have been using "unrestricted".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're confused. You say you want a point total that can be used any way you want... well that is exactly what unrestricted is (except for arty). With unrestricted you can buy close to a whole company of tanks in a 1250 pt game if you want. [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Has anyone read anything about this any where? Has Steve commented on this option somewhere and I have missed it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I personally like the idea very much and hope there is an option for it in CM2. IIRC, Madmatt made a comment to the effect that they (BTS) liked the program, so I'd say there is hope.