Stalin's Organ

Actually I thought he was being reasonably restrained given teh slant about snowballs and hell you mentioned.... . It is? I thought it was changing the way we look at the game. In fact all these have been suggested by pple for the current platforms too. No - that's changing the lighting. And it's something BTS have said they're actually going to try to so. No - that'd be adding a campaign system that records things, and the unit purchase system. I dont' see any reason why this would change the combat system at all. The two are not incompatible - it's just your opinoin and gross generalisations that are the problem here. Only in your opinion. Since most of the changes you specify are already proposed for CM I guess your opinoin isn't all that well informed in this instance. And you complain about his post being offensive?? rofl - if CM came out for a console that I had then it'd be a must purchase, and it'd be a great console game. Why do you worry about the platform when it is the software - the game - that is important?

Look, we know you were gone. We prefer you that way. You look so much better - NOT HERE. The place was tidy and you wander back. Nobody wants you here. Sigh. Go Away !! :(again) :(sod off; even) Noba.</font>

Oh yea of limited imagination - and what's wrong with teenage girls eh??!! Why do you think I take my boys (aged 6 and 8) to riding lessons? And even take a few myself? Eh? eh? nudge nudge, wink wink!! Don't you think CM would benefit from having a few lasses hanging around? :cool:

Oh, great. Now look what you've done. All that nitro in the TNT seized MGA's brain. He's gonna be even angrier when he get's up.</font>

I've found part of the answer - the 15cm rocket had an actual diameter of 158mm, the rocket launcher bore was 158.5mm. But this was the only one that wasn't the nominal size - the 320 rocket was actually 320mm diameter, and the 28cm diameter was 280mm. There was also a 300mm rocket with an actual diameter of 300mm, and the 21 cm rocket dameter was 210mm. My source for this is the WW2 fact Files series by MacDonalds & Janes "Mortars and Rockets" volume.

The first ones were 82mm, the "standard" ones were 132mm, with an actual diameter of 132mm There was no 122mm rocket in WW2. Perhaps your source is confusing it with the modern 122mm rocket?

I don't think it's in the manual anywhere - it's certainly not in the description of the Ammo on pg 118. I happen to know it from other sources and I think it has been mentioned here in the forum a couple of times.

Yep - T ammo has a much higher initial velocity because the rounds are lighter. However this also causes them to lose velocity faster and be worse affected by atmospherics - so they are considerably less accurate above short range. In "real life" crews were given guidelines about when they should and should not use T ammo (and other types of ammo too) against various enemy types. The Tac AI evaluates the usefulness of using T ammo using both parameters - hit chance and penetration. Ammo selectoin also applies to other types - I recently had a T34/85 fire HE at a half track - it had 40+ HE rounds, 8 AP and 5 or 6 T - obviously the HE was selected because it has more than adequate "penetration", a great kill chance if it hits, and the AP & T is in scant supply and is best saved for use against "real" armour.

So what was the aerosol version? IIRC molotov cocktails used somethign to thicken up the fuel a a bit and help it stick to surfaces - apparently soap/detergent, palm oil and styrofoam are all pretty good. Napalm is an abreviation from NAPtha (the flammable bits of petroleum) and PALM oil - used to thicken it. According to this site (which is where the above info comes from) it was called the Molotov cocktail after a Russian revolutoinary from about 1906 - not the more famous foreign minister!! [ December 04, 2002, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

Thanks for all the info about aerosol explosions - you'll find the same stuff about grain silos, etc at one of those sites linked earlier on. In an earlier life I was an aircraft mechanic, and one of the things we were cautioned about was suspensions of solids in air - even iron or aluminium dust can spontaneously combust and we were given a demonstration with flour. I'm not sure why Propane comes into the discussion - AFAIK while propane and other natural gases will certainly explode the Rusians didn't use many of them that I know of at the time, they tend to disperse very quickly in normal atmospheric conditions (a bit of wind helps especially), and you'd require a HUGE release to cover the area of an artillery battery which is what the original post was about. Also they'd probably leave a lot of burning damage.

No, I am not trying to gloat here. I am trying to prevent Redwolf from jumping onto some other "bug" that becomes an exercise in futility after the first couple of pages. So far he has only admitted to making one tactical error. No admission about all the other errors and the strategic misfire. If he owns up to his mistakes, perhaps he will be less likely to repeat them in the future. He has shown some ability to learn from his mistakes. At least in this thread he actually made a file for peer review unlike the Sneak thread. And if he doesn't come clean and own up to the community here, I reserve the right to lock up any thread he becomes overtly involved with that appears to be going in the same round and round as this and the Sneak thread did. I want no more of this nonsense. Steve</font>

Maybe I'll understand it after the next 4 repeats...... [ December 03, 2002, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

Exactly - you aren't evil at all!! Anyway - we've finally had some hot lead slung in the general direction of the bad guys (ie the floppy felt boot wearing snarkerites) and feel much better about it. We expect some molten TNT to follow shortly

Jeez Nobby - who said you should move to the East Coast?? Africa beckons - go make a fortune in Caneroon or somewhere! A setup is wining its way there as you read this - for amusement value you can command the Stalinists, while the glorious Aryan defenders of the Reich shall crush you under my command. Toodle pip

Morarty, as usual, your comments are irrelevant. Idiot and worse Joe may be, but he never said that the lady must suffer a penalty - he said if she was a TRUE lady she would not ASK to be exempt from a penalty. Being the pillock you are I'm sure the difference bwtween the two statements is beyond you, but one must make the effort. Now do be a good little tot and bugger off.

Did someone burp? You should really take something for that indigestion!

I see I've successfully mastered all the subleties of 'strine then. So emigrate! It must be hard on you being constantly outshone by Mace and Stukes and AJ and all those other intellectual midgets. [ December 01, 2002, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

AFAIK the Russian rule for direct fire was "if it's there then shoot it" - hence even 152mm towed artillery was supplied with AP rounds!

GET IT RIGHT, SONNY...... PERTH - NOT FECKIN' MELBOURNE ! .</font>

That's supposition on your part - IMO there's no particular evidence that he author had experience of large numbers of dead bodies. You asked if FAEs were used in WW2 - the answer is no, they were not, and the evidence of this account is really quite minimal and I dont' think you can assume that there's necessarily anything unusual to blame at all. The commen ts about secret weapons etc could have been (and sound to me like) a wind up.

FAE's were not used in WW2, nor anything vaguely resembling them AFAIK. I don't think they'd have the effect given here anyway - you'd expect to have the bodies and clothes, etc burned and not the "lungs exploded". IMO it sounds like an attack by automatic weapons - machine guns and light cannon. Perhaps the battery was straffed - there would be little damage to the heavy metal guns and no shell craters, but 20mm HE shells could do a lot of damage to a human torso.

Never a truer word spoken. Irrelevant - the reason for suck status is of academic interest only - that you suck is the only thing of any vague importance. And it beign you that importance is very vague indeed. Now where did my G&T go....oh THERE you are my wee beauty.......(hic)

What's your feckin' problem? Anything that can be said about Aussie-tralians is a bleedin' compliment and you should be grateful you dust swept sun-burned Bundy swilling ignoramus!! And that's another thing you moronic Melbouornite - EVERYHING Mouse says can be ignored without any great effort at all! [ November 30, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

I'm not using these rules - yet (still trying to figure them out), BUT..... If you have a figure for the player then can't you back-calculate an appropriate force size for teh AI? Eg in the 1100 pt example used several times in this thread, if the player is assaulting then the game should be 1100/1.72 = 639 pts. By the itme you've modified this for player experience etc - say a 700pt assault. Now the AI gets 700, the player gets a maximum of 700 x 1.72 = 1204 from which he choses his 1100, the ratio is 1.57:1. Similarly for attack, probe, etc - just use the published force ratios to back-calculate the "game size" from the players forces. It seems teribly simple to me and not worth the angst that Bilt has obviously put into it, which makes me think I'm definitely missing something....... [ November 29, 2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]