Panzer76

Better would be to use woods or hills, as the opponent can blow the houses you hide behind away, and suddenly you are a sitting duck.

To give a unit a very limited LOS towards expected enemy lines, with the result that the enemy cannot see the unit either, until they wander into it's LOS.

Typically gamey you Jesse!

You can't. The crew will decide when to fire the T rounds. To fire them, they need to have a high enough hit % on target, otherwise, the crew will feel they only waste the T rounds. The more T rounds the weapon has, the lower the hit % may be before they use them.

Der Kunstler.. I think what they are saying is that, it is possible. Even a 50 mm mortar can take out a King Tiger qith a very luck track or gun hit, but how likely is that? By trying things like this out by yourself you get an understanding of how effective different weapon systems can be vs others. You see my point here? You could have asked if the T34 was vurnable to 50 mm mortars and I could say yes. Would that in ANY way helped you? No. As a general rule, do not waste arty vs tanks.

Generally, for smaller battles, it is better to get arty instead of rockets due to their lack of accuracy.

Although not a richochet story, I think this one is ok: In a game I had 3 M10s standing overwatch covering a suspected approach. Sure enough, a Tiger came rolling, easy pickings. My M10s opend up, got some part pens, the Tiger answered, hitting my middle M10. It promptly exploded, KOing the two other M10s on either side... 1 AP round, 3 dead M10s. I cried.

Rather you can have your forces remain unhidden, but with a cover arc so you can ambush advancing forces.

The page still talks about verison 1.02, and several links still leads to mirrors of v 1.2.

Just clone the CD then.

Surrendering always makes it worse. If you have no hope offer your opponent a cease fire.

The problem is, that with all the different variables that exists, there are almost an endless number of possibilities. As it is not possible to discuss all these combinations we can put qualifiers in our statement. So, as I said, in MOST cases, the ruskies will have an advantage

1. For inf, use fast command all the way to your destination, but chnage them to something more sensible after the first turn. 2. Find vantage points that can observe the enemy advance and employ harassing fire from those points if possible. 3. Employ AC and/or HTs to race forward on any roads with inf as passengers. T34s are also good for this. Use this force to harass enemy until the rest of your force catch up or reach their destinations. Hope that helps.

I am sure BFC will listen and patch both cmbb and cmak!

Whatever some people say, in MOST cases (terrain, date, etc) the russians will have the upper hand in a QB.

The only plane worth getting is the 75mm equipped Henchel. I would recommend you to NOT play with unrestricted force type, unless you have some sort of gentleman rules, because they usually end up as heavy tanks vs heavy tanks. But if you like that kinda stuff, then I guess it's ok.

What is getting tiresom is your opinions that is securly fastend in your ass. If I so kindly can ask you, WTF do you know about the core engine?

How difficult is this: 1. The (insert feature that will enhance the core game) is a integral part of the game. 2. The inclusion of said CORE features MAY signify the end of PBEM, however, BFC will try to include it. 3. BFC will not comprimise the core game to include PBEM. 4. Some people look at PBEM as a deal braker. Get over it, if its not included, dont buy it. 5. Most people (and more importantly, the developers), would like to develop the game without being hindered by support for auxillary functions, like PBEM (yes, even if some ppl think its a matter of life and death). And, it would most likely translate into a better game and better sales. The answer is obvious. BFC will do what they do, for good reasons. If you want to argue for PBEM, at least do us all the favour of getting your facts right and understand that your pet feature is not vital to us all.

All your attempt of humour aside, you do have a choice to have sex with the pig or not, no matter how big the let down might be afterwards. </font>

i thought large save file was the only reason that makes "PBEM" problematic. obviously i am missing something. </font>

[ March 05, 2005, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

Steve, are you being deliberately obtuse? The argument on one side is not about 'pet features', it's about being able to play the game at all.</font>

Please dont hijack the thread.

A