Amidst_Void

"Save game can be provided upon request... " let me check that out, eh? Best regards, Amidst_Void@yahoo.com

Oh really CombatGeneral? Your son? This is confusing like the trinity, 3-in-1, except in this case, it's 2-in-1. Anyway, I conclude that CombatGeneral is a witch, since, he seems to be up to something, and he is confusing.

Cast of characters: Smart peasant: Amidst_Void Stupid peasant: Gunny Bunny Guard Madmatt: Madmatt He: CombatGeneral Peasants: Grogs Peasants: ...He's a witch, burn 'im!! Guard: A male witch!? Can you prove this? Stupid peasant: I... Smarter peasant: He cursed my wife, made 'er ugly to look at... suppose she was always ugly to look at, she's uglier now sir! Guard: If it's true he is a witch... we have to prove he is a witch by performing a test that proves he is a witch... which we have already concluded he is one...(?) [thinks to himself] Peasants: [Mumbling to one another] Stupid Peasant: Howil' we do that sir? Guard: If he is a witch...[thinks], and a duck floats on water... and if he floats on water, then what? Stupid peasant: He's a duck! Burn 'im!!! Peasants: Burn 'im!!! Guard: No no, if he floats on water... and a duck floats on water... and wood floats on water, and he floats... on the duck, then? Smart peasant: He's made outta wood? Guard: Good, and what do we do with wood? Stupid peasant: ...We build a bridge outta 'it sir? Guard: Yes... and what else? Smart peasant: Do we burn it sir? Guard: Good! So what does that mean? Peasants: He's a witch!!! BURN 'IM!!! Guard: But we haven't had the test... (ahhhhhhh) [was trampled to death]

"chinese food, with no mustard. I cant stand mustard." Mustard? Exactly, what kind of "Chinese food" are you eating? It must be some really Americanized Chinese food if they include mustard with their dishes.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SuperTed: Check out the latest great idea from Magnus at Appui-Feu.<hr></blockquote> Woops, don't see a link, can't visit that page. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SuperTed: Scipio is up to his old tricks at WarfareHQ.<hr></blockquote> Oh! Again, no link, can't stop by.

Hmmm, Combat Mission Vietnam... nah, it wont work. How much armor did we really use during Vietnam, much less, how much armor did the vietcong use during Vietnam? I suppose it could work as a highly technical squad level game but, we want tanks, lots of tanks, what else is Fernando going to model, infantry hair styles? Seriously though, did armor, primarily tanks, make an impact in Vietnam?

"I think the flame-throwers are quite well modelled - except that for some reason they die quicker than other units. Compare them to a 2 man squad, the 2 man squad will last a lot longer when under small arms fire. Snipers also die very easily." Well, I would imagine that the large tank he is carrying doesn't do wonders for his mobility, he's easy prey. But really, I suppose I overlooked a lot of things, I never claimed to be an expert on flamethrowers, my opinion was based off of my logic, I truly didn't know how effective flamethrowers really were. Come to think of it, I should have remembered that flamethrowers were also used in the Vietnam war. If they were ineffective in WWII (which, by what I'm reading, they weren't) then I would imagine they wouldn't have bothered equipping soldiers with flamethrowers in the Vietnam war. Presently, do we still equipe our soldiers with flamethrowers?

Have you ever seen a flame thrower being used? Obviously not. The fear of being burned to death is as primal and ingrained in the human psyche as being eaten alive or drowing. Being ambushed by a flame thrower team is every bit as demoralizing in CM as it should be. ____________ Wow, I seem to have overlooked that! How big is the flame any way? I still find it exagerated that a whole squad flees, a flamethrower is no match for an armed soldier that's out of range of it's blast.

Hey, I love the Chinese, China towns just next door, I'm always eating Chinese. send me the map eh? Best Regards, AV Amidst_Void@yahoo.com [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Amidst_Void ]</p>

First let's get this out of the way, the flamethrower trap: Due to the limited value of flamethrower teams, I have devised a very useful strategy with them. I am known to place them in the foremost part of the map in a location (usually forest or woods) that I think will have at least some enemy infantry traffic. I never move them from this location. essentially, I think of them as infantry mines now. The tactic (if you can call it that) is effective because, as the battle starts heating up, enemy units looking to advance through the area that my flame thrower (or throwers) are in will risk being demoralized, killed, routed by the attack. The best thing that can happen is a fire starting, hopefully blocking this route from further traffic. Anyway, the flamethrower trap works like so, the biggest advantage of it is that... (gasp!) they could actually serve a purpose! Now on to my main point. I find it hard to believe that a 2 man flame thrower team manages to surpress, route, or cause heavy casualties to a "fresh", unscratched, rifle squad. How is it that 2 men can have such a profound effect on 12 men (U.S. rifle squad)? CM is heavily abstracted, each soldier in a rifle platoon is NOT where the 3D soldier image is, a platoon is not 12 men lassoed together in one spot, they are scattered about the central 3D model. The flame thrower, when attacking a squad, would only be concentrating their attack on 1 maybe 2 soldiers at once, not twelve, because of the platoon being so spread out. At this time, the flamethrower is probably dodging bullets from some of the remaining soldiers from the platoon. Anyway, the situation is absurd. I just can't see why flamethrowers have such a demoralizing effect on platoons, they can't possibly supress a whole squad so effectively, much less, route them! How hard is it to fire back at such a clumbsy unit? I think even a soldier with a pistol has a big advantage over a flamethrower, primarily because of 150m range, and that counts for a lot. Now the bigger issue. Above I wrote that 'The flame thrower, when attacking a squad, would only be concentrating their attack on 1 maybe 2 soldiers at once, not twelve, because of the platoon being so spread out.' Strangely, CM doesn't seem to agree with me, the reason being that when a flamethrower fires upon a rifle squad and the whole squad takes cover, that, in CM terms, means that the flamethrower, strangely, effected every member of the squad. How do I know that? Simply because in the "taking cover" state, I have never seen a squad (or any other unit) fire back. If not every soldier in the squad is surpressed, than a little fire should be exchanged from the surpressed squad by the 1 or 2 (or more) soldiers that aren't surpressed, that isn't happening though, a surpressed squad is a turtle in a shell. Again, a 2 man flamethrower can achieve that!? So my main question is, are flamethrowers at all correct? Is the infantry surpression right? Is anything wrong? Anyway, I could be wrong about everything, hopefully I didn't go everywhere all at once, I hope I'm right about at least 1 thing.

Wow I didn't think they were going to model depleted ammo! This game has a lot crammed into it. It's great how BTS actually finishes their product, which is more than I can say for the giant developers like Microsoft. Mechwarrior 4 anyone? Never!

www.combatmission.com It should be here within the winter vehicles section (too lazy to look). May javelins pierce my buttocks if it isn't. This is the official site and is, or soon will be, the mod site of all mod sites. [ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Amidst_Void ]</p>

Somebody please direct me to some NON-ORIGINAL BMP road textures, mine look horrible and I really haven't stumbled accross any raod textures to date! Thanks, AV

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SuperTed: First things first. After this new arrangement is solidified, we'll get back to the business at hand. Don't be surprised if there's more of the good stuff as early as next week.<hr></blockquote> You mean this weekend, not next week, this weekend. That's what you mean right?

Good job SuperTed.

Bleedin' hell! SuperTed, you're gonna get it one day! POW! Right in the kisser.

There was supposed to be an anouncment last weekeng but Matt's computer wasn't working, so, "it" should come this weekend. I strongly doubt that though.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by newlife: AAAARRGGHHHH!!!!!!<hr></blockquote> Truly, 7.5 million Afghans do risk starvation in the coming winter, my anger goes out toward the war as well. [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Amidst_Void ]</p>

"You didn't used to be a script writer for the British TV series "Yes Minister" and subsequently "Yes Prime Minister" did you?" Bloody English!

It's amazing how much better WWII tanks look with accurate detail compared with CMBO.

Boy-oh-boy, I should would like to play with some-a-those.

Okay so what conclusion, if any, have we reached thus far? Are mortars unrealistically handled or, are they realistically handled and HMG's are unrealistically handled and should be handled similar to mortars which are handled realistically? If the Mortars are, on the contrary, unrealistically handled should they be handled more like HMG's which are apparently unrealistically handled as well? [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Amidst_Void ]</p>

Excellent.