Puff the Magic Dragon

Will tanks be able to run down enenmy troops/equipment? I've read this some time ago in a German memorandum for tank drivers, it said something like : 'Don't waste MG ammo for an enemy soldier if you can run him down', something similar was written about guns or MGs. I don't know how the Russians handled it, but I assume they also wasn't prissily.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tanaka: I don't know if 1.12 changed any of this,(I don't think so), but crews,sharpshooters ,routed ,broken and panicked units cannot control a VL.<hr></blockquote> This is defenetly not correct for crews: they can control a VL. I often use them to occupy VLs in my backyard.

After all I've read in this and another actual threat, I would appreciate when someone from BTS could intervene. I find it annoying that we know nothing for sure about this important issue. BTS, please answer

No problemo

Mh, maybe I misinterpreted something. I thought the generic markers are used for sound contacts only. I will take a look when it happens again.

I noticed sometimes that the Tac AI let my units target a sound contact - how can it be?

That's a good point. Those BMPs eat up a lot of space. Why must I leave all those uncompressed alternative graphics on my drive?

I purchased SuseLinux 7.3 just yesterday - as answer to the new Windull XP. Can one of you explain me how to install/start CM under Linux? I guess this will be interesting for other Linux Newbies, too.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-: To find out the proper numbers, we need to build some ww2 tanks, guns, and ammo. And proceed to test out every combination extensivly. Which is not going to happen. <hr></blockquote> Why this? This has been done already - both on shooting ranges and from 1939 - 1945 on the battlefield. I really can't believe that there are no stats about it!? Thousands of eyewitness have reported their experiences. Where is all this material?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: So the energy of a sustained burst of 20mm fire can NOT make your aiming device vibrate the least bit ? Or vibrate the vision block loose ?<hr></blockquote> No. Jason is right here. When you are in a tank with the engine on, you are nearly deaf. And when you drive through terrain, the whole tank is shaking like a ship in storm. Look at Scipios last post. This is reality - the tankcrew often doesn't noticed that the tank was hit. The driver noticed a hit on his hatch - the commander 1 meter away already missed this. Of course it's something else if a 76mm penetrates and explodes in the cabine.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: 1. Did it see action? 2. How hard will it be to program? 3. Will it improve the game/be cool? <hr></blockquote> And about the Maus: 1) Not confirmed rumours 2) Not more difficult then any other??? 3) No, it will not be cool. It's slow, super heavy - so will bog each five minutes, and IMO not so immortal as people think, especially to hollow charges.

We have Super Pershings in CM:BO Only 25 were produced til end of the war, and non of them saw action on the European battlefield.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>but the morale also suffers if you order them to move off the map<hr></blockquote> It does??? :eek: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>a coding error related to the split-squads issues <hr></blockquote> An error??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Jason, if you answered to my last post : I assume you're right - I don't know much about AA - and I havn't contradicted? Have I? What would be nice : lower rear hull penetration (by APHE shell), engine critical damaged, tank immobile. Or front turret penetration (by 2cm(if known) APHE shell), critical internal damage, gunner dead ( or wounded), tank abandoned or side turret penetration, ammo shelter hit, tank knocked out or upper rear hull hit (by Molotov-Cocktail), engine burning, tank knocked out Maybe not as pop-up message, but in the detailed unit description.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy: There are German language moderators who can pick up on this. If there weren't, I would have said it in English. Since Scipio and I are German speakers, I thought it appropriate. On a more general note, I also thought it an appropriate reaction for being yelled at for no reason at all (you do know that caps indicate yelling, do you?) and insulted by him, since he obviously had not read my post. He did set the standards, and should not come whinging if people treat him accordingly. Your point was?<hr></blockquote> Scipio is (mental) a mad child. This is description of him, not an insult. I know him personally. Anyway, my point is: 'asshole' is not the kind of language that answers any questions. But please don't let us turn this into a discussion about correct discussions. Sent me a mail if you want to talk about this. And to come back to the question: maybe the information helps that German AP rounds are always APHE, even if the German sources refer them as simple 'AP'. I don't know about the .50. And as I said, IMO the main problem is the lack of information we get from the program. I would like to hear your opinion about that.

This issues are often dicussed. Here are two links: Definitions of the Soviet Ammunition World War 2 weapon hit probabilities I wonder what we will see if we compare this with CM results. Maybe someone will run some test

The damage that ammo does to vehicles is known and can be verified with appropriate sources. A good overview about ammo types, ways of penetrations and damages can be found here : Definitions of the Soviet Ammunition The problem that Scipio and, as it seems, others have is indeed a game engine problem, and IMO it can be solved relative easy. All what would be necessary is a detailed description of the damage and what (ammo type) has caused it. Would this be realistic on the battlefield? Surely not. But I'm sure that some peoples could better sleep. Now a personal issue: Germanboy, personaly insulting someone as Arschloch(=asshole) on a public board is unacceptable, and to do it in a foreign language to avoid a warning from the moderators shows that you are a dishonorable coward. Maybe I will be excluded from this board for this sentence, but at least I accept the consequences of my words.

Bump Bump Bump

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: And on the other hand, players will cry bloddy murder if the Panther they just bought for high points is immobilized at the start of the game.<hr></blockquote> I was more thinking about a lower gun accuracy, fewer shoots per turn, higher chance of duds (will they be modeled this time?) because of bad ammo etc

Will we have this: - in CM:BO we start a QB always with full ammo. IMO this is unrealistic. Will CMBB take care of insufficient supply? Ammo, moral and general troops efficiency (low food, medicine) are influenced. - the general status of the equipment is another issue. Most equipment was not in best conditions. Will CM:BB take care of this? The weapon efficiency for example is influenced. - The CM:BO battlefields are always fresh and new at the beginning (maybe except a few burning buildings/trees). Would be nice to have craters, ruins, wrecks etcetera. All this will of course only influence the starting parameters of a battle.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ...but I acknowledge that there are genuine complicating factors that must be addressed. The first and perhaps most important is the question as to who retains control of the battlefield at the end of the fight...<hr></blockquote> This is indeed the biggest problem. IMO, the best would be to calculate the same control zones like at the end of an operation battle. Outside of the own control zone, the equipment is counted as total loss. Inside of the own controlzone they're counted partially, depending on the grade of damage.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jshandorf: KO - doesn't mean a vehicle cannot be salvaged in real life just that it is gone for the operation. Jeff<hr></blockquote> Well, don't let us overcomplicate this issue . I guess in game terms it would make sense to simple distinguish between KO = irreparable and Abandoned = reparable. Is 50% to much? Maybe. But we should discuss the idea. [ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

Sounds like a case for the lawyers.

I wonder why this difference is made in normal matches. I know it matters in operations, but who cares in a scenario / QB? Well, maybe it would be sensefull to make use of it, even in single battles. How I understand this: Knocked out = irreparable damaged Abandoned = can be salvaged and repaired after the battle Wouldn't it be sensefull to count abandoned equipment different? CM doesn't care about the stratic situation outside of the battle, but IMO this could help to resolve the issue with fast bailing crews. I don't know and I won't discuss if bailing crews are modeled realistic. After all the discussions about this I have found, nobody else know it for sure. But fact is, abandoned eqipment is not a total loss, and maybe it will be recovered after the battle. My ideas : abandoned equipment is counted only with the half of the points. Of course, there's no guarantee that someone will be really able to salvage and repair the stuff - but the chance exists, and as I said, CM doesn't care anyway about the stratic situation outside of the battle.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Graaf Spee: ...It has been brought up before and Steve (Charles?) said that it would require a lot of coding. Much more than changing the PBEM file format...<hr></blockquote> Well, I don't know the internals of the CM exe, but even me as hobby programer could do this. And I can't believe it would be so much work, it's only a change of the order excuting sequence (hope this is the right English word?). My five pence: this is my most wanted 'off-map' feature for CMBB. Beside the reduced amount of emails, it would give a much better gameflow if I can always give orders after the movie - I often need to reload the old file to remember what has happened. About cheating : this is a bull**** argument. If someone would be able to hack the files or the exe itself, he could do it already now. Even if he can't manipulate each calculation - each second is enough. And I have (thanks god) never heard about this in CMBO.