Puff the Magic Dragon

Juhuuu Slapdragon, can you please answer my questions? It's easy to make allegations and leave them hanging in the air. But it's not the cultivated way of conversation.

Well, regarding the market situation - LINUX is a fine OS, but it is and will always be - at least in the next 10 years - a niche market. Especially for the 'normal' home user. And games are only sold to home users. Beside that, even some of my very Mircosoft critical pals must agree that XP is a good OS. - How many game PCs are running under LINUX, compared to Windows? I guess 1%, maybe even less. - How much time and money would it cost the 4 men company BTS to port CM to LINUX? - How much money can BTS make with a LINUX version? BTS is surely an exeption, regarding their contact and support to the customers, but at last we shouldn't forget, they also must live from it. IMO, seen from a comercial point of view, don't expect a CM for LINUX. Not before LINUX change into the OS for computer games. And I don't expect this in the near future. [ February 13, 2002, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Redwolf The threat was originaly started because I wondered why the 15cm Nebelwerfer has such a big blast, compared to it's small load of explosives. But I'm not sure about what it is now

JonS You are right, without doubt there are a lot of other and more important issues about the artillery. BTS made an excellent job with the most parts of CM - but IMO not with the artillery system. Slapdragon I don't agree - 3x3 km was only an example. 9 skm can also mean 6km long, and 1.5km width. And I think it makes a difference if the unit is on the map or not - on the map it is vulnerable to enemy fire. Be there, but visible because unmovable (if I understood you right), ehm, does not sound very realsitic to me. BTW, how shall a scn designer work around this? And why is it a rare situation?

Steve - Sorry, but you missunderstood me. I didn't meant to freeze the units, I meant to freeze the setup zone. In simple words like this: I draw a line from one front unit to another, and that's my setup zone for the next battle. Within this setup zone, I can of course place my units and the reinforcements the way I want.

I studied again my 'Handbook of German Infantry', the section about the regimental artillery. a) the fire was guided by the 'Hauptbeochbachtungsstelle (Haupt-B-Stelle)' ~Main Oberserving Position this Haupt-B-Stelle had, when necessary, one or more 'B-Stelle' subsections Well, both are out of CM scope. The - for us -really important group was the FO. He was attached directly to the frontline troops and was responsible to define TRPs and observe the barrage. The text don't mention it directly, but as I understand it, fireorders were not given without observation by the FO. Someone shall please correct me when I'm wrong, or if you have more information, share them with us [ February 12, 2002, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Redwolf Good comment To 1) I would indeed prefer this one, at least optional. The question is, who ordered artillery in reality, and where was the FO? What was done when LOS was not given, like in fog or difficult terrain? AFAIK it was common to prepare the target zones days before the battle, also before attacks. So in princip this would mean the player must have some TRPs always available, maybe a fixed number per battery instead of purchase. Beside that, correction orders from a TRP could also be given by 'normal' soldiers, at least by HQ units in LOS. To 3) I guess this option wouldn't make sense, cause it is as unrealistic as option 2), only in another way. [ February 12, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Steve - I just wonder why we have flexible frontlines? I would think that after an operation battle the defender is, depending on his casualties and the tactical situation, anyway in need to regroup and take back his frontline. So why not freeze the frontlines as they were in the last battle?

JonS This is maybe right in a pocket or even a breakthrough. But in general, the frontline continues to the sides as we see it on the map, at least for several kilometers. And how about a CM:BB 3x3 km map?

A question I had in a threat about on map artillery. Situation: I make a map, 4000m length. While this is no problem for 'real' artillery, it goes beyond the range of the 81mm mortar - not to speak about the larger CM:BB maps, when they can be longer then 6km, even the 120mm mortar will have problems. And this already when the mortar position is directly behind the border of the map. As if this isn't mysterious enough : when I place an on-map mortar, it has indeed only a range of ~2400m. Here are some maximum range examples: British 3inch = 2500m 4.2inch = 3750m German 81mm = 2400m 120mm ~6000m 28cm and 32cm Nebelwerfer = 2100m Russian 82mm = 3100m 107mm = 6300 120mm 6000m US 81mm = 3000m How can it be? [ February 13, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

You had professionell help for this... -cough cough - by Mr Spock!?

I must totaly agree. The operations are the weakest part of CM. The give away of land is unlogic and annoying - in princip, the attacker don't need to fire a single shot to advance. I know about the victory conditions in operations, but if the advance is part of it (and I assume it is), then the way of advance without fight is twice worse!

Mattias, 9skm may by right - anyway, the smaller mortars fire already in CM:BO over there limit. Not to speak about a (maybe) possible map of 7500 x 1200 meters in CMBB [ February 11, 2002, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Interesting comment! This is something I have never thought about before. Large maps are indeed partially out of mortar range, and already in CM:BO! The British 3inch has a range of 2500m, the 4.2ich of 3750m The German 81mm = 2400m, 120mm ~6000m, the 28cm and 32cm Nebelwerfer = 2100m The Russian 82mm = 3100m, 107mm = 6300, 120mm 6000m The US 81mm = 3000m But I can always cover the complete map with artillery, even on a map of 4800m length. If this isn't changed in CM:BB it will get really funny on a 9km map.

Do someone have more WWII weapon movies (with sound, of course)? I searching since long time for an authentic MP44, Schmeisser and BAR movie.

Mh, maybe the Panther simply did what I would do when a bullet walks throught my body: place a digested lunch into my panties... Sorry, to much beer

Indeed there were two Soumi MPs The Modell 1926, 36 rounds, 750 rpm, 433 J (7,65 x 22, 380 m/s) The Modell 1931, 20-71 rounds, 800 rpm, 578 J (9x19 ammo, 380 m/s) It was also asked for : The Schmeisser 28, 20-50 rounds, 500 rpm, 578 J The Bergmann 35, 32 rounds, 350 rpm, 548 J Dan No problemo :cool: [ February 09, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Paul Don't believe in other forums!!! Wisdom can be found only here . Dan Yes master, no more double threats . BTW - is it impudent to ask the fp of the PPSch41? Of course it is, but will you tell anyway?

Yep, I wasn't sure about the Eo, just want to see what will happen . Anyway, even we cut it out, the high rpm and the double ammo compared to the MP-40 will make it a serious weapon. Even with a fp of 'only' 50, imagine a SMG squad with 8-12 soldiers, and AFAIK the Soviets tended to larger squads!!!

FAFLIFAFLAFFAFLUFF (Elite Soviet MP-squad pops up behind German regular Rifle company) WRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ..... Well, let's close the curtain over the unpleasant details...

Well, let's see the MP-44 as an automatic rifle instead of a MP. If I understood right, that was what BTS had in mind!? I think the only CM weapon can be compared with it in this case would be the BAR. MP-44 = 30 rounds, 500 rpm, 1630 Joule Eo, 34 CM firepower BAR A2 = 20 rounds, 350 rpm, 3545 Joule Eo, 34 CM firepower Hey, they match!

Because it makes so much fun, here another comparison. (J = Joule kinetic energy = Eo) MP-40 = 32 rounds, 400 rpm, 576 J Sten MK-2 = 32 rounds, 500 rpm, 576 J Thomson = 30 rounds, 700 rpm, 588 J PPSch41 = 71 rounds, 1000 rpm, 688 J Now let's compare to CM firepower value (fp). As you see above, the Eo for all weapons except the PPSch41 is nearly identic! MP-40 = 36 fp Sten = 39 fp (+100 rpm = +3 fp) Thomson = 45 fp (+300 rpm = +9 fp) BTS this looks at least like a straight math calculation of the fp . If I calculate the fp for the PPSch41 this way (+600rpm = 18 fp) and give +20% because of the highe Eo, compared to the MP-40 (=7 fp) I end at 61 fp for the PPSch41. Even if you don't use a strictly math formula to calculate the fp, I see no technical reason to weaken the PPSch41, but some to make it still better: reliably, ammo, uncomplicated... Someone said a German SMG squad is gamey? German SMG Squad, 8 men = 288 fp Soviet SMG Squad, 8(?) men = 488 fp Poor Fritz :eek: !!! [ February 09, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Michael, I really don't know, it is at least not a translation error of me, cause the TO&E is in English, I have purchased it from from the Nafziger Collection in the USA. [ February 09, 2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

I don't know about the strecher, the source says there was only one bearer. Maybe the medic? Maybe someone else who was around? [ February 09, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Okay, I have received my data sheeds. The Jäger Platoon Platoon HQ: 1 Platoon Leader (1 SMG) 2 Messengers (2 SMG) 1 Strecher Bearer (1 pistol) 1 Horse Leader (1 rifle) 3 Jäger Groups, each 1 x NCO (1 SMG) 9 x Soldiers (2 rifles, 6 SMG, 1 LMG) Note the 5th HQ soldier, while we have only 4 in CM. Let's assume the 'lost' soldier is an absent messenger. The sheet for the Mountain Jäger Platoon shows the excact same TO&E. So the difference is indeed only the mountain training & equipment (both out of the CM scope) Maybe also of interest: The Light Jäger Group 1 x NCO (1 SMG) 10 x Soldiers (3 rifles, 6 SMG, 1 LMG) The Pioneer Group (Jäger Regiment) 1 x NCO (1 SMG) 9 x Soldiers (2 rifles, 6 SMG, 1 LMG)