Zitadelle

Ta Bump- getting this back on the first page. Two weeks to go and make your plans, and an excuse to meet Steve Zaloga and Thomas Jentz (who are always there and usually giving a lecture or two), and an excuse to visit the Rust Park just down the road a few miles.

Actually, the mattress spring anecdote is incorrect. Recently, Zaloga and others have provided research indicating that the Russians developed either off-mounted steel plates or spring-mounted screens to serve as offset panzerfaust protection. These were not ad-hoc field developments, but designed and engineered in rear echelons. Furthermore, studies indicate that a typical bedspring would provide insufficient resistance for a panzerfaust/schrek round and would not result in premature detonation of the round. </font>

Actually, the mattress spring anecdote is incorrect. Recently, Zaloga and others have provided research indicating that the Russians developed either off-mounted steel plates or spring-mounted screens to serve as offset panzerfaust protection. These were not ad-hoc field developments, but designed and engineered in rear echelons. Furthermore, studies indicate that a typical bedspring would provide insufficient resistance for a panzerfaust/schrek round and would not result in premature detonation of the round.

Anyone going to the National Convention of the Armor Modeling and Preservation Society (AMPS) being held April 16-17, 2004? Anyone want to meet for drinks, CMing, and tank discussions? I am planning on going to Havre de Grace, Maryland in the early afternoon of the 16th, staying for a while and then heading over to the Aberdeen “Rust Park.” Thereafter, food and drink followed by going back to the show on the 17th. Once the lecture series is announced, I will probably try to fit an interesting lecture in as well over the two days. Information can be found at the AMPS website: AMPS Home Page Respond via the forum or contact me directly.

Anyone going to the National Convention of the Armor Modeling and Preservation Society (AMPS) being held April 16-17, 2004? Anyone want to meet for drinks, CMing, and tank discussions? I am planning on going to Havre de Grace, Maryland in the early afternoon of the 16th, staying for a while and then heading over to the Aberdeen “Rust Park.” Thereafter, food and drink followed by going back to the show on the 17th. Once the lecture series is announced, I will probably try to fit an interesting lecture in as well over the two days. Information can be found at the AMPS website: AMPS Home Page Respond via the forum or contact me directly.

To really simplify the affect of armor angle.... First, assume both armored vehicles are on level ground (zero slope- which negates additional firing angles). Now, using your illustration, measure the width of the armor plate at a perpendicular angle (90 degrees). The width is say approximately 20cm, and follows the thickness of the armor. Now, using the same illustration, measure the width of the armor plate at the angle indicated by the round penetrating at a level angle (just follow the first arrow before impact). The width is approximately 40cm, and follows the angle that the round hits the plate. Notice the difference- which is based upon geometry/trignometry of a 90 degree triangle (in this case probably a 30-60-90 degree triangle). While the armor is only 20cm thick, the level angle that the round will hit will take the round through the long length of the triangle equaling about 40cm.

I agree with Andreas; the book is an excellent resource and I find myself referencing it frequently. Also, answering your questions would require quoting multiple sections from Zaloga's book (resulting in several pages of forum text). Perhaps you can pick a question or two, and I and others can see what we can do.

Just found a new book that is available from Concord Publishing- Battle of Stalingrad: Russia's Great Patriotic War that could be of interest to the group on the CMBB forum and perchance a modder or two. The book presents a photo essay of those Russian troops fighting around Stalingrad and also has a few color illustrations by Ron Volstad. The link can be found at: Battle of Stalingrad: Russia's Great Patriotic War

I like the *.bmp mod, however for the grogs it should be noted that the usage of that symbol on a PzKW VIE is not historical. First, by 1944 the 11th Panzer Division was no long using the complex tactical symbol of the 'Ghost.' Most of the panzer divisions that started the war had various complex symbols. Over the years of conflict these symbols were radically simplified, and by the later years of the war were even rarely painted on the sides of tanks and vehicles. Documentation of the simplification of the panzer divisional markings can be found in Squadron Signals: _Panzer Colors: Volume II_ and Tony Greenland's _Panzer Masterclass Modelling_. Second, tigers were not directly assigned to panzer divisions- rather they were assigned within an independent tank battalion established specifically as tiger units (sPzAbt). These battalions would be maintained at higher levels (corps or army) and assigned as necessary. So, tigers would not be organic to the 11th PD; however the battalion could have been assigned as support. Third, tiger battalions maintained their own unique battalion markings; a classic example being Springender Tuefel ("Dancing Demon") found on the tiger battalion assigned to SS Panzer 'Das Reich' on the Ostfront from March, 1943 through November, 1943. These are documented in Squadron Signals: _Panzer Colors: Volume III_ . Fourth, as far as I am aware (although up for debate with correct references) the 11th PD was not assigned any tiger battalions for support during the summer of 1944.

I take it that you are fairly new to the CM world. If so, welcome aboard, and be ready to sacrifice the rest of your life. You will be "asCMilated". As documented in the thread, I believe folks are starting to meet at 6pm; although people will probably be coming and going throughout the evening. I will probably be showing up that time (but fashionably late...).

MODS only affect the bitmap (*.bmp) or sound (.wav) files used by the game to generate the user-viewed battlefield. They do not affect the game engine which is hardcoded and cannot be modified. Thus, the players will always be using the same engine and it will not matter which MODS you have installed versus the ones installed by your PBEM opponent. In fact, I would argue that it is very unlikely that two PBEM opponents have exactly the same MODS installed on their PCs (I know that I frequently make minor changes to bitmap files to reflect how I want the vehicles modelled).

Buck Yaldy- One more thing. I noticed from your profile that you are in the Washington, DC area. If you are looking for more tips from some serious CM players, check out the General Discussion Forum. There is going to be a DC Group get-together this upcoming Thursday (February 12th) at Regional Food and Drink (RFD).

Sorry- you are wrong. During a PBEM, a player can issue orders every turn, and review every movie. Otherwise, PBEMs would not be very much fun if I knew that I could only issue orders every other turn. I would recommend that Buck Yaldy and his opponent review the text in the CMBB manual regarding PBEM file transfers. In summary, the PBEM process works like: 1) Player1 issues orders, sends file to Player2. 2) Player2 issues orders, and hits 'GO' button. 3) Player2 is prompted to return file to Player1. 4) Player1 watches movie; however Player2 still needs to see movie. 5) Player1 returns file to Player2. 6) Player2 watches movie. At which point the turn (Turn 1) is completed and the movie has been reviewed by both players. Now, it is time for the next turn (Turn 2). 7) Player2 issues orders for next turn and sends file to Player1. 8) Player1 issues orders, and hits 'GO' button. 9) Player1 is prompted to e-mail file to Player2 10) Player2 watches movie, and returns file to Player1. 11) Player1 watches movie. Now, you start the cycle all over again at step 1 (and with Turn 3). If you are still having problems, feel free to contact me and we can walk through a PBEM scenario turn by turn.

Alright, but then I am curious what was the reasoning why the factory terrain tile was removed from the source code? What were the functional or technical limitations that led to the demise of the factory terrain tile? It would seem that it is an advantageous feature that would be maintained from one version of the source code to the next verison. Help me understand why it is no longer present. Thanks.

Da Bump- this back to the top to keep the topic from disappearing too quickly.... I imagine that this is a long shot, but just to make another vote in favor of returning the Factory terrain feature. Much like others had said, this is a very useful terrain feature and can be used for modelling items other than factories. Please BFC re-consider the decision....

Based upon my ForumID, which front will I be spending my time? Yeah, I just pre-ordered it as well, but I will also be predominately found on the OstFront. That front is my primary area of interest and it was only in anticipation of CMBB and to learn the system that I initially bought CMBO. Still, BFC has my money now (and my credit card number :eek: ), so I imagine they really don't care which one I play. Their position is probably something to the effect of music producers or book publishers when they hear that there will be a book/record burning- 'sure, go ahead you have to buy them first in order to burn them....' [ November 19, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

The December, 2003 issue of _Computer Games_ magazine has a one page brief preview article (appropriately in the "Incoming" section) on CMAK. No real new exciting news- all discussed features have appeared on the forums- or screenprints (a view of the Shermans in Italy and a Grant in North Africa). The article gives the release date as: November 2003.

Thanks for the quick response Kingfish! Sometimes I think that I could be typing a question on this forum and before posting the message a response would already be posted.... I guess the only other piece of information would be a response from the BFC guys on your theory. To know whether that is valid could really make the air support advantageous for my scenario. Of course I imagine they are a little busy for a response these days. [ October 30, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

I am creating a CMBB scenario where some of the Russian reinforcements are potential aircraft. When I preview the map there are reinforcement flags for the aircraft. Now, these reinforcements are just aircraft. My questions are, Does the placement of flag define any controls/limitations on the aircraft? Do they initially appear from that position? Previously I always thought that aircraft just appear on the battlefield (from the supporting edge) and fly to the opposite end. Thereafter, they appear from another location and fly to the opposite edge. Thanks for any insight.

BFC announced that they would take pre-orders on September 7, 2002 (according to my VISA bill). And, according to the BFC archieved news, pre-ordered copies of the US domestic version started shipping on September 20, 2002. Days that will live in infamy....

Ah, but Madmatt.... I think that "CMBO" image is a from an unreleased version of the game. If you note, the StuG commander is apparently wearing eyeglasses which were unavailable until CMBB. The lack of eyeglasses until CMBB and the fact that commanders could not see where they were going was the primary reason the AI frequently changed plotted move orders in CMBO.

I remember seeing the boxed set, but have never seen the box opened or the game played. From the discussion of modeling AFV hits and penetration, it sounds like a variant of Yaquinto's (sp?) _Panzer_ or _88_. Now, those were great board wargames- combining elements of miniature rules and Squad Leader. I guess like CM on a tabletop. [sidenote: if I remember correctly, a gun hit in Panzer/88 was a very rare occurance, unlike CM] As for sheer paperwork, WS&IM didn't set the upper bar. That gameset abstracted attacks to a broadside. For really nasty, gun hit determination try _Ironclads_. That game modeled individual guns and you rolled for hit, damage, and if applicable special, critical hits and penetration damage. Determining the damage inflicted by a broadside from the US Frigate Minnesota or the HMS Warrior would take 15 minutes alone.

Now before I go off and start downloading the "Barbarossa Pack", exactly how many parts are to be issued? And, is there an estimated completion month for all parts?

It will cost you a little bit of cash, but you can order quality topographical maps of virtually any part of the world from Omni Maps. Their web-site is: Omni Maps Recently, I had purchased a 1:500,000 scale Tactical Pilotage Map (TPC) topographical representation of the Belarus area for modelling Operation Bagration scenarios. It only set me back about $13.00 and it is well worth it.

CMAK stands for Combat Mission Afrika Korps. </font>