TSword

Hehehe Steve, It seems that your little Silicon Soldiers really have a mind of their own already..... I'd only wonder what might happen when they receive memory and can learn, my God (Hopefully you implement an RAM-allocation limit to keep them down, otherwise..) !!? Maybe all Players should first disable the Powermanagmentfunctions on their PCs and lock the BIOS prior to installing of CM3...hehehe, or otherwise the little devils will take control of the whole PC ! Greets Daniel

When advancing in the open i always use the Advance command as often as possible. With this command units don't panic as quick under enemy fire as without, of course this brings advance speeds down to around 50-60m per turn but it works quite good. Greets Daniel

I'm testing an operation of mine right now with EFOW on. All my HT losses were due to ATR fire which couldn't be tracked for 2 rounds. I fear ATRs, they are like the plague and very difficult to spot... Greets Daniel

All great as long there are no concessions to the average gamer in respect to complexity and historical correctness of the game. Greets Daniel

Foxbat, The german Werfers produce very visible smoke trails, there are actually photographs. But i also agree they most probably stayed as long necessary for a given mission for example a prep barrage of 45 Minutes or continuing harrasing/defensive fire into an enemy assembly area for hours. With relocation you loose to much time and you have to dig a new entrenched emplacement which takes a day. (Certainly the Werfers have lower vulnerability when being subject to counterfire then ordinary arty because they have a very low profile, not to mention the wurfrahmen (throwingframes) for the big ones. So in conclusion i go with Sodball that the rocket arty delay on TRP is most probably a bug. (However who would ever use the big mean ones in a QB on the german side ? They are so unbelievable expensive) Greets Daniel

The early Panthers had an aluminium engine, which accounted for some hundred kilograms less weight. Then in the A various structural reinforcments were added like strenghtend turret basket, another cupola which i suppose was also heavier, then the later As had an additional MG with ammo (D only MP-port on front plate). Also the suspension arms might have been reinforced, and eventually the front floor and deck plates may have been made stronger also. Greets Daniel

Fly Pusher, After a barrage the launchers normally did relocate into a new area for fear of counterbattery if there was nothing to shoot at it i guess, if not your apparatus had to be ready to fire, as you might know the front is not a holidaytrip. What happened after a launch ? The guys operating the tubes would run and reload until they collapse on the spot, then being replaced by another, to be ready again in the shortest possible time for another barrage, that's more likely i guess. Btw. Being subject to Counterbattery fire was an artillery man's daily business, meaning the german (and most probably the russian) artillerists had to man the guns no matter what fired at them, they suffered accordingly, because if they didn't they were waxed for sure.... Greets Daniel [ October 25, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]

Another one: Grouping of units according to their formation during setup. 18. Group platoons, companies and battailons so they are easily selectable during setup, nothing more annoying then sorting out all the squads and support weapons for half an hour. Maybe an OOB tree would also help in this but not exclusively. Use patterns for platoons, companies and the like, and use the setup zone also in depth. 19. 3D trenches, craters and infantry-bunkers in varying shapes and forms (deep, shallow, heavy, light). 20. Special terrain objects like small rivers, fences (wood, stone, bushlines (bocage like), treelines variying in size and dense), small depressions beneath roads and new Doodads like streetlights or radiomasts beneath roads and streets and even fountains. Those objects do not occupy a 20x20 m tile of ground but are instead very limited in one dimension and act mostly as LOS barriers or just eyecandyness and do not change the basic 20x20m tile -> Combinations with tiles and "special" objects must be possible. 21. Together with dynamic lighting possibility for lightflares to illuminate the terrain at night -> new ammo for Artillery, especially mortars and floodlightinstallations on vehicles for instance. 22. Dynamic vegetation. After firing a 30 cm rocket salvo into a piece of wood, this wood would look quite different after the smoke has gone...... -> Dense wood -> Destroyed wood with different LOS and camo properties. 23. Dynamic damage on buildings in 3D with animated debris and again varying cover, LOS and Camo properties. 24. better smoother,rolling terrain scenario-editor setting with different transition curves 25. A new Bird wav, the current one drives me mad !! Greets Daniel

1. It is absolutely necessary to give the Scenario-Designer more control over AI behaviour and setup. Example: AI in Operations usually does a very poor setup (If there is wood AI will cramp everything in it), true one can work around, but with open maps this becomes a problem of first order. Solution: The designer can suggest zones of terrain suitable for setup. Also some guidelines for attacking/defending AI would be great, like areas of approach, objective zones, type of general AI behaviour like stubborn defense, counterattack, timings and the like. This is a wide field but in general leave AI as is (No hope of much improvement in this field) but enable more options during scenario design All this together would enable much more challenging AI-battles and more possibilities to generate more historic acurate battles (I mostly play the AI, since PBEMs go forever and need a lot of discipline especially for the loosing side...). Covered arcs set by scenario designer would be great. 2. Atleast direct firing Artillery pieces should be able to fire delayed fuzed shells (when firing a flat trajectory shell bounces off the ground, at first impact fuze is activated). This was done very often on the german side with tanks HE, 88 AT, and all Artillery pieces. If used correctly this results in devastating fire. 3. It is principally wrong not to enable on-board artillery to fire indirect. In the case of german heavy howitzers (150 mm) the guns were very seldom placed farer away from the front then 4 km and often relocated only below 1 km. This of course fits into the dimension of CM. Again this would allow for additional realism and more possibilities in scenarios (Gamey inbalances can be corrected by purchase prizes easily). 4. More terrain types with variyng degree of concealment together with further refined LOS calculations. More possibilities for open terrain battles. More terrain which give Inf concealment when being prone while only partly restricting LOS for AVFs. 5. Active visible camouflage of all sorts of weapons for same reason as point 4. 6. Ability for mounted troops to shoot from vehicles, and proper loads for trucks (much more then 1 Squad infact). 7. Dynamic lighting visible and taken into LOS calculations 8. Turret down for tanks or generally fighting vehicles for observation purposes. 9. "Debug"-Mode to check AI-behaviour for scenario designers. Simply an additional battle parameter where the player can see all the AI units all the time while AI behaves according to set FOW settings. 10. Vehicle crews can remount an abandoned vehicle 11. Horses, bicycles, bikes 12. A small API-set: - To read unit database (all values currently visible during unitselection) - To write to the map generator or map selection (All the values currently editable by the user) - To write to the unit selection Thus allowing 3rd party extensions for campaigns and the like 13. Correct representation of relative plate sizes on AFVs for hit determination. (eg. Large T-34/85 turret, small T-34/76 turret). 14. Option to allow same "casualty"-rules as in night battles also for daylight battles. They are obviously much much more realistic then the daylight rules. 15. More finetune options for Operations in determing new setup zones for next battle. (For instance in the "Assault" mode the possibility to determine the weight of flank and middle and treshold for cutoff units), now it's easely possible to have the whole force being cutoff although not a single enemy unit was behind their line when previous battle ended). 16. New operation type "mixed" where scenario designer can determine the sequence of attacker (thus operations where attacker can actually change from battle to battle) either unknown or known to the player. To simulate counterattacks something completely missing now. Actually the same should also be possible in battles where a certain formation (for instance reinforcments) event triggered would counterattack. 17. Moving vehicles produce dust dependend of region and groundconditions. Heavy weapons like tanks, artillery shells and the like produce a lot of smoke which could change a battlefield dramatically LOS wise..., nice to see in open terrain battles... Greets Daniel

1stCav, You're right, although we had no kevlar wests it was extremely nasty crawling almost the whole day on frozen ground i can tell you....., didn't believe my eyes when i saw my elbows and knees the next day all colours of the rainbow.. Greets Daniel

Found the following at http://www.britwar.co.uk/mod.php?mod=fileman&menu=8&PHPSESSID=54b7c6d235c84a0c979ca2e8c1eeef4e: "WO 291/2357 Rocket Typhoons. This report is dated 12 June 1945. The expected probability of hits on different targets using RPs is given as: Target Dimensions % hits Small gun position 5' diameter 0.2 Panther tank 22'6" × 10'9" × 9'10" 0.5 Large gun position 10' diameter 0.8 Army hut 60' × 30' × 20' 2.8 Large building 120' × 54' × 50' 10.0 "Among the hundreds of abandoned and knocked out tanks that have been examined, no instance has been recorded of a tank that has been hit by R.P. and escaped major damage." RP are very effective on guns (20mm guns are blown to pieces), tanks, barns and huts. Brick houses have a large hole knocked in them and "considerable havoc wrought inside". Anti-personnel effects are limited, as the rocket tends to bury itself, and on concrete structures and thick masonry such as churches the damage inflicted is superficial. The morale effects of rocket attack appear considerable. Enemy PWs report that all personnel except flak gunners hide from aircraft from 1 to 10 minutes after the completion of an attack, expecting the attackers to return for a second strafing pass. "It appears quite definite that it is the nature of the attack that upsets the Germans and not the physical damage which it causes." RP Typhoons are also reported to have a considerable heartening effect on friendly troops." In IL-2 it is very difficult to strafe men, and as soon as AA is around it becomes almost impossible. (Btw. best method to limit AA effectivness and maximize hit prob for an attacking AC is a 60° dive). Greets Daniel

In winter 1942/43 most PzIII- and PzIV-family chassis could mount trackextensions known as Winterketten (Wintertracks). Seems not to be in the game right now. In Winter 43/44 so called Ostketten for P3 and P4-family were issued which were in fact wider tracks (one had to remove std-tracks and mount the new ones). Both measures drastically lowered groundpressure. Though Winterketten-extensions could easily be lost and were only really feasible for snow, Ostketten were also intended for use during rasputitsa (mud-season). Nice to see in CMBB, because as one knows roads were scarce in Mother Russia... Greets Daniel

Question to the bogging: It's known that with winter 1942 most german tanks were outfitted with so called Winterketten or Wintertracks which were manually attached extensions to the tracks for Pz3 & Pz4 -chassis family. Is this simulated in the game, or will i always helplessly bog down in snow ? (Fact is the tracked vehicles were the only ones who could "savely" move in snow). Later on for general improvement (Mud, snow and the like) so called "Ostketten" or Osttracks were issued for P3- and P4- family Chassis which were effectively wider tracks (You had to remove the normal track and mount the Osttracks instead). Both this measures would considerably lower the groundpressure of german P3 & P4-chassis. Any observations ? Greets Daniel

Peterx, Of course i use sneak a lot, but that's by purpose. What we are talking about is the behaviour under fire, which in the current almost 100 % ocurrence is wrong and absolutely no lifesafer. An example: i have a squad in a brush tile surrounded by nothing then steppe or open ground 200 m around. My squad opens fire on an enemy and receives return fire. If this squad now just drops/hides it will be out of sight for most enemy units, BUT when crawling in the open will attract additional fire due to movement. So it's not a good idea to crawl out into the open toward a piece of wood 200 m away (and even less so if that terrain tile is toward the enemy). No unit not panicked would do so in real, or atleast only a minor part and certainly decreasing with experience. This behaviour spoils almost every open-map scenario for human vs human play, since you only need some HMG positioned around such camo offering terrain tiles out of LOS by a meter or two and you can slaughter heaps of infs seaking concealment. This is also true for fights vs. AI of course. It really spoils the game to some extent ! Greets Daniel [ October 22, 2002, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]

Hello found this on: http://www.britwar.co.uk/mod.php?mod=fileman&menu=8&PHPSESSID=cdb738075181c37dc737ee5d1cc81b5c Almost all sources currently cited here are documents from the PRO, Kew, mostly from the series WO 291, which are reports and memoranda from operational research (OR) sections during and after WW2. WO 32/10577 Tactical employment of smoke This table gives "No. to produce 500 yards screen in 10 m.p.h. wind on a cloudy day. On a bright sunny day or with low or high winds, expenditure of ammunition may have to be appreciably increased." 25 pdr BES 3 candles, burn for 1½ mins 2 rds/min 4.2" mortar 25 lbs WP, 3,000 yds 6 bombs/min (theoretical) 3" mortar WP 1,600 yds 10 bombs/min 2" mortar 2 mins emission 500 yds 9 bombs/min 3" AFV howitzer 1500 yds 3 rds/min 2" bomb thrower 2lb smoke mixture 150 yds being replaced by WP 4" smoke discharger 3½ lbs smoke mixture 90 yds lighter AFVs only The "pillaring" tendency of WP rounds is noted. "It should be appreciated that what may be intended as a line of smoke... may in fact become an area of smoke drifting downwind, possibly for some thousands of yards. It will be impossible to forecast the exact travel in distance or direction beforehand." Seems that in CMBB the effectivness of smokerounds are underated in both duration and necessary rounds to produce camo-effect Btw. Cited Document contains a Heap of interesting material, worth a reading. Greets Daniel

Great ! I knew (quietly) something is wrong with the 37 mm.. The Question is when will we get the fixed ones ??!! Please take it into Patch 1.01 if possible. Greets Daniel

Rex Belator, I go with you, it's very annoying especially in wide open terrain. I had units with 150 m sneak lines, extremely tiring. In real i bet 90% of people just hit the dirt and stay put (Many combat records i've read indicate it's about this direction). If a unit panics it may go mad and do sneak or run into disaster, but a unit in command won't do that most of time. Another bad habit is units always are going for concealed terraintiles, this again is extremely bad in open terrain where sometimes unbelievable numbers of units cramp a terrain tile offering somewhat better concealment. Again, units should adhere more to their commands when not panicked and accept brush and steppe as concealed terrain and not going for that patch of tree 200 m away. Greets Daniel

Blackvoid, A StuG will die easely even by a louzy 45 mm AT Gun in no time and of course by T-34/76 also if only hit in the flank. Had a StuG yesterday exploding by a single shot from a 45 mm AT at around 40-45° angle in the side from 200 m (Scenario with normal Fog). But if you are stupid enough to take them Head-on, then pay for it..... There was a standing order at a time or another 1942/43 for russian tanks to avoid firefights with StuGs. Greets Daniel

Had a 2-men tankhunterteam with 46 kills.....

Fishu, I like the idea ! Greets Daniel

IMO CM3 again should portray the Eastern Front, nothing comes only remotely close to it in ferocity, scale, changing luck and importance. Add to that the Western Front 1944 quite similar as in CMBO and everybody is happy. Blitzkrieg and North Africa are bad choices, because they were such one sided affairs. For the first, the main problem were coordination to keep up the marching speed the enemy beaten from the beginning. In North Africa the Desert was Tankground in the first place with vast distances covered by relatively small units, very bad for batt-sized battles on a 3 x 3 km tile.... - Most important issue for CM3 is to allow the scenario creator more control of AI controlled forces so more complex battles are possible. - An API-set for op- or Campaign-level extensions - Dynamic lighting twofold: 1. As visual effect and more important 2. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms - More acurate Dust-effects - Turret down positions for AVFs for recon, spotting - Dismounting crewmembers also on AVFs by user request - Horses and bikes - OOB-Tree in the userinterface for easier and faster unit manipulations both during gameplay and Scenario editing (coupled with AI-guiding commands and the like) Greets Daniel

Heavy drop, Antitank ditches can be made with the scenario editor. To have them as a fortification ? One has already the indestructable roadblock with the same function, so why waste programming effort ? Greets Daniel

Hmmm.., Pantherbait your pic of the JS-2 in my opinion is to much colored by the Jaegermeister experience. SPOILER WARNING In Jaegermeister (I only played it once and got a minor victory as russ -> RUNE is Scenario hero !!!!) you are in a bad position vs. the Tigers from the start. The Tigers are on higher ground and therefore in good hulldown. Jaegermeister teaches you a thing, don't try to beat a well positioned superior weapon with inferior ones from an inferior position. And at around 1200-1500 m the Tiger-platoon is clearly superior because they have better optics, better crews, better gun (Higher ROF), and better position. I resolved the problem by sending an inf-platoon up to the Tigers to gather their attention. Worked beautifully my 2 only left JS-2 killed all (2 left) of them in two rounds. From that moment i had space for manouver and could destroy a second Panther for the loss of one JS-2. If the game would have gone some rounds longer i surely would have destroyed the last one also. -> If the enemy is in superior position, do not engage, but instead manouver to atleast gain an equal tac-position. (In CMBO such things rarely really were important you just only needed 4 TD for a cat no matter what, now that simple trick won't do it anymore, hehehe..). Btw: At first i also looked in a bewildered state as my Stalins were slaughtered and taught to myself what a hell of a game, in CMBO my force would have crumbeled any opposition in no time (I knew that my charging down the slope toward the town was risky, but the result nevertheless left my speechless). Greets Daniel

A German report (Listed in Jentz's Tankunits book) stated that JS-2s usually avoided the fight with Tigers other then shooting from well camoflaged positions and usually searched for cover after the first shot...., may be born out of experience... Btw. about the same is noted by a russian tankregiment commander in saying "They (the JS-2) usually fired one shot (vs. Tigers), everything else was about ruled out." Greets Daniel

If you're interested in tactical wargames you CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT ! Forget everything else !!! Greets Daniel