Jump to content

lewallen

Members
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    deimosathome, deimos
  • ICQ
    2224428

Converted

  • Location
    Biosphere2, Arizona
  • Interests
    books, computers, philosophy, military history
  • Occupation
    Tech Support

lewallen's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. I deleted the Users folder and started the game, it is still upside down. It did revert back to 1024x768. I created a new profile in the game, exited and restarted, and it's still upside down. Thanks for your quick response.
  2. I am having the same issue. Running Windows XP on an Acer Aspire 5670 laptop, Intel Core Duo, ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with Catalyst 7.2 drivers. Very puzzling why this is happening. I have tried setting the desktop rotation in the Catalyst properties to 180 degrees so my desktop is upside down, and then starting the game, but it still runs upside down. I have tried the other resolution as well (1024x768 60hz, in addition to LCD-native 1280x800 60Hz).
  3. I just downloaded the demo today and tried it out; I only had time to play for a few minutes, but noticed that... ::SPOILER:: ...in the second of the two demo missions (the one set in June 1944), I had air support in the form of a P-51H, which attacked my own Sherman platoon with rockets. That was annoying, but what caught my eye is that the P-51H never saw combat in WWII, and in fact did not reach service until late summer of 1945, so what is it doing attacking my Shermans in 1944? Anyone else notice this, or am I missing something? ~Sam
  4. I've been playing a lot of Il-2 Sturmovik (very good recent WWII flight sim, for those who don't know) lately, and I laugh at small-caliber AAA. A single quad-20mm or even a couple of them isn't much deterrent, especially to an Il-2, and it can take several 20mm hits to signifigantly damage an airplane (i.e. to a point where it must abort the mission) much less destroy it outright. Halftrack-mounted single 20mm and MGs are even less effective. Thus the general ineffectiveness of AAA in CMBB makes sense to me now, though when I first played CMBB, it seemed to be unrealistically worthless. Just my $.02. ~Sam
  5. D'oh, sorry, I should have done a search for the other threads. Looks like some good references to use of this method in WWII, and the web site I referenced had a manual for a Vickers in 1951, and it has sections titled "Consistency of tap", "Controlled corrections, indirect (elevation)", and "Controlled corrections, indirect (direction)". In game terms, they would use a ton of ammo. Maybe they could be modelled like heavy mortars in that they have a lot of ammo when placed, but if they move, they have to leave the ammo behind. The Bren tripod idea doesn't seem too stable (so to speak), but there seems to be a lot more documentation for the Vickers. Thanks for all the great posts so far. ~Sam
  6. I haven't posted here for a while, but I came across quite an interesting article that should be shared with the forum and with BTS: Machine Guns for Artillery It's about using Vickers machine guns as indirect fire weapons. According to this article, Vickers heavy water-cooled machine guns were regularly used in both World War One and Two as artillery, pouring down a vertical hail of bullets in extended barrages. There were special machine-gun battalions, complete with Forward Observation crews, capable of "protective, creeping, standing and enfilade barrages." The guns were capable of extended firing; the longest and heaviest barrage fired in World War One consisted of ten Vickers firing nearly one million rounds at a target about 2000 yards (1829m, for those of us used to thinking in CM terms) distant in one continuous 12 hour (!) bombardment. Interestingly, the Vickers were none the worse for wear: "Of the ten guns used in this attack there were no major breakdowns and all were completely operational at the end of the barrage." During the inter-War period, the tactics were more fully developed, and specialized sights and training for the gun crews came into effect. Prismatic optical range finders were used to determine the targets' range when it was in sight, otherwise more typical maps and special slide rulers were used (see this page). Also, "charts for determining adjustments due to the relative elevation of the target to the gun and for wind speed and atmospheric conditions" were developed, indicating that the somewhat unconventional use of a machine gun in this respect was a well-defined doctrine with support from the highest levels. According to the article, each infantry division was equipped with one machine gun battalion as division-level support, each battalion having 48 Vickers guns, and some 4.2" mortars. Further, each individual battalion had its own gun platoon of four Vickers with equipment for indirect-fire. The article gives an indication of the accuracy of this method: at 2000 yards, gunners would fire a 25-round burst, then literally tap the handle of the gun a precisely trained amount to move the barrel exactly 1/4th of a degree, then fire another 25-rounds, and repeat until the barrel hit the pre-positioned stakes placed to the sides of the barrel to limit traverse, at which point the gun was tapped back the other direction. Each tap would move the impact area of the bullets 25 feet to the side, and in this way, a sweeping field of fire could be arranged. I started thinking of this, naturally, in terms of Combat Mission. This, it seems to me, would be a useful tool in our support weapons toolbox. I would think it would be at least as or more deadly against dug in enemies in open ground than most light or even medium artillery, save for things like tree bursts and VT fuses, since a ground-level artillery burst doesn't effect things very much that are below ground level (i.e. in a foxhole). In the light of the largely open desert terrain and presence of British forces in the upcoming CMAK, I can anticipate some interesting uses for a sudden, massive, long range machine gun barrage that comes down on top of unsuspecting enemy heads. As well, its use against half-tracks and other open-topped vehicles or in a suppressive role against enemy front lines or gun positions would probably be especially effective. Due to the relatively short range (just about directly in between the on-map Soviet 50mm and 82mm mortars in CMBB), if it were handled in the game like artillery is, we would need to have the capability of on-map artillery units that had both a gun and a Forward Observer component, unlike the current artillery model, in which only the Forward Observer is physically on the map. This would open up the possibility of counter-battery fire, which the article specifially notes as one of the applications developed during World War One. While it's possible that this method could be implemented in the same way on-map mortars are now (i.e. having an on-map commander spot for them or use direct LOS), the article seems to indicate that the Vickers units were used just like conventional artillery, and would need to have the ability to operate independently as battalion-level support units with the capability of blind-firing based on map coordinates, and not just limited to the LOS of the commander unit. And this whole paragraph is interesting: I think it's time to address once again the presence of on-map indirect-fire artillery units (or the lack thereof), in addition to the conventional off-map variety, since this would open up some new tactics for us, particularly on the larger maps that are now available. Counter battery fire would become a possibility, and an enterprising player could use forces operating behind enemy lines to hunt down their enemy battalion's artillery support. This wouldn't generally come into use except in the longer, larger battles or operations, as this is usually outside of the game's level of abstraction, but there would be no avoiding it with Vickers groups at least, it seems to me, and the Vickers can also always be turned level with the ground and used as conventional machine guns in other situations. "With the rapid expansion in the wartime army many officers were not exposed to the use of the machine gun firing from behind their positions as either a support for attacks or for defensive coverage. This tended to make them cautious of their employment." Let us not make the same mistake; here's my vote for the inclusion of this unique method of indirect fire in CMAK. ~Sam p.s. A couple of minutes searching on Google yielded this old thread on a World War 1 mailing list forum here. Several of the posts reference historical data, including the use of the indirect-fire method by British, American, Australian, Canadian, and German troops in World War One, and that the crews (the British ones at least) were training in blind-firing at night with targets given as map coordinates. Edited to correct a broken link... [ April 23, 2003, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: lewallen ]
  7. i've read (perhaps somewhere here on the forum, but can't remember now) that the soviets used different sizes for all of their guns because supply problems often led to the wrong ammo getting to the wrong unit, and there were times when the wrong ammo (but of the correct bore size) were fired in a weapon, damaging it. therefore each type of gun used its own size of ammunition so that only the correct ammo would fit. ~sam
  8. I can't wait to see the mods and doodads for this. </font>
  9. i've been noticing that when i want to use e.g. an infantry gun to lay some smoke on a target, that if i give it a smoke target and then hit go, it will usually switch to another target immediately, even if they do not threaten the gun directly. i.e. it will cancel my smoke target and start blasting infantry an so forth with HE. this happens even if i give it a very narrow covered arc and set the smoke target line inside that. is there any way to force guns to smoke a target without them switching like that, or if not, will that be addressed in 1.02? ~sam
  10. I know it's been said that the shockwave bubbles used in CMBO will not be put back in to CMBB, and there was even, I think, a post that said that the code to do the shockwaves has been removed from CMBB. However, with the 1.01 patch, the mortars use what appears to be the exact same shockwave bubble that was in CMBO! Is there any chance at all that this might be added as an option for all guns for the next patch? I've actually gotten used to the new muzzle blasts and like the way they look, but there seemed to be a lot of other people who would like the shock wave back, and I think it would be really cool if maybe there were three options: new blast, old shockwave, and both simultaneously... What say you, BTS? ~Sam
  11. it is just me, or have other people found rockets to be nearly useless? i have not had or seen a single AFV killed by rockets yet, or even *hit* by them, and they don't carry enough explosive to score kills with near-misses, of which i have seen quite a few. even mobility kills are very rare. i was under the impression that rockets (at least on the western front, so presumably also on the eastern front?) were pretty effective tank-killers... otherwise they wouldn't have put them on the planes, right? but i have had very poor success with them thus far... ~Sam
  12. i had a platoon of russian SMG/LMG troops take out a PzIV in a QB yesterday. It was isolated between closely spaced sections of tall pines, buttoned up, and appeared to either have very low morale or it never spotted my dudes, as it never moved as I Sneaked three squads up to within about 15-25m. They only had 2 Molotovs per platoon, and both missed the tank, but after two turns enough grenades had been thrown and hit the tank that the crew bailed and was instantly cut down by a platoon's worth of subguns. Man, I love those subgun squads... At pointblank, one squad has the firepower of a rifle platoon. Anyway, yeah tank assaults are hard. Out of curiosity, I reloaded that turn after saving to a different file and tried using Assault and Follow Tank commands to have two full platoons of infantry assault the tank, and it didn't work worth a tinker's damn. The infantry charged out of the woodline and followed the tank for about 20m and then just *sat* there about 15m from the tank, doing nothing, as the turret traversed and the coax pinned them down and eventually sent them running back to the treeline in terror. Lesson being: don't charge tanks. Instead, just sit there in cover about 20m away for a couple of turns and let the grenades do their work. ~Sam
  13. VL = Victory Location. The flags, in other words. Great AAR! ~Sam
  14. OK, the new terrain files are on their way to GJK's rapidly growing mod archive. The two I made are 50% and 25% of the visibility of the original one. The 25% one especially is quite subtle. I'm still using middle-gray for the color, as it doesn't disappear into any of the terrain tiles totally, and nor does it look too grossly unnatural like neon blue or something but if anyone has suggestions for a better color that would still stand out, let me know. In the meantime, have fun! ~Sam
  15. ...working on the low-visibility terrain. Hopefully will have more news on it tomorrow. ~Sam
×
×
  • Create New...