[Noob PBEM question]

Opponent finder forum here http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=24,

or http://www.theblitz.org/ (my prefered option).

[All I have is Porn in my mail box.]

Originally posted by k-trout:

What do you do when your opponents bail on you?

try to find another ?

try one of the ladders : http://www.theblitz.org is fairly relaxed.

[Confession time: How good/bad a commander are you?]

Zhukov's style : there's no casualty rate that I cannot swallow...

[QB force points question]

Exemple :

1000pts game Attack : 30% casualties :

As attacker, I should get 1500 pts, I get 2142, I spend 2142, but I know that random units in my purchase will get killed or damaged to bring the point total back to 1500.

The unit price stay the same :

A soviet 82mm FO purchased alone cost 107, but 98 if purchased as part of a battalion. This means that if I am able to buy larger formations, I will get more units and I may now be able to make purchases that would have broken the 1500 pts ceiling or the combined arms ceilings.

Thus, more points in the initial purchase => more units even after attrition IF AND ONLY IF you buy in companies and battalions.

It's not formations that become cheaper, it is individual units, when compared to unit by unit purchase.

Sometimes, you will get a tank with one crew casualty, but most of the time you will get no tank : a good incentive to buy tanks by platoons, they will be cheaper (platoon discount), and you will probably get at least some survivors of the platoon.

One added advantage it that it makes it risky to build your purchase around a single super King Tiger : it may be "killed" in the random casuaties, or it may "survive" at the expense of the covering infantry. This is mainly valid for low points QBs.

I do not know for ammo, I would not try fitness in QBs : an attacker stuck with weakened infantry units is basically screwed unless the map is VERY small : the units are way too slow.

One side effect for the attacker is that crewed units may end up with less ammo when they start moving (crew casualties => dump some ammo when start to move).

[QB force points question]

Exemple :

1000pts game Attack : 30% casualties :

As attacker, I should get 1500 pts, I get 2142, I spend 2142, but I know that random units in my purchase will get killed or damaged to bring the point total back to 1500.

The unit price stay the same :

A soviet 82mm FO purchased alone cost 107, but 98 if purchased as part of a battalion. This means that if I am able to buy larger formations, I will get more units and I may now be able to make purchases that would have broken the 1500 pts ceiling or the combined arms ceilings.

Thus, more points in the initial purchase => more units even after attrition IF AND ONLY IF you buy in companies and battalions.

It's not formations that become cheaper, it is individual units, when compared to unit by unit purchase.

Sometimes, you will get a tank with one crew casualty, but most of the time you will get no tank : a good incentive to buy tanks by platoons, they will be cheaper (platoon discount), and you will probably get at least some survivors of the platoon.

One added advantage it that it makes it risky to build your purchase around a single super King Tiger : it may be "killed" in the random casuaties, or it may "survive" at the expense of the covering infantry. This is mainly valid for low points QBs.

I do not know for ammo, I would not try fitness in QBs : an attacker stuck with weakened infantry units is basically screwed unless the map is VERY small : the units are way too slow.

One side effect for the attacker is that crewed units may end up with less ammo when they start moving (crew casualties => dump some ammo when start to move).

[QB force points question]

One side effect of (random) losses is to increase somewhat the number of units

for a given number of points : you are able to buy larger formations,

and get more platoon / company / battalion discount on units. It is, for instance,

the only way to buy the largest mecanized US (CMAK) and German (CMAK, CMBB) under

"Combined Arms" restrictions, such as the "Armored SS PanzerGrenadier Battalion"

in 44 (4000 pts, max vehicle is 2500 @ 5000pts & 50% losses, vehicle value is 2144,

lots of gun equipped HTs ). I also feel it's more realistic, most units were

understrength most of the time except at the beginning of a very major offensive.

[QB force points question]

One side effect of (random) losses is to increase somewhat the number of units

for a given number of points : you are able to buy larger formations,

and get more platoon / company / battalion discount on units. It is, for instance,

the only way to buy the largest mecanized US (CMAK) and German (CMAK, CMBB) under

"Combined Arms" restrictions, such as the "Armored SS PanzerGrenadier Battalion"

in 44 (4000 pts, max vehicle is 2500 @ 5000pts & 50% losses, vehicle value is 2144,

lots of gun equipped HTs ). I also feel it's more realistic, most units were

understrength most of the time except at the beginning of a very major offensive.

[QB force points question]

Part of my standard blurb for newbies : (figures for CMBB - the same for CMAK) :

for 1000pts QB with x% randoms casualties defender/attacker (note that defender and attacker rarely have the same casualties % in a real QB) :

0%/0% 10%/10% 20%/20% 30%/30% 40%/40% 50%/50%

Assault 1000/1720 1111/1911 1250/2150 1428/2457 1666/2866 2000/3440 +72%

Attack 1000/1500 1111/1666 1250/1875 1428/2142 1666/2500 2000/3000 +50%

Probe 1000/1400 1111/1556 1250/1750 1428/2000 1666/2333 2000/2800 +40%

ME 1000/1000 1111/1111 1250/1250 1428/1428 1666/1666 2000/2000 +00%

Note that in the current engine (1.03) some types of fortifications (trenches, TRP, wire, ?) seem to count as losses against the defender at the final tally.

Defender in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~40% of map depth, probe 35%, ME 15% ; attacker in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~20%, probe 25%, ME 15%

It's often better to go with small or medium map since the game automatically rescales if too small (and games on huge maps are boring, unless pure armor)

[QB force points question]

Part of my standard blurb for newbies : (figures for CMBB - the same for CMAK) :

for 1000pts QB with x% randoms casualties defender/attacker (note that defender and attacker rarely have the same casualties % in a real QB) :

0%/0% 10%/10% 20%/20% 30%/30% 40%/40% 50%/50%

Assault 1000/1720 1111/1911 1250/2150 1428/2457 1666/2866 2000/3440 +72%

Attack 1000/1500 1111/1666 1250/1875 1428/2142 1666/2500 2000/3000 +50%

Probe 1000/1400 1111/1556 1250/1750 1428/2000 1666/2333 2000/2800 +40%

ME 1000/1000 1111/1111 1250/1250 1428/1428 1666/1666 2000/2000 +00%

Note that in the current engine (1.03) some types of fortifications (trenches, TRP, wire, ?) seem to count as losses against the defender at the final tally.

Defender in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~40% of map depth, probe 35%, ME 15% ; attacker in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~20%, probe 25%, ME 15%

It's often better to go with small or medium map since the game automatically rescales if too small (and games on huge maps are boring, unless pure armor)

[Answers to physics quiz]

Technical opinion : http://realclimate.org/

[AFV reliability numbers (CMAK and CMBB grogs rejoice)]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

So for the battle at Kursk the Panthers had no spare parts and some were captured in the Russian advance in the following month as they still had not been repaired. More "bogging" effects.

More generally I remember reading that panthers built in different factories were often not compatible. Present time collectors now often have to retool parts when they try to repair a wreck with canibalized parts.

[Russian Scenarios]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

Does anybody know where I can find some historical sceanrios with Soviet forces attacking with either combined arms or mech force types, preferably in 1944 during Operation Bagration?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Not historical, but highly entertaining, try "B&T Sword of Bagration".

[A bunch of bones for y'all]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Oddly enough if you look at movies like "The Incredibles", as opposed to "Final Fantasy", avoiding photoraelism can often give you something as rewarding.

I think that "suspension of disbelief" is easier when you do not try too hard to look realistic (like for instance on a stage), otherwise the instictive brain kicks in and starts being troubled by very minor defects that would have been neglected otherwise.

[How Germany could of defeated the S.U. during Barbarossa?]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"when Germany collapsed on the home front before the military front" (said of WW I)

Sorry, that is utter nonsense. Yes post war German propaganda tried to maintain as much, at first to denigrate the terms of the treaty and later to discredit the Weimar government. But it was all lies. Ludendorf knew exactly which gave first, and it was the front.

This is a case of buying your own ideology. This is the exact kind of propaganda that brought Hitler to power, and he ended up believing it (or believed it all along).

This also brought up the german worries about "unrest in the rear" that delayed total war mobilization : if you believe that you lost the previous war because of the evil spartakist and civilian unrest, you hesitate ramping up war production at the cost of civilian luxuries.

Still stupid in hindsight, but people work inside their own belief systems, even the german general staff.

Whatever his belief system, Stalin had not many options after the first few defeats, his only real option was "war of attrition" (even if he also tried a few ill advised grand offensives too soon, apparently against the counsel of his own generals). He was also less of a gambler than Hitler.

[Honour in Combat]

Originally posted by MrJingles:

Very valid point Sergei regarding North Africa. Well I'm about to dive headlong into this essay and the result should be about 30 pages or so I hope, but I'll be sure to post it for you grogs to look over Thats a lot so far for the insight.

Have a look at this map : http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm

N.A. (and most of the western front) were sideshows.

[Time Crunch]

2 hours is probably too long considering usual CM ammo expenditure. Be sure to take on an opponent who knows how to use cease fire...

But I agree that anything under 40+ feels contrieved to me. No way to have infantry scout ahead of tanks on most maps for instance.

[What is a Cruiser type tank?]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I have the notion that the "speed vs armor" choice of the 60s had a lot to do with the technical inability to make armor strong enough for even the most simple shaped charge weapons. So why bother ?

As soon as a partial technical solution was found armor came back to the fore.

[BS?: "US Marines Are Locked In Battle With Syrian Troops"]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Germany, Japan, Italy....I think they were done alright by, no?

Significantly different ballpark though. In the cases of Germany and Italy, those were Western countries who had a cultural heritage that overlapped ours to a very large degree going back for generations. </font>

[Are you building a Sherman tank ?]

An interesting analogy here :

Of software and sherman tanks

I don't know if the article needs subscription or not, so I add the quote :

believe that in the swath of the software industry focused on business and consumer applications, we ought to build Sherman tanks. During the Second World War, German Tiger and Panther tanks had stronger armor and more firepower than American Shermans, but were difficult to produce and maintain. They had complicated parts and, when they broke down, often could not be fixed on the front lines. In contrast, the Sherman had thin armor, little firepower, and a high profile (making it an easier target to hit). It took about four Shermans working together to take down a Tiger tank. However, when they broke, they were easy to fix. They used fewer components than German tanks, and the components were easy to obtain and reuse.

The Sherman could be adapted easily to different tasks, and scores of variants of the tanks were produced—often modified on the front lines (Sherman would be a fine name for a scripting language)—to clear hedgerows, clear minefields, act as bulldozers, fire flamethrowers, travel amphibiously, and lay bridges. Sherman tank software development aims to produce resilient, reusable, adaptable, and easy-to-maintain software. The software isn't perfect, but it's easy to fix when it breaks and to extend to meet unanticipated needs.

The first step toward achieving these seemingly unattainable goals is to accept imperfection. Imperfect software makes it to market and gets used widely (Java is a case in point). Perfect software—or, more accurately, almost perfect software—rarely sees the light of day or ever gets used (does anyone remember Taligent?). It's not that (almost) perfect software isn't developed. It simply doesn't ship before less-perfect software captures the market.

[PBEM: Yes or No?]

Originally posted by Josh Coady:

Very generally speaking, and this depends on how it is being coded, all that needs to be passed around are the actions taken (give unit X command Y), the variable changes (e.g. new wind direction), and the seeds for the random numbers. Then the rest of the calculations should come out the same even if run independently on the other player's machine.

[/QB]

It was what they believed, but even before CMx1, they were proved wrong during beta test.

The game is for Mac and PC (different floating point libraries, a rounding error in floating point means a live or dead tank ) and even between various PCs the results where not the same (maybe this was at the time of the various Pentium floating point bugs).

So each CMx1 movie file includes all the computations which are done on only one computer.

I guess it will be the same for CMSF, or they would not worry about file size.

[Retreating/Escaping from Artillery]

Originally posted by Aco4bn187inf:

Folbec, I think modern shells are indeed more deadly than those of sixty years ago. There may be something in the Tacops forum to explain what they're like.

Then lying prone is maybe no more a viable option for infantry caugth in the open. The drill may have changed since WWII.

[Retreating/Escaping from Artillery]

Originally posted by Aco4bn187inf:

To add to the earlier descriptions of various armies' SOPs under arty fire-

20 yrs ago the US Army's SOP if shelled while moving was for the leader to simply call out a direction and a distance, and everyone would immediately run like hell that way.

Why? I'll take a few guesses-

I'm also wondering if modern shells are not different from most WWII shells : more airburst (equivalent of CM VT), making lying prone more dangerous ?

[Squad / platoon formation template]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

How is this going to respond to variations in terrain?

Michael

A simple "synchronize on slowest unit" option would already be great to avoid micromanaging platoon with supporting MG.

[Armour penetration and repeated hits.]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Huh? ISTM it doesn't effect crews of any kind - infantry support weapons or vehicles. They always have full crews regardless of random losses.

I just re checked : support weapons are affected, but not tanks.

I could have sworn tanks were sometimes (rarely) affected, sorry for the confusion .

[Battle Scope]

Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:

If not then I am probably looking at a PC say an AMD3200. (Also will the game be 64bit optimised? - DualCPU/Core optimised?: or will this come later?

David

Dual core / CPU do not bring spectacular benefits UNLESS the problem can be parallelized AND the software is specifically written for it.

A fair number of things can probably be computed in parallel in CM, but writing a threaded algorithm is ALWAYS a BIG challenge (I'm writting one now, what a pain) and will almost always be less efficient on monoprocessors. I doubt they will spend much time on this.