Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

kenfedoroff

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    452

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kenfedoroff

    German AFV canister ammo?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Hi Guys and Grogs,

    I remember a thread about Soviet canister ammo in the T-34. The general consensus was that the T-34 canister ammo was modeled improperly (that it was not true canister, but a timed/fused shrapnel round).

    In all my readings of supposed combat actions and AARs of the Germans, I never see any mention of cansiter use in AFVs (although it's modeled in the CMBB game, like the T-34 ammo).

    I've read of Panzer crews using sub-machine guns and hand grenades to repel infantry assaults, but never a mention of canister.

    Should scenario designers be editing cansiter ammo out of their German AFVs (just like the T-34) while building a scenario?

    Does anybody out there have a book or a report where it mentions use of canister in German AFVs?

    Thanks in advance,

    Ken

    0

    Testers needed for map converter

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    Originally posted by junk2drive:

    ...To answer what I think your q is, if you made a map in 1.01 you can copy it to 1.03 with the new 1.29 converter. I don't think the map cares what version you have, only the converter program, which should be backwards compatible.

    Hey J2D,

    Forgot to thank you for your help. I was able to convert some old, unfinished scenarios from CMBO... into CMAK battles.

    Great tool, Mr. PyeW

    Thanks all, for the help,

    Ken

    0

    Poor Scenario Design

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by John_d:

    Sorry to revive this thread again, but I've just found something else that really pisses me off. Operations that are divided into 15 minutes battles. Firstly, I refuse to believe that any battle is fought in 15 minute segments. Secondly, it ruins the continuity of play. Thirdly, it creates situations where the defender is able to withdraw totally unimpeded. Unrealistic. Fourthly, it means that the attacker can simply overwhelm defences by simply starting next to an objective during the middle of a battle. Fifthly, there is no time for recon. You basically have to charge in and hope for the best. Sixthly, you really can't advance very far under fire in 15 minutes. I have had scenarios like this where a couple of snipers have held an entire battalion off, just b/c they slow the advance down just enough to ensure that they cannot reach the objective in 15 minutes.

    If you can find an honorable opponent who is willing to try it, you can use "Play where they Lay" Rules to make a possibly more realistic battle.

    I've had great fun playing Ops in this manner.

    Both players agree to keep thier pieces on the board, right where the previous battle ended. Of course, this rule would change for the first battle after the Night-turn (as troops could reposition in the hours of darkness).

    Cheers,

    Ken

    0

    Artillery: Schools of Thought

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    I've gotten so frustrated with the CMAK artillery model (Shooting in the wrong location, with good LOS), that I now almost always use a first turn fire mission plan for my FO's (and delay with QQQ).

    I haven't experienced any off-target problems with CMBO and CMBB (as long as I have good LOS).

    While first-turn fire missions might be a relic of WW-I, they were still used aplenty in WW2 (from what I've read, anyways...)

    Cheers,

    Ken

    0

    Armor over run attacks.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by David Chapuis:

    Since you were so kind to share about Sajer, do you have an opinion about The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz.

    Is that the one where the Polish POW officer escapes from the prison camp in Siberia with some buddies, and walks all the way to freedom in India? That was a great story... Incredible if true...

    Ken

    0

    CMX2, 1:1 Representation and Soldier Attributes

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    This question is waaay off-topic for this thread, but maybe one of the CMX2 Thread Grogs is lurking about...

    I'm wondering if the "Snow" and "Deep Snow" ground conditions would be affected by vehicle traffic?

    In other words... Would my infantry tire less easily in Snow and Deep Snow if there was a tracked vehicle leading the way, at the front of the column (breaking a trail)?

    Any other ideas for vehicles affecting the game environment? ...busting through fences and hedgerows? rutting the roads to inhibit wheeled vehicles? etc.?

    Thanks in advance,

    Ken

    0

    CMX2, 1:1 Representation and Soldier Attributes

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    This question is waaay off-topic for this thread, but maybe one of the CMX2 Thread Grogs is lurking about...

    I'm wondering if the "Snow" and "Deep Snow" ground conditions would be affected by vehicle traffic?

    In other words... Would my infantry tire less easily in Snow and Deep Snow if there was a tracked vehicle leading the way, at the front of the column (breaking a trail)?

    Any other ideas for vehicles affecting the game environment? ...busting through fences and hedgerows? rutting the roads to inhibit wheeled vehicles? etc.?

    Thanks in advance,

    Ken

    0

    Changing "One Player" to PBEM turn?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Well... I've done it again...

    I started a game that I *meant* to be a pbem, but I thoughtlessly hit "One Player" in the battle select.

    After an hour+ of set-up time (Big scenario), I save the game, but can't save as pbem. When I open this "one player" saved game, I don't get an option for "Hotseat", "PBEM", etc.

    Is there a way to get this "One-Player" saved game changed into a PBEM file?

    Thanks in advance,

    Ken

    0

    **** ROW V (Part 3) ****

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Other Means:

    I have recieved a score of 77 for St Edouards Sanitorium after I got kicked all over by kenfedoroff - is this correct?

    AAR's will be a little late as I've not had a chance to fix my XP partition.

    Hi OM,

    Thanks for sticking up for me. I think that is a mistake. They've got the numbers transposed.

    If I remember correctly, I got the win as Axis 77-23.

    Cheers,

    Ken

    0

    Who's still playing operations?

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bannon DC:

    Teleporting units is ridiculous. Plain and simple.

    Maps are full of pit falls. Terrain features, lack of roads, mud, choke points, etc. Logistics is as much a part of the battle as the fighting. To just ignore all of these would be missing part of the challenge.

    Granted -- some ops can be tremendously huge and moving one hundred units forward over a large map is tedious. But still, it would be worse to just plunk a couple of companies in the line without making them risk an artillery barrage as they move forward... or being seen by the enemey and tipping off an intention to attack.

    This is exactly why we (sometimes... depends on the opponents and Ops.) use the "Play where they Lay" rule. The attacker is forced to move his support weapons forward -In game-, where they can be interdicted with fire.

    By the same token, the defender cannot beam units from a quiet sector to a threatened point, he must move them -in game-.

    We make allowances for the quirky game engine. Units that are thrown out of their entrenchment/building and can't be put back in their proper spot are allowed to beam to a safe location. As stated in a previous post, it is frustrating... but that's the game engine.

    Using the "Play Where they Lay" rule isn't for everyone... or for every Op., but in Franko's Anzio Op., and the "Juno Beach: Race for Caen" Op. where the Op. represents one day of fighting, we thought PWTL might give a more realistic simulation of the tactical problems/situation that commanders encountered historically in WW2.

    Hopefully, the CMX2 game engine can handle Ops. in a more realistic way than the current one.

    Salute,

    Ken

    0

    Like em big?

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    Hi Eric,

    Thanks for sending your new Op. along.

    Now... Does anybody need a crash-test dummy to play this against? If so... Drop me a line.

    (E-mail in profile)

    Edit: *Found an opponent, thanks*

    Thanks,

    Ken

    [ April 19, 2005, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]

    0

    Like em big?

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    Originally posted by Emar:

    Just posted a new op at the Depot. NP 1. D-Day, The Race For Caen.

    The file is too big to host at the depot (they have a 100kb file limit on submissions). If you would like to give it a try you can send me an e-mail and I will send the op your way.

    Hello,

    Sent you an e-mail requesting your Op.

    Does anybody need an opponent for this? I can play either side. Can do at least 1-file-a-day and more on weekends.

    Ken

    0

    Your thoughts on this system?

    in Combat Mission - Tech Support

    Posted

    Originally posted by Jack Carr:

    I would think that the specs you posted would handle CMX2. It's overkill for the current CM engine. How much does this system cost?

    Well... if it lasts 4-5 years (as my current Dell has), it averages out to less than $2 (U.S.) a-day... which seems reasonable if it can play both CM game engines.

    Ken

    0

    Your thoughts on this system?

    in Combat Mission - Tech Support

    Posted

    Hello All,

    I've had good luck with my previous Dell systems, and intend to purchase another. The idea behind replacing my current system (from year 2000) is to be ready for CMX2, but at the same time (and this is imperative)... Still be able to play CMBB and CMAK with better speed and graphics.

    I am wondering if the Dimension 8400 system below will work (for another 4 years)? It seems like a good value that might operate both CM game engines.

    Intel Pentium 4 Processor 630 with HT Technology

    (3GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)

    Microsoft Windows XP

    Media Center Edition 2005

    1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM

    160GB SATA Hard Drive

    19" Dell UltraSharp Digital

    Flat Panel Display (1905FP)

    256MB PCI Express x16

    NVIDIA GeForce 6800

    16x DVD-ROM Drive

    16x Max CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW)

    Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS (D)

    Sound Card

    Dell 5650 Surround Sound 5.1

    Speaker System with Subwoofer

    Microsoft Office Basic Edition 2003

    (includes Excel)

    The above is copied from a Dell catalog, and also gives an E-value Code: 6F893-D50426R

    The catalog also offers the option of upgrading the Hard Drive to one of the following (for $160):

    160GB Raid 1

    320GB Raid 0

    Are either one of these HD upgrades important for speeding up the current and future CM game engines?

    I'm pretty much set on Dell. I don't know squat about computers, so I want something I can just plug-in and go... without having to mess around with much.

    Thanks for your time,

    Ken

    0
×
×
  • Create New...