Fly Pusher

whoops ! Double post... [ January 30, 2003, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Fly Pusher ]

I had no idea quite how serious the shortage of winter clothing was in the winter of 41.

I've always wondered what the cause of my sucky spelling was. And here was I thining it might have something to do with my 1970's comprehensive education...

This is a known and very annoying 'problem' that seems to crop up on a regular basis and has been discussed at length in various threads. As far as I know without eliciting any official response.... Fingers crossed that it'll be patched soon.

Thanks Doodlebug, This sounds like the most plausible explanation. I know that during the early 19th century the Royal Navy referred to almost all its guns by weight of projectile (generally solid shot) and that the cannon (or caronade) that fired these balls had considerable 'windage' or space between the walls of the barrel and the projectile. I guess the actuall caliber woiuld therefore depend on the density of the iron used to cast the balls and the minimum acceptable windage that still allows them to be muzzle loaded.

Is the pope catholic ?

On a related note, I have examined some 80's warsaw pact bincoulars and they are less than impressive optically. A green colour cast to the glass, narrow field of view, a low contrast dark image and very noticable spherical abberation at the edges of the field (effectively limiting the field of view further). Not particularly impressive....

I just wondered if someone could throw a little light onto the significance of the 88 and 105mm gun calibers. They do not seem to represent 'round' numbers in either mm or inches yet seem to have been adopted by several different armies. Are these 'magic' numbers in that they represent an optimum balance between different characteristics ? If so then which.... ? Thanks...

Oh No !!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Nice work Maxx, I think you may well have stumbled on something significant. Its also nice to see a thread where someone does the tests and allows a debate to be conducted against a backdrop of information rather than a 'feeling' that someting might be wrong. I think there was a thread started after the demo came out reporting unusual bogging behaviour in the long thin German attack scenario (I forget the name now). Madmat accepted the reports as a bug and said it would be fixed for the release. Maybe the fix needs tweaking again ? A comment from on high would be much appreciated... Maxx.. can you post a link to your test scenario or maybe E-mail it directly to Madmat ? Thnx.

Yes, but I would suggest that instead of follow, that they retain their position relative to the HQ (ie. if they start ahead on the left flank, they stay there as the HQ moves).

It happens in real life. There have been documented cases of soldiers vacating their trenches to flee during artillery strikes. Mace</font>

I'm not sure if this has been raised already and appologies if it has already been answered. But.... During a recent PBEM QB I had a HMG panic due to a barrage falling nearby and sneak off into the barrage taking casualties as a result. OK, so **** happens and I'm not complaining that they sneaked 20m in three turns and were then exhaused for the next 28 turns. However the thing that struck me as being particularly strange was that the HMG abandonded a trench to embark on its sneak through the woods. I have never been, and hopefully will never be, in a situation similar to my pixel troops but somehow it strikes me as odd that one would leave a prepared defensive position even under such extreme conditions. Furthermore even if one team member totally freaked out and decided to make a run for it out of the trench and into the barrage I would seriously doubt that the rest of the team would pack up their weapon and follow him ! So my question is - are teams 'sticky' enough to sit tight when they are already in good cover ? And yes, I know that panic makes people do crazy things and that game engine limitations make it essential that HMG teams do not abandon their weapons. [ November 28, 2002, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Fly Pusher ]

I too have had something similar happen to me in a recent PBEM. A universal carrier tucked behind a woods just raced out in front of a couple of Stugs. Reveresed back and forth for a while and was promptly shot to bits. Stress can do strange things to you....

Steve. Thanks for the long post. You can add me to the middle group (I could never admit to anything being PERFECT ). But this comment : Rings true for me. Could infantry and crews be tweaked to stick in foxholes longer ? Probably the safest place in a dangerous battlefield and probably not dug to be evacuated at the first sign of trouble. Other than that, your doing a great job. Thanks, FP PS. Sorry if this has already been covered in the next 9 pages of this thread...

I too find it curious since you ask. The moral of this story ? Buy the 134 !!

True. This just points out another aspect of the problem. The way CM treates vehicles as points on a battlefield rather than as solid 3D objects. Things that can be hidden behind / under whilst the recently bailed crew work out what to do next. As things stand now a crew bails and are immediately visible and vunerable to anything that can see the tank. They then represent nothing more chalanging than MG aiming practice to their foe. In reality they may well have been able to escape through a hatch not directly observed by the enemy and then be able to hide behind the tank unobserved. Maybe this is an example where one compromise (vehicles existing at a single point) influences other aspects of the game such that a 'realistic' response to being imobilised results in unrealistic and artificial consequences. Maybe (in game terms) it would be better to make the crews stickier and the MGs less likely to get tired after running away whilst carrying a 100lb gun. Aspects that while not necessarily true IRL help to compensate for the weakness of the game model as it stands now. I'll duck (behind my point source ) desk now while people defend their game.....

KC I think you may have misunderstood my post. I agree that it is sensible that a tank crew bails when their tank is immobilized. I'm just not sure its sensible into the teeth of a 20mm blizard. Its this whole apparent inability of the AI to tell dangerous from less dangerous and the crazy tings it does as a consequence that marr (for me) a fundamentally good game.

Sounds like a potentially good way of running campaigns to me. It would be nice if you could hand one (or other) of the levels of control (CM level or regimental) to a (good) AI and just play at the level you like best. Or maybe even have one player 'in charge' (General) and others playing the individual battles as subordinates (Majors ?) in a large scale multi player online campaign. Just a wild thought ....

a "rubbish conscript soviet light tanks." you say. Well an immoblised Tiger in the midst of that....hmmmmmm bail out or stay put in this potential bomb....not sure what I'd do in this situation </font>

Maybe if ATG's, HMG's and morters could be made 're-crewable' if only abandonded (rather than damaged or knocked out). In that case the crew could run away, recover / rally and still return to fight again later in the battle. Does anyone know if this functionality is planned for the re-write ?

Its not JUST that (although that in itself is a biggie). Its the dire consequences of the resulting (over) reaction. OK. So the AI cant tell where is safe, but at least make the mistakes that it makes correctable. Allow the team to rally and be ordered back to their original position within a reasonable time frame. Is this not possible ?!

They were green. But were in command range of the +1+2 platoon HQ when they decided to embark on their death crawl.

I know this has been raised before, and I know that it has to wait for the engine re-write but consider the following: A randomly generated PBEM quick battle gave me, the defending soviet forces, precisely one machine gun. OK. So far so bad. After setup a small caliber prep-barrage then falls close to, but behind, the trench my only MG is hiding in. What does the AI do ?? Sit tight and keep your head down in the safest place available maybe ??? No way !! The AI, in its infinite wisdom decides that the 12.7mm MG team will jump up out of its trench and sneak, with its gun, into the centre of the barrage through the forest where tree bursts ensure that it looses two team members. Two turns later the barrage is over and I move a 1+ command, +2 moral platoon leader within command range. Now 25 rounds later and close to the end of the QB the still exhausted, routed team has been lying in the same spot for almost the entire battle. In command and well out of the way of any enemy fire. Think about it ! They left a trench to crawl through a barrage bursting in tree tops whilst dragging a heavy MG with them until they are so exhausted that they cant move for almost half an hour. I find it absolutely fantastical ! Geez….and this game is supposed to be a simulation of reality !!!! :mad:

That'll be north of Watford I presume ?