[Bridge types in CMBB]

but this is actually the first time I joined a forum, but the pre-ordering crap is true, I was just real hyper about joining

You need to:

Learn to insult without using foul language. (This is the most important one.) Improbable propositions will generally get you in more trouble than sincere malice.

Learn not to "blab" enthusiastically unless among friends, people of like mind, or, well, extremely friendly people.

Try to understand where people are coming from better (you don't have to "fit in" - just be aware of how much you stand out from the crowd.).

And think critically. The Pre-order issue, for example: Do you think "Bobby" knows the game is only available through BFC or CDV? I think it's most likely that simple ignorance is the primary factor here. It usualy is.

Some people - most people here - would rather you were an arrogant git that was knowledgable and thought critically than, for example, a relatively ignorant, ethusiastic but - lets face it - adolsecent acting 16 yr old.

Try the General forum maybe? Just don't use obsceneties, and you should fit right in. (Not trying to "slam" you here - trying to insult the General forum.)

Better luck next time.

Try the USENET newsgroups. E-mail me if you don't know about 'em. (C'mon guys, admit it - The worst poster here would improve the average level of discourse on USENET. I'm not counting the MBT, btw. While many of the cesspoolers are highly skilled at what they do, it isn't really needed on USENET.)

Poor Madmatt. "Bridge types in CMBB. I bet that's a nice peacefull topic."

[ July 24, 2002, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[What ever happened to the anti-tank ditch?]

(tried a search but no luck)

Search for "Russian brides."

The game doesn't ship with anti-tank ditches, but each (non-CDV) copy of CMBB will ship with with 5,000 Russian women to dig anti-tank ditches.

[Is it TRUE?????]

The question goes farther, it´s about freedom. If I´m forced by CDV to buy a manipulated product because an asshole not-international law I´m not gonna buy it, simple.

What your missing here is that there are two factions within CDV. CDV isn't wholly evil.

One, the "Spanners", control the time gate. It's the "Spanners" who went back in time to impliment the "censorship" laws that create the manipulated product. They also control the orbital mind control lasers, forcing people to buy manipulated products.

The other faction is the "Kribleu." They're the good guys. The Kribleu have many members, but the most important are the "Suicide Lawyers." There the ones willing to face fines and prosecution for being responsible for CDV's non-compliance with the law of the land. The Kribleu are willing to sacrifice themselves for your gameing pleasure.

But they need more money for law school tuition! E-mail me, and I'll send you my address. I accept VISA, Mastercard, and PayPal. Send me money, and I'll pass it on the the brave boys and girls of the Kribleu.

(Edited to introduce spelling errors.)

[ July 23, 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Another Hull Down ?]

This is not true. The overall chance to hit the turret in CMBO is bigger when the target is huldown.

Do you mean that a odds that a Hit will strike the turret are higher than if the tank weren't hull down, but the odds that a Hit wil happen at all is lower?

That, in other words, the following is incorrect: "Look, he's hull down. Rather than a 30% chance to hit the tank, now we have a 40% chance to hit the turret."

[Spotter ( funny )]

And don't get me started on FAC teams.

No such thing.

[new to combat mission, and Would like a few qucick questions awnserd.]

it gives the "all out battle" feel to the game when action is happening all around you at the same time to give it a war feel.

Get involved in a CM game enough and you'll get that feeling. At least during the movie. And if you're intensely involved you won't loose the feeling as you plot your next turn.

A simple answer to "Why not RT?" is that the game would become highly unrealistic. Why's that, since the actual war was in Real Time? It's because real life has lots of real people. Each side in CM has no more than 1 real person. One person simply can't control each squad in an infantry batallion in real time, for example, and have the batallion fight at all realistically. And realism is one of CM's primary goals.

In games where realism isn't that important RT can work at any scale. In small CM games RT could work. But many CM scenarios/battles are far, far too big.

sorta make the game boring after awile and slow (no offense).

If it gets boring try increasing the challenge (several ways to do this vrs. the AI), start playing humans (of course, anything but TCP/IP play is even slower), or go do something else for awhile. Currently I'm playing IL-2, Battlezone 2, and Hidden&Dangerous Deluxe when I want more action. Or Magic & Mayhem. Or FF... got games coming out my ears recently.... anyway: It's easy to get the impression here that CM players are _required_ to play CM all the time, but it isn't true. (This should be in the FAQ, IMO.)

It was mentioned that you "should" go read up on tactics, etc. Certainly a good idea if you want to play competatively. However, no matter who you play doing so will probably make you appreciate the game more, which would mean that slow wouldn't seem boring. CM's one of the few games where a great deal of knowledge about what the game is supposed to be based on actually makes it more fun.

[Bazookas]

Snorted my beer on the keyboard over that one. [/QB]

My work here is done.

[Turret Speed in CMBB]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Is Turret speed on Armor going to be an over empahsised part of battles like it is in CMBO?

and

Thats all good and fine when talking about a single tank. Not Always the case in a Western Frotn World War2 Battle to the dismay of the Allies.

You _can_ see turret speed "over emphasized" in CMBO if you play with a "single tank" as opposed to a whole platoon or company more often than called for by the historical record.

A Tiger with nobody to protect his flank is going to be really hurt by the turret speed problem. A Tiger with another Tiger on his flank won't be.

Here's a gamey tactic tip for Tigers or other slow turret (or "no turret") vehicles. Have the Tiger break cover near the end of the turn, exposing it's flanks. Beginning of next turn out come the light guned tanks to flank the Tiger. Early in that turn the mortar smoke arrives, protecting one of the Tiger's flanks.

I suggest trying this only when desperate, but it can let a lone Tiger (with some necessary help from a mortar platoon (or, for prefereance, a FO) take the iniatiative away from swarming light-gunned tanks.

And don't try it twice in a row!

[Bazookas]

? IOW, if you removed the safety pin, could you close assault a tank with the zook rocket by, say, dropping it onto the top of the tank from an upper floor window?? I wonder. . .

Two GIs, somewhere in France, around 1944, maybe 45, late evening. Evening-ish, at least.

"You know that last tank?"

"What last tank?"

"You know... the Tiger."

"Yeah."

"Well, I thi..."

"That weren't no Tiger!"

"You just agreed it was!"

"That weren't no Tiger!"

"Then what was it?"

"It were a Panzer IV J."

"Was not."

"Take a look."

"...... OK. You know that last tank?"

"What tank."

"The f*cking Panzer IV!"

"Yeah, what about it?"

"It was... I dunno... too easy."

"You figure 100 yards isn't sportin' anymore?"

"No, I don't think it is."

"So.... You wanna plant a mine?"

"Nah... that's what we got the Tiger with."

"What Tiger?"

"The tank before the Panzer IV."

"Oh, yeah, sorry. Ok..... we havn't done Molotov's in awhile."

"Are the bottles empty?"

"No."

"Drink up. Maybe tomarrow."

"You wanna dig a tank trap?"

"Do I look like a want to dig a tank trap?"

"I dunno, do you?"

"Guess."

"Yes."

"Wrong."

"You do, you know. You look like you wanna dig a tank trap."

"Give me some of what you're drinking and shut up."

"That's not very nice."

"Shut up!"

"........ Um, I've got an idea."

"Do we have to leave the building? Or dig?"

"No."

"Do we have to pour out any of the al-cho-hol?"

"No."

"Ok, what is it?"

"You know the bazooka?"

"You mean the one we shot your precious Panzer IVG with?"

"No."

"What!?"

"It were a IV J, remember?"

"Just tell me the f*cking idea."

"Well.... we take a bazooka shell, and we pull out the pin..."

"This isn't going to be like that time in Gournay, is it?"

"No."

"Or the time in Reims? With the Colonel and all those sheep?"

"No. You know I swore I wouldn't do that again."

"Then what is it?"

"Well, we take a bazooka shell and we pull the pin out."

"You said that already."

"Um... I didn't say "out" before."

"Where are you from again? Never mind. We take out the safety. Then what?"

"Then we just drop it."

"That doesn't sound very clever."

"On a tank, I mean."

"...... It'd have to get pretty close."

"Yeah."

"Really close."

"Yeah."

"Right under the window."

"Yeah."

"And then I lean out and drop it. On a tank."

"Yep!"

"You go first."

"Nah..."

"No, really. I got the last tank, the Tiger."

"Ok....I've already taken out the pins, see?"

"You... what!?"

"I was going to make mines. Maybe put 'em in a tank trap, just to make sure. Something."

"All the shells?"

"Panzer IV!"

"What? Where?! Get down! All our ammo is about to go off, you idiot!"

"... right over there. The last tank were a Panzer IV J, not a Tiger, remember?"

[Waffen Grenadiere im Großdeutschen Freiheitskampf]

Sorry, but what else should I read from this?

Nothing. That's the point.

I disagree that this is true for SS units in general, and Redwolf doesn't make a difference in his post. The SS partially had a different training etc. But there were also units that were just a scratched bunch.[/QB]

Ok, this helps.

a) Is that the only thing you disagreed with? (The first time you quoted the entire message.)

redwolf says "generally", ie, "ususally". You want to use the word "partially". That's a difference in little more than emphasis. ("Usually" or "generally" implies more-often-than-not, "partially" doesn't.) Though neither of you are explicit on what's not absolute - the training, or the number of SS units that recieved non-standard training. Which is it? I'd like to know...

c) Please note that _some_ of the SS units being a "scratched bunch" doesn't contradict anything redwolf wrote.

Remember - "generally" and "often" are your friends, not your enemies.

[Waffen Grenadiere im Großdeutschen Freiheitskampf]

Your post just sounds to me as if every SS unit had special training, tactics, political convictions, or that they were - even if only 'in the right circumstances' - more courageous than other units. That was the point I disagree.

I think you read a line or two that redwolf didn't actually write, Scipio. Or possibly you missed the qualifiers such as "often" or "generally"?

Look at your first post in reply to redwolf and answer this (maybe just to yourself): What do you disagree with? That the SS "generally" put more emphasis on sports? That the combat style was different? That they had good discipline? (Though note that redwolf didn't claim they did.)

[Do you ever wish you could toggle grid-lines on and off?]

I love to hear good sounds.

...and I suppose you turn up your speakers so you can hear them across the room while the stero is on loud.

I've been thinking of making a "topographic map" mod for use during the set up phase, or to examine an created map. Any ultra-high-relief versions available for download? Treeburst155?

[To all you beta testers out there: Question regarding tank manouvres in CM BB ?]

And as to the Soviet tank designers, WHAT were they thinking ? Were they thinking at all ?

I bet they were thinking "I wish we had more radios." I wonder who needed radios more, the tanks or the planes? I'd have given the planes dibs.

As for buttoned tanks being out-of-command no matter what the distance: Is'nt CM:BB going to model the famous lalki razgovora (sp?), or "talking sticks"? The folding metal rods that Soviet tankers would extend from their pistol ports to rap out messages on adjacent tanks? I think the '44 model could reach 4m. I was looking forward to seeing them in CMBB.

[ July 11, 2002, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[How to attack like a German - sample forces]

Shameless self bump, because I put a fair bit of effort into it,

Thanks, JonS!

We've played a couple smaller (2-3K points) of "Not so quick" QBs using the info in this thread. (Auto-generate map in editor, add units in editor, add a few more "suprise" units.)

The NSQBs have been fun. A nice compromise between scenarios and the sometimes bizzare and a-historic QBs.

In the one I played I controlled the Germans. With help of a lot of smoke (all of my extra points were spent on 2 81mm mortar FOs) I won while trying to closely follow the tactics Jason outlined.

I lost more tanks than I would have liked to, but I've never had the chance to chase several infantry platoons around with a few PzIV before, which was enjoyable.

After I broke through the initial line I used the HT-based groups to keep the rest of the line busy and "tank-rushed" (At times I felt like I was playing TA) the rear area. The terrain was kind, and I ended up with several tanks in a position to tear up the reaction forces as they arrived.

My speed and the smoke seemed to allow me to avoid most of the American artillery. The infantry and the HTs (esp. the HT containing force) took some significant arty losses, but not the tanks.

My opponent grumbled about the American forces being Green, but we agreed our scenario was balanced. I was lucky more often than not, and next time we'll have some of the tracked reserves arrive off-road. My opponent wasn't familiar with the sort of defense he was fighting, too - I'm sure next time I'll have a much tougher time. (Note to self - significantly change tactics.)

The other NSQB was an American attack vrs. a German defense. The Germans won this one too. The first line got eaten, but the second line held. Close thing, though. And the attacking American casualities with the loss were much lighter than my casualites as the victoriously attacking Germans. Easy to imagine the American's grinding away at the German lines, day after day.

[Setting the Record Straight FAQ]

We really appreciate the hard work that is put in, and we don't think you're selling out.

Weeell, BFC is certainly "compromising" at least.

Something's gotta give somewhere.

Perhaps a better alternative would be charging $500+ per copy for CMBB, to fund the creation of BFC's own distribution network?

Or, maybe, fans could try to suck thousands of lawyers into the CM "club", and get them to take on Germany's laws/CDV's legal staff? CMBB would be delayed a decade or two...

[More Crossed R's at WARGAMER.....]

one of three Yaks of the Bhutan Royal mail service

OMG!

Was it Gula? I hope it wasn't, he's my favorate yak. He's dreamy.

[SNEAK PREVIEW]

product is not finished. Features currently in there may not stay (until fully tested), new ones may go in, and its best not to give people details until they are set in stone.

Hmmm.... are you trying to imply that BFC _doesn't_ want people chewing their noses off over features that almost/almost didn't make it?

But, seriously, I don't see why you don't just tell everyone everything and trust that they'll be understanding. It's not like a grognard is a grumbler by definition, or anything.

Re: Publicity stunt: I see more begging for bones than dangling of tidbits.

[Very Interesting quote on MG lethality]

Still people here seems to think that it is okay in my mind to shoot civilians.

Speaking for myself, I think "ignore value of human life" gives that impression, and saying that a soldier should be "arrogant", not, for instance, "confident", "resolved", or "ruthless" furthers it.

But you seem to have developed a much more moderate position.... just be careful with absolute terms like "nastiest" and "ignore."

[Very Interesting quote on MG lethality]

Uhhh, I'm not sure where YOU serve but I think the worst cases do not make it through the

selection back here.

And they don't become "worst cases" during the fighting either? I'm very happy for you, I wish everyone was like that.

Still I prefer the company of the nastiest and meanest guy

I'm no longer sure you know what "nastiest" can actually mean.

I am glad that your army lets you choose your fights and who to shoot at.

And I have no idea where you got that.

as it is there is little reason to deny the fact that practically every conflict produces necessary civilian casualties.

And I never denied that. In fact, I explicitly discussed it.

Guerilla type of warfare unit requires a certain type of character.

Are you refering to your "arrogant" guy who "ignores the value of life." _Ignores_?That's the sort of person who might enjoy some nasty guerilla warfare. I reject the idea, though, that he's the sort you need. Not if you want your forces to be the "Good Guys." If you want to organize a death squad, OTOH, I'd want your arrogant barbarian warriors.

[ June 29, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Very Interesting quote on MG lethality]

You people spouting off "rules" of war and articles of engagements yada yada. What would you have done? This was not covered by any rules the Geneva convention ever foresaw.

Actually, I think "spies" are covered in some rules.

[Grain Fields - Grows Which Crop ?]

June '02 setting: My wife and I drive into a grain field in central Europe with a SUV each. I see her car with eyes 3 m above ground in more than 200 m distance easily.

Since SUVs became common many farmers have switched to shorter varieties of grain, for better visability. In your case, the field owner's rifle probably jammed, or maybe he was away.

[mine formation]

The most important thing is just to not have them all lined up straight across, with a ruler.

No no no no! The important thing is _to_ line them all up straight across... during "practice" games with your friends.

Then start laying staggered/crooked lines in games you bet money on.

Then find new friends.

Oh yeah, I actually have some advice: Since they are expensive, and thus lines are seldom practical in QBs, I like useing an AP mine or two to deny choice cover to enemy infantry. Can work very well if you arrainge to have a hidden HMG or squad open up on enemy infantry just as they realize they can't duck into that bit of Woods.

In games with lots of trees this seldom works, but instead AT mines placed in a few open pathways can make defending against armor easier.

It's always a gamble, though, buying just a few mines in a QB. You havn't seen the map yet, and there just might not be anywhere to good put 'em.

[ June 28, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Very Interesting quote on MG lethality]

I disagree that there are differences whether the civilians are "allies" or "enemies".

Civilians are civilians. They are not armed and must not be attacked.

What is the next step?

The next step? How about "strategic" bombing of civilian residences? Both sides in WWII specifically targeted civilians - they both thought it was a good idea at the time, the best way to end the war. That would, of course, pretty much put an end to ALL the deaths, on both sides. (Victorious Nazi post war atrocities being the unfortunate exception, of course.) A soldier has to balance death and destruction among his own, and death and destruction wrecked on the enemy, both civlian and combatant. I think it's understood that the scales are somewhat tipped against the enemy.

BTW, I hope the more "hawkish" will agree that enemy and "friendly" civlians should _not_ be treated differently. Niether should be harmed if possible. Both must be killed if they threaten a "complete at all costs" mission. Eh?

[Very Interesting quote on MG lethality]

You guys can wear your flower hats and skirts (nothing against scotsmen here...)

Thank you, I'd hate to think you were saying something that both women _and_ scotsmen might take offense at.

in the ditch under fire I choose the meanest and nastiest guy beside me if I can.

I'll take someone only as mean and nasty as necessary. (That's _far_ less mean and nasty tthan it's possible to be.) He'll get the job done. He'll try not to "take out" enemy strecher bearers, making it that much less likely that they'll target ours. If it's necessary to shoot some civilians on patrol, he'll do it. Civilians _do_ get killed in war nowdays. Lots of them, it's part of the nature of the conflict. However, I won't have to deal with my "buddy" killing someone just because he fancies thier kit.

I like to think that a professional soldier will kill without hesitation, and be bold, but arrogance, misogyny and _ignoring_ the value of human life are only virtues in a barbarian warrior*, not a professional soldier.

*For example: Most Hun warlords and WWII Japanese officers.

[ June 28, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[PLEASE!!! Stop whining and begging for a release date!]

Excellent! We're moving through the "whining and begging for a release date" phase and passing into the "whining and begging about whining and begging about a release data" phase. My 5 point master plan for world conquest is really coming together!