Bruce70

Nevertheless I did my own tests, before I read your replies actually, and have come to the same yet opposite conclusion. Yes, there are more turret hits per minute if you are hull down, but no I don't think it is better to be hull up. As stated the total number of hits increases, and even though the turret can't be penetrated under normal circumstances, there are still weak point penetrations, track hits, and panicking crews to worry about. Not to mention, increased likelihood of flanking shots - and increased likelihood of being spotted first. I could not find any posts taking these factors into consideration. Also I find it really hard to believe that IRL PzIV tankers preferred to be hull up.

Actually momentum and energy are conserved. You have to solve both equations to find out what's happening. And, since the bullet spins and will probably tumble on impact, you have to consider angular momentum as well. And then there is deformation. BTW, F=ma is only useful if you know what 'a' is, ie how long does it take the bullet to stop, or over what distance. Anyway as stated above you get the general idea by just considering the energies involved and the bottom line is that the bullet does not knock the moose over, the moose achieves that all by itself.

Correct, oxygen is not required for firing a rifle. Despite the fact that in Firefly Jayne has to put Vera in a spacesuit in order to fire in a vacuum. (Not that I wish to take anything away from such a great series) Low gravity plus high atmos. press. might give you reasonable range but the velocity of the round would drop more quickly - so the effective range would be significantly less. On top of that wind and turbulence would have a greater effect on accuracy than on earth. Atmos. press. is a far bigger factor for effective range than gravity is. Recoil would not be a problem in any but the most extreme cases (eg. in space!), provided you fire prone. Does anyone have any experience firing on ice? If you get the size and density of the moon, and muzzle velocity just right you may have to worry not only about friendly fire, but also self fire!

So the game is modelled such that the gunners aim for the CoM? ie they aim lower if the hull is visible? Hmmm, think I need to do a few tests before I am convinced. I assume IRL this would not be the case, at least not against experienced units? Thanks, very useful info.

JasonC: Am I reading you post correctly? Are you saying that it is better to NOT be hull down with tanks that have weak turrets? Obviously it's better to be hit on the hull if you have a weak turret, but isn't it better not to be hit at all? Doesn't being hull down reduce the chance of being hit?

I think its better to have a modular system where the modules are rooms or multiple rooms, rather than a modular system where the modules are walls. Why? Because the cost would outweigh the benifit. Even though the benefit might be great in some cases, these cases would be very rare.

I agree that scouting by death with light ACs is silly, but I disagree that there is no role for scouting with light armour in CM. On a map with intermittent cover such as, but not exclusive to, those generated for QBs, HTs or Scout cars can close the distance to the enemy in hops. You may lose an vehicle or two this way, but the end result is that you end up with a platoon of infantry (and vehicles) very close to the enemy. Using the infantry alone is not only more time consuming, but your opponent can just pin you with MG fire. As I said earlier White scout cars are very useful for this. They can cover the ground between cover very quickly while carrying half a squad or HQ. It's a shame the Axis don't have a half-squad-carrying, speedy vehicle of similar calibre.

Thanks Sergei.

I have a couple of maps that I like to use for QBs. Problem is, if they are set up for say Allies vs Axis, then even if you swap the setup zones, the AI still sets up as if the threat was from the other direction. In QBs, it doesn't seem to make any difference if you change the map edges in the editor either. So, is there any way to quickly flip an entire map. Will mapping mission or other add-ons allow you to do this?

Yeah but the behind armour effects are minimal (except for crew kills obviously)

For me the estimate given is quite satisfactory. If they give a new estimate after the current beta phase then all the better.

Depends on the perpose, I usually send out an infantry platoon for recon, but I expect them to fight too. White scout cars are good for that purpose. Unfortunately, the axis side does not have a similar vehicle, so I guess kubelwagons and snipers might be a good alternative.

So when they say 30% of the organisation needs to meet the requirements, it could be that 30% are good at the benchpress and a different 30% are good at the 10-mile run, and so on...? Or does it mean that 30% have to be good at everything?

Asking for a progress report is not the same as asking for a release date.

Is it just me or does 300 pounds seem really excessive?

I think what Dorosh was saying is have both systems. ie. there is a limited selection to choose from, BUT requesting one of those items does not guarantee that you will actually get it.

Well that certainly illustrates the point I was trying to make

That's funny, I thought that what ww2steel said was exactly the same as what Dorosh said. Just shows how easy it is to read too much into something. Anyway I would back Dorosh's version. It could be that the player "request" simply modifies the %chance that a particular group of reinforcements will show up. e.g. a rush request on the tigers might improve the odds that they will make it from 50% to 75% (the %chance for other items would then drop).

It's definitely a cultural thing. I grew up with guns, they were/are an integral part of country life in Australia. But even I find the whole American gun-show thing a bit disturbing. Having said that, I don't actually know why I find it disturbing... basically Americans are just disturbing

I don't think the construction of most fortifications is likely to happen within the timescale of a CMC campaign, but I could be wrong. I think fortifications, or at least pillboxes (and possibly mines), should be placed by the campaign designer, not by the player. Theres probably nothing wrong with the player placing trenches, barbed wire, daisy-chain mines and roadblocks on a per-battle basis.

"there are no quick battles as the maps must be made" Soemthing like quick battles could be fun, but obviously the map would not be auto-generated. "CMC will be limited to divisional size solely by the amount of process power..." I don't think there is intended to be any limit in CMC as to the size of forces involved, and I seriously doubt that there would be a limit imposed by processing power (what's to process?). I thought the division size "limit" was based purely on practicality, not an actual restricition of the software. Considering that I prefer small CM:BB games I doubt that I would enjoy even a division-sized campaign.

I'd send one platoon deeper down the right. Primarily as a holding force for any relief he tries to send up on his left, but also to give you another option if the opportunity arises.

Shutup and get back to the discussion... it's interesting! For me the plan seems a bit rigid. Definitely keeping the HQ with the main body is a start, but crossing on the left is problematic I think. The original right hook gives more options IMO.

That seems reasonable.

FWIW, in a CM:BB battle I hardly ever run out of AP rounds, but frequently run out of HE. Oh and cannister - could use more of that too.