Ant

I thought that hurricanes had long since been retired before 1945. Were they still being used in Italy up until the end?

Thanks for the feedback and Interesting obsrvations on real life situations. I guess I may just have to try a test when I get enough time to see how CM handles it.

</font>

I *think* there is a recent post to the effect that dusty weather is included. I could really be wrong about that, though. EDIT: Just did a search and couldn't find it. So take my recollection with a giant grain of salt (or sand) -- I'm probably wrong. </font>

Nobody any ideas?

Does anybody know if a spotting unit's ability to spot a concealed enemy remains constant with time, increases with time or is a random factor. What I mean is: If I suspect that an enemy AT gun is hidden in some woods and I use a binocular equipped unit to try and spot it and that unit fails to spot it in one turn does that mean that it will never spot it? Or will it's chances of spotting it increase with time? Or does each turn generate a different random chance of spotting it?

Avoiding air inderdiction was relatively easy in WW2.....you just moved everything at night

Portees are in....excellent. I thought there was going to be some doubt about those.

I'll take that as a no then The WG thing doesn't bother me too much anyway, just thought I might be able to pick up a non censored version of CMBB with CMAK and kill two birds with one stone.

Yes, we'll offer a CMBB/CMAK bundle off Battlefront.com at a reduced price once CMAK is out later this year. At the same time, we will discontinue the CMBO/CMBB bundle (now that CMBO is in retail). Martin </font>

Links are good Thanks Firefly This is the book I'm reading: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841193038/qid=1063126582/sr=1-20/ref=sr_1_2_20/026-7213353-8749214 Lokks like he edits quite a few other interesting stuff.

As I said I got that from the current book I'm reading which I named above. The date given in that book is Autumn 1940 although as he talks about the winter battles and the italian defeat I would have put it closer to early 1941. I've noticed that a couple of dates given in the book appear to be wrong. I haven't heard about the other book mentioned but it sounds interesting, may have to look for that one next. The ISBN no. of my book is: 1-84119-303-8

I'm reading a book at the moment entitled 'How it happened-WW II' which contains over two hundred first hand accounts of the war from sources ranging from common soldiers and civillians to journalists and generals, in chronological order. Anyway, I've just finished the section on the North Africa campaign which not only got me even more excited about the upcoming CMAK release but also provided a very interesting piece on the nature of warfare in the desert. Might be of some interest to somebody. Alan Moorehead, war correspondent: More and more I began to see that desert warfare resembled war at sea. Men moved by compass. No position was static. There were few, if any, forts to be held. Each truck or tank was as individual as a destroyer, and each squadron of tanks or guns made great sweeps across the desert as a battle squadron at sea will vanish over the horizon. One did not occupy the desert any more than one occupied the sea. One simply took up position for a day or a week and patrolled about it with bren gun carriers and light armoured vehicles. When you made contact with the enemy you manoeuvred about him for a place to strike, much as two fleets will steam into position for action. There were no trenches. There was no front line. We might patrol five hundred miles into Libya and call the country ours. The Italians might as easily have patrolled as far into the Egyptian desert without being seen. Always the essential governing principal was that desert forces must be mobile: they were seeking not the conquest of territory or position but combat with the enemy. We hunted men, not land; as a warship will hunt other warships and care nothing for the sea on which the action is fought. And as a ship submits to the sea by the nature of its design and the way it sails so these new mechanised soldiers were submitting to the desert. They found weaknesses in the ruthless hostility of the desert and ways to circumvent its worst moods. They used the desert. They never sought to control it. Always the desert set the pace, made the direction and planned the design. The desert offered colours in browns yellows and greys. The army accordingly took these colours for its camouflage. There were practically no roads. The army shod its vehicles with huge baloon tyres and did without roads. Nothing except the occasional bird moved quickly in the desert. The army for ordinary purposes accepted a pace of five or six miles an hour. The desert gave water reluctantly, and often then it was brackish. The army cut it's men, generals and privates, down to a gallon of water a day when they were in forward positions. There was no food in the desert. The soldier learned to exist almost entirely on tinned foods, and contrary to popular belief remained healthy on it. Mirages came that confused the gunner, and the gunner developed precision-firing to a finer art and learned new methods of establishing observation-posts close to targets. The sandstorm blew, and the tanks, profiting by it, went into action under the cover of the storm. We made no new roads. We built no houses. We did not try to make the desert livable, nor did we seek to subdue it. We found the life of the desert primitive and nomadic, and primitively and nomadically the army lived and went to war. The Italians failed to accept these principles, and when the big fighting began in the winter it was their undoing. They wanted to be masters of the desert. They made their lives comfortable and static. They built roads and stone houses and the officers strode around in brilliant scented uniforms. They tried to subdue the desert. And in the end the desert beat them.

I think it should be an option for QB setups 'How lucky are you from 1 to 10' You can purchase luck in much the same way as units. Just think of it. You can only afford one Panzer IV but you've made it such a lucky bleeder that it always pulls off those seemingly impossible kills and always manages to avoid getting hit

This is what I call the sod's law (Murphy's law) bug. It states that the AI will mostly perform better than the human player with any weapon system you care to mention: schrecks, tanks, AT guns, you name it. It's even spawned a few threads a while back about the AI cheating. Extensive tests have proved that the AI doesn't cheat. BFC have said that it doesn't and there's no reason to disbelieve them. Nevertheless I often notice that the AI seems to consistantly get better luck than I do.

That's probably because you're too busy spouting rubbish to actually get involved with these fine games. I've certainly got British and American AFVs sporting orange aerial recognition markings in my modded copy of CMBO

Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread but just to get back to my tiger for a moment. The T34s seemed very accurate (not one shot missed) so, as the Russians were defending, I've started thinking that the T34s may have been using TRPs. I haven't had much experience using these, can tanks use TRPs? I know AT guns can.

Now thats unlucky. Try running that one in the QB a few times, and see what you come up with. I think you'll agree that those T34/85 were just very lucky. /SirReal </font>

I wish somebody had told that to the two T34/85 crews that came up against my Tiger last night. About 800m range, all three tanks got off several shots. The T34's causing a couple of ricochets and a couple of 'internal armour flakings' before knocking my tiger out. All my tiger shots missed, apart from one which ricocheted. Tiger crew was veteran.

The 'follow vehicle' command is the one for assaulting enemy vehicles, but as SgtGoody said, if they're within range I think they'll do it automatically.

I'm a wee bit busy over the next week or so Monty but when I get a chance to mess around with some more screen photos again I'll send them over to you.

On it's way.

Monty I've got one that I tried quickly using the digital camera technique. Don't have anywhere on the internet to post it though, mind if I e-mail it to you to take a look?

Monty How do you do your photos? The reason I ask is because some guy on one of the flight sim forums started a method of taking a digital photo of a screenshot. The results are amazing as you can see here. (yes they are all game screenshots) http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001700 Do you use the same technique?

The allies eventually backed down and allowed Germany to eject French troops and reoccupy the Rhineland without a war being started. Technically known as....peace. Again you seem to be misunderstanding alliances, their purposes and outcomes as well as getting some facts mixed up. I'm not aware of any alliance between France and Russia in 1905. The only treaty of relevance in 1905 is the 'treaty of Portsmouth' which ended the Russo-Japanese war. There was a Franco-Russian alliance in 1892 which was purely defensive. The beginnings of the Franco-anglo-Russo alliance which went to war in 1914 is the Anglo-Franco entente coriale in 1904. This originally had nothing to do with Germany or Russia. It was a treaty to settle some long running disputes between Britain and France, mainly relating to Egypt and Morroco. Both nations, however, felt threatened by German expansionism and so tacitly and rather informally agreed in principal to be on the same side if Germany was to initiate any hostilities, hardly an agressive act. Germany herself provoked the initial hostilities with regard to this agreement by deliberately interfering in Moroccan affairs against the French, and against the entente cordial agreement. Germany's actions were a deliberate attempt to see how far she could push Britain and France after they'd signed this treaty. The affair was resolved at the Algeciras Conference and largely laid out the table of alliances for WW1. It wasn't until the Anglo-Russian entente in 1907 (which again was primarily in regard to British and Russian affairs) that the three partners, Britain, Russia and France were tied together in loose mutual alliances. And there was nothing hostile about this. It was merely a semi-formal agreement to fight on the same side if any one of them were attacked by Germany. Hardly agressive. I'm assuming that you know more German history than I do, 1740 is going back a wee bit too far for me, but I'm fairly sure that the Stein-Hardenburg Reforms of 1807, which were forced on a defeated Prussia by Napoleon, weren't carried out just for something to do, and marked a very definite ending of many of the attributes of serfdom in Prussia and a true beginning of individual freedom......Thanks to Napoleon! True. Again it depends wether you look at it from today's perspective, and that of the people of revolutionary France. Or yesterday's perspective from the views of a priviledged monarchy. And certainly has, I can understand your perspectives as a German. Despite Napoleon's faults (and he certainly had many) I'm pretty pro Napoleon, however, if he had succeeded in his ultimate dream of marching a conquering army through the streets of London I may well have taken a rather different view and we might well be agreeing. [ June 27, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Ant ]