KwK43 L/71

illo, I would definately have liked to have seen multi-turrent vehicles in the game, if not just for the variety. However I don't think it's a big enough thing to really count off for.

Actually I agree that the graphics aren't that wonderful, I'm just wondering why you think multi-turent vehicles are an important feature?

I play as the germans almost all the time and frankly I prefer a forward defense. Long range gunnery is the German's specialty and you need to maximize it. If you play the Russkies then I would go reverse slope, at short range their tanks are about equal to the Germans but at long range you get murdered. The element of surprise will also help the generally craptacular Reds. As far as a village in a valley, get a couple of arty observers and an HQ on one of the hills over looking it and just flatten it.

It comes down to priorities. The people who make WC3 and AoM have big budgets and lots of employees. They have the resources and personel to make the game pretty. In warcraft's case it has to be pretty to disguise the fact that it's still basiclly the same game as the majority of other RTS's and that your shelling out 50 bucks for nothing new or original. In the case of CMBB they obviously spent more time on making it accurate, intelligent, and realistic then on making it pretty. That being said I think that the graphics of CMBB more then get it done. While the infantry may not be the best looking I don't have any other complaints about the rest of the graphics. I'll take right over pretty anyday.

When you buy a car do you immediately take it out and get it repainted? I would imagine that the Russians just left theirs, can't see the point in wasting the time, men, and paint to repaint the thing to a different shade of green.

Even if it was designed in 40 or 41 they still should have seen the trend for larger more powerful guns and thicker armor. I question the intelligence of anyone who designs a combat vehicle to be mearly adequate verus contemporary opponents. The Patton and the Sherman both saw action in Korea which makes me wonder even more, the tank wasn't good enough in WW2, what the hell were we doing still using it in Korea, it should have been replaced. Maybe I'm being overcritical and my main point was the bizzareness of America's attitude towards her tankers in WW2. It just never ceases to amaze me how utterly craptacular our tanks were when we were capable of producing much better.

I'm not going to comment on Peiper or the books, I'm an engineer and much more of an equipment afficiando then someone who can quote battlion, commander, and TO&E from memory. Talking about Laxx's casualty figures, they look dead on. If you consider that the majority of the members of the armed forces and non-combatants and are far from combat the only thing that can happen to them is sickness (how many eigth air force maintence men took a bullet?) Naturally that category is huge. I live in a college town and the driving is horrible, driving 10 miles an hour over the speed limit is obstructing the flow of traffic. Given the conditions of the roads where those GIs were driving and the pressures they were under it's not surprising that traffic accidents probably claimed as many lives as artillery. However I have one question about the distribution of machinegun hits, those percentages only come to 77.6%, where did the other 22.4% hit?

I have a Tiger fetish and even I would have to say that in a cost benifit's analysis the Panther beats the Tiger everytime. However it was never the intention of the German High Command to make the Tiger common. It was expected that the Pz's and Panthers would do the brunt of the fighting while the Tigers were used to smash through tough defenses and get the assaults going. Does anyone know what the hell we (the US) was thinking when we designed the Sherman? Did we have any concept of the threat posed by German tanks? I just find it strange that the US which always seemed to place more emphasis on men then material would take such a Russian view of it's tanks. Expecting to have to use 5 Shermans to engage one Panther and expecting to lose 3 to 4 of the Shermans in the process.

Even lightweight guns, 37mm, can be leathal in flanking and rear shots but that's if you can get rear shots. I don't think there really is a best solution because it depends so much on the situation. Open field defense: 88mm ATG Open field offense: Panther or Tiger Lot's of cover defense: 75mm ATG Lot's of cover offense: Panther or Tiger Cities: Tank Hunters, Panzerschrecks and fausts Ambush: Anything, their screwed if you have even the slightest intelligence.

Yeah, that's an M1A2, can't tell if it's the latest version though. I think they did have a HESH shell for the 105mm in the M1 but I don't think they have one for the 120mm, I'd be surprised if they did, HESH is pretty easy to defeat. The US isn't the only people with M1A2's, we've sold some of Kuwait and I wanna say Saudia Arabia and maybe the UAE, not really sure on the UAE. Could have also been an NTC live fire screw up.

Tank hunter teams are dirt cheap, so are panzerfaust teams, doesn't mean it's not fair. You just have to adjust your tactics, if your that worried about it back your tanks up and either area fire the Flaks or call in some arty or air support. Just adjust your tactics, while it does suck to lose a tank to such a small weapon you have to see it from the crews point. Constant barrage of richocets and explosions hammering your tank, and I would expect that as soon as possible the enemy is going to bring some big gun to bear on you to finish the job.

Even if it didn't penetrate it should still flip that tank like a quarter.

I play Germans most of the time. My favorite tactic is to charge my tanks forward with my HT's trailing behind them. Once my armor has pinned the Russkies I swing my HTs around on thier flanks behind cover, drop off the infantry in cover and then advance them on the flanks.

Charging 3 companies of Panthers across a map to a distant ridge, getting them perfectly positioned and then watching them execute 3 Battalions of Gaurds tanks as they futilly try to take back the victory flags.

What's next, CMBB haiku? IS-2 blow up Commander stare in horror Kingtiger on ridge

Friendly bomb laden FW-190 drops it's load right in the middle of my advancing force. Destroyed a Kingtiger, a Jagdpanther, and a 37mm Flak Truck.

Well it's all about the way the force is applied. The placement of the mine under the turrent overhang concentrates a large portion of it's force to lifting the turrent. However the shell is coming in nearly horizontally or at a slight downward angle, almost no force vertically. Also the turrent isn't really secured into the hull, it just sits in the ring. And don't under estimate the amount of explosive in those teller mines. The mine doesn't have to lift the turrent several meters into the air, only half a meter or so and tip it. [ December 11, 2002, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: KwK43 L/71 ]

Wow, a pair of fellow mech pilots, excellent. Mech2 GBL was the pinnacle of Mech games on the comp. 3 wasn't horrid but it was deffinately taking a turn for the arcade, 4 just blows. It lacks any recognizable mech lab, it's just not Battletech. Damn pretty though, like the M3&4 PPC's better though, the glowing balls are obnoxious. Course the downfall of MW is parralleled by the fall of BT, now that Wizkids have it they've completely destroyed it. Nobody I know wants to play the new version, we stick to classic. Now if anyone has a metal Warhammer they would be willing to part with....

OMG, I just spent three minutes laughing myself silly. When are console gamers going to learn that your systems suck. Buy a real comp. Seriously, do you wanna try to run CM with a game pad? On a system equivalent to a two year old computer in it's prime? No mods, no maps, no scenarios, just the stock scenarios and textures?

Good review, I also got to see what the CDV box looks like, just, .....damn. My manual looks better.

Frankly I understand Armdchair's objections however I think this scenario should still be released. 1) If nothing it draws attention to what happened in the Warsaw ghetto. 2) I don't think it's fair to compare the ghetto to the concentration camps or prisoner massacre's. The people who died in those were murdered, the people in the ghetto rose up against the Germans and died in combat, regardless of their chances the still had one. 3) The Neo Nazi angle. There's nothing to prevent some little bastard from going and out and making a massacre scenario himself so honestly it makes no difference wether or not you release it in that respect. If someone wants to play as the Germans then they can, it's part of the game but frankly I don't see the joy. I say release it.

I say release it, the change in nationality of the partisans is fine.

I use the group strategy when I watch the movies, I cycle through each squad or platoon and check what happens with it, course I skip the guys who just happily moved from point A to point B and didn't do a damn thing. Also, before I finish out the review and hit done I make sure to crank the unit size up to +4 and turn off all the tree's to make sure I didn't miss any enemy contacts. Best way to learn is to run a half dozen or so small (500-800pt) QB's. The best part of the movies though has to be the replay. I had a Crack Jagdtiger vape an IS-2 at 2 clicks and I watched that a half dozen times.

Got a Colt M1911 and a GI Helmet.

Actually it's more of a testament to the tolerances built into the machines to compensate for the crappy workmanship. They had to design them with all the parts fitting loosely so that if Ivan's lathe was 6mm off they could still put the tank together and it would run fine. A side effect was that these things were damn hard to break, kinda like the AK or the M3 sub gun, thing shakes like a rattle but it'll keep firing half rusted, underwater, and full of sand. (Ok that might be an exaggeration but you get the idea.)