momishuli

wasnt it an MG 3 , rather than a MG42?

Information is not something available to people. Let alone putting the common folk in the real picture, all governments/power groups/elite shape every aspect of human intellectual needs via social control mechanisms, most effecient of which is the "media." So, I don't think it is simply the people's desire to remain ignorant of the facts; common folks are conditioned to be that way. This is of course in reference to "modern" societies. When you consider that aprx. 3 billion people are carving out a living in poverty, one should not ridicule them for being "sheep." It is no wonder our world is so screwed up the way it is. I totally agree with you: Informed people can not be enslaved. Thank God we have the internet where one can actualy find out what really is going on. So long as we have the internet, there's a chance that one day people can actually be free. [ January 18, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: momishuli ]

Try doing a search on 'optics', 'gun accuracy' and the like.</font>

It happens too often that German crews score hits with their first shots (regardless of vehicle type ie. assault guns, tanks, spws etc). I know that German tanks had very good optics in comparison, yet within 500m range, such should be the case for Soviet vehicles, too, in my opinion. Yet, I have never seen it happen that at ranges beyond 200 Soviet tank can hit unless they shoot at least 3 times. Also, sometimes they miss after a succesful hit??? One would think, after a perfect line-up and range determination, they would not re-align?

you can use the MOVE command on the enemy tank (as you would embark a friendly vehicle) to make your AT team follow the vehicle.

For my taste, the luck factor is optimal in the game. To me, the more things are random, the better. Also, if I remember correctly, after version 1.01, vehicle bog-down is less likely. Still, it should not be too hard to make vehicle break-downs an option in the game (there was such an option in Steel Panthers, i think).

During a battle against the AI, one of my T-70s reversed (TacAI handling it all) and tried to hide behind a previously knocked-out (not burning) T-70 to escape fire from a Tiger. It didn't help; Tiger's shells went right through the dead tank and knocked- out my T-70. Yet, I still can not figure out why the TacAI chose to hide behind a dead tank. (I also noticed that dead vehicles don't block movement either.) Note: There was no trees or buildings nearby.

funny I posted the same question at the same time:)

In CMBO, I think a dead tank was of no cover value, neither for infantry nor for other tanks. Yesterday, I was playing as Soviets. One of my T-70s was knocked out (didnt burn) by a Tiger. Another T-70 (crack), which was about 50 meters ahead of the knocked out T-70, came under fire from the same Tiger. The immediate area had no building or trees etc. To escape the fire from the Tiger, my T-70 reversed and hid behind the previously knocked-out T-70. The Tiger didn't have problem knocking it out behind the dead tank, yet it made me wonder since the TacAi chose to hide behind the knocked out tank: do dead tanks have any cover value? My experience so far shows it doesn't, yet I would like to be sure. thanks

Opinion: There is no way for Saddam to win this war. What he can do is make it costly for the U.S. in lives and equipment. Surely, he stands no chance fighting on conventional lines against high quality U.S. troops who possess massive armor and air power. To minimize air and armor advantage, it appears to be a logical option to entrench in cities and establish strong points in dense urban areas. Yet, in my opinion, this would only delay the outcome. Despite Saddam's hopes, the U.S. will likely choose to carpet bomb cities and will not engage in street-battles. The U.S. military is not known to care for civilian casualties when they are forced to chose between their own men and the enemy's. Although cruel, such is war. Another option for Saddam would be guerilla warfare. Obviously, terrain in southern Iraq is not suitable for such operations, yet towns and villages can still provide for good post-raid hide-out (given the support of local population. Actually, I doubt if any section of Iraqi troops have any experience/training in commando operations). If Iraqi people's hate for the U.S. can overcome their hate for Saddam, this could really make life difficult for U.S. command and their troops. Such situation may force Americans to employ brutal tactics against local supporters which may make things still more difficult. Non-regular warfare is a very difficult animal to tackle for a regular army. However, this would not change the fact that the U.S. troops control and administer Iraq/Oil. In either case (I can not see any other way of reasonable resistance on Saddam's part) Saddam is bound to lose, along with millions of innocent civilian Iraqis (in short term). Yet the real chaos will start after Saddam falls; it doesn't make any difference if there is no war and he chooses exile, runs away, a military coup etc. The fact remains. That region will surely fall into a state of war eventually involving Turkey (where I am from), Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. I can not help but wonder: is it worth it? Who will really benefit from this chaotic, anarchic situation in the oil reserves of our world which will cost millions of lives? Who benefits from big wars? I know who don't: you and me, the "commoners." I sincerely hope that time proves my words are full of crap.

Often, tanks were used to tow bogged tanks out of mud/ditch during combat (which was forbidden, actually, for it could damage the engine of the towing tank). It would have been nice to have such a possibility in the game, though.

Unless one reads both sides, how is it possible to have an understanding of the "real" picture? Carell maybe a Nazi, so what? So were 80 million people in Germany during those days. Everyone was cheering and welcoming Hitler, for it was the "in" thing to do then. Seeing their point of view only improves one's understanding of the WW2. Reading their(Nazi/ex-Nazi Authors) books does not make one a Nazi, yet it certainly helps one understand what really happened. Did you read any works of Rommel? He sure wasn't a Nazi, but he helped a lot to the Nazi cause by succesfuly commanding Hitler's Armies. It should not be difficult to weed out propaganda elements and pick out facts from Nazi sources. Infact, Allies made great use of Nazi records/sources after the war.(field manuals, operation reports, organization techniques of civil and military units etc) I assume, you only read Anglo-American authors? (Since you say you refuse to read Soviet authors too). If that is the case, then I seriously doubt if you have any idea about what really happened during 1939-1945; that is other than what your Anglo-American sources tell you (only one side of the story). I am afraid, you probably think of me as another Nazi symphatisan for saying all this, which is far from truth it can possibly be. The reason I wrote this is to state the fact: Always know both sides. Otherwise you know nothing. Ofcourse, I respect your position that you do not wish to support Nazi writers' by purchasing their books. That is your choice; I rather know what really happened. respectfuly

You could try "Volokolamsk Shosse" by Alexander Alexandrovich Beck, 1965, for a Soviet perspective (has propaganda elements but not extensive). It covers the Battle for Moscow at company/battalion level. Title might also be Volokolamsk Highway. Gives vivid description of the life and discipline of a Soviet infantry unit (360th Rifle Division, later became 8th Guards Rifle Division) during 1941.

excellent idea reinforcements should do the trick I think. thanks

Hello, Here is a common situation that occured during WW2: Following a victorious assault, German (for example sake) troops occupy a village/town which is their objective. The Soviet defenders are routed so German troops (let us assume a battalion) start plundering the village in search of food etc. They are so sure of their victory that the German CO, not expecting a counter attack anytime soon, doesnt rush organizing his troops immediately. This could be a regular or veteran battalion. Yet, while the German troops chase pigs and chickens for a good meal, a politruk halts the fleeing Soviet defenders (say, a company) and organizes them very quickly. Understrength yet determined, Soviet company sneaks into assault positions and waits for Germans to start cooking their food. At the right time, about a hundred Soviet troops assault the village and the entire German battalion (since they were caught totaly unawares) is annihilated. Is it possible to model such a scenario? Is the effect of "surprise" included in the game model? I know that movement orders (move, run, assault, advance etc) somewhat affect unit awarenes. How about stationary units? Can they have differing levels of awarenes? I am planning to make a scenario with such a situation but I am not sure if it is possible. Any suggestions?