GreenAsJade

Um, I read the italicised piece of the article CW quoted as saying exactly the opposite... ... it was _either_ hull down 37 _or_ use the 75, abd be essentially exposed. That was what that article seemed to be saying.

Hey - I read the page CW pointed us at, and I found out that my jest (above) is not so funny: ... so I guess they _do_ just lob the 75 rounds over the obstruction!!!

On the other other hand, _our_ poor tankies don't have that consolation do they? Maybe that's why they are allowed to fire the 75 from hull down even though they can't fire the MG!! (which, at least according to the BMPs we have, is _above_ the line of the 75). The comparison to the StuG is a bit moot... "Hull down" for a Stuey is probably with just the lower hull hiding, and even in that position it would be pretty well hidden with its silhouette. More importantly, that baby doesn't have any MG does it? So you don't get this wierd "hull down, MG blocked", which you _do_ get for the M3. I'm thinkin' "MG blocked, geez, what about the 75". Maybe the gunner of the 75 is skilled enough to do the ballistics and point it up over the obstruction and still get a hit GaJ [ November 22, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

See the thread called "multi turrets". So far the conclusion seems to be that the behaviour of "multi turrets" can be summarised like this: "Tanks with 'multi turrets' have an extra choice of Ammo (eg 37 or 75) over a limited part of the arc (where the 75 can be fired), plus some graphics to display which calibre ammo was chosen". That appears to be _all_ that it is. GaJ.

Sounds like its what I thought. Nothing like having a hypothesis, making a prediction, then seeing the result. Makes sense really: what we can see so far makes it look like multi-turret is implemented as "a wider choice of ammo in some directions" plus some additional graphics corresponding to the choice of ammo. A logical smallish (on the scale of what might have been done, not in effort it no doubt took!) step from what was implemented before GaJ.

Happy? </font>

I was mostly interested to see the multi-turrets do their stuff, without really spoiling the scenario for when I get an opponent. So - I took the allies and just hit "go" and "play" all the time. It appeared I was gonna whip the AI Axis just doing this! I got past where I get the first reinforcements, and a group of Panzers appeared and all got popped off... I was starting to get interested in seeing if I could win using the "do nothing" tactic, but it was past midnight, so this test is still waiting there for someone...

Um, what thread is that you are referring to? (I only just started reading CMAK forum!)

So far, this is the main visual downside of the implementation that I have seen. The question is "does the 75 fire from the hull down position?". I haven't been able to test that, mostly because of the difficulty of putting the tank in a position where 75mm is the choice it _must_ make. The implementation is better than this, because muzzle flash comes from the correct gun depending on the ammo selected, and the turrets do rotate independently. I _think_ I saw the 75mm fire straight ahead while the 37 was still pointing backwards. That for me would be an important point: that the tank actually knows which way each gun is pointing, and while it can only track one target, it can at least choose the right turret. If the "independent rotating turrets" is really only "the 75 doesn't rotate backwards in the picture 'cause that would look silly, but the the tank only has one gun facing direction", then we will have to wait to file the 75 until the 37 rotates back in line with it. That would be bogus. Has anyone confirmed that things are not bogus? Ta, GaJ. PS: Yeah - guaranteed.

Do multiturret tanks ever track different targets with each turret? I drove a couple of M3s into a target rich environment, and while I saw both the 37 and 75 be used in different situations, I never saw the 35 shoot at one target while the 75 was acquiring or firing at another. And clearly it seems that I can't order this to happen... I can only direct the tank at one target. I was kinda expecting to be able to target _two_ things, or at least have the AI do that.

For the record, I agree with the observation that the way the buttons work is very unintuitive. I'm suprised that it's deliberate, but users are forever suprising designers in what they expect. Glad to here that there's a mod. That's the good thing about CM... so much can be fixed with a mod! GaJ.

When I released McMMM the main thing people said that it was missing was sound mod capability. So ... McMMM 2.10beta with sound mod capability is about ready. I just need a few people to put it through all its paces & make sure it's "safe for the public". Drop me an email if you can spend a little time on it. Thanks, GaJ.

Doooh! I mean "Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player an _OPERATION_!!! (Of course I've played scenarios. That's _all_ that I play!) So - you can play a 2-player operation!? My goodness, I guess I'll have to look into that! Why isn't it done more? And if this is the case, why don't operations meet the need for campaign style play? Ta, GaJ.

That I can believe. I've never played a scenario, 'cause I'm not much into playing the AI, but it does sound like they add at least some caution to affairs. Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player a scenario?

So it seems that we genuinely have a game of highly accurate mechanics being used to simulate invariably totally unrealistic battles?

I was just reading another thread where it was claimed that "BFC don't add a campaign layer because it wouldn't be realistic". Then someone else said "Actually, there wouldn't be any forces left from a typical CMBB battle to continue a campaign!". That rang really true. Every battle I play win or lose (mostly lose, but hey!) there are hardly any forces left whatsoever. Is that _really_ how things went? Take "Point, Counterpoint", which I've just played twice. The briefing says that this is a reconaisance, and you have to try to take the town. 25 minutes later, scores of tanks are littered around the countryside, along with lots of dead men. Somebody "won", but its hard to see how the battle helped either side in its campaign. There's not much left for either side to take home! How realistic is that? I mean, I know people die in war and tanks get blown up (lots of people and tanks), but does every meeting engagement like this end in carnage? If not, why not, and thus how realistic are our battles? (This is a genuine question: that's why I point to a particular scenario... would such a scenario really have played out the way we played it?) Ta, GaJ.

What do you expect? A letter of admiration?? This is war, man, and propaganda is all part of it. You're losing the propaganda war: pull yourself together. And don't come whining here expecting sympathy! Sheesh! GaJ.

Wow: 20M! Any chance of light buildings in one mod, heavy in another?

These look like heaven in the previews. Just one question: are "Heavy" and "Light" clearly distinguished? If so, it might be time to say bye to the ASL buildings (the best differentiate "Heavy" and "Light" so far...) GaJ.

Hmmm.... ... I see that this mod is distributed as .mp3s. That makes it kinda hard for mod managers! Is this normal practice for sound mods? Do I need to make McMMM handle mp3 as well as wav? (Darn, I was just about to release the "Sound Mod" version of McMMM to coincide with this big new sound mod!) GaJ. [ November 10, 2003, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Hey, CW, that's 6M! Any chance of breaking it up into a few different mods? Ta, GaJ.

This is a good tactic, I agree. But like anything there are holes in it. </font>

Some people are saying "put up with it", but with an adequate graphics card it doesn't fall into the category of "have to put up with it"... it's fine. My nVidia card is 18 months old and copes fine. There are some things you can do to help though: - Turn off trees (they just get in the way anyhow). I rarely have trees turned on. - Get low res mods. Just swapping your wheatfield for a low res one can make a world of difference. - Make sure anti-alisasing is turned off. With a half-decent machine, it really should be quite acceptable. GaJ.

Um, we've been benefiting heaps. Haven't you been reading along?

... My challenge to Jason remains active. </font>