Siege

Most of the color photos' I have seen were all a very dark green, but there have also seen many in a much lighter color also. It may very well be similiar to "Field Grey" in that it is very varied color for whatever reasons. -Hans

In answer to "Mr. Tittles" question, I believe that some of the early British tanks during WWII had water-cooled MG's. I may be mistaken, but the main MG on the Mark VI light tank, as well as the sponson guns on the A9 Cruiser all look to have water jackets on them. IIRC the main turret MG in the Matilda I was also water-cooled. I believe that some of the very eary US tanks also had them equipped, but if they were used in combat or not I don't have information to support either way. -Hans

Just to throw the oddball out, the 38(t) series of tanks mounted a co-axial machine gun that could also be used as a flexible mounting simply by unlatching the linkage that slaved it to the main gun. -Hans

The North African campaign definitely had some cool tanks to play with, even though they were obsolete rather quickly. The Grant/Lee's, Crusaders, Matilda II's, Cruisers, Valentines. Not to mention I can't wait to line up a string of 25-pdr's and await the incoming Pz III's. Just remember, the M-3 medium tank is best employed like racing NASCAR at Daytona.... Go fast and turn left. -Hans

The North African campaign definitely had some cool tanks to play with, even though they were obsolete rather quickly. The Grant/Lee's, Crusaders, Matilda II's, Cruisers, Valentines. Not to mention I can't wait to line up a string of 25-pdr's and await the incoming Pz III's. Just remember, the M-3 medium tank is best employed like racing NASCAR at Daytona.... Go fast and turn left. -Hans

Personally, I don't feel using mortars against vehicles to be gamey at all. How effective they may be can vary from good to useless. If your options are all in the range of "probably won't work", the best bet is to try everything. Against open topped vehicles such as Marders/Nashorns it can be surprisingly effective due to the limited crew protection. A KV is an extreme example that needs luck to have any effect, and the bigger the mortar the better. In a recent game, my opponent caught me totally off-guard with some Panzer III's in a place I didn't expect armor. Before I could get a T-34 over there, a pair of ampulomet's made the crew abandon the lead enemy tank which was the biggest threat. -Hans

Speaking of crews having other weapons, It still does irk me to see a gun/tank/mortar crew (post weapon abandonment) listed with just pistols. I'm sure the horse was well dead and beaten by the time I got into the game, but it's such a major break from reality. Just about every model of a German SP gun I've built as a couple MP-40's and an MG-34 inside, or at least the racks for them. In the book "PanzerJager", the author goes into detail about how much he hated his MG-34....and he was part of an AT gun crew. I can agree with always being at "Low" ammo, but at least give them something close to what they really would have carried. -Hans

I really have to disagree that the British didn't know about the concept of sloped armor early in the war. What they thought of it's effectiveness is a different story. It seems that the lighter tanks used initially in the war made use of various levels of sloped armor, but the more heavily armored tanks seemed more dependant on sheer thickness. If you look at a most of the cruiser tanks prior to the Cromwell, you see increased usage of sloped armor as time goes on. Just look at the turrets of the Crusaders! The Mark VI light tank is almost entirely dependant on it's slope for what little protection it had. Even the Valentines and Matilda II's had a sloped front hull as well as in other areas as the design permitted. While not as elegant made, or as widespread as the usage by tanks like the Panther or T-34, it was something the Brits employed to an extent. In fact it more seems the Brits seemed to gravite TO vertical plate as German AT firepower increased. Perhaps the design philospy was more aimed at thickness of the armor and gun size, with the shape and angle of the armor as a secondary concern. -Hans (Siege)

Combat Mission: Afrika Battle Line. They also refer to it as a "3D tank Game Simulation Game" How do you make a game of a simulation of a game? Is that something like "connect the screen shots?" -Hans

To go back to a couple older topics here. The road/rail issue may be better solved by a more intuitive map designer. Rather than a "tile by tile" approach, a more friendly "Draw Road" tool may solve a lot of the problems. I am thinking of something akin to the road/rail methods used in games such as Sim-City. Here is something to toss out regarding Close Air Support... Perhaps model in an additional FO tasked along with the air support that would be purchased separate from the aircraft. With the FO it would reduce friendly fire and improve accuracy, with a degree of ability to choose the target area (but not specific targets). It could also be used to indicate the time until the tac-air arrives on scene, and their status. If the FO gets eliminated, it would default to a situation similiar to the current air support. Similarly, perhaps introduce light observation aircraft such as the L-4 to use for artillery spotting and directing airstrikes. However you would have to disconnect them from any spotting of troops in the ground battle most likely. I'd have to go back to my reading to find historical references in the theatres involved in CMAK for those ideas, but you guys would probably be much better at finding that information than I would. -Hans

I've noticed the same problem for about 2-3 days now. I hope it returns soon, I finally have a win to report rather than a loss. -Hans

My Goodness, every time I take a breather from reading all the posts on this forum, more information turns up about CMAK. However in this instance I am forced to make a reply rather than simply reading what is in front of me. If you would, please put my name down for serious consideration also. I have written various articles for a variety of paintball related magazines, and am in the process of a very slow startup of another. Unlike my fellow applicants, I believe I am more properly qualified for this task than they may be. Impressive resume's such as theirs would most likely put them into the "Highly Overqualified" column. Either that, or I just want to be greedy and get it all to myself. -Hans

Silly MRE's, I guess it's just the C-Ration generation that truely understood the can busting capability of the mighty P-38. Personally, I'd rather go after the applesauce first, and leave the beenie-weenies for later. You weren't the only one to get it thankfully. -Hans

Hmmm, odd things about those Stuarts there, the one on the left has the british style octagonal turret with coupola, but US markings. I do know the Brits had plated over the side MG ports a lot earlier than the us Americans. Hopefully those mantlets get corrected before shipping. Yet, I'm just nit picking...they DO look really nice and I can't wait to unleash all my favorite Civil War themed armor upon some unsuspecting Panzer I and II's. -Hans

Oh sure, everybody else is yanking their hair out wanting a good picture of an M3...yet 1 guy throws out something about a 90mm on an Italian truck and it shows up within hours. Not only that, but it's the guy that stole my name!!! Yet, it really is a VERY nice screen shot. All these CMAK threads forced me to buy a batch of North Africa Micro Armor to help feed my craving for desert armor. -The Other Hans [ August 19, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

Yes, the lovely Mortar Circle! I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is there already IS smoke from a firing mortar in CMBO. You'll understand the bad news when you see it, and it's not something that can be modded. If you get in REALLY close to a firing mortar, you will see a cheap little white oval at the muzzle that grows and dissapears, followed by the crewman taking a little bow. Yep, thatsd really all there is, it looks the same as tank fire but smaller. You can only really see it at the closest zoom level and from as close to the mortar as you can get. The look of weapons firingis one of the many things that was improved going into CMBB. -Hans

I defintely have to agree with the majority of the mortar tactics I have seen in this thread. After struggling to employ 60mm and other smaller mortars individually, I eventually started using them in a type of "Grand Battery" also (funny, I was using that name even before reading this thread. Damn Sci-Fi books). Normally the Mortars will either be on the back side of a hill, or in cover, using the highest rated command squad available as a spotter. The high command rating allows the mortars to be further from the spotter and also more distributed to lessen counter-battery damage. If the terrain is good enough, also try to use them in conjunction with a number of HMG's. However I tend not to co-locate the MG's with the mortars to again try and limit damage from any counter-battery fire, and many times even draw fire away from the hidden mortars. A recent meeting engagement was VERY successful with this tactic in CMBO, using a small battery of 3-60mm mortars, 1-82mm spotter and a half-dozen M1919's and .50 cal MG's on good hilltops. After catching two companies of infantry in the open with that much firepower simulatiously (the mortar barrage was amazing to watch), they lost composure and were unable to make any response to the suppression fire. As they regained cohesion in bits and pieces, my actual line infantry had very little trouble eliminating the sporadic squads that finally did advance. If you are able to use them, TRP's can make a huge difference in the accuracy of any mortar fire, and speed up the wait for off-map fire too, so for the few points they cost the results are well worth it. -Hans -Hans