cool breeze

It put a smile on my face to see he still plays the game (and is contributing scenarios to the community) even though he can't chat here with us. since I missed all the drama he just feel like an old forum friend I never got to say goodbye to. Thanks oddball!

and, um, not to be "that guy" but nobody mentioned it; There are 3 campaigns that ship with the base game, not two. The training campaign is probably the most important of the 3, not that a played it through or anything. Also out of curiosity, have you beaten either or both of the "two"? And Welcome to the forum!

Hey now that we are on the subject, and sorry to bring it up if its sore or something, but what did ever happen to him (Micheal Dorosh)? He always seems to me a pretty reasonable guy. So then one week I didn't check the forum and it turns out he had gone crazy and got himself kicked out? What happened!? inquiring minds want to know. It seems like it was some kind of a secret right after it happened

The crews are generally men... I just mean it makes sense to be more strict about it to exclude all motorized machines for infantry only but to allow some armed men for armour only. The tankdesantiki arn't an infantry force, you cant pick those in armour only, they are part of the men of the armoured force. You cant have the machines without the men. And tankdesantniki were kind of part of the crew, they just had a big crew and not all of them knew how to work a tank but they were a fighting unit.

You can bring the men without the tanks but you cant bring the tanks without the men.

Vat vis ze Russian vay, ya? (sorry I don't think thats even a russion accent, lol) more seriously that plus target briefly and maybe shorter bounds should do you good

So a cliche is something that people have used so many times as to have lost meaning. cli·ché noun \klē-ˈshā, ˈklē-ˌ, kli-ˈ\ : a phrase or expression that has been used so often that it is no longer original or interesting : something that is so commonly used in books, stories, etc., that it is no longer effective EasyBib Full Definition of CLICHÉ 1 : a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it 2 : a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation 3 : something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace — cliché adjective Sorry that was so big. The only cliche I'm seeing on this thread is a new one thats already one of the worst in english. Thought-terminating cliche. That is a thought terminating cliche! Everytime I read it its like running into a wall and having to reorient myself. Nobody else is using cliches. Wombles post wasnt a thought terminating cache is was the appropriate argument to make after yours. Bringing up CMBB just can't really do anything to help your argument Kaus. for the reasons both you and womble expressed. Even if CMBB had things right/realistic about everything (which obviously is didnt) it used a firepower number to do both suppression and killing. CMx2 is a lot more complicated than that, in that it uses actual virtual bullets and then figures out suppression and kills based on that. Trying to equate firepower to either bullets per minute or kills per minute or kills per bullets just doesnt really make sense. Especially considering the kills per minute figures your using seem so freakin high. Could you get those kinds of numbers in CMBB I dont remember it being such an mg slaughterfest. I do remember a lot of targeting every spotted enemy with 20 plus tanks from all over that couldn't possibly see it. So Kaus please stop typing "thought-terminating cliche(s)", its the only cliche here. Wombles post was not thought terminating, it moved the discussion past being temporarily stuck in in 2002.

Kause you said "best armored and angled point of the PIV got the hit." and "....all what you have to know is what i told.....there are no other points which you have to know" Another time you've been called out stating fiction as fact. With your current track record on here I suggest you start asking more questions and reducing the number of stated "facts". maybe admit to being wrong once too.

Aww shucks thanks guys I had a last example of bad arguments not to mix in with the good that slipped through the forum eating part of my first attempt at writing it (I really wish it wouldn't log me out mid comment). Kaus, another thing, you kept calling the hmg42 laser like accurate. First of all its a lot less accurate than a laser, but mainly, it makes people think you think of the mg42 as a laser MG, aka a death ray. I know laser like accuracy is not laser like but it seemed like you were calling it laserlike and if you were thats the same as calling it a deathray cause a laserblast mg is a deathray. Instead of arguing that you didn't call it a deathray just dont compare it to a laser, it isnt one and doesn't have a laser ranger finder either.

Hey guys, sorry this is so long. I dont know what came over me... Hey, JasonC, I'm glad made it on board CMx2 and it's a pleasure to see you a staunch defender of the engine! There was a time it seemed like you'd never step into the uncanny valley but am happy you did. The eastern front wouldn't be the same with out you This whole thread thing here started in such an amusing way that its a little dissapointing its gotten so bogged down in repetitiveness. Not that that isn't amusing in its own way but I like my comedy and debates moving forward. If Kaus reponds to JasonC's last post in a not too repetive way this thread will be back on track but I don't think that will happen. But hot dang this thread had a good start with the statements of fact that you couldn't get more than 15-20 kills in a test scenario with a hmg, followed by people pointing out that 15 to 20 is actually pretty darn good, but they do better regularly in non tests. Then he made a set up new test with 100+ kills and hillarity insued. Somehow the humor died down and it got a little frustrating. I guess its a language barrier thing but I don't understand how. Kaus "Like i said ....till now i did a lot of testing ...and never were able to produce more than 18-20 kills with HMG. Try it yourself. Let the enemy attack a small bridge and put an HMG in a position 150meters in front of it and let them rush over it. I would expect that an heavy MG42 with 1500 rpm theoretically and 460 rpm practically and a 250 round belt for start is easily able to kill everybody running over the bridge trying to reach the other side. Just take the map "Town-Water Assault 079" ....try it...... you will see. And after that please make always a screenshot in case you can achieve more than 20 kills with a HMG within 30-60 minute standard map. Till now all my trials to increase the effectiveness of (H)MG were useless. on the other side a panther turret machine gun is a real killer....easy to achieve 60-70 kills in 10-20 rounds." That quote set the stage with the challenge, that you cant kill more than 20 with the hmgs. But I also wanted to coment on the part about the panther. Do others agree with me that the coax mg (plus maybe the hull mg, I dunno the set up) would probably do much better than the hmg42? To me it seems natural that the height advantage, state of the art optics, weapons control, and 45+ tons of stablility and no fear of small arms fire would make the coaxle mg much more effective. Then once some people show Kaus that its him not the game that is holding his mgs back from getting much better than historical kill numbers he makes a better test proving himself wrong but failing to admit it. A classic move for a modern physicist making me less surprised if I ever find out he actually has is Phd. And we get this comedy gem. My bold, on bold cue the doctor evil voice. "The Results of the Machine guns (distances are to the center of the bridge): MG 1: 143 "kills" (empty) 110 meter MG 2: 22 "kills" (not empty because killed soon) 110 meter MG 3: 44 "kills" (empty) 320 meter MG 4: 52 "kills" (empty) 320 meter MG 5: 76 "kills" (empty) 145 meter MG 6: 157 "kills" (empty) 210 meter Some people now will say.....WOW...the MGs are devasting....in my opinion it shows exactly the opposite." lol. Comedy Gold. Made the whole 30+ pages worth it I also note that he's asking for higher rate of fire and for the fire to be more dispersed/ less carefully aimed via swinging/swivelling the gun overmultiple targets intead of aiming at each in turn. But hes asking for this hoping to increase the number of kills above the 100+ hes getting. But they ran out of ammo without killing them all as is and from short range. So if they had fired more bullets faster and aimed less they would have killed less. So if he gets what he wants he gets the opposite of what he wants. I think there are some other implicit wants that he isnt talking about. Later we get an example of numbers, and, math?, being used to back up the arguement "He opened fire at about 400-500 meters. The lowest number of casualties i read even in allied sources were hundreds (so more than 100). The upper-medium estimates concede him to cause up to 1000 kills. And the highest talk about 2000-3000. These last numbres i do NOT believe either because of the total casualties on the beach and the coexistens of 2 polsih machine guns (but which got abandomed far earlier)) So let us assume that this light machine gun 42 starting its fire at about 400-500 meters and fired in 9 hours of the invasion 12000 rounds and killed about 500 men. ( guess the most got killed between 300 and 400 meters bailing out and walking into water)" This of use of numbres and maths makes all uses and arguments suspect. Kaus, it's not that everything you say is wrong and/or that nobody or few agree with any particular detail, it's that the nuggets of truth, like the hmg42 should probably sometimes do some 25-50 round burst, are mixed in with a bunch of bull. And by not admitting when proven wrong but instead backing yourself further into an argument corner (ala, you cant kill more than 20 guys, oh wait you can kill 100+ but its still not enough), you seem commited not to truth but to your ideas. You also come off through your writing like your probably racist not that you are but just as a warning because it makes people less inclined to go on the record as agreeing with you about anything. Sorry if that was too personal but Im trying to help. It was when you described the soviets who would be attacking the mg's in "zergling rush like waves" and presenting "meatshield" like targets. Those don't seem like accurate descriptions of real humans in WW2. and again sorry to be blunt but there are a bunch of nazi lovers out on the internets and they all describe the westfront as unfair because of the overwhelming material advantage and they only lost because it wasn't a fair fight, and the east front was mainly superiour tehtonic knights gunning down endless idiot waves of "zerglike" "meatshield" untill they finally ran out of ammo or were overwhelmed by unfair numbers of t34s or blasted by unfair levels of artillery. Maybe a general bungled or traitorized one of Hitlers brilliant strategic moves and got a giant portion of them cut off, unfairly. Sorry about all that I just said tho I really just meant it ro try and help and maybe show why your few good ideas arent getting more vocal support than they are. Im not saying you are one of these seeming multitude of nazi lovers who fit the description I gave just warning you about how they are out there so you can better avoid associating with them. I think this last quote might explain where the disconnect between Kaus and a lot of the othr forum members is coming from. Kaus is relatively new here and probably doesnt appreciate as well as we do the abstractions BFC has had to put in in order to enable this best battle combat simulator to work on our computers. This is Pandurs quote and he says its about 1:1 not being 1:1 but I think thats a little off I think its more about What You See Is What You Get . 1:1 is there but its not quite WYSIWYG. Our computers cant handle a 3d enviroment as detailed as required to give the infantry a realistic amount of cover WYSIWYG. There is not enought granularity for all the relevant micro terrain to do it right. So some abstraction steps into the 1:1 model to make it more realistic. Similarly the pixeltroopen stay more closely packed than they sometimes would be because of proccessor power, if I understand things right. HE blasts at least but maybe bullets too are a little less powerful to try to realisticly compensate for that, or so I think. Kaus is taking too much of a physicist approach to this I think. The game takes a physics aproach but then it wargames it to make it realistic. I think hes underappreciating that. Pandur "the thing with the mg´s is a problem of abstracted hidden factors for troop´s and the exact visual representation of mg fire. it doesnt fit, like some other things. Quote: If you put a stationary chest sized target at 100m, rounds will miss it. sure, but do not underestimate a properly weighted down tripod or similar mount. its cone of fire is very smal. look up the vid, its mounted mg34 with tracers viewed along the gun, starts at second 33. i guesstimate the distance to the other slope is like 300 meters at least, yet still most real spread is by gunner input. if you would use this sort of accuracy on targets that are packed so tight like in the game, sure you would get better results, but thats why there is the abstraction we dont "see". i guess kauz expects 1:1 representation to show 1:1, but it doesnt." So um that was my longest post ever I hope it wasnt totally out of line um really didn't mean anything bad by it just after 30 pages or whatever wanted to have a heart to heart about it Thanks for reading or uh not minding scrolling so far.

wait but I use target briefly for over 1.5 minutes. Its great for long range machinegun fire I like to set some 2 or 3 minute missions and I might want longer someday. I think any place you put the wrap arround would take too many clicks to get to anyway so you might as well just reset it the old (new/current) way in fewer clicks. P.S. but it is kind of shocking when you keep clicking it the first time waiting for the wrap around.

I thought the vid was surprisingly fair for propoganda. I mean sure they downplayed the cons of the USA weapons, upplayed the pros, while doing the opposite for the nazi weapons, but I dont think the results were "fixed ". They seemed to use elite marksmen to handle both USA and nazi weapons, the shooters just had more experience with the USA guns. I dont think anyone was told not to shoot as well as they could, I imagine they were all prideful of their marksmanship. I havent watched it in a long time, but are you sure the vid talked of the mp40 having a higher rounds per minute? Orwas it saying the mp40 has a higher muzzle velocity than the thompson? because the later is true. Id also imagine that the thompson has the better shooting range characteristics from its heavier bullet and more expensive, heavier construction. Not better aim on the battlefield where flight time is critical but at targets at known and short ranges on a target range. I thought the vidio gave me unexpected insight into some of the not obvious advantages of the m119 and BAR compared with the nazi lmg and hmg. By the numbers the 20 round clip of the BAR and slow RPM of the m119 make them seem totally inferior, but the video showed how it is an issue of pros and cons, much like the overall firepower from ammo equation JasonC was talking about. And I think it's an issue Combat Mission x2 demonstrates very well. Against highy exposed targets that are only breifly available the higher rpm of the mg42/34 shines. Maybe not quite as much as it should I dont know. But if the enemy is staying in good cover, not presenting many high exposure opertunities, and the battle last long enough for the mgs to start going dry, I think the water cooled m119s will have more kills than the mg42/34s, by being moree accurate per bullet. Also more kills than any .50 cals that ran out of ammo way earlier. oh and one more thing is that while mgs dont dump 50 bursts at long range, they do dump ammo at what seems around their theoretical max rate of fire under the right circumstances. I know thats not whats being asked for exactly but it is cool to see that they do go full throttle. Possible SPOILER! I was just playing mission two of the Soviet campaign. I told one of my mmgs to areafire a crest about 80 meters away, and much to my surprise less than 20 seconds into the turn were already reloading second belt. unfotunatey the unsurpressed jerks in a trench eventually killed em all before I noticed but by that time they had unloaded enough rounds to route 3 foxhole positions from the one area fire order. So if you want your mgs to go crazy set up grazing fire with a crest at 80meters.

It seemed to me like she hit it way faster with the m16 than the mg and with 1/50th bullets. Oh and a MG3 and MG42 are NOT the same. 70 years of infrastructure, materials, and production (and machinegun) technology makes a difference. Someone should link the USA info/propaganda movie showing how much "better" and more accurate the USA weapons are than the nazi ones.

You're just not doing it right Kauz, I get 40+ kills with my mg42 when I play the german nazis. Sometimes. Cement bunkers help.

Maybe the shockwaves could bounce off the sides and rear to constructively intefer and break things in unexpected locations?

It would be cool to be able to disable this feature but a lot of game players when they play a new game don't want to look at the manual first or anything. It seems that with the camera edge movement it's not too crazy to just open it up and start clicking things till figuring enough out to play. Not being about to move the camera with the screen edges would seriously mess that up. But it would be nice not going nauseous when I bump the mouse to the edge of the screen while not playing.

Thanks a lot! I wasn't doubting what you said, you've obviously taken more phyics/engineering than I, just trying to reconcile new knowledge with old. I was also thinking HE not AP. It makes sense that most of a tank would be too sturdy to be broken my internal shockwaves/vibations. What part might get damaged? Obviously the radio, but what else? rubber tubes coming out would seem to invlove more movement/bending than would happen. What about small thin metal pipes breaking? Optics getting misaligned? delicate firecontol machineworks getting damaged or are they too heavy duty?

I thought we were some how talking about things on the tank breaking from the impact/explosion even when they arent obviously getting hit directly, like the harddrive in the computer tower. The tanks armour shell is part of the tank, the armour shell vibrating more should make things break more, right? Maybe your back would be a little bruised along with your broken rib from the bullet from the shock wave going though?

I would have thought that the much greater energy of the shell collision would move the first armour plate much more (and faster) force times distance , which would vibrate the rest of the tank more, and longer. Like how a spring bounces longer from more compression. So youd have harder shaking longer. If you hit the computer downward with a hammer its still likely to break even tho your not really doing it via momentum. It also seems like you know a lot more about this than me. Momentum seems like how you'd get to how much that tank shakes on its suspension, rather than internally. Dont really know about this stuff tho.

I never done any tests but I use the assault order often and like it a lot. It's aso improved a lot since CMSF as the tac ai has improved. My swag is that the sharing of suppression is a bonus if you use it in the right circumstances. It is not a good command when the lead element is going to be wiped out. Then it should be a scout team that is getting wiped out. You can break off a scout team and still assault behind it (often at a faster pace too from reducing the squad from 3 to 2 assaulting elements). I think the shared moral/supression help tho when the command is used advantagously because the whole squad has more leaders and assistant leaders in it so it recovers all together back to fighting strength faster. Its good when the lead element is gonna get shot at an amount that would supress a leaderless team to uselessness but would allow a full squad to fight at reduced effectiveness. It would be cool getting a new order like you describe but I use all the orders as is. I think they'd have to find room on the ui for one more button. I finally finished the first mission of the russian campaign (whoohoo!!) and it took me all the movement orders from the tanks and infantry to do it.

This post by JasonC helped me: "I will explain how to think about recon. How to do recon mostly follows from that, though there are many small tactics one can learn after getting the big picture stuff right. But it is more important to have the big picture stuff right than to be a wizard at the small tactics stuff. Not that you can't strive for both eventually. I restrict myself to the recon that attackers do for a real attack, since that is the issue that arises most in CM and where the right big picture goes farthest. Defenders do recon in a sense too, but have different problems; static probing where neither side has the local edge to press is again a recon-ee situation but not on point here. The big picture starting point is what you are trying to do. And I don't mean a mission briefing or something that changes from scenario to scenario. What you are trying to do when you are attacking is destroy the enemy force. You aren't trying to get across a field or into a village, you aren't trying to locate the enemy position, you aren't trying to go around the enemy. You are trying to kill him. Everything you do, including recon, is directed to that end. After the enemy is dead you can take any crossroads or waltz across any field you please. I point that out because, if you already knew exactly where the enemy was and the answer was right over there in those buildings, you wouldn't send 2 scouts ahead or even need to break cover. You'd just shoot the living daylights out of them from right over here where it is safe, they'd die under your superior firepower (you are the attacker, right?), and you could take a lunch break after the battle before anyone had to walk across 10 meters of open ground. The reason you are moving in the first place is to put guns on target, and for that you need targets. Notice, this underlying objective makes it kind of pointless to find an enemy who can move off at his leisure if you aren't in a position to murder him right after you find him. The next thing you will notice, as everyone has already commented, is that thorough and cautious, well overwatched recon takes time. And time is what turns kittens into cats. Let's the enemy move around, detect your plan, perfectly align his forces to address it, get out of the way if he likes, call for artillery, etc. So good recon needs to be fast. What is the fastest possible recon method? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is - mindreading. No, I don't mean holding seances or staring through cards with blue squares on them, I mean getting into the defending commander's head and anticipating what he already did two hours ago. Nothing will ever be faster than a flat-out guess that is dead-on correct. Recon starts with you as the commander thinking through the enemy's own command problems, and seeing what his reasonable alternatives actually are. Then guess which he did, with the main alternatives in the back of your mind. Guess with confidence and audacity. Don't worry that you can't be sure - be fast, not sure. The defenders do not have enough forces to be strong everywhere. You have the strength advantage, he is trying to make terrain or your movement and exposure even the odds for him. Not every spot on that map can perform those services for him. He needs to avoid your superior long range firepower -same comment. If he doesn't do these things and thus does the unexpected, it will be unexpected because it is also stupid, and you can kill him for it without too much trouble. So he is going to be in naturally strong position A or naturally strong position B, or split between them 50 50 or 75 25, but he isn't going to be off in Timbuktu or in the middle of a field overlooked by cover on your side or any of the other stupid places. You made a guess about where he is, his whole defensive scheme. That implies he is really weak or just not present at all at a whole bunch of other locations. Send the minimum number of eyes moving as fast as their legs can carry them to go confirm that hypothesis. Where you think the enemy isn't, it doesn't mean you don't scout. It means you scout fast and kind of reckless. You want to know if your guess was wrong as soon as humanly possible, at a minimum cost in blood and time. Sweep such unimportant areas to reduce the range of unknowns left and to turn your pretty sure guess into a known fact. That leaves the areas where you actually expect to find enemy. The issue with those is you don't know how strong the enemy is in each of them, and which specific line he picked - this far forward, or back here, with a platoon or a whole company, etc. And we ask again what you are trying to do, and the answer is destroy the enemy. So these are the places you want to cover with overwatch thick enough to shoot down anything there. Notice, I didn't say anything yet about sending anyone toward them. It isn't the cover where the enemy is that counts for this, it is the cover that can *see* the spots where he is. That is where your own machinegun is going to set up to cover that treeline or interdict that road. Scouts go to those before the main shooters do. They go more carefully, but still "traveling". Meaning they are on move to contact but are not pausing to listen and watch for minutes on end, they are moving moving moving unless or until somebody shoots at them or similar. The purpose of those scouts is to ensure your overwatch set up locations are not ambush zones, or minefields. It is also to "put out" any prying enemy eyes that might see you setting up and call for the artillery. Still no one has moved on a position believed to be occupied by the enemy in force. So you've verified your guess or mostly so, you've picked your overwatch set up cover, you've scouted it and sent said overwatch firepower to said cover, and now the place you think the enemy is has been covered by your gun barrels. Next question - shock or fire? Shock means moving at speed onto the enemy to kill him with close range firepower. Fire means sending HE and other area effect firepower at the enemy to multiply his losses from each shell. You shock only where the enemy is already thin. You fire anywhere you know he is thick. No enemy believed to be there? A few scouts pass through at speed. Enemy believed to be there but thin? Shock, run them over with 5 times what they are prepared to handle. Enemy believed to be there and thick? Fire. Call the artillery. Area fire with the tanks at every building. Hose the treeline down with the coaxials. Bullets not bodies make the trip. The second two each have their own recon aspects. If you are attacking by shock, the recon is a small element leading the main body, close enough for immediate firepower from the main body to hit whoever shoots at the point. But so that the point arrives at enemy cover while the main body is still far enough back that it can reach cover while replying, not get caught in the open. If you can't see a way to manage that geometry it means you picked the wrong approach route. That is exactly what you are looking for in an avenue of advance. With fire, on the other hand, you just want to send a few bodies to force the enemy to reveal himself, to make your ammo expended more effective. If you have more than enough ammo, you don't need to bother - just blow the heck out of the place. But that rarely happens. Instead you send a half squad, and if the enemy does not open fire the half squad sees them, and you open fire. If the enemy does open fire, oh well for your poor bloody half squad - avenge them. Now I know what you are thinking - how can I tell whether they are thin so I should plan for shock or thick so I should plan for fire? Mindreading. It's the fastest way. When in doubt, plan for fire. But don't always be in doubt - have some audacity. It will catch the enemy napping sometimes, thinking they will get 5 minutes notice and a spotting round before anything really heats up over in sector two. The most important takeaway is that recon is not trying to find every enemy position for you, or provide you as the commander with a luxurious certainty before you make a single decision. You as the commander have the job of just flat-out knowing what the enemy is going to do, and directing all your soldiers accordingly. The soldiers don't work for you to make your decisions easier. You work for them, and try to use your cleverness and insight and ability to get inside the enemy's head, to save their lives. So recon reports are always about checking off a hypothesis as correct, or telling you that you guessed wrong and must adapt and change your plan. They are not there to tell you what you should plan, or even worse what to make a plan about. The time to make a plan for your attack is not 15 minutes after the fighting begins, but 15 minutes before, at the latest. Sure you will be wrong about some of your guesses. So, make a flexible plan, one that has ways to adapt to likely enemy courses of action. Have a reserve, or a quick way to change the roles of elements of your force. So if the enemy main position happens to be at X instead of Y, then your force A isn't the attack group but a screening element, and group B is a flanking element instead of a reserve - or whatever. Learn from those fast scouting expeditions which if any of your guesses were wrong, even as your plan steams ahead in the confident expectation that you guessed correctly. If you were wrong, adapt, adapt just once but violently, and in a way you had some plan for or inkling you might need. Have three or four chess combinations waiting up your sleeve for the likely ways you might be wrong. But have a plan, believe in it, and do not wait to execute it until you are supposedly certain. Nothing is faster than mindreading." __________________

Im going crazy here please just release the game with all the fill in CMFI art already and patch it when its finished!!!

March 21 20:30 GMT Right when my last class ends before spring break. I know Im being overly optministic.... but can't they just put that last minute stuff in real quick lol I wish.

I thought that a normaly thrown grenade wouldnt cause friendly casuaties, even if landing right next to friendlies in of another squad. I'm thinking mainly about CMSF. But when grenades were going off you often still got the casualties, because rifle grenades and sometimes rockets would be in the mix. Havent really noticed in CMx2 WW2 maybe its all the fullpower rifles, or Im just playing more cautiously. But your experience with a tree bounce makes me wonder if things might have changed, or maybe tree bounces are the second exception, or they only cause friendly fire to the squad that threw it, or I've just been wrong all along.