DaveR

Now what was I reading about that new bra the Australian rugby team is sponsering.... It's all green and gold, got bags of support, but has no cups! <grins> Comm'on. It's not often us Brits get to gloat at you guys let us enjoy the moment <g>

There I was, fighting in Italy. My Aussies had a steep wooded hill to climb, and I just knew there was something nasty waiting for them. First turn. Nothing but the twittering of birds in the trees. Second turn. More of the same. third turn, still all quiet, and now the objective flag was within spitting distence. Fourth turn. All hell breaks loose. M/G's morters the lot. But the tension was so great. As soon as the firing started I jumped, and cracked my knees on the bottom of my desk, my coffee went all over the place and my heart missed several beats. Now tell me about another wargame that can do that to you <grin>

Hi Guys. Today during a battle I had a platoon level morter in a hollow, it was recovering from being hit hard. As a consequence it had a very limited line of sight to anything. Anyway, during the firefight it suddenly starts popping away at targets is can't see. The only thing I could spot, was that it's platoon HQ unit did have line of sight and there was a red command line between the two units, so they were in direct contact. Can anybody confirm that there is a routine that lets platoon level morters fire indirect if they are in contact with a 'spotting' unit within their platoon or is it just a case of perhaps a bit of luck that there was perhaps the narrowest of LOS to the target that I didn't spot?

The UK may have trialed a Valantine DD. But as far as I'm aware the Brits opted to use the US Sherman DD. My old regiment, the 13th/18th Royal Hussars was the first Brit Armoured regiment to hit the beaches on D-day and they used Sherman DD's.

Sorry. I should have read what I wrote to make sure it makes sence before I sent it<g> In reality tanks suffer from limited ability to depress the main gun below the horizontal, and in games that tends to be overlooked. In real life this is one of the things a tank crew had to take into accout when seeking a hull down position on the reverse slop of a hill. If it's too steep, you just can't bring the main gun to bare.

Ah but if it's realism you want, then all you should be able to see is your own tracers, or tracers being fired away from you to be exact. When I was crewed on Chieftain tanks, even with the main 105 gun all you could see was the trace and not the round itself going down range.

Actually in the scene you described. The lower tank would be able to hit the higher tank, but unless the higher tank was opened topped there would be a very good chance that it could not depress it's gun enough to hit the lower one. It's one aspect of tank gunnery that all games I have played seem to overlook, that just about every tank designed has always suffered from a very limited ability to depress the gun below the horizontal.

There is lots of scope for a modern version of a game like the CM series. But one of the problems, as I see it, is anybody who has tried to do such a game has focused on the high tech large battles. The fact is, other then the gulf and the arab/israeli wars, these sort of battles have never realy happened. Yes, there was Korea, but that could easily be covered by a WW2 game engine. Though Viet Nam saw the introduction of a lot of high tech equipment the majority of the fighting was still conducted, with abate highly improved weapons, but still weapons not that far removed from WW2. By and far the majority of modern warfare, say post 1970, has either been large battles fought by poorer nations, using old equipment, or much smaller 'bushfire' battles such as the US in Grenada or Somalia, or the British in Northern Ireland or Seira Leon. Generally, today, the emphasis is moving away from massed armour to rapidly deployable infantry. The infanteer is probably enjoying a huge return to centre stage in modern warfare with the ability to punch harder then ever before. Take the last Gulf war. Just about every M1 that was reported 'killed' appeared to have been taken out by a well placed infantry action rather then other armour. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of modern warfare to depict is the use of helicopters. But if they could be worked right, and the emphasis shifted to infantry rather then armour then I feel we would have a much better, more realistic 'modern' warfare game.

<snip> Not if you are colour blind like me. Thankfully I have a good knowledge base to work on and don't need the colours With the colour code you drop all complexity and reduce it so it is as easy as SP. Any idiot can use that colours. (Not every idiot may understand my phrasing, however ) Gruß Joachim [/QB]

I guys. I'm doing a CMAK scenario where the British are attacking an Itallian position with a number of ATG's. I'm attacking with Matilda 2's, but their main gun ammo load out is just AP. Not being sure of the game machanics. I'd just like to ask, am I better off just hosing the ATG's down with MG fire from the tanks in the hope of killing the crews, or driving them off. Or would I be as well off using the AP in the hope that a hit will still wreck the gun? Dave

Hi guys. I've not long ago come to the CM series. I realise that this is a game that supports a strong modding community, and which soon I can see myself having a serious look at. The only real worry I have is. Is it OK to Mod the original install or would I be better off doing a second install and use that for modding and leave the original as a 'clean' copy?

The thing is. Many people, including well learned historians underestimate the ATG. It's often depicted in many games as a poor second choice to a tank. But in a defensive role the ATG was probably the finest tank killer on the field. They are small and difficult to spot, especially for a tank, they tend to engage at a range that puts them out of reach of most infantry weapons. And one tactic that seems to have been overlooked by many games is that ATG crews were not afraid to leave their gun if things got hot, then return when things cooled down some.

Oh I couldn't disagree more. Though I will admit that the phrase 'Pacific War' should have been 'War in the Far East.' Though the island hopping campaign is what most remember it for, there was also some major campaigns in mainland asia, Burma, China, Korea. My father was one of the Chindits, so you can understand my interest in this theatre. I'm sure that as you pointed out, many will be turned off because it doesn't have the 'sexy' big tank battles. But I just feel that there will be enough variety to make for a very interesting game which I think the CM engine is ideal for. It also gives some of the lesser aknowledged nations, who none the less made a major contribution to WW2 to enjoy some of the credit. Nations such as India, China, Korea. just to name a few.

I discoverd the CM series two weeks ago and it's just taken over my gaming life. It's the first real wargame where right from the start you have to worry about the tactical situation and not the game mechanics. Pardon! What do you mean by I'm married? What kids?? and what the hell is a job??? <g>

One good use of AT rifles is to lure enemy armour into a killing zone. In one battle I've just finished, I identifies a nice sweet spot to set up as a killing zone. But it was a wee bit out of the way of the route I expected my opponant to use. So I set up several ATR's along the path I expected him to take. Sure enought, as his armour started taking lots of hits from the ATR's they swung into the killing zone and my ATG's was able to hit him hard before he could extract them