ww2steel

True about the walls thing. Either that or your CM troops would do some semi unpredicted things downtown and get killed for it. I think you have to admit that walking through walls is less gamey though than not using the best defensive position for hundreds of yards because you can't figure out how to use a door/ how to let your 'human' commander talk to you. (That has to be a run on sentence.) Mike

Not to sound like a broken record... damn, too late. The buildings need to be occupiable. (Is that a word?) Moreover to be really cool, modifiable.(to allow use by PaK, at the cost of structural stability) Just make 'em semi transparent. It works fine in CMXX. Mike

Not making assumptions that you are familiar with the Combat Mission games, please don't get insulted if you are... Foxholes and shellholes are well modeled in CMXX games, and I would certainly think they will make use of them here. It would be great to get an official answer for me too, please! Mike

Yes, certainly something to be addressed (like the hevily masking trees in some screenies IMO). Why not simply make occupied buildings semi transparent like CMXX? I just think it's REALLY gamey. "Sarge, shouldn't we get into that stone building?" "Nah, this open grassy field with a clothesline will do just fine." Mike

Musical tanks, sounds like a game set around... maybe... 1942. I like to do a lot of SP games. My ranch is in the middle of nowhere and I don't want to throw down $100+ a month for a satelite ISP. Anyway, I know that's a minority of gamers by far these days. What I'm getting at is if I can do it, I would expect to see the AI do it. If some random grünt wants to get into my abandoned sherman and pop artillery off so be it. I strongly dislike it when I feel I have a gamey advantage (over a human brain) against the AI. (Like many old games that never move artillery for instance.) Maybe I misunderstood, but aside from picking up infantry weapons, how is crewing an enemy piece of heavy equipment like any of the Close Combat games. (or is light weaponry all Moon is refering to?) I think that that is a REALLY cool feature that I certainly miss from CC. See ya, Mike

Task: get infantry into that house. ...failed. (Can I have my pizza extra cheesy please?) JK I seriously think that's a killer oversight. Back on subject, I think it depends just how specific these tasks are, and how strenuous they are on timetables- if at all. It's a fine line between realism (all I do is take orders, dude) and realizing that it's just a game that we play for fun. Given the CMXX series I think they will do well. Mike

Bad ones I guess? Just saying, I want random maps + battles. After the 30th time of coming around the same street corner, or the 20th time of blowing up PzIVH #305 with T-34/85M44 #826 (or whatever) it's going to be REALLY BORING. That's all I do with CMBB... and I still love playing CMBB. That's why I no longer play Battlefield Vietnam, even though I have had it less time. It just gets boring even though I had fun playing the game. Mike

Needs an editor and a QB feature to have ANY replayability for me. I give it good odds that I will not buy it without at least one of these items unless the demo is out of this world awesome. Mike

This was with 'fast'. Some people think that lower areas will be soggier (they are greener after all) and thus more prone to getting stuck. I used to stick to the high ground when I was a noobie... then I realized that I'll get stuck regardless! I may do this stuff for SF, but I'm really into the east front. Who knows. I've had the game forever (since it came out) and tested a ton of stuff. I have about 300 pages of my own game manual set up. What I'm trying to do now is just put it into something other people can use. Mike

I think it had been fairly well decided in the psat, but as I am doing so many mobility tests right now I thought I would do this too. {Test info, skip if you don't care... map was 3km wide map, 1km long, 100 tanks, 49 on each 'height', tanks 50 and 51 were on the cliff and did not move. I recorded fastest actual time (removes command lag), number of immobilizations, and actual distance traversed (removes distance not covered by immobilized vehicles). Heights were '19' for high and '0' for low.} The test covered 275 kilometers with JPz I. Exactly 19 high and 19 low became immobilized. The low vehicles did manage to cover 3.4 more kilometers, but this is counterintuitive (the low areas would cause more vehicles to get stuck), and insignificant given the large distance covered. The m/Imm ratio: (total meters/immobilizations = how far the average vehicle will go before it gets stuck or breaks down) High: 7141m Low: 7323m This is obviously very close together, and should be considered the same value. Conclusion: Terrain height is insignificant. Hope this helps! Mike

Centripetal is the opposite of centrifugal.. in this case gravity is the centripetal force. I know I was talking about centrifugal at least. Mike

I am reposting this from another of my recent threads because the myth that you cannot get stuck in Reverse seems to still be fairly common. (Pasted with some removed from the other thread) HUGE CORRECTION FROM SOMEONE ELSES PREVIOUS THREAD. I have said this before, and believe me, I've done lots of tests- REVERSING ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT PREVENT BOGGING/ IMMOBILIZING. (Jpz I data on Deep Mud, Scattered Trees) Orders: MPH: Avg, dist, between Imm: Fast 3.3 9184m Move 2.9 16282m Hunt 2.9 16021m Reverse 2.7 7190m Obviously, the higher the distance between immobilizations, combined with higher speed = good off road. CLEARLY REVERSE SUCKS WORSE THAN ANY OTHER FORM. ALso, interestingly, in some faster terrains, Hunt can actually be FASTER than Move. This has been tested on multiple armored vehicles. Hope this helps, Mike

THAT'S WHAT IT IS! The larger diameter of the earth (rotationally speaking) towards the equator causes more centrifugal force on the southern tanks, as they are further from the rotational axis. This causes them to sink less into the Deep Mud, thus they are faster! Mystery solved! :cool: Mike

You guys love to pick on me. :cool: I even considered that they were taking into account the smaller diameter of the earth taken at more northern latitudes, but that should make the northern vehicles faster (shorter distance travelled) not slower. HUGE CORRECTION FROM SOMEONE ELSES PREVIOUS THREAD. I have said this before, and believe me, I've done lots of tests- REVERSING ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT PREVENT BOGGING/ IMMOBILIZING. (Jpz I data on Deep Mud, Scattered Trees) Orders: MPH: Avg, dist, between Imm: Fast 3.3 9184m Move 2.9 16282m Hunt 2.9 16021m Reverse 2.7 7190m Obviously, the higher the distance between immobilizations, combined with higher speed = good off road. CLEARLY REVERSE SUCKS WORSE THAN ANY OTHER FORM. ALso, interestingly, in some faster terrains, Hunt can actually be FASTER than Move. This has been tested on multiple armored vehicles. Hope this helps, Mike

Rotation seems the same, but I'm not sure I could detect a 4% difference. As it took them 2:16 to turn just under 180° I feel I could. As there is no command lag (and no associated variance) they all seemed to stop rotating at exactly the same instant. For kicks I backed them all up. Got 94km of data. 12 Immobilizations, took the southern tanks 13:56 to cover 1km averaging 2.7mph (down from the 3.3mph 'fast'). I'll have to do MANY more tests to determine if there is a difference in the distance covered/ immobilization ratio. It seems from this one test that reverse immobilizes about 10% more often than fast but this is NOT statistically significant. Mike

Slower = north. I'll check rotation as soon as I finish these damn R-35s. It took them over 46 minutes to cross scat, deep mud. Now to count and calculate distance travelled by all of the stuck ones. BRB, Mike

Hi, Not that it makes an real difference, but I was running a ton of mobility tests and I noticed something weird... units on the northern end of the map move slower than on the southern end! This is a very small difference, but it's there. I use a 3040m * 1040m (height * width) map for these tests. Exact layout is irrelevant, but take a terrain that takes a long time to get through, scattered trees for example (that's what I used for most of today's tests). Add 100 vehicles to the map and put a single enemy somewhere that the vehicles will not encounter it(such as a gun so it won't move). I was testing the Jpz I. Drive straight west to east. {numbers vary very some on identical attempts} Normal fastest time: (removing the 7 second command lag, remmeber that the beginning of turn 12 is 11 minutes into the game) tanks 1-34: 11:09 tanks 35-(about)68: 11:28 tanks 69-100: 11:39 When you run this you will find that tanks 1 - 34 are fastest, 35-(about)68 are medium, and 70-100 are the slowest. I tried different map sizes, different total numbers of vehicles, different densities of vehicles, wind direction, going the opposite direction (W to E), flipping tank 1 to the northern end, and more. Many hours, 127 immobilized panzerjäger, and 1166+km later I finally am pretty sure I have discovered what it is. The tanks within 1024 of the southern end of the map will be fastest, and for each 1040m the map extends to the north, the vehicles in that section will be about 2% slower. A 900m tall map for example would all have 'fastest' vehicles. If a tanks is 2500m up a 3000m map, it goes 'slowest'. I don't know if the vehicle speeds up if it crosses south of this magic boundary. Really, who cares, because 2% on most terrain and short distances is irrelevant. This certainly shouldn't effect anyone's tactics. I merely post it for novelty. It's not even big enough for me to consider a bug, but I do have to take it into account when doing my mobility tests. The effect on immobilizations was inconclusive, as it takes me about ten minutes to get about ten immobilizations. The slower ones were slightly higher (fast to slow = 23, 23, 27), but this is certainly not very significant. Sorry this is so boring, but I'm bored! Mike

I was just curious about how the rounds were distributed. I figured it would either be a bell curve (most tanks would have close to an average number with a few outliers that have lots or none... or a simple random number, where a tank would be just as likely to have any permissible number of rounds. Just seems odd to me that 2 tanks in the same platoon would have such high variation in ammo loadout. "Why did Tank 2 get 4 Pzgr40 and I didn't get any?" Mike

Hi, Honest question here... is this book really going to have anything advantageous to a LONG time player of CMBB? I see that the tables give no more info than what is already given in the game. Does it really give any insight into how the mechanics of the game work? Even though it's pretty inexpensive, I don't want to spend money on something that a very experienced player of the game cannot benefit from. I didn't see anything new in the few downloadable preview pages I saw. Thanks for the help! Mike

Thanks a lot guys! I'll look forward to checking on this stuff tomorrow when my brain is actually functional! Mike

Okay, I checked every peice of German armor that existed at any time during the war. The only ones that change in Feb to Mar '44 are The Panther A (late), both Panther G, and both Jagdpanther. To make this more confusing, they change different ammounts, and go both positive and negative. Feb Mar A(l) 241 238 = -3 G(e) 230 234 = +4 G(l) 245 238 = -7 JP(e) 241 250 = +9 JP(l) 238 250 = +12 I am even more confused now! :confused: :confused: :confused: Mike

I think it's the Nahv. All Panthers after the late A change points Feb-Mar '44. The later ones too, if you take them back to unrealistic dates. So does the Jagdpanther. I'll do more checking. Mike

But why would it not effect the Panther D, or Panther A (early)? They have the same gun and practically the same armor. It has to be something that is different the late model A from the Ds and the early A. Mike

Yes, you guys all have good points. Electronic is certainly the primary media to use. Mike

Yes, you guys are right. I can get it out to way more people, and much easier in a PDF format. I also agree that most people on here won't scam me over a $5 pdf just on principle. I would only print on demand. I think you are probably right, maybe a pdf should be primary. (I need to figure out how hard that is to convert from a .doc file.) I would certainly also offer a color, hard copy as well. The .pdf file would make distribution of 'updates' very simple. These updates would come out as new info is found out through other tests that are relevant to an existing manual. T-34/85 huh? Perhaps. That would be an obvious first Soviet vehicle. Mike