Magpie_Oz

Don't you just double click the HQ unit ?

Yes you have to clear the surrounding area THOROUGHLY (!) the IED's, as you have no doubt found out are huge, enough to blow a Leopard sky high. I like the smoke option, not so gamey for me, I like to think of it as some concealment for the troops who sweep the area to ensure it is clear.

I certainly noticed that between CMBO and CMAK the uberness of the German tanks, Tiger particularly had reduced markedly. I wonder if we are replacing the anecdotal mystique which more hard science these days and thus CMBN is yet another step closer to reality? I recall reading that Wittman's gunner kept his sights on 800m as most engagements took place a t that range and he winged it from there if he though the range was any different. 800m is a bit of a magic number as beyond that range the rise of the shell starts to become significant, less than that range the shell rises no higher than a tank so can be considered "flat".

Cool Gunner, when is your next one coming out? What you just wrote sounds like the start of a Decology, the hint of Alien technology is driving me insane.

Vehicles ....... yeh that's the first place I would have looked ..........

Stuka walks with the Phantom and cannot die * * - Old jungle saying

In defense of Clancy I point out that if the characters of his books lead the boring and mundane live that we all do I can't imagine they would be a very compelling read. My only beef with these writers is the formulaic nature of their writings, the plot is essentially the same from book to book. Of course ALL popular fiction is like this. As for the P-3 attacking the ship. If I were the Orion pilot I too would have attacked the ship. Firstly it is the operating base, take out a hovercraft and you eliminate a company, take out the ship and the whole brigade is gone. I was always dubious as to whether rolling "hard a'port" would have had any effect. We saw the effects of an Exocet on the Atlantic Conveyor and simple bombs on Sir Tristan and Sir Galahad.

Thing is, although "classified" I think you can make some pretty accurate estimations as to a weapons capabilities and BFC are pretty good at that.

That is the 'Merkin translation, I was speaking the the original 'Stralyan tongue

I want the Looney Toons Theme, complete with "Yibbida Yibbida That's all Folks"

Lamentation , I do like your words tho' you are a cunning linguist.

They are neutrally buoyant at best

Closet WEGOer !

That can't be Stuka, too short and not enough bulge in the pants for an Aussie

Yes you haven't lived until the surround sound system puts the sound of an explosion in your left ear and you actually have to turn your head to see what happened! Arrrgh I'm a NOOB ! 108 CENTIMETRE 40" sorry

True enough but we can take it back again by waiting until this turn ends then you will be dithering over your next move for DAYS during which we can enjoy our thread which moves along as nature intended. Oh and if you want me to chase pennies, best make 'em Aussie coin cos the yankee stuff ain't worth bubkus to us. John Johnson, Narsus, Bobo, you blokes are awesome ! (btw Sod off is quite mild, G rating)

AKD: No sadly the manual isn't mine, I just found this one page. This link has a whole stack of stuff: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/index.html MikeyD Yes I have no hard facts on the 17lbr v 76mm I was mainly going off the higher velocity of the 17lbr but I do recall it had accuracy problems, mainly with the APDS where the S didn't D properly.

The only music I wish for at the end of a battle are the booms of the cooking off of ammo in my enemy's burning tanks and laments of his crushed and demoralised pixeltruppen.

Will you marry me ?

Here is a copy of an official British Army Manual from 1944 showing chances to hit of the 6lbr, 17lbr and 75mm QF. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/851/accuracy.jpg/ It looks like hitting at 1000+ m with the 75mm is under 30% the 17lbr around 65% so I'd expect the US 76 to be somewhere between the 2. The big thing I see is the difference in ranges in the 50% chance to hit chart, the lower one. You can see if the target is stationary the chances of hitting it go through the roof.

If you want to play large scenarios in RT, play them on a wide screen TV. My 108" Sony Bravia is magic for getting a "seeable" overview. In WEGO you have the ability to sit down and plan and plot in infinite detail where troops will go and what they will do when they get there. Once the action starts however you are a spectator. In RT you have to be a bit more general because you need to issue commands quickly BUT you have the ability to refine specific units based on the changing situation. That is why RT wins hands down for me it is about your ability to think and act clearly and quickly under pressure which I love. Either way there is a great deal of strategy and tactics involved in both styles of play WEGO must be able to think ahead, RT must be able to assess and react quickly. To say one is better that the other is not really a valid point. Besides, this thread is for the RT'ers to tell each other how awesome we are, WEGO scum can SOD OFF

just as an aside, can you take photographs of an actual tank in all elevations and plan views and use those as the "skin" mod ?

A foxhole in general should be a simple shallow hole in which a man or 2 can curl up into a little ball and hide from direct fire. This can then be enhanced into an entrenchment by being enlarged or deepened. A trench is more developed still and should be deeper than a man is tall with a step in it to allow for fire, overhead protection, sand bags, bunkers and interconnection to other saps. Not sure which of these CM:BN models but they do provide varying degrees of protection especially from airbursts. To my mind a foxhole should provide a little cover to a unit that does not fire back and should be invisible if behind a wall (as in the old ASL). An entrenchment the same amount of cover with the ability to return fire and a trench should really offer the highest level of cover while allowing full fire production.

Yes I have read and thoroughly enjoyed Len Deighton's "Bomber". I also enjoyed his TV series "Soldier" As for the movies mentioned, well I gave up a long time ago taking anything useful from dramatisations of events however real or imagined. As my long suffering wife cries in despair "JUST WATCH THE F****** THING WHO CARES ABOUT THE FACTS !!!!! " She just doesn't understand but I do love her so

I guess it is a limitation of the system. I know I would be equally annoyed if i had ordered a tank to fire a smoke screen but then suddenly an enemy tank hove into view and they didn't bother shooting it but kept going with the smoke. I think it would take some pretty extensive and groovy programming to have an AI that acts as it should in all situations. Guess that is why they call it "artificial" intelligence.