Probus

For your viewing pleasure, the Chrysler TV-8: A 25-ton tank with a 90-mm gun. I'm sure if Cold War started just a few years earlier, we would have had a model for one of these bad boys. Chrysler’s nuclear-powered tank was the height of Atomic Age optimism (msn.com)

You will not be disappointed. Currently I'm waiting on their new Stuka book. It's doubled in size since I ordered it: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/stuka-the-doctrine-of-the-german-dive-bomber/x/24950292#/ They also have the best t-shirts (no affiliation): https://military-history-visualized.creator-spring.com

I ordered the tank book from Lulu. They have the MP44 book also: https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/christoph-bergs-and-bernhard-kast/the-assault-platoon-of-the-grenadier-company-1944-softcover/paperback/product-qqv5nr.html?page=1&pageSize=4

i9-9900? Geeze, that is a really nice processor. It holds up well like the much older i7-4790 did/does. I wonder what it lacks? I gotta side with @Redwolf on this. I bet it's a BIOS setting. EDIT: I thought you just put an extra 9 in there. So you have an i9-9990 then?

I think ole' Wartsy uses something my mum called Cockney rhyming slang. I was Cockney until I was 4 1/2, then we moved to Texas. So the extent of my Cockney now-a-days is I sometimes say "free" when I mean to say "three". If I remember correctly it goes something like this. "I'm going to go puddles and pears" would translate to "I'm going to go up the stairs". Or maybe he just has a brain tumor , or maybe I have the brain tumor . Are you guys telling me that The Battle of the Bulge is not completely historically accurate? Lol. I did look up what a fuel depot might look like that the Germans were going after. Since some variants of the Sherman used diesel and some gasoline, I think a fuel depot would have contained both. Why that's important, I think I've forgotten now. Oh yeah, T-34s use diesel so one way to get diesel would be to raid enemy supply depots. Another way to get diesel would be just to not refine oil into gasoline. Refine it into diesel instead. That would be easier and safer anyways.

Well, you could capture fuel depots. Like they tried to do in the Battle of the Bulge movie. Was that gasoline or diesel? Talk about fuel depots and fighting to not lose:

If Germany somehow overran an intact T-34 factory and with espionage knew exactly how to produce them, how would that have affected the war effort. Would that have been the tank to produce, picking up parts from the battlefield to help with logistics? Does RT have German captured T-34s?

Yeah. That topic would be a good one for its own thread @Glubokii Boy! I have a lot of ideas in that regard. Let's keep this one tanks.

True, but you can't win a war by defending all the time. I think Hitler's crew knew that if the war dragged out, they were doomed. They probably needed two main tank designs. An offensive (nasty) turreted tank to win the war, and a fast SPG 'tank' on the same chassis to run around and stop the hemorrhaging. Playing CM, I really don't like the Pz-IVs. They don't hold up well. But honestly, with the way I play, the Panthers don't do much better.

How has the BMP faired in Ukraine and Syria more recently (last 5 years or so)? Fighting them in CMCW seems to me to be unmounted until you see the spotting rounds then jump in and scoot. But I know precious little about Soviet doctrine. I know the later BMPs are some kinda scary if you don't have much that can kill them. Good thing that's not a problem with the way the US platoon is outfitted. The US platoon is pretty deadly capable with or without it's Bradley.

I wonder what the wood to steel conversation ratio is?

Seems to me a pine tree would slow a shell down a hair whereas a big ole oak might just reduce it's energy enough to stop it from penetrating a MBT. Either way it should deflect the round a rnd%%.

Here are two recent German Army Pamphlet translations that I thought were very interesting: German Army Regulation on the Medium Tank Company, May 1941, Translated by Bernhard Kast & Christoph Bergs. The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company, November 1944, Translated by Bernhard Kast & Christoph Bergs. They also have YouTube Channels and are getting ready to release a new book on the Stuka dive bomber: Stuka - The Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber, Christoph Bergs & Bernhard Kast. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/stuka-the-doctrine-of-the-german-dive-bomber#/

I agree, I don't think anything they did would have won them the war. It is interesting to speculate on what would have turned out better for them. Not that anyone would have wanted them to win. Having said that, should they have built sooo many PZ I & II chassis. Seemed like they were converting the heck out of them.

Dumb question here. In real life (at least in situations in WWII) a TRP required the indirect arty to actually fire munitions at the TRP pre-battle to verify targeting. First is that true? Second, is that still true? With GPS, do we even need TRPs anymore? Third, what is the reasoning behind onboard units getting bonuses to hit when fighting around TRPs? EDIT: Oh yeah, and with regards to killing townsfolk, that varies widely depending on the conflict and the nations involved.

If you want to have restrictions on this follow the Hard Cat rules - they at least are more realistic than a blanket ban - which I would never want to have. Some folks think this to be 'Gamey'. Playing the game more like an arcade game than a realistic game. I personally agree with you Ian and therefore have set the default to permitted. Huh - what is this. PBEM use password protected .ema files there are no .bts files in PBEM - except any intermediate saves I might make if I have to go to dinner or something. Am I missing something? You are correct. I meant .btt file not .bts. I've corrected it in the OP. The intention was for the players to agree not to peruse the .btt map/scenario in the scenario editor to get information about the game that is above and beyond what the briefing chooses to reveal. I can see your point about thinking of the above as hard set rules. They are not. They are just a list of etiquette that can be referenced (especially for newer players like myself) so that PBEM games flow more smoothly.

I have no problem with this @Redwolf. Reconnaissance by fire and/or denying an objective to the enemy. Great points and used in combat.

Yeah. Thanks @IanL. I didn't know about the Hard Cat rules. You and @Bil Hardenberger have already done this. Here is a link to the Hard Cat Rules: I like it!

What's great about these 'rules' is that they have a default setting, they are not carved in stone. If you don't agree, just say so with your PBEM opponent and set that rule to yes instead of no. Blast the heck out of the approach zones. The etiquette is just to make sure you and your opponent are on the same page when you start a game. So you would just say lets use the 'Probus etiquette' for this game except blasting approach avenues is OK. I've run into at least 1/2 a dozen games in which we both started with different ideas on what was standard etiquette for the PBEM game. I don't want to make it complex, just more standard. Hard Cat rules. I've gotta find these!

Yes. Attack and Assault scenarios should be treated differently than Meeting Engagements. But for Meeting Engagements the etiquette is a bit different.

Combat Mission PBEM Etiquette I've been Playing By E-Mail (PBEM) Combat Mission now for about a year and a 1/2 after rediscovering the Combat Mission Series mid-year 2020. I have been loving every minute of it and have sometimes had up to 13 games in progress at the same time (when stuck in a hotel room for a month because COVID didn't really let us go out at night). One of the things that I learned early on is that folks have different pre-game (and even during game) rulesets or etiquettes they play with. Things like pre-bombardment of setup zones, Mulligans, Area Fire of Contacts and so on. I wanted to standardize a set of etiquette to help smooth PBEM games, reduce conflicts and hard feelings and make the H2H game experience as fun as we can make it. I also wanted the community's input as there is probably etiquettes that I am still simply not aware of or have forgotten to add to the list. So here goes my first pass at a set of generic pre-game rules for PBEM games. Probus' PBEM Game Etiquette: 1. No pre planned bombardment of each other's setup zones in Meeting Engagements. [Set to No pre-bombardment] 2. Bombardment of avenues of approach is not allowed in Meeting Engagements until contact is established. [Set to No pre-bombardment] 3. Number of Mulligans, or turn do-overs, per game. Mulligans should only be asked for if there was a problem with the Combat Mission Engine/Process.** [Set at 1 if not otherwise specified] 4. Area fire of suspected enemy positions is permitted. [Set to permitted if not otherwise specified] 5. No viewing of a scenario's .btt file is permitted under regular gameplay. [Set to not permitted] 6. When prototyping/testing a new scenario, perusal of the .btt file is permitted but not recommended [Set to permitted but recommend it be discussed prior to start]. 7. If playing a scenario/map you have already played please reveal this fact to your opponent. [Set to TRUE] 8. Expected turn response rate should be measured in days on weeks. [Default to ~1 turn a day or more, once a week MAX] 9. Delays due to real life (RL) situations should be conveyed to your opponent. This happens to us all. From a vacation or illness to a death in the family. The courteous player should let their opponent know the turn rate has slowed or paused whenever possible. [Set to 'whenever possible'] 10. Offer your capitulation if you are no longer able to continue the game in a timely manner. [Set to 1 turn a week MAX] **Mulligans should only fix the problem that occurred. No other changes to the turn should be implemented. Example Mulligan: Reinforcements enter a map with hedgerows. Orders are given to the reinforcements to move towards the combat zone. A platoon of pixeltroopen decide to move towards a gate in the hedgerow that was accidentally placed in an exit space. The entire platoon walks through the gate and into the twilight zone and are removed from the map. Ooops! Mulligan - All the players involved agree to roll back the turn so that the movement orders can be update to not walk the platoon so close to gate on the exit row. With this etiquette players know that the only change made to the turn is the fixing of the movement orders, no other tweaking allowed. If another Ooops occurs then no Mulligan should be expected. If a listing of PBEM etiquette already exists (and it probably does), please link it below so that it can be discussed and my list updated. Hard Cat Rules are a great set of etiquette rules for simulating realistic conditions: https://community.battlefront.com/topic/135087-hard-cat-rules-v2-simple-to-use-command-control-rules-updated-14apr20/ Feel free to ask questions or describe each point further. If I have missed a point (I'm sure I have), please include it below. If you disagree with any of the points please discuss below. I would love to hear differing opinions. Also, just as a disclaimer, I think I've broken almost all these 'rules of etiquette' at one time or another. Its been a learning process. My wonderful opponents have let me know what the accepted PBEM etiquette is, continuing the game graciously.

Yay @Bootie \o/ ...and there was much rejoicing!

Anyone else having problems with the Few Good Men Forum? Doesn't seem to want to load for me anymore. It was up and down yesterday but this afternoon its definitely unreachable so far.

Ha! I have the same problem in a lot of different games @Falcon_the_Slut. But in CM I just don't save like @Vergeltungswaffe suggests, until its time to save for the day. It can be hard, but you can do it! Lots of deep breathing and telling yourself "I can do this! I can do this!".

How hard would it be for Battlefront to add the ability to turn on and off different weapons, similar to the 'Target Light' command? So if, for example, I want a BMP to use its autocannon and/or its main cannon and/or its ATGM and/or its MG, I would have the choice of setting each weapon position on or off. The crew could always override me in extreme circumstances. This could be used for several real life functions that are hard to do right now. Like conserving a certain type of ammo or reconnoitering by fire. It seems to me like I've played a game that had this ability but I'm not sure which game it was. Maybe one of the Graviteam Tactics titles?