absolutmauser

Whatever OLD MAN, I might have been born in the 70s but I grew up in the 80s!

What better time than to establish with your new bride that she has married both HerrTom and Combat Mission and should expect that between 10 and 40 hours per week will be dedicated to small unit actions? 

I recently happened across my copy of PanzerBlitz when reorganizing my games. Your avatar just reminded me. I found some supplemental counters in the box I made out of index card stock and very shaky 12 year old penmanship. An assault bridge or something from a General article or book I must have found in the library as a youth. =D

I recently happened across my copy of PanzerBlitz when reorganizing my games. Your avatar just reminded me. I found some supplemental counters in the box I made out of index card stock and very shaky 12 year old penmanship. An assault bridge or something from a General article or book I must have found in the library as a youth. =D

According to the Osprey New Vanguard book on Flammpanzer, German Flamethrower Vehicles 1941-1945, the SdKfz 251/16, Panzer III, and Hetzer flame vehicles all used the 14mm Flammanlage Bauart Koebe (or Koebe-Gerat) flamethrower system. It had a max range in all applications of about 60m for burning fuel, and 50m for unlit fuel. Early versions of the SdKfz 251/16 had a 7mm handheld projector tied into the same system but that could be used "dismounted" by trailing a hose. It had a shorter range. The book has a lot of info on the topic and includes combat reports, design history, etc. As far as Osprey books go, it's a good one!

Walter Seifert's "Waffen-Arsenal" book on the 251 gives the range of the 251/16 as 35m with both 14mm flamethrowers firing. 

According to the Osprey New Vanguard book on Flammpanzer, German Flamethrower Vehicles 1941-1945, the SdKfz 251/16, Panzer III, and Hetzer flame vehicles all used the 14mm Flammanlage Bauart Koebe (or Koebe-Gerat) flamethrower system. It had a max range in all applications of about 60m for burning fuel, and 50m for unlit fuel. Early versions of the SdKfz 251/16 had a 7mm handheld projector tied into the same system but that could be used "dismounted" by trailing a hose. It had a shorter range. The book has a lot of info on the topic and includes combat reports, design history, etc. As far as Osprey books go, it's a good one!

If you were wondering why CMx2 requires an always online connection, it's so Steve can personally login and mess with your game. =D 
...
 
 
(It doesn't you guys, chill)

If you were wondering why CMx2 requires an always online connection, it's so Steve can personally login and mess with your game. =D 
...
 
 
(It doesn't you guys, chill)

If you were wondering why CMx2 requires an always online connection, it's so Steve can personally login and mess with your game. =D 
...
 
 
(It doesn't you guys, chill)

I'm going to start doing it anyway...

Thanks for the update, Steve! 

A question for Steve, a bit off topic but still upgrade related. At this point in time is CM2 Windows going to remain a 32-bit program?
I made a really large map/scenario with the idea of mimicking old CM campaigns over the length of a 4 hour battle. Everything was testing well until our Win32 versions started getting oom errors as reinforcement forces were added to the survivors of the previous skirmish. My theory is 64-bit would solve the oom issue and allow for larger battles.
This doesn't mean I am not still in awe of what CM accomplishes. After all these years that's a pretty good endorsement, IMHO. Thanks for the countless hours of enjoyment.

I shall defer to your tongue sticky out and keep reading, then! 😃 

Why, to see what happens of course.

I didn't get the memo, obviously. 😃

I think one of these is the post I mentioned above. In them, @MikeyD describes some of the artillery abstractions that are used to work around the limitations of the action square system. 

I think @Bulletpoint stated that he felt the artillery was highly abstracted. I can't find the thread, but I am certain that at some previous point someone provided a lengthy discussion of why artillery works the way it does. It IS abstracted rather than modeled directly. An artillery shell landing triggers a probability calculation for each unit within a radius and that is the basis for casualty determination. The reason for this is that the "Action Square" system of the engine and the way squads and teams work mean that the troops are more tightly clustered than they would be in real life in many situations. As a result, if they modeled the artillery more directly, a LOT more squads would get vaporized by 155mm shells because they are all packed into an 8x24m box instead of spreading out over 50m+. 
Maybe someone who understands it better or has that explanation somewhere can share it. It might help. 

It's good the balloon never went up, because there would probably be fewer customers for Combat Mission: North German Plain! 

It's good the balloon never went up, because there would probably be fewer customers for Combat Mission: North German Plain! 

Well you might have tried! Goodness sakes!
Michael

Yeah let me grab my leather Jacket. I would love to see something Pacific , even if it were Okinawa and Philippines also some China-Burma thrown in. With these Battles anything near the
beaches could be avoided, thereby allowing the current engine to handle it. But I know, not popular enough. So my next wish would be eastern Front 41-43

I think Combat Mission Pacific would be neat. I would also like to see an expansion to Black Sea.

CM Fulda Gap baby!

Michael