I Have Questions About Arty That Need To Be Answered

[gunnergoz]

Having read through the thread I conclude:

A. Not all CM players are grogs

B. Not all CM players are polite or patient

C. Grogs can come in either variety

D. If we treat sincere questions with rudeness, we encourage more of the same tone in return then get to bemoan the low level to which the forum has fallen

E. Even the best mannered of us can have a bad moment...So &%$#@@ off you rude *&^%$#!

[MrSpkr]

Point taken, gunner (may I call you gunner? Thanks).

Just a bit bored and having a bit of fun with the Col. -- then reacted strongly when he didn't see it that way.

Apologies to those who took offense.

[gunnergoz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Point taken, gunner (may I call you gunner? Thanks).

Just a bit bored and having a bit of fun with the Col. -- then reacted strongly when he didn't see it that way.

Apologies to those who took offense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do we find such men?

Seriously, common decency doesn't seem that common somedays. Still we have to keep the idea alive.

I had to apologize to someone for going over the top myself today. It felt a lot better than living with the bad taste in my mouth.

In the end, what counts most to me is when someone can recognize human frailty in themselves and can grant the same latitude to others.

So thanks MrSpkr, for caring enough to say what you did above.

[felixgrey]

DeadMarsh,

The US had a 4.2" mortar developed just before we entered the war. It fired a 25lb shell and had HE and WP for ammo. A good book to read about them is the Bloody Clash at Sadzot (William Breuer) which is about the 87th Mortar Bn at The Battle of the Buldge. The 87th had 4.2" mortars. Good Read.

-Scott

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Oh grow up and buy a sense of humor. If you are going to post brain-dead questions like these or several others you have flooded the board with lately without bothering to do a search or testing it yourself, be ready to take a little flak.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "Search" button doesn't work anymore, remember? Now who's the one who sounds dumb...

I re-read my earlier post and I don't see why you have such a problem with my "brain-dead questions". Part of what I asked was opinions on what works, or if they thought a certain unit was overpriced. The other questions you thought were stupid have answers that are not known to people like myself who have only played a handful of games. As much as I'd like to, I find it difficult to play this game and read up on all the history behind WWII.

As for the rocket question, maybe I could've researched the rockets myself but I thought I'd save some time and ask the experts out there instead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>StellarRat said:The intelligent person saves as much time as possible finding answers to known problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. This sounds like someone who's read, "Think And Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill. Form your mastermind group and use it instead of trying to learn everything yourself. And that's just what I was doing. Just trying to save a little time so I know what to get for the next game.

Sorry I didn't get your humor Spkr but your playful barbs come across as insults.

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

As for the rocket question, maybe I could've researched the rockets myself but I thought I'd save some time and ask the experts out there instead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what they're here for, son. That, and to show off their grogginess.

In a way, I'm almost glad the search engine isn't working. Although the archives are useful, way too many times its existence has provided an excuse to harrass newbies and anyone else who falls short of omniscience or who hasn't committed to memory every thread that's ever been on the forum.

Michael

[yeknod]

Reading this thread with mild interest... as a newbie being flattened with artillery (any calibre, any mode) sort of captures my attention... anyway, learnt to listen to experts 'cause they're experts.... but if innocence is not rewarded its probably best to pass by and accept offers from fellow gamers; seems more are willing than not to to do this. There's no sense in having a fight (can resolve this in a game)! BTW, are we using VT or HE insults?

[Dweezil44]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yeknod:

BTW, are we using VT or HE insults?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the terrain the target is in, you silly git!

[Priest]

Screw VT and HE assaults!!! I plan to use the ever infamous SWARM OF JEEP insults. BEWARE!!! BEWARE!!!!

oh and because it now seems appropriate.....

HI MOM!

Seems like the question has been answered the insults hurled and all that is left is to continue to spout drivel until Matt arrives.

[Andymann]

Wow there is some serious shelling going on around here...INCOMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

Anyway noone has mentioned how good VT is on dug in troops, in case you don't know, very.

I tried an experiment involving 2 companys vs 1 vt spotter, destroyed or routed the lot.

You have to get up to the real big stuff to get a similar effect, then again it's almost as expensive!

Rockets? Don't mention rockets I got stuffed by my own, they're lucky to land on the map!

[nedlam]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

C'mon, a cinder block held over my head by someone who wants my wallet is a "terror weapon". A weapon is a weapon, and being terrified of any one of them is quite a rational decision. Let's not assist in the complication of the language to no purpose, hmm? This isn't the six o'clock news.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your right, of course. What I was trying to say by a weapon of terroris you'll have a better chance to get a large number of troops to duck and cover with arty then say with a MG unit or even a platoon of infantry. Hehehe, now that I think about it the term "terror weapon" does sound like something you would hear on CNN.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote:

The "Search" button doesn't work anymore, remember?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has it broken in the past few days? I've been using it on a regular basis.

[Darwin]

Just can't help but chime in here

Mrspkr, I relate.

I seem to expect people who are into this game and post regularly to have previous knowledge of weapons systems and tactics from WWII. Which is simply not allways the case.

Remember the various threads on our relative ages? Some of our board members are under 15 years old. Sure I thought I knew a lot then *chuckle* but...

A lot of what I erroneously take to be common knowledge simply isn't to anyone who hasn't had war, especially WWII, as a major interest for 20+ years...

So yeah, let us meditate on this huuuuuuuuu

[PiggDogg]

There is no need for rudeness, and there is a need for common politeness. If someone asks a question (even if another thinks that it is less than erudite and that it might be basic knowledge) the question should be answered with politeness, civility, and courtesy. If these parameters cannot be adhered to, don't answer and be polite by not answering. Under all circumstances, no one deserves to be set upon for a lack of knowledge.

So there ...

Richard

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nedlam:

Your right, of course. What I was trying to say by a weapon of terroris you'll have a better chance to get a large number of troops to duck and cover with arty then say with a MG unit or even a platoon of infantry. Hehehe, now that I think about it the term "terror weapon" does sound like something you would hear on CNN. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nedlam-

I see your point, I was just being thin-skinned about the phrase 'terror weapon': it's one of my pet peeves. And actually, I don't know if units in the game are even aware of fire of which they are not within the beaten zone or blast radius.

-dale

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[JasonC]

Very slight correction to one of felixgrey's comments. The US 4.2" mortar was meant to be used as a chemical mortar. Since gas warfare wasn't used in WW II, it was planned to use them for smoke missions as well - while they remained the stand-by for gas warfare if the Germans used gas first. But at the start of the war, no HE round existed for them, and none was planned.

The HE round for the 4.2" mortar was developed by an artillery officer during the fighting in North Africa. It started life as a field mod, in effect. The army quickly adopted it, in time to use 4.2" HE in the Italian campaign. The rounds were standard by the time period covered in CMBO.

The correction is only to the notion that HE rounds existed for the weapon before the war. They did not, and the army hadn't really planned for it. A little initiative in the field made up for that oversight...

[felixgrey]

JasonC

-Thanks, I didn't realize that. All ways willing to learn!

-Scott

[Mark IV]

An answer that often works for "why choose a ___ ?" is, because that's what they used in WWII. This would apply to 75mm arty, HMGs, LMGs, half-tracks, jeep MGs, and the many other subjects of "why bother with ___" questions.

If you are trying to accurately simulate a historical battle, or even a realistic but generic QB, it's often illuminating to use the same weapon systems available to the historical "players". Some weapons, like Wespe and flak, were designed to fulfill other roles, but are pressed of necessity into a CM-scale battle. Some are around because armies had tons of inventory and shipped it to the theater to fill real or perceived needs.

RL commanders didn't get to push their cart down the aisles of the CM supermarket prior to an engagement, and select uberweapons of choice. They had to make do with what was at hand. One of the attractions of playing the better historical scenarios is "being stuck" with unappealling weapon systems, just like the original commanders, and having to make them work for you in an emergency.

[yeknod]

hmmmm, yes, I was wondering, how did the Finns use artillery? Newbie question, I know.

Yeknod

[yeknod]

....yes, yes, you see I'd heard the Finns stuffed grenades in the orifices of overfed ducks, propelled them into the air via mortars causing them to explode and spread foi gras among the enemies' officer class... needless to say this caused some confusion.... also, it was important to shove the right end of the duck into the mortar tube, butt first. Beak first caused some cafuffle with the beast as it foresore or "peeked" at its impending doom (known by the Finns as Peeking Duck blow back). This caused a field modification involving pancakes, plum sauce, cucumber to ensure smooth delivery against targets... Have to say this is undermodelled in CBBO.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

An answer that often works for "why choose a ___ ?" is, because that's what they used in WWII. This would apply to 75mm arty, HMGs, LMGs, half-tracks, jeep MGs, and the many other subjects of "why bother with ___" questions.

If you are trying to accurately simulate a historical battle, or even a realistic but generic QB, it's often illuminating to use the same weapon systems available to the historical "players". Some weapons, like Wespe and flak, were designed to fulfill other roles, but are pressed of necessity into a CM-scale battle. Some are around because armies had tons of inventory and shipped it to the theater to fill real or perceived needs.

RL commanders didn't get to push their cart down the aisles of the CM supermarket prior to an engagement, and select uberweapons of choice. They had to make do with what was at hand. One of the attractions of playing the better historical scenarios is "being stuck" with unappealling weapon systems, just like the original commanders, and having to make them work for you in an emergency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reference to your first couple of sentences, I understand what you're saying here. All the games I've played have been on ladder so far, so of course I'm looking for the units who are worth their price--and let's face it, even though BTS did a pretty good job with the unit rates, there are still some units that simply make more sense to buy.

I would though like to get away from that from time to time and play someone who knows what a realistic set up would be, just to simulate a real life battle more realistically and not have the ladder competitveness hanging over my head as I play. For one, I have never taken planes in a ladder game and have only been on the receiving end once. This is definetely one thing I need to experience.

Actually, this whole thread has made me realize that I don't really know the game that well--mostly due to time constraints and the fact that PBEM games take a long time to complete. Although I'm familiar with tactics because of all the turns I've completed, I don't know a lot about the units of the game, because I've played a limited amount of games. Like I said, I'd like to get away from ladder and try out some other units, especially in realistic situation and try to make due with a setup that doesn't necessarily maximize one's points given per battle. Now that I think of it, it's kinda weird that I haven't experimented with planes yet in this game and haven't made my own scenario to try out and yet CM2 is just around the corner. Must do something about that...

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yeknod:

...also, it was important to shove the right end of the duck into the mortar tube, butt first. Beak first caused some cafuffle with the beast as it foresore or "peeked" at its impending doom (known by the Finns as Peeking Duck blow back). This caused a field modification involving pancakes, plum sauce, cucumber to ensure smooth delivery against targets... Have to say this is undermodelled in CBBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Groan] Somebody pour a gallon of icewater over this guy's head quick before the contagion spreads! :eek:

Michael

[yeknod]

.... not only undermodelled, nay, completely missing. One duck smaked a Chinese emmisary on the forehead while encoding diplomatic letters in Helsinki. Can't imagine whether the Chinese picked up on this new technology, though if it crossed the Manchurian wastelands (the idea, that is, not the duck - bit difficult with a grenade up its posterior) I'd expect it to be represented in CMBB by the Russians....

Anyway, units were used by the Finns at batallion level and often attached to elite, medic units.... quack squads

[yeknod]

....then there is the issue of the Finnish armie's conversions of school transport for assaults, invoiced, oddly, by a rogue duck... yes, where is the duck-billedplatedbus in the game?

[Dirtweasle]

umm, back to the topic.

I've found VT to be pretty effective against tanks. Seems to really rip 'em up. Sure, if you have an AT gun handy it's more economical, but in a pinch a tight grouping of 105 VT works.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Dirtweasle ]