Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/05/2015 in all areas

  1. 2 points

    Favorite Western Film Scene?

    "We' re burning daylight!". Favorite western line from John Wayne in "The Cowboys". It always reminds me of my Dad since we watched it together, and I used to go to work with him as a kid house painting. We would get up around 4-5am, and I would be draging ass, and he would give me the line come on "We're burning daylight!". Always made me smile because it was something between us.
  2. 1 point

    [RELEASED] Juju's TweakedUI v5

    Although I expected v4 (final) to be the definitive version of TweakedUI for CM:BN, it was -obviously- not to be. After many requests i've finally decided to update TweakedUI to include full support for CM:FI and its Gustav line module. There are also a few other tweaks/additions that affect both games: WHAT'S NEW IN v5: - CM:FI base game and Gustav line module are now fully supported. - New unique portraits for Canadian, Polish and NZ forces. - New Bren weapon slot icon. - Cosmetic updates to loading bars and command buttons. - Optional French language splash background for CM:BN. Get it now in at GaJ's ! The repository will follow shortly, as usual. NOTE: You will find this mod in the CM:BN section!
  3. 1 point
    Doug Williams

    Tiger Vs Stuart

    Stuarts have been a favorite of mine for a long time now. I love them, especially in city battles. From a PBEM turn I received today. This is a meeting engagement on the Holland "Elst" map.
  4. 1 point

    Soviet SMGs

    Realistic does not mean huge. Realistic does not require special conditions of five times as much clock time. Green units, 30-50% more time, and less symmetric forces can all improve realism, but none is strictly required (you can have 2 out of 3 e.g.). As for loss tolerance, the game model issue is that rally is rather too rapid and too complete (which greens do help with, incidentally). Another approach to that I will describe below. There is also a scenario design issue of designers frequently putting too much into terrain objectives that are all controlled at start by one side - or similar effects with exit conditions - which basically force a push for complete victory. The better design for loss realism is to have a moderate amount of points for terrain objectives compared to those potentially available from knock out points, and then in addition to spread the terrain objectives around, some being quite easy for the attacker to reach and hold. So that a normal, probing or tentative attack outcome would split the terrain objective points, with perhaps the attacker getting 200 of them and the defender 300 or 400. Not 500-600 to nothing, unless the attacker takes the entire field. There is another way to enforce realistic loss tolerance levels by using global morale. It requires the players to adopt the system and abide by it, rather than any change to the game engine or scenario design (though the scenario design should specify the details). Each side is given a global morale level that is its "continue the mission" or "critical" level. If the side's global morale is below its critical level at the start of an orders phase, that side must click the "cease fire" option. Notice, either side *may* choose to prepare for cease fire, as usual - this global morale just sets an additional "must". If the defender thinks he is winning, he might voluntarily choose it each turn. If he then drives the attacker's global morale below its critical level, the attacker will be forced to choose "ceasefire" as well, the two will match up, and the scenario will end, then and there. This represents a combat broken off, with the attacker ceasing his efforts to try again later or somewhere else or using different tactics or forces, or the defender retreating from the position. This gives a much more realistic way of fighting, in the sense that the force must be kept tolerably intact, in reasonable morale state etc, or it simply will not continue the mission. If the opponent doesn't want to let it break off, this still won't end the fight early - the other side just won't have picked "cease fire" in that case, and the combat continues. If both sides are ragged out, however, the fight *won't* continue. So no fighting to the last man on each side, ammo exhausted, trading haymakers at 4 meters with the last dismounted tank crews, etc. As for how to make more realistic scenarios, when I was designing actively for CM1 I took inspiration from operational wargames I was playing at the same time. I would just log local battles to simulate (at greatly reduced, merely "representative" scale, of course) from the combats that occurred in the operational game. Those tend to be rather lopsided and to feature combined arms relationships that are not symmetric or ideal. So e.g. sometimes a full company of German tanks with a few recon infantry on motorcycles attack a pure rifle infantry defense, that has nothing more than a single 45mm ATG as AT weapon, and in open farmland terrain. On another occasion, such a German force might be called upon to attack through a dense forest along a narrow secondary road, against prepared defenses including mines. Very different tactical task, that. The point is precisely to avoid any one formula as supposedly "typical", to say to heck with "play balance", and instead just make lots of varied situations that feature only this long suit against that one, in this type of terrain problem or another. Both sides need to assess what they can actual accomplish in the situation in front of them - which may be only "die gloriously", lol. FWIW.
  5. 1 point

    Q, Blunting the Spear

    Yes it is! And theres a ****load of other stuff that makes boom, including a batallion of Panther and one of PIV. You are in for a great ride! Best ww2 campaign for me. My advice for you is: take it slow, really slow, the russians know their maskirovka. Once you found them, crush them swiftly with brute force.
  6. 1 point

    Tiger Vs Stuart

  7. 1 point

    Soviet SMGs

    Agreed, kevinkin. See GeorgeMC's "Der Ring der 5. Panzer-Division" scenario for an excellent example of a huge map with lots of units ( but it doesn't feel like a lot because ... huge map... ) and plenty of time to work your way (relatively) realistically across. His CMBN "Schmiedestahl" is similar in scope and scale. So it can be done, but a lot of people want a quick half-hour of action - and fair enough, not everyone has the time to commit to a monster battle. So people sometimes need to rein in their perceptions/preconceptions because we're the ones using units ahistorically, not the game.
  8. 1 point

    Tiger Vs Stuart

    I love the M20 and some of the Kiwi and Canuck light armor. Like the infantry carrier the defrocked priest. forget its name.
  9. 1 point

    Soviet SMGs

    The discussion of how weapons and combat are modeled is always fascinating. And why wouldn't be, having elements of the computer, real and historical worlds. But I wonder if we should also look at the battles and combat scenarios we fight the model in. Perhaps the length of battles is to short to accommodate the players available playing time. This produces combat with too many losses than would be tolerated in situations unless very very dire. Rushing to objectives will certainly magnify the effectiveness of all arms. We rarely have the time to explore the map with prep fire followed by a carefully reconnoitered advance. Even in multi hour battles, are the maps too large to cross without taking huge casualties since the attacker has to rush? In large scenarios, many may not have the inclination to repeat the battle using a more deliberate pace of operations if they were mowed down in the first try.Maybe we should judge the combat model in light of what we are asking the troops to accomplish. Just another angle on the topic. Kevin
  10. 1 point

    Favorite Western Film Scene?

    Nice memory to hang onto Vinnart, priceless.
  11. 1 point

    Kohlenklau Vehicle thread

    Permits, schmermits! Who needs permits? It is not like someone is going to tow away my Panther just because I havenĀ“t got a permit, is it?
  12. 1 point

    Tiger Vs Stuart

    Love it. I have lost as many as seven tanks before finally getting the better of a Tiger. You were much more fortunate in that battle. Did you know there were Tigers about?
  13. 1 point

    Tiger Vs Stuart

    Results like this are why I love the game. Truly anything can happen.
  14. 1 point

    Tiger Vs Stuart

    User1000: Check out the M5s loadout. 12 rounds of canister. Hit the Tiger w/ 3 AP shots and then when the crew bailed he shot a canister round to cause some casualties. NO mercy!
  15. 1 point

    Tiger Vs Stuart

    Nice video what did the impacts say couldn't read it. The stuart has a high velocity 37mm just like the 37mm anti-tank gun. The penetration values are similar to the m4 shermans weak low velocity 75mm believe it or not.It could fire canister for anti-troop purposes as well but I doubt battelefront added that as ammo? The inner city is not a place for Tigers to be.. The Tiger tanks turret speed and general track speed is slow. It would probably be quicker for a tiger to track turn instead of a turret turn. The closer the stuart gets to an enemy tank the more deadly it is. Since the M8 greyhound also has the 37mm, It could probably do the same. If a .50cal could not out a tanks engine from behind, the 37 would have no problem knocking out any tanks engine from behind. Shermans and Stuarts reign in inner city battles.. Up close is where the 75mm WORKS as well.
  16. 1 point

    Tiger Vs Stuart

    *Chuckles* First two AP rounds and then a beehive, what a mean motherhugger. ...a very smart one indeed, he hit about the only spot his little gun could penetrate at all. *thumbs up*
  17. 1 point
    They sell this in Denmark?
  18. 1 point

    Phlegmatic tank commanders

    Depends what motivation level and morale state they're in. Low motivation tankies get their heads down a lot more rapidly than Fanatics. That said, I do wish they wouldn't be quite so sanguine about the lead pinging off their hatch surrounds when it's automatic fire, and several rounds hit the tank in the last 10s. It seems somewhat inconsistent that the TC will front up for a good while and then, immediately he decides it's too hot to have his head out, orders a retreat. Especially when he knows he's well screened by infantry, and there's not a sign of AT weaponry being available to the grunts who're spoiling his top-down-motoring (since if they had any that could reach, they've had plenty of time to get it used by the time the TC ducks. Ideally, a high motivation, high experience TC will stay "up" when incoming is light, and know better when it's getting to the point of prudence than a similarly well motivated TC of lesser experience.
  19. 1 point

    Alternate control panel layout

    Steve, my feedback is the UI is very good in layout and design as is. There are some things you can do to improve the way the eye flows across it, but these things have to do with the way things point visually. Visual composition is my profession so it is something I do know much about. Ever look at a painting and wonder why you find it pleasing? If the artist is successful it is because it has composition designed to move the eye through it in a comfortable way as part of it's appeal. This is achieved using various techniques such as line direction. Simple things like flipping portraits and weapon silhouettes in the way they point go a long way to create the way you want the eye to move across the panels. These things are easily fixed through modding, but it is a suggestion to improve what you have out of the box to improve the visual flow which is left to right for this composition of logical information flow. I think the panel placement is optimal now for the left to right visual flow, and agree the breaking up of the panels as you describe works for distinction. This is a mod I made, but look at the difference in the way the portrait and weapons point to direct the eye more comfortably from left to right across the UI from panel to panel. Certainly an easy fix. There are only a few things I would change, or should I say add to this UI. I would not move any of the panels since i think they are layed out logically now. When selecting a unit the eye goes straight to the upper left of the UI to see what is selected, unless the player is looking for something else specific such as vehicle damage for example. The UI has this information in the optimal place since when we read, we always start upper left and go left to right. From there, though improved graphics facings like arrows, the eye can move more comfortably left to right through the information finally stopping at the orders panel on the far right. This is also the most logical place as one usually reviews the unit info left to right with the final action being to issue orders. Move to the next unit, and the process begins again. I find the information thorough for the most part, and really can't see what information could be taken away. The game is just too complex to leave anything of what is there now out. As to the information I would add it is all good things that were left out from cmx1 UI Floor #, passenger status, and open in UI Ammo text to go red when holding a weapon out of main ammo similar to red text when parts destroyed on vehicles.
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    First of my series on Tank Tacitcs is posted on the Blog. First up, I am calling this one the Mouse Trap Enjoy!
  22. 1 point

    Buddy Aid way too easy

    That wouldnt be the first time in an armed conflict someone trying to help ot a wounded end up a casualty themselfs. I rather like the abstract system we have now for simulating this.
  23. 1 point

    Favorite Western Film Scene?

    why Johnnie Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave
  24. -1 points

    Brief overview of where CM is headed

    As if CMx2 has no other problems and BFC no other things to do (or things they should do) then adding child soldiers...pff.
  25. -1 points
    John Kettler

    Any way to buy CMBS for a friend

    Splunkjamma, Why not just give a BFC gift certificate in the amount of the game? Though I couldn't find it listed on the site, I'd imagine that could be arranged by contacting BFC. The way I've seen it is as a discount code to be applied at checkout. Am not quite sure how to do it if you wish to mask your outlay. In that case, Lethaface may have it right. Recommend you contact BFC's HelpDesk and submit a ticket. I looked in the canned answers under both "gift certificate" and "gift," but found nothing, which is why I suggest generating a ticket. http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com sburke, In which case Splunkjamma will now have two separate CMx2 acquisition pipelines--but only if he gets his friend to buy something after the initial game and the friend doesn't change the PW! On a more serious note, it's always good to know that theory and results correlate perfectly when it comes to, wait for it, The Lethaface Implementation! Yes, I do watch "The Big Bang Theory," and the physicists' way of describing things has, to some degree, wormed its way into my brain. Regards, John Kettler