Jump to content

Hpt. Lisse

Members
  • Content Count

    459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hpt. Lisse

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 08/10/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Location
    Boston, MA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Before I take the dive with a Dell U3415W (3440x1440) display (on sale briefly for $649), will CM:RT output that correctly? Yes, GPU is current (GTX 970). I mean (cough), it's very, very important that I get this monitor for my work at home wife, who sure could use the real estate. Super important, actually. There must be other, um, supportive husbands out there who purchase necessary hardware for their significant others...
  2. Yes, it's an offical bug... http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118147-stug-iii-bug-commanders-opening-up-at-point-blank-range/
  3. ASL vet - though it's hard to say what level of production they were up to in the fall of '45, the new JS III's were beastly tanks. It would be interesting to see a squad of each go at it... It certainly would have pushed the Super Pershing into mass production... Agreed Sublime, no doubt Allied tatics adapted and TOE's improved. There were outstanding troops of the 82nd & 101st AB, veterans in the Big Red One, and heroic individuals everywhere. But the majority of our troops A) suffered from poor leadership at the Company & Battalion level, and wouldn't move forward without massive artillery assistance. BTW, the Brits were in the exact same boat. And I'm talking about pre-Bulge here, not after it was clear that Germany was beat. Again, I found Hastings Overlord and Armageddon (which shines a focused spotlight on this topic) to be just as insightful & balanced (perhaps more so) than even Ambrose's missives.
  4. I think most of these scenarios would be focused on a Stalin push West. An Allied push East was simply unthinkable at the time, Patton's enthusiasm notwithstanding. Though Churchill knew what was developing as the Red Army progressed, the Allied high command was driven by soldiers, not politicians. Neither the Yanks or the Brits would have suffered those losses on the ground, though the previously mentioned air superiority (for the Allies) would be a big factor. I don't even want to analyze the use of atomic weapons on Soviet strong points, which would have (even if outwardly subdued) created a nation of terrorists for the West to contend with. Great read - both Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, and then the follow-up Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944 - 1945, by Max Hastings. Summary for this topic would be - A) Germans had the best professional army (obvious, I know), The Soviets had a vengeful horde driven by a leader who didn't give two farts for casualty counts, and C) the Allies had soldiers who were products of basically ethical democracies. The progress of Allied troops through Europe, and especially Germany, was much slower than expected, even as resistance crumbled, driven by cautious commanders and GI's who wanted to make it home alive. Did we have manpower reserves after VE day? Yep. Were they low-value green troops? Yep. Was that already a HUGE issue with our current frontline troops? Yep. A co got it - we didn't have the will to mount a war against the Soviets after VE day. Nor am I saying that (in a conventional war) the Soviets would have done better against us in August of '45. Defensively, the Allies (along with every willing German POW, which would have been many) would have easily stopped Stalin in his tracks, esp. with air superiority. That's why he didn't do it.
  5. From Actung Panzer! website - "During the production, modifications were made to Ausf G. They included introduction of 80mm cast Saukopf (also known as Topfblende) mantlet in February of 1944; the coaxial MG in early 1944, installation of Nahverteidigungswaffe (90mm NbK 39 close-in defense weapon) and roof mounted remote controlled MG (Rundum Feuer) in late spring of 1944." But keep in mind that the 50-round drum magazine would have to be manually changed - in fact, that's what I initally though they were doing, popping up to change the MG drum.
  6. Migo441 - anywhere from 60 meters to point blank range. BTW, here's the offical update - Ticket #9512030: CM:RT Stug III & 42 bug Status: solved Comment by: John Costello .--- | Hi Carl, | | I was able to see what you were talking about. I have reported it as an official bug. Unfortunately, that means that any fix will be in a future patch. | | Thanks for the support and the heads up. | | John I'm sure they'll get it on the next patch.
  7. Hey all, just for the record, after seeing the same AI behavior in the second campaign battle, I did submit it to the Higher Powers for review. Yep, them Stug loaders simply love to emerge under short range/heavy small arms fire conditions to try to man the rooftop MG... BF will work it out, they always do.
  8. Sure, I saved the action turn for that purpose. I generally try to avoid posting things like that on YouTube or whatever, because I don't want to generate bad press for BF. Of some interest was, in a number of Stugs, it was the loader who was popping up first, not the commander... When I get home today I'll use Fraps to record it... or I could just send you the turn....? so you can see all the angles & instances...
  9. Correction - upon closer scrutiny, out of the 12 or so Stug III's charging the line, at least 8 of them demonstrate the 'suicidal commander' behavior. Note that no Pz IV or Tiger I tank near the enemy exhibits this 'open up' quirk...
  10. Playing first battle of the "Thunder Over Ponyri" campaign, and having a gas. There are large number of armored forces at play; as my troops are over-running the first set of trenches, my Stug commanders seem intent on greeting their soon-to-be prisoners first-hand. Last turn, no less less than 4 vehicles (3 Stug III + 1 Stug 42) exhibited this behavior - one even lost its commander, only to have the loader pop out of the hatch. There's a lot of hatch open/close/open animations going on, as the AI tries to decide what to do... At any rate, if one Stug lost its commander to an over-zealous individual at close range (or perhaps to re-loading the roof MG), I wouldn't think twice about it. But seeing so many at once, there's obviously something wrong here. Happy to send the action turn along for analysis. Also, I'd like to 'bump' the observation that a whole lotta HE rounds from my AFV's are being used up on fleeing individuals instead of employing MG's... As always, thanks for your time & efforts.
  11. Give Download Express a shot - seems to be much faster w/larger files, etc... free.
  12. Barkhorn 1x, Duriel - When I rebuilt my tower this summer (and changed over from an AMD to an Nvidia video card) a ton of this was discussed & analyzed. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/114951-analysis-of-rt-senario-loading-times/ BF uses and entirely different set of shaders for ATI/AMD cards, and combined with some driver funk, equals slow senario loading times.
  13. Odd thing is, I got the whole shebang up & running on my tower just fine, activating all modules successfully. But my laptop keeps coughing up this activation server error; both machines run the exact same A/V software (ESET NOD32); the only difference being the laptop is Win7 where the tower is 8.1. My connection to the internet is fine; any ideas? Many thanks -
  14. Any progress weta nz? Very curious, I believe I had the transparent tree mod, too. But my Z folder is nearly 5 GB large now, it would be hard to nail down what was causing my crash dumps... I suppose I could try to analyze just the units of that particular battle & if anything new showed up that particular turn it always bombs out on...
×
×
  • Create New...