Jump to content

s3333cr333tz

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  1. This is simply untrue. Perhaps if you sold that 486dx and got yourself a 2ghz+ cpu, I hear they cost about 150 dollars now. We also don't use whale blubber for lamps, welcome to today. The problem is not with processor power, or graphics cards. The problem is getting those 12 men to behave somewhere realistically in a 3d environment, you know completely opposite of Squad western front or whatever that piece of trash was called. In CM infantry is abstracted, which means you can get a much more realistic model for how they behave and seek cover (well, they don't seek cover properly but you get the point). If you have everyman in a squad represented the game goes into a totally different direction, depending on how you implement the larger squads. If you just have the same sort of puppets, adding 9 men to the squad with a more modern engine will be fine. If you want to see the things the current game abstacts you run into a whole new ball of wax. You need to seriously work on the AI for the infantry, moreover you need to make the maps much more detailed providing more doodads that actually function as cover. You have to actually depict the individual rounds with their own physics. If Battlefront can pull off the latter and not have the game run like a dog, excellent. However, I think the safe move is to improve the AI of infantry in its current abstracted form. It works, it may not be as eye popping, but at least it wont screw the game up like a poorly implemented dynamic infantry model. Most popular RTS games today can have several hundred up to several thousand units running at once in large games. All calculating pathing LOS etc. The graphical strain should be a none factor, and to be honest im rather unhappy with how the current CM runs on a top end machine like mine, this has to do with the engine, not what the engine does make no mistake about it. There are several games out recently that prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
  2. Exactly right. I can see two reasons why you might want to call your warship Tulip. The first reason may have been pioneered by roman gladiators. There is something disarming about going into combat with someone named Tulip. Obviously they are some limp wristed SOB(s), and you, the attacker of Tulip is going to become overconfident, at least that is the hope ;p The second reason I can think of us, is obviously to demean and humiliate your opponant. How manly can you feel after you lost a battle to something called the "Pancake Nannies" or "Tulip" or some other thilly name ;p ***Breaking News*** Today the pride of the German Navy, Bismark was sunk by the HMS Pancake Nannies. You've just taken all will to fight from the Germans right there ;p
  3. Keep up the good work Panther Commander ;p Nothing I like to see more than Mr "600 paragraph responce to a 6 word question" run tail firmly tucked from legs.
  4. I think what he is saying is. He doesnt argue on the internet, because internet arguers will beat you with their experience with the intracacies of their highly refined board warrioring skills. He'd rather argue in real life, where someone with a smug attitude can get a proper dose of reality. Ive got one thing to add to this discussion since it was missed in my first post. This is a video game forum. A certain number of people on these forums, take this game, and themselves far to seriously. As a result, people are to scared to make a point, or post about anything that isnt totally laymen. The entire forums have degenerated in one giant pissing contest of who can back up their own personal opinions with the most undisputed facts. As a result, you most of the posters walking on egg shells trying not to break the "rules" and get attacked by the "grogs". I can't even read JasonC threads on anything but in game tactics, because they are one giant overly wordy reach around, going on 50+ paragraphs. These forums are not scholarly, nor are they required that you can use proper grammar. It is nice when posters have a grasp of grammar, but it is nausiating when people get a little too authoritarian with their facts. What REALLY annoys me, is when people attack other people for their lack of grammar. When you open that can, you open a can of worms. Pot Kettle whatever, cause I can go through just about every single post in this thread and find SOME grammatical errors. That said. There are alot of knowledgable people here. I've learned alot from some of the posters here. I think people need to chill out, have a sense of humor and not get all worked up or be so anal. Oh and for the record, my original post was not political, it was a joke based on one of the more entertaining twists this thread has taken. Yes I understand there is an overly nationalistic twist when anyone who is proud of their military looks back on what their military accomplished in ww2. I think I just summed up in one sentence the whole arguement about the US being better marksman, without having to assail anyone with GIVE ME FACTS. We don't need facts because its true. If you don't know that it makes you ignorant. I am Canadian with American citizenship as well.
  5. After slogging through all 7 pages of this. I believe I have come to one concrete truth. Obviously the british (and snooty wannabe brit canadians) are the best desert fighting force in the world. This is because, by drinking hot tea in 40+ celcius temperatures, they are able to more efficiently regulate their body heat. Making them .0567% less likely to pass out from heat stroke. This .0567 figure was extrapolated from complex algorithims that only the latest and most powerful super computers could possibly manage. In truth the number was calculated to 37 trillion digits, but I have rounded it up to save on time. What does it all mean you ask? Well, I think that these aforementioned Brits and Canadians would be able to hoof it cross country in the desert for about six more seconds. Those six seconds could be the difference between reaching your foxhole, and passing out ass up in a prostrate position.
  6. I think I may have a partial explaination for this. I play mmorpgs a fair bit. Im a devout player vs player gamer. I've got a clan, we all use voice communication to coordinate better than most people, i'd go out on a limb and say we're about as "elite" as you get in mmorpg pvp games. Not to compare a battle in a mmorpg to a dog fight in ww2, but when you are in the "thick" of it, there always SEEMS to be more of them than there actually is. The adrenaline kicks in and it looks like there are more than actuallity. I've been in fights where 10 of us have fought and actually seen kill information on 20 people. However we will consistantly over estimate just how many people they did have, while they will say we had 20+ as well. Now, we KNOW we had 10 people, and we KNOW they had at least 20 we killed them, but it seems like they had 40. Im sure to them it SEEMED like we had 20 as well. Its not untill you actually go back, and look at who killed who in the information windows that you see, no, it wasnt 40 people, it was 20 and maybe a handful that got away. This may all sound silly, but the adrenaline kicks in all the same, we play with our egos, they play with their lives. It is probably some sort of defence mechanism related to the fight or flight responce. Your brain makes a snap judgement that says "hold up here, there is WAY WAY WAY too many lets get out of dodge". So instead of seeing 10 fighters coming at you, you see 20, sort of your brain exagerrating the threat to convince you to preserve ones self. However you don't run away, you're on a combat air patrol and this is what you are supposed to do. Only 7 Zeros got away, you know this because you counted them, so that must mean 13 at the very least were downed.
  7. Success breeds confidence. Smashing success breeds overconfidence. Overconfidence brings overextension. Overextension brings someones foot up your ass.
  8. I think the point I was trying to make in an earlier reply had little to do with the actual reality of molotovs, but rather the reality of a given situation. Be it in a game, or in WW2. The fact is, you are going to use your most effective weapon when confronted with a life threatening attack. The whole, "lets save the good stuff for next time" is a rather stupid thing to do. If you don't give it all you've got there may not BE a next time. On the other hand if you successfully deal with THIS time, next time may occur far enough down the road that someone else can handle next time, or you will be rearmed with a more effective weapon. Im not going to argue the finer points of Molotov creation or implementation. I will argue that in any world, or situation in which I have two weapons that can effectively knock out a tank. Im not going to be using the one that says "slim to none" on its acme label. Whatever alternate reality we want to set this scenario up in. Im using my best weapon first. Incidently grenades are more effective than molotovs in CMBB, regardless of this being historically accurate, this is the way the game is and probably will remain. It is perfectly fair for someone to gripe about an unrealistic behavior in a game that prides itself on its realism. One must believe that this is a bug, and that it was never intended to reduce the inherant AT capability of Soviet infantry. This thread has gotten so off track with people argueing the fundamentals of molotovs that we lost site of the ball.
  9. This is a scenario that imo is designed to played only a couple ways. The first thing you want to do is identify the wadi that runs roughly up the centre of the map. That is your primary avenue of attack for your infantry. Your armor you want to mass on your left flank and rush it up towards the ridges near the US positions, my advice is to lead with your less valuable assets, they will cause a dust screen which protects your more valuable pieces. Once in position go to ground level view and give the area a very close look, you should find a bit of terrain that will allow you a fighting chance against the US armor.
  10. Modern warfare is too heavily influenced by airpower to be much fun in my opinion. WW2 and Korea both really fit the most enjoyable timeframe for games such as this. I don't doubt people wouldnt enjoy games set in the Napoleonic era, or even the modern era. I just think that WW2 is the best fit, there are literally hundreds of reasons put out about just this thing on these forums put forth as well as I could hope to so I won't feel the need to rehash them all out...That and im lazy ;p
  11. One reason I can see sticking to WW2 is that, imho it was a war fought with manpower. Modern war is fought with technology. I know its a broad sweeping generalization, and that is usually a bad thing. However we've really yet to see two modern adversaries knock heads. It always seems to be one modern world power or coalition fighting against an overmatched regional trouble maker, that is by and large using outdated tactics, or antiquated equipment. Look no further than Iraq 1. I don't know what killed more Iraqi soldiers, b-52's or bulldozers driving down the length of trenches burying the poor buggers alive... Iraqi's blow the whistle, go over the top and surrender to the first official looking vehicle. Be it a bottomed out Humvee, or a CNN news crew.
  12. Ya, I was gonna say. The end of that barrel seems to be a nice big target for an ATR ;p Rattle a couple rounds down the barrel is probably your best bet ;p
  13. "So once again, is there any proof that a JS1 was ever in combat with an 85mm gun? " So once again, is there any proof that a JS1 was ever not in combat with an 85mm gun?
  14. MC's are an ad hoc weapon, as such they should be a last resort. If you're sitting in ambush, and a Tiger is bearing down on you, are you going to use your most effective weapon or least? "Quickly Vasili, use the MC's, let us save the grenades for a more dire situation!"
  15. Im not sure on ATR's, but one of the advantages of a sharp shooter is also its insane natural stealth ability. On defence I will often employ a couple of max experience snipers and send them out as recon. If you keep them in the open with no cover(Move to contact + hide, then unhide next turn), and keep them stationary as soon as you see the bad guys coming they are virtually impossible to spot. It is pretty handy to be able to sort through the enemy infantry for MG's Mortars and FOs and trail them at a healthy distance. You gotta love it when they begin to prep for an attack and you suppress or outright route parts of his support before anything really happens ;p I don't think many people fully understand just how undetectable a passive sniper is. To illustrate just how stealthy they are here is a little anecdote from a few days ago. I was playing my friend and had spotted an FO with my sniper. So I waited for the infantry to pass over my position and then proceeded to follow the FO in hopes of picking it up and eliminating it before it could rain nastyness on my positions. Well, I found it, it appeared in front of me not 10 yards away and not alone, there was a pioneer squad moving forward not much further away. My opponant let out a squeel of glee(we play with ventrilo, a voice chat system to allow for real time taunts ;p) so I knew instantly he had seen me. What I didn't realize was that as soon as I stopped moving it became merely a sound contact. FIVE-TEN yards away from an FO and the sound contact was somewhere to the SOUTH of the FO, when in reality the sniper was 5 yards to the NORTH of the FO. So im thinking this is bad news. Do I try to pistol the FO down or make a break for it. Well the pioneer squad the next turn turned its attention on the sound contact and began lobbing satchel charges a good 20-30 yards from my actual position, RIGHT next to his own FO. My Sniper died unfortunately, I can only assume as soon as my sniper moved his FO drew a pistol and shot him. There was no fire as far as I could see, he just got up ran a step or two then died ;p In anycase, had I just left the sniper there he probably woulda been fine to sneak away. So there you have it, Im aware of how well the sniper moves unscene and I still underestimated one ;p
×
×
  • Create New...