Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


rocketman last won the day on August 24 2015

rocketman had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About rocketman

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 06/24/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    The Pale Blue Dot
  • Interests
    Photography, literature, strategy games and Arsenal FC (go gunners!)


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,614 profile views
  1. My pitch to BFC is a CM: France 40 game with a follow-up CM:Sea Lion module. Instant buy 💲
  2. I had no idea that this campaign existed, nice to know As there are no commando units (yet) - what is used for the No 40 RM Commando?
  3. I would suggest checking out The Few Good Men or The Blitz wargaming clubs. You won't have problems getting games going.
  4. Can this be attributed to the change in the editor (engine) that allows us to copy flavor objects in 3D-view? Maybe set up one map with objects placed one at a time in 2d view and an identical one with objects copied in 3d instead. And then change size of the maps to see if things go nuts.
  5. I don't play QBs that often but every time I do I usually end up with "so that's what I got" after purchasing my units and the battle starts. I have a fair understanding, but the composition of squads, equipment, weapons, amount of ammo etc is impossible to keep in mind. When making scenarios in the editor there is the "deploy units" feature which basically is putting the purchased units where you want them on the map. The unit purchase for scenario making and QBs is identical as far as I can tell. In QBs there is the "preview map" feature. Would it be possible to port over the "deploy units" feature to QBs so that you not only get to preview the map, you would be able to preview the units currently purchased and that would bring an opportunity to change your mind in time. Deployment should be limited to your setup zone so not to be able to abuse figuring out LOS too much from the oppo side. Would this be possible tech wise? I know for sure it would make QBs much more appealing for me.
  6. Sometimes when I download a scenario or see a scenario I know I want to play H2H I add "H2H" to the scenario name to remember my intention.
  7. Check if the game is set to run on an integrated Intel chip, which sometimes is default on laptops with Nvidia cards (perhaps AMD too, no experience with theat). Just set it to run on the graphics card.
  8. Problem with sea levels is not only due to melting ice, but also that warmer water takes up a larger volume.
  9. Another nasty thing about melting permafrost is that there is likely bacteria and viruses trapped in it for which our immune system has no "training" on. For example, anthrax can spring to life again on a large scale ☠️ What we really need is Capitalism 2.0, but everything from private consumption to governments taking appropriate action to incentives of large corporations and financial markets all make it an unlikely thing to happen in due time. It seems like pointing fingers elsewhere is the order of the day. Like a chicken race. Along with, "X won't solve the climate crisis" as the standard answer to suggestions for action, as if there was one silver bullet to solve it all. No, everything counts, large and small, all over the world - we just have to speed things up. Now.
  10. If I have in any way offended you by inadvertedly questioning your expertise in artillery or that artillery IRL can be that accurate - I do apologize for it was never my intention. I have no doubt it can be accurete or that the calculations and timings can produce spectacular results. My only reason for this thread was to start a query about if the air bursts we see in the CM WWII-games is an accurate description of what could be produced in WWII on a regular basis. If you say that it is, I take your word for it. And with that I rest my case. Thank you for the discussion. I will delve deeper into the material you pointed me to.
  11. I ran a test on a wide open map with no surrounding mountains with the US 105 mm howitzer, air burst TRP mission. All shells look like they come in at about a 45-65 degree angle (hard to measure exactly).
  12. Yeah, I realized after the post about the trajectory - was thinking mortars. But I must say that the howitzer shells come down quite steep too IIRC (will look again).
  13. Pardon me for being stubborn, but another query: You mention impact muzzle as slightly less than 500 m/s, so let's say 450 m/s. If the fuze has increments of 1/10 sec that would mean that each increment off ideal fuze would either lead to the shell exploading on impact or 45 m too high. So could they time the mission with accuracy within 1/10 sec without human error? Or did they for practical reasons, when doing a long prep bombardment mix different fuze settings to make sure that enough were ideal. But in CM we don't do 30-45 min bombardments with thousands of shells on target. So again, shouldn't we see higher air bursts or less of the current accuracy for the typically shorter missions within the scope of the game.
  14. Again, awesome insightful post. Ran a test in the scenario that caught my attention - second of the Polish campaign, "The Gorge": 200m area mission of TRPs, flat area, with the 140 mm howitzer, full 120 rounds mission. Almost all landed within the target area. 52 airbursts (37%) that landed from just above ground and estimated up to what equals a level 3 building. @Ultradave: does this seem reasonable to you? How fast does a shell travel when hurtling toward the ground? Must be several hundred of meters per second. So even a one tenth of a second mistiming would result in much higher airburst or missing the target zone. Or am I missing something again?
  15. Again, no doubts whatsoever about artillery being an intellectual task or that the US/Allied forces were professional - I'm trying to figure out if the kind of airbursts we see in the WWII titles are realistic or not or a matter of game engine limitations and/or design choices. That's all.
  • Create New...