Jump to content

Aquila-SmartWargames

Members
  • Content Count

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Aquila-SmartWargames

  1. If you provide me a link directly to a upload page, I can uplink the files and share it to you
  2. That is possible. I can´t remember exactly how the testing played out in the video but if I recall correctly the skirted Pz4 was very hard to damage/knock out while the Panther at some point showed result which then brought up the idea that it might have something to do with individual differences, weaknesses, or what spot on the tank the liquid manages to make contact with. However with such a small sample size all of this could be coincidental.
  3. In the description of the Panther/Flamethrower Youtube video is a link to the full testing footage
  4. These botched models where for example metadata was missed to be imported or exported bug out as soon as they "move" in some sort this can be start driving or when a AT gun starts to turn/adjust its gun. I think that is the reason why it was perceived here by some that the gun bugs out when an enemy vehicle or unit is present on the map: because it then targets something. It here however it is 800mb big and my dropbox is full so if you want it you need to organize something where I can upload it
  5. It could depend on the tank model, I just did testing on a limited sample of attempts and vehicles but some seemed to be almost impenetrable for flamethrowers When I did the full testing video I remember that I did some research out of curiosity on this topic. I recall that I´ve read an article that prior the war there was some testing done on using flamethrowers in a primary AT fashion and results were achieved with the burning liquid penetrating into the inner compartment through niches. However it seems that this method never developed into something serious compared to the wide-spread use of launchers and (DIY) throwables which might utilize on the flame/flare effect aswell in order to stun, immobilize, or entirely disable tanks. In short: possible but likely not viable. Concluding upon this limited and short research it seems that the CM simulation nailed it pretty authentic again.
  6. Yes the flamethrower vs tank, an interesting situation. In the video situation it was indeed hit by a Stummel HEAT round the same time. It deemed me when I checked the casualty statistics afterwards. Depends, if for you "useless against tanks" equals there is no way to harm a tank with flamethrowers in CM than no this is not the case. If you define it by being absolutely not reliable when dealing with tanks than yes as achieving an effect on a tank with a flamethrower might be a matter of luck with low chance. The flamethrower fired at the tank. I did an experiment video ago and possible effects on a Panther tank can be seen condensed here. The chance to achieve such effects in this specific Panther case was low. The chance might depend on factors like vehicle model, engagement angle etc.
  7. It is the last scenario of dragonwynn´s campaign "Thunder Over Ponyri"
  8. There is no need for you to fear anything as CM will look exactly like how the individual players pleases to setup their graphics. Look I know that you follow me around with your banter because I can imagine that you´ve by now noticed that you got banned from commenting on my Youtube channel for multiple rude and almost identical spam-like comments and now look for a way to air your steam. Perhaps it helps to settle this when I let you know that I am absolutely not interested in your opinion about my things, won´t change my decision, and whatsoever want the least have to do with you. Furthermore it would be also utmost pleasing if you stop stalking my place and simply spent your time elsewhere with something that suits your preference. Despite this I have nothing to discuss with you and do not wish you derail that thread for this further. Thanks, they´re by Mord and they are a must-have for me. Looking forward for Fire & Rubble
  9. Some Material in order to get hyped for the upcoming Fire and Rubble release:
  10. Thanks but I´m fine as I already have it with the same timestamp as you guys
  11. I´m into CMBN since release but sailed along with V4 right from the bat to this very day across all titles and never payed that much attention to the difference in this regard. I forgot how things were back then. To most extent I´m happy with it even when playing hedgerow warfare and older campaigns. Is the retreat mechanic for low morale/quality troops very different between v3/v4? Playing some of the very huge campaigns with troops that waver quick the sometimes erratic retreat mechanic can make it quite work intensive at times for me.
  12. Good idea, same here. So I guess the recent CMBN install files ship with the updated campaign as the thread about the update was created in 2015
  13. The only thing that I incorporated into considerations is vehicle hulls or at least the turret facing should point into the direction of presumed enemy contact, despite the obivous reasons my experience indicates to me that they spot less good on flanks and rear, especially in the distance and also close-by when the cmdr is not opened up which would naturally make sense aswell. But I never payed attention to arc sizes and also perceived them to do no/little difference in spotting and often use circular ones and just the arcs when facing is needed but with @Bulletpoint´s and @Erwin´s additions taken into account it makes me wonder. About this "target arcing" enemy contacts, I also sometimes had this impression but dismissed them as being coincidental. If true this could mean you could "focus beam" attention on tentative contacts or suspected enemy positions in order to quicker get results or get them at all. At lot of scenario styles like ones emphasizing reconnaissance would get a complete different meaning for me. Although to some extent I do hope it practically makes little difference as I am not sure if I would welcome the additional micromanagement of always keeping target arcs in shape. Nevertheless you never done learning in CM and I will pay more attention to this. This reminds me somewhat of the testing I did with the BMP-3 radar in order to locate concealed infantry units. I´ve made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unTyMNPIGLc
  14. It was mentioned here that the size of target arcs is impacting on spotting checks but if I recall it right in another thread it was stated they do not impact spotting. What is true?
  15. If I recall correct then to this date I never encountered a campaign in any of the CM2 games that wasn´t playable with current versions. The experience might be somewhat different as gameplay elements might have received changes meanwhile (more lethal MGs) and there might be minor issues that I do not notice. For example when asking about your Bloody Ride campaign it was reported that there might be a Panther missing but if so I´ll take it as sudden mechanical problem and further challenge. I am pretty sure I will enjoy it. Looking forward for the next one aswell.
  16. Is there a way to tell if I´m using the updated KG Engel campaign mentioned in the sticky thread? Alternatively can someone please provide it to me as the link in mentioned thread isn´t working anymore.
  17. Despite the already stated reasons that put gunners and leaders into greater danger of getting harmed first/with priority from my experience I can´t agree with the %, "all the time", and "AI vs non-AI" claims. In the moment this looks more like a case of strong selective perception to me.
  18. I didn´t know about Bloody Ride for a long time. Already have playlists of Zawiya and Sicily, Bloody Ride will come soon
  19. Is what year of the H&E timeline the 2nd Battle of Ikke campaign plays out?
  20. It theoretically can be fixed by switching LOD files
  21. @zmoney I get your point and pretty sure understand what you´re up to as I mentioned I myself think its a good idea to have something added with mine-clearing ability. However again if if this thread is read thoroughly there are several ways to get past this minefield unharmed with your vehicles either with artillery our discovering the true mine-free spots (not talking about this funneling along mines method, never used that.) Only players unaware of these ways usually will get their tanks blown up. Despite this it is the only CMSF1/2 scenario I ever encountered this challenge and don´t think that it really requires these typical somewhat melodramatic "I am investing into CM since Pong but now I am so disappointed/shocked that I already regret my expense" parade speeches. If a mission with this knowledge demand should be the first mission in general design terms is a different question. I think it is perfectly fine but the briefing with the incorrect mine handling guidance is definitely not helping new players. As mentioned in the previous post if it would include a good explanation with artillery usage or providing a tip that the Syrians might left a spot unmined for their own traffic, or at least include information in the manual about detailed mine handling we wouldn´t see these threads here. Mark Mines only helps the infantryman Dark times for my vehicles oh damn Thats it
  22. I can´t recall the mission background but I assumed these mines aren´t simply placed on the highway but may be partially or fully dug into it. On patrols in crisis areas even on paved roads or highways you´re advised to be always on the lookout for (new) grooves, surface changes, or other strange looking pavement as even little groups of uncons managed to dig up the pavement, place IED/Mines, and restore it in the matter of a night, sometimes they do a really good job. An army that has a lot of more time in order to prepare for a likely invasion might even do a more thorough job. If this is the case it is not always easily removable at least in the timeframes of CM scenarios not mentioning complicated anti-tampering mechanisms. EOD can be a really challenging and time consuming process other than what is potrayed in most games or what gamers perceive to be true. Although having a mine clearance machine of some sort or a way to blow the heck out of mines in the modern CM titles, that would be definitely welcome.
  23. Sure everything can be mathematically "averaged" out but for grenades under combat cirumstances there is no real written-in-stone kill/injury-radius as it depends heavily on the circumstances such as terrain, vegetation, enclosement of the detonation area (small room vs open area), personal protection, other objects that could become shrapnel, and very important: position/posture of the receiver. There are accounts where individuals survived grenade detonations more or less unharmed at close range but same is true for vice versa. The 200m is more a security range especially for grenade ranges and practice but yes for some models it is theoretically possible that ordnance could reach out to you that far and cause more or less significant effect. That is also the reason why explosive ordnance such as artillery sometimes injures far away personell in CM while others nearby are left unharmed. It is a matter of luck or bad luck. I think CM does a good job in modelling grenades without overestimating their capabilities although I never had grenades dropped close-by me in RL. I also think they can be quite deadly and grenades at least for me do the job of often neutralizing or at least surpressing the enemy. I´ve noticed differences between the grenade models but all of them managed to get the mission done. However if a grenade lands right between the legs of an enemy, sure it would be safe to assume that this guy would have a bad time. Most times I witnessed this it ended badly for the receiver. Also an interesting question would be if terrain ground or vegetation indeed has an impact on the game. At least for the enclosement it is sure to assume that there is no effect modeled as I can´t recall any game/simulation that ever went this far with ballistics.
  24. The single line mine coverage at the opening is somewhat randomized every time the scenario is played. Not sure if there is a version with a full coverage but for me there were always 1 or 2 uncovered spots that can be discovered when marking with the engineers, give them enough time. I am glad that this mission is in the campaign and don´t see a reason for it to be removed. The only thing that could see a change is the briefing that gives incorrect instructions for the the handling of mines and might cause confusion especially among new CM players. It should be replaced by the information that heavy calibre artillery such as the from the start available 120mm mortars can clear the mines aswell. Same is by the way the case for the 2nd mission briefing of the Monte Cassino campaign.
×
×
  • Create New...