Jump to content

Other Means

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Other Means

  1. Thanks @Kevin2k @support - any idea where I can see my key? Thanks.
  2. I don't mind paying for the upgrades really, just wondering if you can get there from here.
  3. Hi, I was on the Beta team years back so Steve sent me a key (hi Steve!) and when CMBN came out I got a very nice metal box version. I'm going to install again after many lapsed years but IIRC I just used the Beta key - where is the one that came with my hard media? Speaking of which, I no longer have a CD player in my PC so I assume I can download, find the key from somewhere, update from the 2011 version ( ) and be good to go? Cheers.
  4. Hope you're still around, Michael.
  5. There doesn't need to be detailed plans, just a "Yarp, new engine on the way". Possibly they think it'd cannibalise current sales, which is fair enough.
  6. Cheers user1000. I'd have expected Steve and Charles (is Phil still on board?) to be thinking about another engine while any ad-on modules were finished off. Nevertheless the fact we're talking about finishing off means it's either develop the Dutch pre-war ToE, go Fulda Gap or do it all but nicer in a new engine. No noises bubbling out? Christmas bones being prematurely dropped? Is a new engine even possible - 1 to 1 modelling of squads with no more bunching, formations, better icons, higher terrain granularity? I guess every increase in fidelity incurs a greater increase in model complexity etc.
  7. Hi all, given the finality of this title, is a new engine in the works? Cheers.
  8. ...wait, so the Tigers didn't deserve their reputation becasue the American's never faced them? How does the author feel about Genghis Khan?
  9. An interesting question is: if the Germans had stuck with the PzIV and produced masses of them, would they have had a better showing? Not having all those shiny toys would engender a different mind-set in the Generals. We all (I think all) know that the only way the Germans could've got anything out of the war would be to go on the defensive post-Stalingrad and stabilise their lines. Hold out for 2 - 3 years in a stalemate (so being able to resist the Western Allies in the ETO), shoot Hitler and maybe Yalta would never have happened. The Tiger - the tank that cost them the war.
  10. Cheers Cuirassier, that's the thread I was thinking of - thanks.
  11. TBH the crux of my argument is that a 37mm cannon isn't going to k-kill a T-34 from any angle. Maybe get through the engine deck but that's an M-kill.
  12. He's saying the JU 87G was an effective tank killer: I'm saying poppycock. Anyone got anything I can back this up with? JasonC usually has some good stats - he still around?
  13. I make each and every turn a small miracle in co-ordination, resource optimisation and tactical efficiency. Then people start shooting at me It's really not on.
  14. I don't think it was a flawed concept, just that most of the armour they were meant to fight had been abandoned on the Steppe. They performed admirably when called upon.
  15. Yeah the smart munitions GL will be good - but the cost of them, compared to the 2inch mortar - which I reckon a trained operator could get on target nearly as well for a fraction of the cost.
  16. UC + 6pdr = lots of lovely ME deviltry I've had a recent large-map engagement where I pushed a squadron of UCs with 6pdrs into patches of woods and introduced FUD into my oppos Panthers, meaning I could engage my AFVs as a schwerpunkt without having to worry about getting flanked. In game - cheap, fast & stealthy with a good enough load to swing a game IRL - invaluable for resupply, repositioning & recon. TBH, together with the squad level mortar I'm really not sure why we don't have a modern equivalent. We'd be a better fighting force with both.
  17. It is often the defining issue in a game. Recently I played "MG Counterattack at Son" vs. Doug and not being able to fire over berms to keep the enemies head down, or over foxholes - or even AT foxholes, was the nature of the game to the extent that I quit halfway through and Doug and I went to something else. Then I quit CM as it was driving me crazy - hyperbole aside, THAT is how bad it is.
  18. Well, yes, it is. How about if there was no hill to aim at? Which is 99% of the time? Yes, I understand it's an engine limitation. That's what I'm railing at.
  19. Which, I think you'll agree, is rubbish on many levels.
  20. It's gamey but it's known. BFC should've introduced randomised human-audible (rather than in-game spotted) sound contacts ages ago.
  21. "Crewman, there's enemy in the woods over their, get their heads down" "Well Sir, I'd love to and that but I can't see the ground you see. If I can't see the ground, how could I possibly shoot over it?" "It just carries on. You can see the hill behind it right?" "Sure - you want me to fire on the hill? I can fire on the hill right now if you want." "No no, there's no-one ON the hill, they're 50m straight ahead. What do you think the ground does, just disappear into void between here and the hill?" "Are you making a joke Sir?" "No I'm not making a bloody joke - just shoot that way" ""What way" "That bloody way - where the enemy are" "Can't do that Sir. Can't see the ground" "Right! Right! OK, advance 2 metres THEN shoot over there" "Oh, no problem. I can do that - oh my God Sir, there was someone there. Now THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US" "You know what, good. In fact, let's bail out, that's bound to be the best idea. You first."
  22. So saying, in effect, fire over this AS, we've voted 100% that it works so far
  23. It's very annoying not being able to fire in a direction because you can't see an action spot on the floor. I realise why: having a 2D interface for a 3D world. What would be brilliant is, if you ever get "reverse slope no aim point", you instead got "grazing fire" to the point, and your unit could fire at it with the expectation they'd be shooting over the area, that would do it? So you can setup MG fire to keep a units head down even if you can't fire at them. The engine would need to model the vertical separation between the fire and the unit, of course, to work out suppression but it would remove one of the last remaining gripes. ...am I in the first hundred to suggest this?
  • Create New...