Other Means
-
Posts
4,319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Other Means
-
-
-
I don't mind paying for the upgrades really, just wondering if you can get there from here.
-
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.
-
Hope you're still around, Michael.
-
On 23/10/2016 at 11:23 AM, Sailor Malan2 said:
If you see what happens with some sites when a company gives advance plans, and then the inevitable slips occur, I quite understand that BFC wants to have a look out of the window each morning before they say its a new day! Have you seen the flaming and hatred that outlining a concept causes?
Anyway, I like the surprises. What good does it do you to know what might happen more than say a year out? Do you have a budgeting system like a government, running 5 years ahead, or is it enough (about now) to see what Santa might like to bring in a couple of months?
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.
-
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.
-
Hi all, given the finality of this title, is a new engine in the works?
Cheers.
-
just want to share this information
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/tigers-reputation-may-need-rewrite.html
...wait, so the Tigers didn't deserve their reputation becasue the American's never faced them?
How does the author feel about Genghis Khan?
-
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.
-
Yes, Rudel is full of crap and the Ju-87 was never an effective tank killer; no aircraft in WWII was. JasonC has written extensively on this in the past here on this forum. I recommend looking up some old threads if you want details. Here is one useful thread:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=45658&highlight=rudel
Another good source is Zetterling in his Normandy book. While he does not talk about the Luftwaffe or Rudel, he debunks the myth that USAAF and RAF aircraft were capable tank killers in Normandy by looking at actual Operations Research data after the fight. Naturally, if the much more powerful Allied air forces under vastly better conditions were unable to be effective tank killers, then there is no way that the Luftwaffe achieved more with a handful of Stukas.
The best way to debunk the stuka claims is to look at the actual loss reports of Soviet tanks. Essentially, if the air force claims are correct, then there would be hardly any losses remaining to be accounted for by all of the German tanks, PAK, panzerfaust, etc. This argument comes up in a number of Jason's posts, if I recall, and is sound. Can't argue with the math.
Cheers Cuirassier, that's the thread I was thinking of - thanks.
-
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.
-
He's saying the JU 87G was an effective tank killer:
Stukas on the eastern front were retrofitted with 20cals, they were very definitely highly effective tank kilers and one of the first properly thought out atg weapons which then lead to the development of the FW190
Ju 87G
Ju 87 G-1 "Kanonenvogel" with its twin Bordkanone BK 3,7, 37 mm underwing gun pods.
With the G variant, the aging airframe of the Ju 87 found new life as an anti-tank aircraft. This was the final operational version of the Stuka, and was deployed on the Eastern Front. The reverse in German military fortunes after 1943 and the appearance of huge numbers of well-armoured Soviet tanks caused Junkers to adapt the existing design to combat this new threat. The Hs 129B had proved a potent ground attack weapon, but its large fuel tanks made it vulnerable to enemy fire, prompting the RLM to say "that in the shortest possible time a replacement of the Hs 129 type must take place."[69] With Soviet tanks the priority targets, the development of a further variant as a successor to the Ju 87D began in November 1942. On 3 November, Erhard Milch raised the question of replacing the Ju 87, or redesigning it altogether. It was decided to keep the design as it was, but to upgrade the powerplant to a Jumo 211J, and add two 30 mm (1.2 in) cannon. The variant was also designed to carry a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) free-fall bomb load. Furthermore, the armoured protection of the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik was copied - a feature pioneered by the 1916-17 origin Junkers J.I of World War I Imperial Germany's Luftstreitkräfte - to protect the crew from ground fire now that the Ju 87 would be required to conduct low level attacks.[70]
Hans-Ulrich Rudel, a Stuka ace, had suggested using two 37 mm (1.46 in) Flak 18 guns, each one in a self-contained under-wing gun pod, as the Bordkanone BK 3,7, after achieving success against Soviet tanks with the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon. These gun pods were fitted to a Ju 87 D-1, W.Nr 2552 as "Gustav the tank killer". The first flight of the machine took place on 31 January 1943, piloted by Hauptmann Hans-Karl Stepp.[68] The continuing problems with about two dozens of the Ju 88P-1, and slow development of the Hs 129 B-3, each of them equipped with a large, PaK 40-based, autoloading Bordkanone BK 7,5 cm (2.95 in) cannon in a conformal gun pod beneath the fuselage, meant the Ju 87G was put into production. In April 1943, the first production Ju 87 G-1s were delivered to front line units.[68] The two 37 mm (1.46 in) cannons were mounted in under-wing gun pods, each loaded with two six-round magazines of armour-piercing tungsten carbide-cored ammunition. With these weapons, the Kanonenvogel ("cannon-bird"), as it was nicknamed, proved spectacularly successful in the hands of Stuka aces such as Rudel. The G-1 was converted from older D-series airframes, retaining the smaller wing, but without the dive brakes. The G-2 was similar to the G-1 except for use of the extended wing of the D-5. 208 G-2s were built and at least a further 22 more were converted from D-3 airframes.[71]
Only a handful of production Gs were committed in the Battle of Kursk. On the opening day of the offensive, Hans-Ulrich Rudel flew the only "official" Ju 87 G, although a significant number of Ju 87D variants were fitted with the 37 mm (1.46 in) cannon, and operated as unofficial Ju 87 Gs before the battle. In June 1943, the RLM ordered 20 Ju 87Gs as production variants.[72] The G-1 later influenced the design of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, with Hans Rudel's book, Stuka Pilot being required reading for all members of the A-X project.[73]
I'm saying poppycock. Anyone got anything I can back this up with? JasonC usually has some good stats - he still around?
-
Otto Carius has less credibility than Nixon.
-
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.
-
Here are some comparison pics of the M-18 Hellcat. Fast like a sports car and armed with a high velocity 76mm with some silver bullets. Not much armor to speak of and probably not pleasant for some of the crew if airburst shells went off overhead.
I think most were assigned to tank destroyer units, which most considered a flawed concept.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hyperbole aside, how often does it come up when a tank has spotted something and can't effectively fire at it? And when such a situation comes up, what are the chances that the player's unrealistic position as God doesn't have some half dozen totally unrealistic ways to deal with it? And how many of those times would the player not use those unrealistic ways to deal with it even if the tank in question could fire at the ground effectively.
Sure, I agree that there are very limited and uncommon circumstances where deliberate grazing fire is not possible and could make a difference. But not enough to bother dealing with from a game coding standpoint. Plenty of other limitations in the game engine to focus efforts on.
Steve
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.
-
Not really. If you're wanting grazing fire (which fire at the ground any distance away is, effectively), you're aiming past where you want to suppress. It's just a different way of achieving it than having a "Target - Grazing" command. Where it's rubbish is that sometimes there isn't anywhere to aim (if there's trees behind, for example).
And in general, the inability to target a wall because you can't see the ground in front of it (or behind it in the case of the building) is frustrating beyond all measure. But that's an engine limitation that isn't going away until, apparently, we all have Deep Thought on our desks, since the LOS matrix approximations are necessary to allow the game to run.
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.
-
Of course the correct procedure in game-fact is to fire at that hill with target light. The grazing fire (if there's enough of it) over the just-not-visible ground will "keep their heads down".
Which, I think you'll agree, is rubbish on many levels.
-
It's gamey but it's known. BFC should've introduced randomised human-audible (rather than in-game spotted) sound contacts ages ago.
-
"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."
-
Grazing fire has been asked for before. Grazing fire as the default for when the game says "reverse slope target - no LOS", I think that might be a first!
I could really do with some o' that right now... there are ATGs that I can't area fire at until the unit firing has spotted them. But if the tanks can't get some HE into the ATGs before they spot them, the ATGs will do 'em in...
I believe Womble's thread : http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112956 asked this quite recently.But it never hurts to ask again
And good suggestion.
So saying, in effect, fire over this AS, we've voted 100% that it works so far
-
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?
) and be good to go?
Key/download questions
in CM2 General Tech Support
Posted
You're right, I will. Cheers.