BDW
-
Posts
294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BDW
-
-
Redwolf - yeah, that was my original question: is it physically possible for the 40mm AP round from a Daimler AC to penetrate the turret of a Tiger from the front at range 270?
Based on the posts so far, I am leaning towards thinking this is a bug or at least an EXTREMELY unlikely possibility in real life.
-
M Hof - I am sorry to confuse you. I should have used the word "realistic" or the phrase "is that possible in real life"
I played back the turn and it did not say weak point penentration, just "front turret penetration" --- bizarre, huh?
I wonder about something. THe AC was immobilized at the time. I seem to think that normally the AC would start reversing madly when a Tiger appears at that close of range. So the AC had no choice but to fire on the Tiger. The Tiger only got off one shot. AC killed it on the second shot
-
Daimler AC just took out a tiger at range 270 - front turret penetration
is that possible?
-
OK before this thread goes south, I just want to say that after reading BTS's responses for the last few years, I can say that they generally do NOT spend time modeling things that happened very infrequently (but were realistic and did, in fact, happen). For example, I remember there was a big discussion about whether to include snipers or not. Nobody disputed snipers played a role, but the fight was whether it was a big enough role to warrant "inclusion in the game" (read: hours of coding for Charles!)
In any case, I think that a delayed explosion of a tank known to explode after catching on fire and potentially harming troops right next to it would make a great addition to CM. More importantly, I think it passes the "how often did this really occur" test for CM features, becuase from what I've read it sounds like those T-34s would always blow up if they caught on fire and had ammo left inside of them. Therefore, I think it should be in.
(maybe a patch to CMBB?) -
aka_tom - I've played a lot of CM and I can't remember ever seeing a tank explode turns after the infantry bailed out. I am not tank expert, but apparntly these Russian T34's were prone to having their ammo explode after they caught fire, thereby harming those near the tnak.
I thought it would add an interesting and exciting element to the game if it were modeled. Not knowing whether that burning tank is going to explode or not before your men can move away from it....!
-
I was interested in whether the shrapnel effect of the burning tank exploding and harming infantry nearby would be modeled. It would be pretty exciting in the game if, a few turns after your tank got hit, it suddenly exploded, causing casualties to any infantry right next to it.
-
I recently read the following, and was wondering if this was going to be modeled in CM:BB?
For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.
-
thanks for the reply
I did a search on that tank and I found some info. But everything I've found says it only holds 6 guys. Here is the one link I've found on the M3 Grant that lists the number of crew:
here is another that lists the crew positions and I only count six: The driver, radio operator, 75 mm gunner, 37 mm gunner, gun loader and commander.
So what gives? If anyone can shed some light on this, it would be much appreciated. I can't seem to find any info about the Russian version of this tank - only US and Brits and Aussies. Perhaps the Russians modified it to hold another "brother"? thanks!
-----
The plot thickens: I just found this site:
that calls it the "coffin for SIX brothers" -- however, I noticed an extra gun on top of the 37mm turret that is not on the US and Brit photos I have seen -- could this be the seventh brother?? or is it just six?
I know someone on this forum will have the definitive answer...
[ July 28, 2002, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: BDW ]
-
For any of you tank experts out there, I have a question:
which tank exactly was the "coffin for seven brothers"?
I am interested in this tank because of the nickname. I do not know much about tanks, but I'd like to start learning and I thought I'd start with this one. I can't imagine a tank holding 7 guys.
Does anyone know what the story is on this tank? Or where I can find some good information/history about why it got the name "coffin for seven bothers"?
And, of course, will this tank be in CM:BB? or CM2?
thanks in advance!! (I am leaving town but I will check this thread when I get back)
-
Hey guys - I've found a way to make the AI very challenging on either defense OR attack. All I do is give it 175% force strength. It makes it pretty fun. You pretend like you are up against a drunk with a huge force at his disposal!
(and I get my ass kicked about half the time. especially when defending against the computer attacker who has 175% force on top of the bonus for attacking) -
Any notice the press release says "by Sept. 20th"
"by" means "not later than"
Which could mean "before" Sept. 20th.
So, the question is: if it is released before Sept 20th, how long before will that be? Weeks? Days? Hours? I am hoping for "weeks"!!
-
A while back Moon wrote:
"Actually, artillery is one of the most tweaked aspects between CMBO and CMBB, and in CMBB its workings are not far away from what Jason described, including prep-bombardments (ordered during the setup phase to strike a certain location at a certain time), required use of TRPs to keep command delays within reasonable limits and drastically tweaked delay times for fire outside of LOS. And much more... but you'll have to wait a little more for a full bone"
I was wondering if the "full bone" had arrived yet? I've looked but can't find it. Does any one know if there are any new commands for arty? Such as a command that would allow you to "walk" the arty without have to retarget?
-
All - thanks for the info
Madmatt - that is exactly the answer I was hoping for! It makes perfect sense, too. Wow - that is really going to change the game. No more gamey charges for the flag hopefully (or at least they won't work very well!)
-
Thanks for the reply Kump. Shortly after I read your preview I had a .50cal that got rushed by a bunch of german SMG squads. The .50cal only got off like two shots before it was overwhelmed and killed. I realize the machine guns in CMBB will be more effective, but I was also thinking that I wish that the .50cal guys would have realized they had only moments to live and fully unleashed that .50cal! I don't know how long a .50cal unit could sustain firing in real life - but it seems like two short bursts from the cover into multiple german units charging over open terrain is not very realistic. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Then I thought about this new "assault" command and thought that it sounded a bit unfair (at least without more details). It seems to me that the AI should recognize an "assault" when it sees one and that the defending troops should respond in kind with max ammo expenditure.
What would also be useful is a "defend" command that would mean "hold this position at all costs" the same way that the assault command is "take the position at all costs." Or you could have a "do not conserve ammo" setting for each unit -which come in handy in other instances, too.
In any case, if charging troops have always been at a disadvantage in CMBO, I hope that the pendulum does not swing the other way with CMBB.
I have great faith in BTS, however! And even more faith in the people on this forum not letting BTS get away with anything
-
According to Kump the Assault command allows you to "Charge a position with a greater ammo expenditure"
My question: is there a command to defend a position from an assualt with greater ammo expenditure? Or do the units do this automatically?
[ July 18, 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: BDW ]
-
I couldn't care less how arrogant or ass-like anyone at BTS is or is not. It's irrelevant and ignores a GREAT track record.
Hell, the amount of text on this forum from Steve and Co. puts BTS in the top 99% of computer game developers! All of us had a HUGE and direct input into CMBO way back when this forum first started - and we still do!! (I remember long posts by Steve in which he had to agressively defend the 3D concept for CM vs. the "top down" approach!!)
Therefore, I say let them be as arrogant as they want until CMBB comes out -- then they can take the profits and enroll the entrie staff in public realtions classes if they really feel like it.
-
Hi all -
I was wondering if anyone (CMBB beta testers?) was putting together an online resource of unit descriptions for CMBB.
For those of us new to the eastern front, this would really be sweet. That was one thing I wish I had had for CMBO - especially when puchasing units.
What would even be better is if it had real-life pictures of the units, too (at least the vehicles and guns)!
something like this: onwar.com russian WWII tanks
[ July 18, 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: BDW ]
-
Moon - Nice to see you are still around. You are probably right re: # of people etc.
However, I still do not understand the purpose of keeping secrets from all the loyal fans of the game - even if it is too late for us to make a meaningful contribution. My point: Is there anything wrong with us knowing, for exmaple, how CMBB will handle rubble?
Why all the "secrets" ??? It feels like the old grade school game: "I know something YOU don't know and I'm not gonnnnnna telllllll youuuuuuu!"
Can anyone explain this shroud of secrecy?
...Matt?
-
I remember when this board was first started up (pre-UltimateBB). It was all about open discussion of the features that were going into the game. Whenever Steve and Charles had the time, they gave us info on new features and tried to answer our questions/fears. I did not envy them - we gave them A LOT of grief!
I liked the board back then. Which is why I find Maddmatt's little "teasers" so annoying and unhelpful. To Matt: If you are going to take the time to post, give us some actual information. New information on the game stirs debates and some great ideas come from such debates. I always thought of it as a check and balance on for Steve and Charles, who learned a lot from the debates the first time around - even if they got sucked into defending their positions for days at a time. The cool thing was that they lost some of these arguments and changed some game features based on the posts.
These "teaser posts" go against what I thought a big part of Big Time was about: staying in touch with the players. This teaser stuff feels like Big Time is purposefully trying to keep the players out of the loop. This is in stark contrast to the way it used to be in the beginning, and I don't think it is intended.
i.e. Matt, in honor of the CMBO development process, if you know what the feature/fix is going to be, then tell us about it!
...please?
-
-
Does anyone know: is it possible to use a map from an existing "operation" and use it for a "scenario" ?
If so, how do you do it?
-
I realize there has been much discussion on this topic (that dead AFVs do NOT provide cover or block LOS).
My question is, will this be adressed in 1.03?
If not, I have a suggestion. Steve says that it was a design choice to not have dead (unsmoking) vehicles block LOS, and he justifies it as an abstraction. So why can't the abstraction include a lesser chance to hit a unit trying to hide behind a dead AFV? It seems to me this would be a happy medium.
The reason why I post this is becuase I was really annoyed with a situation where I had knocked out 6 enemy vehicles on one end of a bridge. These dead vehicles would have provided some great cover for my units.
I understand that calculating LOS through the vehicles would use up too much CPU. That is why I suggest a simple reduction in the chance to hit units behind dead vehicles. At least that way there would be SOME use to dead armor, other than pretty graphics.
-
1. Units seem mindless in that they do not seem to take their final destination into account. This seems at odds with the philosophy of the game design (ie units having autonomy). For example, recently I ordered some infantry units to move along the edge of the boccage for cover. A few turns later I noticed one of them was lagging way behind the others. Why? Because my movement command was too close to the boccage - therefore my unit was actually moving through the edge of the boccage!
My point is that this seems inconsistent with the "intelligence" of units in this game. For exmaple, units will respond to threats and take cover very smartly. Even if I specifically target a certain threat, my units will retarget a more immediate threat if necessary. I like that design philosophy. But why are these units so mindless when it comes to movement commands?
I think that movement commands should be merely guidelines for troops, not routes carved in stone. In the example above, the infantry unit would have taken the end destination into account and walked alongside the boccage. This would take some of the micromanagement out of movement commands.
2. Along this same line of logic, I would like to see an option whereby a movement "Destination" order can be given to a unit. This order would supplement the current waypoint system and cuold be used in conjunction with it.
For example, if I want a halftrack to drive all the way up a curvy road to the other end of the map, I could simply enter a single "destination" movement command to that unit and it would use its own judgment to travel to that destination - reacting to its environment and threats along the way. I think that this would be a very useful and entertaining feature for this game. It would be very interesting to see how your more experienced units chose their routes.
What do people think about all this?
-
Kingfish - I agree, the op should not end so soon. Especially if it is a bug in the way the game calculates after each scnerario in an operation.
However, if it is set this way on purpose, then I think that CM should be a lot more flexible about ending operations. Or at least give us a setting for this. Even if I WAS getting my butt kicked (which seemed like the case, but then again I was given Total Victory when the op ended early) I think that the operation should play out longer.
But this just made no sense to me. I understand an operation ending early when it is a Total Victory for the opponent. But in this case, the Operation ended early on me and I got a Total Victory. That seems totally illogical to me.
I wish Steve would chime in on this and offer the final explaination. I am confused!
Dear god, it's beautiful...
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
think the demo is beautiful? wait til you discover the mods...