M Hofbauer

What is this climax of which you speak? Is that like what Merkel did when Georgie touched her?</font>

no ****. what was it? 982? 9th Company, 8th platoon, second vehicle... I am currently torn a bit between the advantage of individually numbered vehicles over those mirrored numbers and all those 808's etc of CMBB, and the weirdness of results that a totally arbitrary selection of numbers can potentially create. I think I still like the new system better. here's to individual yet weird tank numbers ! nasdrovje ! edit: oh, and I agree -with RMC- that it is a skinning issue meaning it can be dealt with (you can replace 5, 6, 7 ,8 ,9 with reiterations of the icons for 1,2,3,4 for example). as in, when they get hit soldiers are shedding blue sparks and transform into backpacks?

for many yellow, actually. it doesnt surprise me the least bit that such a heretic comment is made by someone who lists "HL2" as the climax of his interests... the characteristic WH markings are as much are as much a symbol, naw, hallmark of the polish invasion as is chewing gum for the US forces ending the war in germany. the affair reminds me of "V"'s MP40s in 1939's invasion of Poland. over to you, Mr RMC.

so you cannot destroy them on purpose. hmm. it would seem to me that to have a big gun quite often is more of a liability then an asset. it might add to self-reinforcing lopsiding effect. once one side has the upper hand and starts taking the important tiberium sources... uh, I mean gun pieces they can turn these around and the superiority is even more increased. but wait - you can always use your own mortar teams to destroy them... uh, wait, there's a problem with that

like others suggested and one official reported, its sufficient if they're included in a generic off-board light arty way. not perfect but adequate. IMO.

agreed, I disagree that some of the chaps here are rude but they ROCK, mind you.

different? you mean, different as in "unlike the big guns which track every shell and its ballistics"...? PLEASE tell me we wont get any of this peloton firepower-rated salvo stuff like in CM ? :eek: please please tell me the weapons will be modeled individually and their shots computed individually...

terminus technicus is RIK-RAK Rein in die Kartoffeln raus aus die Kartoffeln

thats too general, hence an invalid, useless blanket comment. when/where, what specific APC, what specific pistol using what specific ammo. because I disagree whole heartedly with the generality of your statement. I do agree that e.g. the M3 HT with its vertical 6mm armor is a bit weak and might be on the very low end of APC armor. But even then regular pistol ammo will not defeat it. period. please specify your example in detail.

title of this thread is misleading. no feather in your cap. black eye for you.

It's the RT engine and the detailed representation. It's not RTS so it's not hordes of namless units mixing it up in melee. The soldiers have names and act realistically. They behave largely like you'd expect men in combat to. The combat interactions look and feel realistic and there is no artificial break in the action. It flows. You are engaged the whole time and can interact the whole time. </font>

Comrad, Ivan Shmaynev was not issued any weapons. He tore turrets from Kingtigers with his bare hands. Study some history. </font>

easy. since it's bigger you can cram more of that "realism" stuff in. "smore" realism, as it is called. or sumfink.

you mean it will be "kinda dissapointing" but also "this wargame will rock" and that "this wargame (will) flop" or be "a perfect success"....but even if it flops and disappoints it "will still ROCK!!!" ? Hmm. Personally I think ToW will be much much better than all those games out there that are much worse. Melosine

Games like CC (from whose gameplay-feel ToW has been inspired) and CM both include them without the problems you describe. Namely, if they do not have direct LOS or a spotter doing adjustment for them, they are just horribly inaccurate, as opposed to when they have direct LOS (or pre-registered fire tables). So your point does not hold up, because while a mortar team without LOS can shoot at a pinpoint target, but would most likely go through all of what little ammo they have (when on the move) without destroying it due to sheer inaccuracy.

My guess is the people doing mission and campaign design are others than those doing the coding of the game itself (engine and data). So I guess restricting missions/campaigns wouldnt neccessarily free up a lot of resources usable for the game engine/data itself. [edited for typos] [ August 03, 2006, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Indeed. Lack of mortars wouldnt hurt so much if AT guns wouldnt feature so prominently. In that case, without mortars one of the components of scissor-paper-stone is missing. Lack of mortars isn't game breaking, but this AAR really highlights their lacking.

Hey Martin, Ernst Jünger called. He wants his manuscript for "In Stahlgewittern II" back.

Da. John Wayne. Ivan Shmaynev. Damn you're smooth.

dont tell me - tell "V".

Not even when the soldier is named John Wayne? </font>

The Germans used MP40's in the Polish campaign. </font>

No wonder the germans defeated the poles. they must have had time machines, using MP40 in 1939. didnt get past page 1 yet (56k dial-up ). landscape, scenery looks beautiful. I wonder what grass mod they're using. ...you've got a task.

Bil, maybe somebody "in the know" could explain to us just what we are seeing there in the screenshots in the S/M (soldier monitor). Because what we are seeing doesnt make sense either way, it *seems* the Garand can penetrate 14mm armor, but it has a range of only 20 meters...while the P-38 can reach out to 80m. :confused: Clearly there's something wrong, either with that data or with our comprehension/interpretation of the screenshots. Of course *our* our interpretations of what we are seeing, those values, are problematic...sidearms just cant penetrate armor...they didnt even use 9mm "copkiller" projectiles in WWII...the very essence, the technical definition of "armored" means "protected against small arms fire"....and that usually means full-power rifle fire, not sidearm pistol peashooters... 8mm Mauser can penetrate armor...especially when fired from a machine gun, where they will have SmK and SmK L'spur mixed in within the belt. But regular Mauser rifle would use only sS ammo. The regular sS when fired from a K98k bolt-action rifle is no use in the anti-armor role, a machine gun achieves some AP capability with it because it will shoot in bursts which at close range tends to produce repeated hits in quick succession onto a small area which will compromise structural integrity of the metal...but the real AP work would be done by the SmK cartridges in the beltmix. It would take special SmK(H) ammo for anti-armor work ! it would surprise me if the whole concept of ballistic performance of small-to-medium caliber projectiles was news to 1C ... after all, they prided themselves to model that in IL2, admittedly with some success (even tho personally I found the performance of some of the weapons to be off in some instances, they *have to be* credited with introducing at all a structural plane model and a ballistic model for the guns !) btw: the 30-06 Springfield cartridge 7.62x63 existed (and exists!) in a wide variety of versions; the one used in the Garand was the .30-06 M2, with its Eo of 3545 Joule and its 9.7g projectile its slightly less than regular 7.92x57 Mauser sS ammo... and why the same 9x19 Parabellum ammo when fired from a VIS 1935 penetrates 5mm yet only 4mm when fired from a P.38 makes no sense at all, the VIS 1935 is rated with a lower Vo than the P.38 (the P.38 has a decidedly longer barrel than the VIS 1935 (125mm vs 117/119mm). There realworld ballistic/penetration data for the 9x19 when fired from the P.38 at Vo=355m/s is : total range 1600m; penetration at 50m into pinewood 230mm; sand: 250mm; non-compacted, loose earth: 350mm; 2mm sheet metal penetrated at 50m and out to 200m; 2mm armor plate: no go, only dented. 9mm isnt something exotic. I bet many of you here on the board, especially those in the US, have access to or own a 9mm handgun. If anyone of those can do 5mm armor plate with it please report, I would be very interested to hear. I'm serious. BTS/1C please fix or do sumfink*. cheerio, M.Hofbauer edit: to add to the confusion by adding even more numbers. p.s.: "sumfink" as in please explain what we are seeing in the screenshots. [ August 02, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

I think there's a misunderstanding re. my inquiry into medic/casualty system. It would suffice if it (buddy aid) was automated. It would not be an absolute but a relative thing, the likeliness that a soldier will help his buddy that just got shot would depend on circunstances just like routing of soldiers under fire is a relative thing (in CC, in CM etc.) When your buddy next to you has a gaping torso wound or gets his arm shot off, will you apply a tourniquet (sp?) or simply let him scream in agony and bleed to death right next to you? I do realize that depending on society/culture, army (Red Army soldiers being less buddy-aid - likely than, on the other extreme, e.g. US Army), army branch (special forces being totally mission-focussed and proffessional vs. the boys from the line infantry that know each other since childhood) and mission requirements a casualty has totally different consequences. [edit: plus its a very individual personal thing of likeliness and capability, too. some people are more inclined and better at it, some less. just like every car driver is supposed to be able to deliver first aid when they stumble across (excuse the pun) an injured person. Some will help him and enable him to survive during the first critical moments, and others are so shy and afraid to do anything wrong that they will simply ignore the situation and drive away (even though thats a crime, statistics tima and again show that many people do).] And even the same buddies in the same squad will show a different behavior depending on the concrete situation in which the casualties are incurred. If it is during close-quarters fighting, or the position is about to be overrun by a horde of enemies, they are likely to keep shooting and not care to the wounded. However, if its a prolonged fire exchange over some time and distance, maybe even between entrenched positions, you bet that any army will require the soldier to apply first aid to his comrade because the situationa allows it -apart from the fact that the soldier will show an inherent urge to help his buddy. Remember the old saying - soldiers dont fight for "the cause", their country or their leader - they foremost fight with and for their buddies. If buddy-aid is micromanaged, fine with me. If casualties are incorporated in a way that even means change of mission target and medevac becomes the new priority, that may go too far but I would be fine with that. (In a modern scenario involving current day forces this would be the only realistic thing to do) But it would be totally sufficient if an automated tendency of soldiers via the individual TacAI scripting makes them tend to their buddies at least for a while after those are being shot, thereby making casualties a more realistic aspect of a wargame such as ToW which has individual soldiers. ... oh, and "smth for the addon" sounds like an ideal universal cop-out to all those pesky requests ... all the best M.Hofbauer [ August 02, 2006, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]