M Hofbauer
-
Posts
1,792 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by M Hofbauer
-
-
however the target panther might just as likely, or rather more likely!! (since tanks tend to be hull down and hence omn the reverse slope), that the hull is pointing upwards and hence the sloping is even higher...Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:Unless I'm grossly misinformed (and I don't think I am) armour slopes are in the calculations. However... the 55 degree angle is inherently bogus as a tool for calculating how much armour protection you are getting. Great for armour aficionados but not much use in real terms.
Let me explain. The shooter may be higher then horizontal, making the angle less. tHe hull may be pointing downwards. It could be, by some freakish curvature that the shooter gets a straight angle shot at your frontal glacis. *POOF* Goes your 55 degree bow armour. You've always got 80mm armour, what angle of protection you are getting depends on how the shot comes in.
So yes, typically you'll get that 55 degrees, but it's not some magical bonus that you'll always be getting. The penetration is just like it is in CM(in many ways even better), it's just how the numbers are presented that differ.
-
are you insinuating that he's banned?Originally posted by Moon:Krull, if you would spend more time reading and less time parroting, you would not be called a whiner. Well, you'll have plenty of time for reading now.
Martin
:confused:
-
so I take it the whining about german armor not performing as expected is due to the influx of players that arent exactly "in the know" about ww2 ballistics, not even rudimentary things like 75mm and 76mm shermans?
it was to be expected with tow attracting the rts crowd.
another matter would be how many 76mm shermans the allies fielded that early, and hence the ratio of 76mm shermans in that scenario in question. they were still outnumbered by the 75mm shermans as per US doctrine.
btw, moon, to my understanding the 76mm HVAP ammo was officially issued only to TD units, not tanks.
-
the mathematical increase in thickness is still the same.Originally posted by chanss:Same thing with the T-34, it says it has 45mm armor, but with sloping you will get almost double effect of armor versus Armor piercing Ammo. Maybe they take into account in the game engine, who knows?.....have not read anything about here.
Sloping armor is not that effective versus exploding ordnance though, is it?
it is the desired aditional sloping effects that go beyond the mere mathematical / geometrical armor increase, that do not apply to HEAT/shaped charges as much. i.e., sloped armor behaves "stronger" vs kinetic energy penetrators as would be expected based merely on the geometrical increase of armor thickness.
a very strong sloping however can lead to the shaped charge not detonating at all, in extreme cases and depending on the shaped charge fuze construction design. this is akin to the likeliness of ricochets re. kinetic energy penetrators, but quite less pronounced than the latter.
[ May 01, 2007, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]
-
The german ones, true (british, too). But apparently someone forgot to tell the russians who just started producing them two years later and right up into 1945...Originally posted by Moon:- ATR squads are available usually around the early war years when anti-tank rifles were actually still somewhat effective against the smaller and lighter tanks. They become obsolete rather quickly (after Poland)
(also forgot to tell them that ATRs are supposed to be ineffective 
). Not to mention the heavy sniper rifles, "anti-material rifles", of today (Barrett et al), which are, after all, nothing but ATRs in new design. nihil novum.... 
edit:
cue some fin to bring up the Lahti...
-
if that's the way it is - that's the way it's supposed to be. there's a historic reason why it was called Rotbart by it's crews ("hauchdünn" as the contemporary commercials had it for the razor blades of that brand).Originally posted by Werner_U292:-Lastly more of an opinion. The PzIV's are great tanks in this game but seriously lack on armor ratings especially for front and treads.
and thats also why some cm players coined the phrase "do not expose to sunlight or fresh air" w/r/t the durability of the Pz IV. btw, have you ever played CM?
you mean as opposed to repairing at night or with blindfolds?Usually my PzIV's will only get half way through the map before getting disabled and crew panicking, but my 35's and 38's go FOREVER. Also there should be an option for tank and equipment repair on sight (or is there and I'm just missing it?)
personally I think there should be an option to grow repair weed. you could harvest that and replenish your tanks' shields with it or build new ones in small factories.
-
Elvis,Originally posted by Elvis:Hoolaman, I understand what you are saying. Elmar and I knew when the game was going to be released and as you can imagine were hanging out to see the reaction to the game. I can only speak for myself when I say that during testing I grew to really dig this game. I became immersered in the battles and campaigns. When I saw posts from people that, from my experience, either hadn't given it the proper chance or were dead wrong in thier assumptions I posted to try to clear things up. Not for BFC or 1C so much as for the poster.
And M Hofbauer, my old CM friend, my member number is lower than yours if that is any help. Hell, mine might be lower than Matts. Been around these boards a long long time. My registration date was changed during the night of a thousand monkeys (of which I was one). So I am one old CMhead. And my take is this....This game might not be for everyone but for the ones it works for it sure is fun.
dont get me wrong, and I duly bow to your impressive #159 in an inverse-paradroidesque way,
but even tho you fit the criteria "old CMer/board member" you were also part of the team that made and tested ToW. So you're not exactly the impartial fresh prima facie onlooker I had in mind - no offense meant.
-
that would kinda narrow it down considerablyOriginally posted by rune:Hof,
The "cryptic style" is from an article I was given, and would make more sense if I could post the entire article. I will NOT do so until I have the author's permission. Someone from your area and you have met [i think].
was it outside the beta process?!? :confused:I'll drop him a line and see if I can get permission to post or send to people. Drop me an email. I didn't work on the encyclopedia, so I can't answer that.
Rune
-
I am still waiting for a review/first impression by some established CM board old timer. What you describe is often done by quintuple-digit members who registered within the last year or so. Dont get me wrong, Im not out to diss newbies, its just that I want an opinion from someone whos been with the CM board/crowd for a while and who I *know* from past posting history.Originally posted by Pas De Charge:After buying and playing the game (bought on the strength of the demo),I decided to come to the forums and see what other people thought..
well what can i say? Wow. On the one hand we have people who preordered the game on the basis that it's from the same WEBSITE (not, i understand, the same developer) as the combat mission games. These people then after playing the game, come to this forum and make various compaints about it and then call anyone who defends it a fanboy (irony anyone?).
I've even read of one person who said if they'd known more about the editor, they wouldn't have preordered... Personally, if i'm planning on buying a game MAINLY to use it's editor (which is not something I can see a single good reason for doing), I just might wait for the release to see how good it is. After all, what miracles of map-editory are you planning on achieving the second the game is released? Can they really not wait?
Anyway, as I was saying on the one hand we have what im politely calling "Battlefront fans" (I know its not everyone, or even a significant majority, but it's just enough people to annoy me), who bought the game because it was from battlefront, then for reason/s x dont like the game and for some bizzare reason think they have a valid grievance against the game itself.
This is where it really gets weired, the support of battlefront that led you to buy the game in the first place is suddenly dropped and forgotten about as you proceed to constantly insult and criticize both theatre of war, its developers and the people who've soo far played and enjoyed it. I read one person who now said they would not preorder the next combat mission game because of some sort of perceived deception on behalf of battlefront over theatre of war.
Fickle much? I don't really know what to say about this to be frank but hopefully you can see my point. I've never before seen such a bizarre situation over the release of a game (not saying there hasn't been one).
Im not saying I would take their view as gospel - its just that I know where that opinion comes from.
I dont think buying a game based on the reputation / your opinion of a company or your past experience is one of the worst reasons for buying the game.Originally posted by Pas De Charge:Am I the only one who thinks thats a little odd? Lets ignore for a second the fact that a significant portion of the complaints made are more or less "it isn't enough like CM" and just focus on the fact that "you" bought a game apperently, JUST because it was distributed by the company who made a game you liked (im hesitant to use the word "like" as it doesn't seem strong enough, love? idolise?). If there was ever a bad reason for buying a game, that has to come fairly near the top of the list.
Especially in the case of BTS/BF.C it is only natural that people who have followed them since their inception, who benefitted from their company policy and hence products in the past, will trust them to deliver good products again in the future. Especially given their original manifesto, their - btw mostly justified IMO - critique and "holier-than-tho" attitude re. the evil conventional big gaming/software companies. With CM they mostly delivered in my book.
Plus BTS has repeatedly stressed ever since announcing their cooperation with 1C for TOW, that they will ensure that this game will meet their high standards. After all, that is what took the game so long to be labeled done by BTS even after it had been considered "finished" in russia.
One day I may be able to find out myself what the game is like. Until then I am really curious to hear what CM board "veterans" think about this game.
-
when rune mentions their model matching bird/livingston within a millimetre I took that to mean they also accounted for the effects and aspects emphasized in their work on ww2 ballistics, such as compound angles, slope effects, face-hardening, high-hardness peculiarities, cast vs. rolled armor peculiarities, armor flaws, edge effects, the high-energy projectile failure shatter gap "and all that other stuff"Originally posted by Redwolf:ToW doesn't use angle effects at all (other than LOS thickness increase, aka consinus).
-
to be fair, the encyclopedia is all these people have to go by to judge the authenticity of the game's ballistic values, since apparently they do not have access to these "internal numbers" you are referring to. If the encyclopedia gives other valus than the game uses, then it is both a) 1C/BTS's fault and b)questions the point of having that encyclopedia in the first place. The way it is it seems to be way more of a problem than a feature / aid.Originally posted by rune:The part everyone is forgetting is you are basing on what is in the encloypedia. I didn't work on that, but rather the internal numbers.
authors is rather unspecific. The Dorsch is an author, Im an author, everyone's an author...AGAIN, the numbers are based on works by various authors. If I can contact them again and get permission, I will post some of their information.
what kind of kryptic source quoting style is that?Sources include: Solomonov 44, Zetterling 00, Jentz 96, Ellis 93.
and believe me Ive seen a lot of different quoting styles.
Zetterling, you mean his work on Normandy or the one on russian tank warfare co-authored with Frankson?
While Zetterling surely isnt the worst of works out there, I would definitely trust him more with organizational issues and not with hard technical details.
add-on: abovesaid notwithstanding, kudos to you and the work of the BTS/beta team on arriving at rexford/bird values.
-
what's wrong with checkers?
-
By sneaking a look every now and then to see where the enemy is. Otherwise you are just guarding a 1.5m deep hole. </font>Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
how does the dutch army execute ambushes and/or keep the element of surprise?
-
that ios nopt what I sdaid.Originally posted by Moon:From what you describe it sounds like gun crews would only ever abandon their guns from air or artillery strikes.
those are most typical situations in which they would.
there are other instances, too.
however, guns in WW II were typically not abandoned prior to a battle because that would make them less noticed by enemy tanks. Camoflage and a simple hide/hold fire command was the usual way to go about this "how not to be seen" business back in WW II the way I see it.
and I doubt that in suich a weird WW II situation leaving the guns open like that would spare them from the enemy's fire. In RealLife, the enemy wouldnt know that the enemy "player" had relocated the crew to a neabry trench, AND / OR would blast the sh*t out of those guns out in the open anyhow. Unlike in ToW, wehre, as you conceded, they are unwilling to engage the guns in such a setup.I doubt that. Not if they are in the middle of an empty grass field, there is a bunch of tanks rolling on, and a neat trench nearby to hop into
Martin
Since you are using that RealLife - game difference/deficiency ("feature", if you want *g*) of the game to your advantage (for increased survivability of your forces), such a tactic is gamey as per general opinion on what constitutes "gameyness".
-
soldiers ordered to hide and hold fire so they wont be noticed/targeted by the enemy are expected not to raise their heads to take nosy peeks.Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:Ordering them to crouch and hold fire works well. They'll still sneak a peak every now and again. Wouldn't you?
green troops might not adhere to that, but thats a different matter.
how does the dutch army execute ambushes and/or keep the element of surprise?
-
Turewicz, the crews would abandon the guns and seek cover if they wiould not be in action facing enemy tanks and came under, say, an air attack or artillery fire.Originally posted by Moon:Hofbauer, abandoning the gun is not gamey. If there is no other cover (and the map has none, unlike other maps), it's a valid tactic. I would do it in real life, as would you.
Martin
Its gamey because the guns werent abandoned due to taking cover from air / artillery strike.
Now, let me emphasize that I did not play the game/demo so far since my system will not run it, but that from what I can gather so far the game seems like it will be very much enjoyable to me, despite any smaller or larger perceived deficiencies.
Therefore, correct me if Im wrong, but from what little I could gather from the postings so far people complained that
--> the mission is too hard, b/c guns are destroyed/their crews killed too fast, b/c one cannot HIDE them (= there is lack of a HIDE command) and there is no option to entrench them, resulting in them being spotted and destroyed too fast.
your advice was for the player to abandon the guns, this will prevent/delay spotting/destruction of the guns, and crew the weapons later when the tanks are closer.
this advice implies that either
a) guns that are not crewed are harder to spot
guns that are not crewed are ignored by the enemy (=AI) despite being functional and being seenboth a and b are deficiencies of the game. abandoning a gun does not make it harder to spot. in reality, a gun is camoflaged (and preferrably also entrenched) to make it hard to spot, and the crew is hiding/hunkering down behind it, not running away into a nearby trench to prevent the gun from being seen. as for b, the enemy in reality would shoot at any guns it sees because it cannot see whether they are crewed or not.
so you are using this flaw of the game to provide a solution to facilitate winning the scenario.
fits the definition of gamey in my book, down to the t.
I guess I can live with it, but I'll call out a flaw or gamey tactic when I see either.
-
rubbing my eyes - gamey tactics recommended by the game designers to overcome deficiencies (lack of HIDE command / entrenchment / scenario design) of the game?Originally posted by Moon:Some additional things to try:
- position the AT guns near the trench and abandon them immediately when the scenario starts, telling the crew to get into the trench. Wait for the tanks to come closer before opening fire.
:eek:
and this from BTS / BF.C?
:confused:
-
I want it all and I want it now. And I want it free and I want chocolate icecream with it.Originally posted by longbore:We (those that have preordered both versions [digital DL and DVD]) spent money up front for a game engine thats (IL Sturmovik game engine came out in 2001?) not brand spanking new by any strech of the imagination but would like to have it before everyone else does, so to speak.
Thanks.
please do so.Thats an incentive that all publishers use to "hook" the audience into purchasing. If the DL version is only opened up a week before the game is delivered then I think next time Ill wait for the demo.
we'll love you even more for it.
look at me... I'm laughing hard... laughing at you.Yes, we all know Battlefront will release when they feel like it but dont make the preorder folks look ridiculous.
-
Use this one: 75mm PaK 40 L / 48 (release date november 1941)</font>Originally posted by Kettenhund:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pwncake:
thats not so good.
how do we suppose to destroy tanks in the early forty's because the pak43 wasnt available then.
can we buy them instead of the flak's
or are we screwed when we encounter an t34 and we have no way of destroying it?
-
I disagree.Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:Does thick Woods as seen in CM even exist?
My own observations says no, probably not. Trees large enough to make it impossible for a tank to pass typically need so much space on the ground that ample space is provided for a tank to maneuvre past.
It doesnt take a lot of tree to stop a tank.
And trees, even big ones, can grow rather thick / close to each other.
Of course Im not talking about tulip fields (
) - but any regular run-of-the-mill mature fir or pine should be sufficient to make a tank not want to pass it. Even if knocked over, the tank will likely immobilize itself on the stump or lose track due to the tension created when passing the leftovers. And woods do not consist of one such tree, but, as the definition goes, several ones, I'ld even chance to say lots of them. -
#1: patienceOriginally posted by TC_Stele:Sorry, I couldn't find it on this forum, but what are the basic requirements for this game? The screenshots alone indicate it may need a bit of a cruncher, but I was interested to know what the requirements are to run this and the recommended.
-
That "no way to create maps" is just Dorosh talking.Originally posted by DASman:But I don't understand....there is no way to make terrain, but there are modder maps?????
E
-
Dont worry.Originally posted by Muldoon:@Dorosh re: "Oh please; if it is anything like CC3-6, it will get old in about 2 weeks, especially with no way of creating new terrain and having to reuse the same tired old two dozen or so maps."
Your post annoyed me so much, I registered just to be able to respond. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Its just Dorosh.
to put things in perspective, he also categorizes simulations like M1 Tank Platoon as RTS games. go figure.
just look at his initial post... he came from "it is not possible to make maps for cc" down to, well, he didnt know and Dorosh cant make maps for cc.
-
... and CMC.
Ooops, now I'll have to kill y'all.
). Not to mention the heavy sniper rifles, "anti-material rifles", of today (Barrett et al), which are, after all, nothing but ATRs in new design. nihil novum.... 
guns that are not crewed are ignored by the enemy (=AI) despite being functional and being seen
Plane screens
in Theatre of War
Posted
And somehow, despite having read some adventures of Do17s early in the war, more or less prowling to attack targets of opportunity in France, in the diary of KG 2, I just cannot imagine He111s directly level bombing into a running battle CAS-style. Not saying it never happened - but its just not the typical way things were going.