Major Tom
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Major Tom
-
-
I could see them being located within trees and in hiding, but, I am pretty sure that camoflage netting is not incorporated in the game. I don't know of it's frequency of use in the Western Front. I don't think it was too necessary, given the ample natural camoflage availible.
-
Just think of how a Flamethower would work in the real world, and that is how CM will model it. No, there will be no Richard Burton's firing off never ending sprays of flame on unsuspecting German troops as in his Raid on Tobruk movie. Flamethowers are really good for mopping up a stubbornly entrenched enemy, who have already been bypassed. Never use a flamer in the front of your assault, they will never make it to the enemy lines.
-
A single squad on it's own is toast no matter what. The only way in which to retreat, intact, is to supress the enemy with HMG's farther back in your line, or other units nearby, along with a wack of artillery. Then, you send your troops in the direction offering the most cover from the attacking forces. Actually, having retreats like this under such heavy fire is usually the cause of bad timing. You should never wait such a long time to withdraw. If you know that overwelming forces are coming your way and you want your troops to survive is to only stick around before your enemy has time to plan their assault. Indeed, if you should never move around your troops when under fire, it is just going to give you a bloody nose no matter what. Best bet if you are ever in a situation like this is to keep put, you will be wiped out either way, but, at least you will take out more of his troops in the process.
-
Wow, 95% of all of the new posts are by Capt_Manieri. I have only posted once. I can't even really think of anything worthwile to say about CM that hasn't already been said!
-
Hey, they had them in Wolfenstein 3D, so, why not in CM? Wolfenstein 3D was just as historically accurate.
-
In my study of history I have discovered that the war in the West may not have been quite as devestating to the defeat of Germany, but, it was extremely important in shaping the post war world. I am actually amazed at the number of German units which served on the Western front during 1944-45. Truely, most of the German casualties were inflicted on the Eastern Front, but, without the mass destruction of German forces, especially so late in the war, the Russian's could not have proceeded as fast, indeed, they might have had their advance checked. Thousands of German Planes, Tanks, and Troops were lost in a previously quitet area where forces could refit and regroup after their mauling in the East.
There is much more history in the West front than just the Battle of the Bulge, which, in reality was not much of a threat or interesting of a battle. It had the same success possibility as the relief attempt on the pocket of Stalingrad. The Americans lost the strength of a couple Divisions, which isn't much in relation to the losses suffered throughout the conflict. Some amazing battles were fought in Normandy by the Americans, British, Canadians, French, Polish, Belgians, Dutch and Czech. The Clearing of Holland by the British, and most notably the Canadians was a bitter and important struggle. Freeing up Antwerp, and the Schelt (SP?) resulted in Patton having the fuel supply to successfully break the Rhine line. Even today, the Dutch still have a nation wide thanks given to Canada for leading their liberation. The Battle for Bastogne may be one of the most known in American history books, but, the less heard of conflicts are not any less interesting, just unknown.
The East front on Divisional size is indeed a much more interesting war, just by it's scale. But, on the micro, Battalion level the West and East are just about equal. Personally, I never had as much interest in the East front than that of Africa/Italy, Western Europe 39-40 or 44-45, or the Pacific War. The smaller actions were more insignificant to the greater picture.
-
I am pretty sure that Capt_Manieri is only jesting here, if not, possibly he should be demoted to Lieutenant or something. It always happens, when a game is about to come out people get touchy. Indeed, they start to believe that those who are doing the programming, improvements, and even websites owe them something, for some reason. They are doing this for free, or at prices that "art insaine", they deserve our respect and paitence. I am working on "improving" another most craptastic game (pardon my language), and those people who aren't helping and will be recieving these improvements are ever increasingly hostile and impatient, even though we are doing this for free!
Paitence all! AND NO MORE FREAKING YELLING AND DAMN SWEARING!!! SON OF A!!!!!!!!!!
-
Luck, is a theoretical device. It is just created to fill in the oddities of the world. Being lucky means that the chance that something would happen being rare actually happens is not neccesarily luck, but, just a result of the draw of the numbers. Indeed, these things did happen. Fionn's tactics are sound, I have tried them, and they work. I read a 'German Panzer manuel' (if indeed they actually had one) stating the tactics one should use in Armoured warfare. I will not let everyone into all of their stupendous advice (which really apply to CM!) but one of them was to engage as many guns on your enemy as you can. Even if you are outnumbered you can always get local superiority if you plan correctly. I perfer ambushes to direct long range assault. You tend to get full surprise at point blank flank range, and you rarely miss!
-
Well, the war in the West rarely encountered fixed positions. Other than the Metz Forts and the Segfried Line (of which only Metz offered much of a problem) there were usually just hasty defences. In CM2, if it is in the East, there will be more heavy defences. Trenches, bunkers, and dummy vehicles will abound! Indeed, it will be interesting to play the Germans and actually dread about the impregnibility of Allied armour!
-
Actually, I have had about equal luck for both sides. Both bad and good. On Chance Encounter I tend to lose between 35-100% of vehicles. I have had times as the Germans where all of my StuG's were taken out with 1-2 Shermans left. Schreck's take the rest out. I have had StuG's lose out on gun duels with Shermans. Other times they have won. On Last Defence, I had no Hellcats left, with 1 StuG running around free savaging my troops. I had 1 Bazooka team left with 3 Shots left. I missed on my first, and killed it on my second. I have had about as much luck with Bazookas as with Schrecks. I haven't had many problems about troops running out of cover to fire, occasionally with tanks moving to worse firing positions and getting killed, but, never with my troops. However, how many times have you guys encountered these problems? Maybe it is just a fluke, or a randmon occurence?
-
Well, going on this spousal wife game hating topic, I recently told my Mother my present for my Father much to her dismay is the game Age of Kings. He has been addicted to computer games ever since Civilization. He is currently on Age of Empires, and is leaning towards Age of Kings. However, my Mom refuses to allow him to buy it (as he gets home from school, yes he is a Pricipal not a student, and immediately goes to playing his game). So, he as been giving me subtle hints that he wants me to get this game for him for Christmas. One was "So, what kind of computer games that I would be interested in are out there?" and catching him at Computer stores looking at the box with sad puppydog eyes.
Basically, women feel that if their husband/boyfriend spends more time infront of the computer, or neglects her because of the computer that he doesn't love her. Just like, "if you loved me, then you would go down town with me and help me go shoe shopping with my mother". Women tend to hate certain games that their spouses love, as, it is someting in their life that they can't relate with. Indeed, I have seen girlfriends get really angry when they come over and see a certain game on the screen. It is a really interesting psychological event to watch.
Actually, there was one girl who decided that you could either fight them, or join them, and she started playing these computer games with us and really enjoyed it. I should have lached on to that one.
-
CM1 isn't even out yet! Why are we focusing on the next version?! Steve and Charles cannot start on the next project until at least a few months after the release of CM1. They want to make sure that all of the bugs are worked out of this game, not only for the next one, but, they would like to concentrate on a patch (if necessary). Plus, I am not sure that they want to spend their entire life producing Combat Mission over and over again in different theatres. Sure, they will eventually produce enough games to cover most/all/some of the theatres of war, but, honestly would you just want to do the same thing all of the time? Maybe they want to do a completely different project in the near future! They are probably sick of this game right now, and to give the impression that getting out the next game ASAP is their duty to us is, well, insulting in a way. Continutity, along with the fact that they are still charging for this product. Legaly, if they allow others to produce parts of a game that they charge money for they leave themselves open for people to demand a cut. I am not saying that anyone that I have met so far on this board would do this, but, there are some who would take advantage.
Continuity wize, and the fact that everyone who works at BTS seem to be perfectionists. Every model that they recieve (if your plan is to be initiated) would have to be gone over 1000 times by Steve and Charles in order to reach their level of scruitiny. In fact, it won't really speed up the process that much. If someone created a model that they didn't feel to be much use in the game, or, if people created multiple versions, how would they choose or say to people that their work isn't good enough? It is just easier and probably more to their style to keep everything in the family.
Sure, they get money for what they have produced, but, they are making sure that we come first! I don't expect to see Combat Mission 2 for a while now, I am sure that Combat Mission 1 can last us for years, or even decades. It's repeat gameplay looks astounding, I mean most people (Including myself) have played the 3 scenario's of the Beta version multiple times! How many times do you regularly play demos?
I appreciate the fact that you are doing this for theirs and our benifit, but, there is a reason that no company is doing this. Even all of the officially accepted Total Annihilation models were created by those within the company. Plus, then they couldn't put their names as the sole developers and producers of the game in the credits
[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-23-99).]
-
You would have to consider number of games played too. What if someone only played 5 PBEM games, and won 4 and got a draw for the last. And another person won 12 and lost 8. You will never know what the person with only 5 Games would have done if they played 20 Games (possibly they were just very lucky, or maybe they were very skilled?) If there is going to be a ranking system, it has to be within so many games. Otherwize, people with less games under their belt will have an advantage over those who have more games. What about challenges? If someone refuses to play a person just because they only have played 'weaker' players and don't want their score to be decreased? I don't think that this will happen much as most people here are fairly honourable, but, we must take this into account.
-
Yeah, got nailed by that too. I was traversing a small patch of forests with a Platoon to outflank the Americans in Chance Encounter. I wasn't sure wether or not two squads who were previously in the woods were still there. I set my troops to sneak through the forest, and run accross an open field to another forest. However, one enemy squad wasn't routed from previous fighting and took a toll out of my troops moving past it. Let alone these regular troops (previously unscathed) were so shaken up that they weren't moving very decisively accross the field. I had 50% casualties with 0 enemy losses. Using the Move command works a lot better, at least in the Beta version. However, it works both ways. The AI blunders into my ambushes with little response as well.
-
Well, for CM2 we will not have to wait very long. The code is already set. I cannot see much more needed in revision in this game, they will just have to wait for average processor speed to pick up before major changes can be feasible. They have the bulk of later war German vehicles and troops already completed, plus, practically every lend lease vehicle is already done also. I don't think that CM2 would be close to as difficult to put together than CM1. However, if Steve and Charles keep up with their traditional relation to accuracy and creating the best game possible I can see that the next version will be infinitly better than this one, if it is possible at all!
-
However, their morale is high!
-
I have a humourous story...
One of my friends told me this about his Grandfather during WWII. He was in the British Army in the Engineer Corps, special duty or something. He was a part of a group assigned to create these dummy articles. They created dummies of Tanks, Airplanes, Bases, and yes, even Battleships. In North Africa they had just finished creating a dummy vessel of a warship, somewhere in Egypt or Malta (presumably at Alexandrea). Anyway, after it was finished, an attack was heading towards them, and, they put a smoke discharge in the dummy's funnel to make it look like a ship trying to get underway. Unfortunatly someone put in a coloured smoke and this weird green (can't remember exact colour, but this will do) smoke was pouring out of this funnel. The Germans/Italians bombed it anyway. He said that they were pretty sure that they assumed that the coloured smoke was done just to make it look like a dummy vessel, instead of just one big screwup. I have nothing really to back this up other than one of my friends word, but, it struck me as a funny tale.
-
Yeah, Patton said "Just go East, and don't stop at Berlin!" At least this is a rough paraphrase!
-
Yeah, I am having the same problem... I brought home my computer for the hoidays, and forgot the speakers at School. I don't think that there is any sort of technical support that can help me
-
Good idea MOS, but, won't the light of the fire just attract more enemy gunfire to that unit if it is discovered to be a farce, let alone the friendly troops iluminated nearby!
Also, being in a tank, I wouldn't be too happy driving that thing around, let alone sitting in it with a bonfire heating the metal can up. Plus, with the Sherman's already dubious engine and gas supply, I am sure it needs no other help in buring in flames. Plus, it would take a while to set up the debris and light the fire (unless before the battle you doused your tank in gas, hopping for a deflection shot to spark and light the flame, not enough to blow up the tank though...)
One thing I would like to see, is, even for a knocked out vehicle, if you are beyond a certain distance you should just see the basic picutre. If you see a Sherman, from say, 400 meters, unless it has brewed up, it should look the same. When you get close enough, you should be able to see if it is knocked out or not. It should appear to be in fully working order if far enough away. There should be the automatic targeter also, as, if you don't believe it to be destroyed, neither should your troops. However, if you get close enough (not something like 3 meters, more like 2-300 or whatever the average person can determine accurately) with a unit with a LOS on this vehicle it can see if it is destroyed or not.
Indeed, some damage is more noticible than others, and this should be taken into account. But, even a knocked out Sherman can still cause the Germans to think twice about assaulting a hill or something. You can also pretend that perfectly good vehicles are in fact destroyed. These are just my random thoughts however.
-
SS_Panzerleader... Don't you mean that the panzerfausts will actually fire at something other than Infantry? I have never had enough fausts left over to attack the tanks!
-
Hellcats are nasty little vehicles. In the final version this dancing of AFV's will probably won't be too much of a problem. I have had problems with mixing tanks, when they cross eachothers path they both are too gracious and each try to let the other pass. What we need are the signal corps. A much neglected, but, very important part of the Army.
I too managed to kill every StuG and the Tiger without losing a single Hellcat. Well, I was full of confidence and had them spearhead my counter attack. However, these things can't stand up to much. Mortors knocked out all three over a period of time. They are just as bad as Halftracks. These damn tank destroyers are little better than their name suggests. All they are good for, is destroying tanks. Infantry, with any Anti-tank support can chew these things up. Why couldn't the Allied build real Tank-Destroyers like the Jagdpanzer, Jagdtiger, Marder... uh, let's forget the last one..
-
I can't even seem to get on the website! Now I will never know what might have been possibly cryptically said!
-
Hell, you want to see a top quality tank game? Get your hands on a copy of 'Sands of Fire'. Stationed in North Africa, you drive a series of British tanks to whipe out the massed numbers of Germans with a single charge. I cannot stress the horror of this game. I don't remember when it came out, possibly late 1980's. I suppose for then it was interesting enough, but, it was really a very boring game to play after a while.
Off Topic - Y2KBC - need weirdo's
in Combat Mission Archive #1 (1999)
Posted
Take a look at the movie "Quest for Fire". It should give you all of the idea's need for a prehistoric party. It's content is not suited for younger viewers, however, from what I gather, neither is your party.