Mark IV
-
Posts
1,993 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mark IV
-
-
...and we had BETTER see MP38s (not MP40s) in the Polish campaign, with the corrugated receivers...(stalks off)
-
Wouldn't mirror games control for terrain issues?
-
I think the map view would be great for immersion, realism, and emphasis on the role of recon.
BUT...
I think this is also potentially a self-propagating code nightmare that, carried to extremes, would have less and less return on investment (of BTS resources).
Once it's spotted by a friendly, it's spotted. That's good enough for me. The unchecked quest for absolute realism would mean that,technically, only a unit in LOS of ANY piece of terrain could see ALL the trees and bushes. All the radio contact in the world won't let the commander see an individual tree.
On the other hand, the pre-game briefing by reconnaissance doesn't net me a thing in terms of visualizing the terrain, because while they may confirm the existence of a bridge or hill, they aren't going to give a travelogue description of every stand of trees, or gently sloping 2-meter depression contour that let's me get a hull down over distance.
That's the kind of thing a commander has to see for himself at Level 1.
Just dividing the map into the 3D visible vs. the 2D mapped unknown, adds the recon element and some more FOW. I think it would be a mistake to split the hair any finer than that.
It would require a heck of a lot of resources to continuously recalculate and render every tile from every unit's point of view with every change of position. It would hurt playability, slow up the release of future versions, and probably crash my CPU.
We have to admit that certain levels of reality can only be simulated by shooting yourself in the thigh with a .22 if your HQ unit is overrun.
-
This was one of my most cherished suggestions for future CMs. I would like to see the unspotted portion of the map displayed as a topo map (such as the poor commander got), which fills in with "real" terrain as it is spotted by friendlies.
Inducing minor errors on the map would be brilliant (though they'd have to be random- a scenario designer could be fiendishly tempted to display incorrect bridge placement to an opponent).
Some portions of the map could conceivably still be displayed as map-only at game's end. Imagine the importance recon would suddenly assume, particularly on the Eastern Front, where maps were notoriously inaccurate....
-
Michigan. I'd be the fellow passing you in the right lane.
-
A selectable setting for auto-surrender would be nice for grudge matches, but should it count toward ladder ratings? If the AI decides your guys run up the white flag, OK, click to play on. But if you opt to continue, shouldn't there be an asterisk after the final score?
This is really about auto-mutiny. You, the commander, still have some ideas, but the troops have had enough. How is this different than a squad, ordered to Move to a building and getting incoming from all sides, opting to return to the treeline, instead? It's just a larger scale. When units are Captured, would you want an override option for them to draw bayonets and charge instead? 1 in a jillion times it would work, but is it worth modeling?
I just got beat (actually, a draw) by the AI in CE. Screw it, I was "trying something". Personally I can't believe the AI didn't chuck it before GT40. I had 187 casualties, all 3 StuGs knocked out, morale of less than 25% (2 VL), and whacked only 2 Sherms for my efforts (f***ing 'schrecks missed 13 tries at one, 5 consecutive under 87m). I was still able to make a Conscript 'schreck creep up on a Sherm at the tail end and I thought the 'puter was generous at that (he got wiped).
I can't imagine personally motivating troops to continue under those conditions.
If this happened to me on a regular basis (it doesn't) I would not participate in ladder play (actually, I don't, so far). If these results were customary I would give it up. If I played jillions of games and this (or an auto-surrender) happened, I would dismiss it as an anomaly, and be satisfied that my overall excellent performance
would render this particular episode statistically insignificant.So I think that auto-surrender is one of those rare but statistically predictable occurences of war that sucks, but sucks in a realistic manner (13%, it's over, dude). Kinda like setting everything up right, but being right where those 240mms come down. Play again? Insert 50 cents to continue...
-
Actually looks pretty good here on the old laptop at 10x7, though there is some evident tiling. Also, the spoon on the Gasthaus table is of postwar manufacture.
That is a curious deployment of the tank down in the holler...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can we agree to just stop and agree?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A cease-fire request? Never! There'll be no auto-surrender in this little thread.
There's too much love on this board, and I say it's crack-crash-boom (unless you're closer to the gun), and that's all there is to it.
AGREE, or it's subsonic projectiles at dawn, and choose your second. MGHMOYS.
-
If I really wanted to pursue this, I would note that not all HE on the battlefield is aimed directly at one, though it may seem that way.
So shells passing further to the rear, as many must, would first present the supersonic crack to the observer.
Boom:report from gun you(supersonic crack!) crash:HE explosion
If you're near the point of impact, then the crack and HE crash would be indistinct, just as to the gunner his boom! and the crack are indistinct. If you are in between there are 3 distinct sounds and the crack of the passing shell must be first; since you introduced the supersonic element to the discussion I thought I would help muddy the waters
...but it's really not worth pursuing. -
(sigh) ...astray again.
Weren't the cracking noises of the MG rounds above your head the result of supersonic air displacement?
Thus, in the 88 example, it is not just crack-boom, but crack-boom-bang where "crack"=supersonic displacement effect of the passing round, "boom"=the gun or the impact, whichever is closer to the observer, and "bang"=the opposite of the "boom" (can't believe I'm posting this).
Supersonic "crack" is pronounced. It's why you can't put "silencers" on most high-powered pistols and rifles, Hollywood notwithstanding, because the crack of the bullet generates a noise of its own.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The effect, of course, is range dependant<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Greater range would increase the perceived interval between the two "reports". Provided the passing round was still hypersonic, the downrange observer would hear the supersonic "crack" of the shell before the chemical "boom" of the initial explosion. With a muzzle velocity of 770m/sec (for AP, dunno about HE), it's safe to say an 88mm retains supersonic velocity well downrange.
The interval must always increase until it ceases altogether. By definition, the supersonic "crack" of the passing round means it is going faster than sound, so the initial sound of the gun firing (being relatively constant) can never "catch up" to it until the round decelerates BELOW the speed of sound, at which point it stops generating the "crack". The sonic boom effect travels with the round and is continuous as long as it is supersonic, even though momentary to stationary observers.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that museum on Long Island? It doesnt say in the web site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It does, if you follow the link to the American Armored Foundation:
In Danville, VA.
Thanks, KD. A pilgrimage.
-
Typical (*snort*).
Snuffelhauser 36 Mk 14s were painted dunkelgelb, reissued to 2te Irish SS PG Kompanie, and were the key factor in stalling the British at Tiefpunkt-in-Geschichte, September 11, 1944.
You call that research?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Panzerfaust projectile was not rocket propelled, it was a recoilless launcher.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a really interesting topic.
As I understand it, the Panzerfaust was a true recoilless gun (or launcher): the bomb itself contained a blackpowder explosive cartridge in a cardboard tube at its base. When this was fired, it used the mass of gas created by the explosion to propel the bomb (a hollow charge grenade made of cyclonite) forward. This was very unsophisticated but worked well at short range (beats hell out of sticky bombs, as delivery systems go). The blackpowder (smokeless was becoming hard to get in late-war Germany) charge had to be much larger than it would have been in a closed tube (i.e., a traditional gun) so the result was a relatively massive signature blast. The tube was not reloadable and was discarded after a single use.
The PIAT projectile was similar, except that the spring-loaded spigot apparently contributed an unknown (to me) percentage of the total forward velocity, with the explosive base cartridge providing the rest. Since the cartridge could be smaller and was not blackpowder, signature was minimal and there was no backblast, allowing its use from closed rooms and other tight areas. The cartridge had sufficient force to recock the spigot for the next round, so that only the first required back-breaking human force. The spigot was really a one-inch diameter, foot-long steel firing pin, and there was a considerable delay (mechanical lock time, in gun talk) between pulling the trigger and actual launch, during which the shooter had to keep the whole thing on-target and tightly to the shoulder. By definition it was not recoilless.
The Bazooka and Panzerschreck were true rockets, with slow-burning propellants contained within the warhead itself. The 'schreck was actually copied, with modifications, from US Bazookas captured from the Soviets shortly after their introduction in 1943. Both used the venturi principle, where a constriction in the launch tube enabled the mass of gas behind the rocket to build up more quickly for faster launch. The gas was expelled after launch by the flared opening at the rear of the tube so that the shooter enjoyed recoilless operation.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>didn't the PIAT use a spring to propel the round?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, not completely. The idea that it was completely spring-launched probably stems from the hellacious spring used to hurl the "spigot" forward to fire the rocket (basing this on "Men Against Tanks" by John Weeks).
PIAT was basically a horizontal spigot mortar, meaning that the bomb itself had a hollow conical tail. A long steel rod, or spigot, was hurled into the tail by a spring, igniting the propellant charge which launched the bomb. PIAT was designed to recock on firing, as the opposing reaction forced the spigot back down into the firing position for the next round.
I had to edit this after reading more carefully- it wasn't exactly a rocket, but a projectile fired by the combination of the spring and the explosive cartridge at its base.
It was the Herculean (author's simile) effort required for manual cocking for the first round that associated the PIAT forever with springs. It was a very unpleasant weapon to fire from the shoulder, but was effective at 100 yds. It could also be used as a crude mortar out to 300 yds. and the baseplate was designed to rotate 90 degrees for planting on the ground.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-16-2000).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>LOL ... Men wish they could still go out and strike down mammoths, but in truth I think you'd all run for the hills!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some of us still live to hunt, and not just with guns... though I certainly wouldn't aim one of my arrows at a mammoth (and I would definitely be shopping for a bigger gun).
Many cities in the northern US have trouble with deer populations (they are much more numerous now than when the white man first came). In Pennsylvania, they have a special spear-hunting season for deer. Lots of us bowhunt bear and wild boar, and if we drew a mammoth permit we'd figure something out... bet there's nothing like mammoth cutlets on the barbie.
I would agree that women warriors have at least an equal capacity for cruelty- but they are still the exception. The instincts for the hunt, for war, and for wargaming are, I believe, similar...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>we are including at least one of three existing scenarios along with two new ones<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That will be excellent, thank you.
Some CM-specific acronyms:
HITH How in the hell...
GDS Goddam StuG
FT second word is "Tiger"
NW No Way!
UTDPF "Use the damn Panzerfaust!"
-
Agrow: Having belately realized the identity of your spousal unit, I need to add that you should indeed be proud of your subconscious selection instinct, as he has slain many mammoths... his name will be chanted in the cave-songs for many moons...
-
The "big deal" with WWII we've tried to answer above. But the lost spousal hours are best explained by the "big deal" with Combat Mission, as opposed to preceding WWII games.
Look at the screens for the games before this one, then look at the CM demo. Accuracy issues aside, it's like being there. There's never been anything quite like it. Technology, research, and hardware have evolved to the point where breakthrough levels of immersion can be achieved.
It would be nice if more women were involved, but understandable if they're not. We're into winner-take-all competition, not nurturing. We evolved to kill mammoths and protect our hunting grounds from other clans, and you evolved to raise more mammoth-killers. We select one another based on a subconscious assessment of the other's ability to perform his/her sexual role.
So your husband is subconciously fulfilling his biological imperative to kill mammoths and invaders, because real mammoths are protected.
You should not feel compelled to join him just because he is looking for a 24-hour hot seat opponent he thinks he can beat (though it would be cool if you whacked him soundly- I'm sure you would find many willing tutors here).
-
Agrow: I gotta ask, with no malice whatsoever, why are you here? Are you exploring your husband's psyche, or is there some other element of CM you find attractive?
-
I say they proceed as planned, whatever that is. The lag between Gold demo and full release is what, a month? A little more for overseas, perhaps?
We were kept busy a lot longer than that with 3 little beta scenarios. It's pointless to badger BTS at this stage. The demo is a freeb designed to attract new users- we just luck out by getting whatever's on it a little ahead of time.
Some enterprising member will no doubt remake LD, CE, and Reisberg with the new editor- and I will look forward to it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The vast scope of the global conflict, in virtually every type of terrain and climate.
** I dont get that one
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Desert, farmland, urban, winter, plains, steppes, mountains, dams, jungle, islands,- more variety in terrain, more variety in tactics and toys. Very few single wars bring all that to the party. In gaming terms only, I hasten to add.
-
Why WWII fascinates:
1) Easy Good versus Evil themes (and clear winners/losers).
2) Surviving participants in the present day (our fathers and grandfathers, and a little bit of national jingoism that goes with that).
3) The appeal of mechanized warfare, with "cool" weapons and machines to which a modern mind can relate, and 3a) The incredibly rich variety of those machines, land, air, and sea.
4) The vast scope of the global conflict, in virtually every type of terrain and climate.
5) The appeal to gamers of a return to battles of maneuver, even with (usually) well-defined fronts. Just plumb more interesting.
I guess women aren't much interested in any war, not just WWII. Not in their genes.
I will leave the obvious and unnecessary sermons to those so inclined (war is bad, don't try this at home, except on your PC/Mac), but the above would be my guesses.
-
Are you looking for biographical information, or book listings? A search with Copernic yielded 33 results, though I didn't dig for bios...
I can't recommend Copernic 2000 enough for searches. It searches all major engines at once (including Euroseek), with excellent and browsable results, and it's FREE. One of the net's best deals.
I can send you the results page, if you like (searched "Patrick Delaforce history")
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-15-2000).]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
should we be able to see so much?
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Enemy unit sighting is the only shroud any wargame has ever implemented<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to be quite clear... I still think the 2D topo for unspotted areas is completely cool. If no one else is doing it, that's all the more reason to do it. It's real.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>isn't that what binoculars are for? To stand up on a high hilltop somewhere and look around and survey the battlefield?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but you don't always have a hilltop, sometimes it's foggy or smokey, and at least once a day, it's night. Plus you can't see through hills and forests.
Say you're the Ami commander in CE. You can't see around that corner past the woods, to your right of the church. Is it more woods, a swamp, a low, rolling plain? Dunno, and there ain't no hill to stand on. Glance at the map, and you maybe see a less-wooded area with minor elevation contours. Topo maps didn't used to show small stands of trees very accurately.
Plus, a couple of world wars fought over the old homestead tend to alter terrain features. Hell, my 1998 map of Fresno, CA is wrong. So I think the 2D topo idea is very cool.