Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Oddball_E8

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,871

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Oddball_E8

    AKD: CMRT Sound mod in the works?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    agree (there is even more of no useful sounds) - and perhaps useful to him detailed information which sounds are now active.

    Speaking of, I've been working on a final version of my soundmod.

    I'll make it a community sound mod using not only my sounds, but some of your sounds and possibly other mod makers sounds if I get their permissions.

    It will be my final soundmod for CM. I won't make any more (not for release anyway).

    0

    RT Unofficial Screenshot Thread

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Well ... given that at the very least he knows it was hit a very high RoF 37mm AP-capable weapon system, it could only (?) otherwise have been an Sd Kfz 7/2?

    In survivability terms for me (particularly to equal calibre weapons and up), I'm not sure that there's a lot of difference between the two of them, nor therefore too much that I gave away ...

    Anyway, I thought the pics worth posting to show off Juju's great UI mod, Aris's lovely T-70 mod (along with all the others, of course) and BF's great hit decals showing the cluster of penetrating hits ... that's all!

    Well he could have thought it was a simple 37mm flak gun ;)

    You should try Aris' hit decals btw. Vast improvement over BF's (Saferight's needs normalmaps to be better than Aris', but other than that it's close)

    0

    AKD: CMRT Sound mod in the works?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    I wrote it because in the game there are three new sounds for guns, not two, eg the gun 100 d10 is not active (just in case it is already HQS1.5), but surely if they add to the game SU-100/D-10S - activate it;)

    PS. still have not found the sound files flamethrower; (

    Well the 128 isn't "new".

    It's been there since CMBN.

    Sure, it's used by units in the game, but it isn't "new" and is usually included in most soundmods even tho it isn't used by anything in CMBN or CMFI.

    And there's also the gun 115 t-62 file which isn't used by anything.

    0

    20mmAP Vs T34 armor or "Ya, wir können!"

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    I was saying the opposite...

    i can not speak for the 37mm AA....but the 20mm did NOT have effect on the tracks, obviously because the AI always aim on the center of the enemy unit.

    Always hoped the 20mm gunner would know that he only should do 2 things to fight the enemy tank...

    1. kill enemy infantry on the tank

    2. fire on the tracks area to get him immobilized

    but the AI is not intelligent enough for that...

    I remember another game of Battlefront...it is called Theater of war....and if i remember right you could choose where your tank has to aim on on enemy tank....such a pity that they did not implement that in Combat mission also

    Well I have had tanks become immobilized by 20mm fire so I don't know what to tell you except, you seem to be wrong.

    0

    20mmAP Vs T34 armor or "Ya, wir können!"

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    With the regular 20 mm AP ammo...you won´t penetrate the T-34.

    Only thing i could imagine in real-life is that the tracks get destroyed and immobilize the tank.

    Or one 20mm AP round somehow manages it to penetrate or block the rim-area between turret and upper chassis .

    This way the turret would not be able to rotate anymore.

    very unlikely is hitting the gun barrel and perforating it.

    Hitting the optics and radios seem to me more unlikly than the first two options i mentioned.

    But damaging radio/optics seem to be the most common thing in CM:RT....aiming on, hitting and destroying the tracks on the other side i see not often.

    side is about 8mm angled....

    a 7,64mm standard round may penetrate 5-7 mm at 100 meters point blank

    .

    So the invincibilty of a SPW against 7,64mm is plausible.

    Yup, tanks get immobilized fairly often by 20mm and especially 37mm AA weaponry.

    But I did have one tank get catastrophically blown up in that same scenario.

    It was immobilized and fired upon by several wirbelwind tho, but one lucky shot penetrated an "opening" (must have been the drivers vision slit) and resulted in a catastrophic explosion.

    0

    Would like to see tanks felling trees and going through houses...

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Did you notice how the tank was moving extremely slow and with the turret pointed completely to the rear?

    This is propaganda footage. This was simply not done in combat situations.

    All accounts I've read about from real tankers say that it was simply not done because of the risk of throwing a track or getting the tank stuck, which would almost mean a death sentence for a tank in a combat situation.

    Sure, smaller trees and such will be passable, and they are to a degree in the game.

    You can drive a tank through light woods which abstracts the tank running down smaller trees.

    But large trees and buildings just isn't something that you ran into/through during combat.

    0

    20mmAP Vs T34 armor or "Ya, wir können!"

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    i think what the hit text "means" is firing slit penetration, like in CMx1, but it only says penetration?

    had a SU-76 fire on a bunker recently, HE splash outside on wood surface, no hit text, 1 firing slit penetration, hit text reads "penetration".

    so i guess you see the same "penetration" on infantry, they dont penetrate the bunker with smal arms but hit the firing slit.

    at least that how i thought it is so far.

    Yeah, penetrations on bunkers usually mean a firing slit penetration.

    Higher-caliber weapons can of course penetrate wooden bunkers, but I haven't seen any penetrate concrete ones (and they really shouldn't) from the sides.

    Rear penetrations can occur too if the weapon hits the door and is able to penetrate it.

    Also, keep in mind that bunkers are, to an extent, abstracted in the game. In real life, bunkers often had layers of earth covering them as well (especially wooden ones) so it would be very hard for a shell to penetrate it through all that dirt.

    And they were often more than one layer of wood if they were made of that.

    Add to that the fact that they were often sunken bunkers partially underground with only the part from the firing slit and upwards showing, and you'll see why it's hard to knock one out even with a flamethrower or a 152mm round.

    0

    Tanks a Lot's CMRT building preview

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    I repeat once again;) - these are not personal attacks - only write about his work and how it is far from historical reality, that's all;)

    ps. perhaps this cultural barrier, we do not offend about anything;)

    Yes, but there are a few things to consider here:

    A: What he is making are mods for the game. They don't have to be historically correct. I mean, he could just as easily do the same with your sounds for example, and you would not like it if he did. At least not the way you are doing it. If you don't like his mod, don't download it.

    B: You had absolutely no need to bring it up in this thread. Discussing it in his thread is enough.

    and C: It is clear that he doesn't want to argue about it any more so bringing it up is bound to be an aggressive move from your side. (since you have said your piece and don't really need to keep discussing it).

    If I were you, I would apologise publicly to him for this disruption and agree to disagree on the subject in general and not bring it up again.

    Because even if you didn't intend it to, it is coming off as you being rude to him.

    0

    Tanks a Lot's CMRT building preview

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    I'm sorry, but I do not discuss with you, because you rage about any criticism / suggestions - and not attacking you, but I appreciate your work - and I can do it

    Now everyone can see how they looked really Polish villages - so my posts are constructive

    To be fair, it really doesn't sound like you appreciate his work.

    It really does sound like you are attacking him.

    Maby it's the language barriers, but that's how it seems.

    0

    20mmAP Vs T34 armor or "Ya, wir können!"

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    The 20mm gun has serious trouble penetrating anything built after 1939 basically (at least from the russian side).

    The 20mm should never be considered a weapon to use against tanks except in extremely dire circumstances, and then it should only be expected to damage the components of such tanks, not actually kill them.

    It was outdated as an anti-tank weapon even before the war started.

    This tank was not knocked out by all of this: 11sfoe1.jpg

    0

    You know what bothers me a bit?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Well you need to separate the scenarios from the game engine. From an engine perspective (modeling of units/ ToEs etc) I think most would agree. From a scenario perspective it is a whole other thing. If the scenarios were done "historically" we'd have thousands upon thousands of scenarios where the Germans would simply be overwhelmed. Many of those scenarios would be the German player sitting under a huge artillery barrage and then trying to repel Russian armor with nail clippers.

    BF would be crucified for being stupidly (not calling you stupid, just an expression) tied to some bizarre concept where you were required to experience the sheer agony of Army Group Center as it died. The scenarios are there to entertain. Some are attempts to recreate portions of the offensive that are interesting and not ridiculously one sided. Many are completely fictional to provide fun and interesting tactical challenges. If I am understanding you correctly you feel that the overall impression of a massive defeat for the German army does not come through in the scenarios. Yeah I think I'd probably agree with that. As others noted BF does try to increase the playability of scenarios by at least trying to make them function for either side or HTH. The type of battle I think you may be looking for is more likely going to come from the user community.

    On a side note while Broadsword and I were doing the St Lo campaign we actually did kind of the same thing as BF. We cherry picked battles that looked interesting for both of us. After all it isn't much fun to play a scenario where you 1. Do not have a snowball's chance in hell and 2. can't even pretend to come up with a plan.

    You (and many others) are definately not understanding me correctly.

    I don't want battles where the germans are pounded to death by artillery or massively outnumbered to the point where they will be steamrolled in ten minutes.

    I don't want one tiger tank trying to hold off 1000 T-34's or one Platoon of germans trying to survive a batallion of russians storming them.

    I'm just saying that as it stands, the overall feel of Operation Bagraton in CMRT is that of a very even fight where the germans and russians were largely on equal footing when it comes to numbers.

    A well played defending force can stand up to a much larger opponent in many cases, and that is also what happend quite often on the eastern front (just look at the battle of east prussia in january -45. The russians attacked with a force that was sizably larger than the defending force but due to bad weather they didn't get air support and the battle ground to a halt for the first days because of the defenders tenacity).

    So what I'm saying is not that I want battles that are in the extreme on either side. I'm just saying that as it stands, it feels like both sides were largely balanced.

    Even more so than it felt like on the western front (CMBN) for some reason.

    That's what I don't get about this thread. I can see how a radically unbalanced scenario might be fun once or twice but why would anyone want the majority of campaigns or scenarios to be unbalanced in such a way? you'd have to be a masochist to enjoy them on a constant basis. It would do zero for sales either.

    Would a dream campaign for those wanting such masochism involve the first battle being a German company with no AT and limited ammo facing off against fifty T-34s and a regiment of infantry following a six hour barrage by multiple artillery assets? Then seven or eight battles where Soviet heavy tanks pursue the shattered survivors? While historically accurate it makes for dull gaming. Any game without balance is dull as dish water.

    While a few hold the Soviets up scenarios would be fun I certainly wouldn't like the focus of the game to be multiple battles in which my forces are expected to be little more than a speed bump.

    This goes for any time period, in any era, in any game system - radically unbalanced battles are not fun. Used sparingly they have their place - a niche within a niche hobby.

    I wish people would stop trying to take this argument to absurd lenghts and try to imply that I somehow want to see german defenders with no ammo get slaughtered by millions of russians.

    That's not the case and I feel that I've made that perfectly clear by now.

    I'm simply saying that the scenarios often feel like they are balanced for the sake of balance and in general it doesn't feel like the russians outnumbered the germans in any way.

    Actually, I don't think anyone is suggesting that "pretty even" skirmishes were the norm historically, merely that is what most people enjoy wargaming.

    Of course, but I'm saying that it is showing through too much and the entire game feels "balanced" artifically.

    One of the reasons I play CM and not other, less serious, tactical games is because the game ISN'T balanced and favors no faction. It relies on the historical facts and when not based on historical evidence it is usually "in the spirit" of the battles that took place.

    But with this iteration of CM I don't feel that.

    It feels too balanced and too "homogonised".

    Oh screw it. I'm not going to post any more since I feel that people are not taking me seriously and just using straw man arguments to make it seem like I want scenarios that are boring.

    So I give up.

    Hopefully the other scenarios in the game will prove me wrong, but right now I don't even feel like playing because of this thread.

    0

    You know what bothers me a bit?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    You are equating strategic production numbers over the entire war with numbers of units in use during a tactical engagement over a tiny area that lasts an hour or so. I don't see the connection to be honest.

    All scenarios are a tiny snapshot off time. They could be represented by any force mix and size for either force and still be historically correct as at the micro level we play at nearly any combination of things did happen.

    Of course, but I'm not talking about a single scenario.

    I'm talking about the overall feeling of the game (so far).

    And I know those are strategic production numbers over the entire war, but they still paint a picture of what to expect.

    With a country that produced massively more tanks than the germans, you'd expect more of them to show up.

    Actually, come to think of it, I feel that the CMBN scenarios often had more shermans-per-panzer than CMRT has t-34's-per-panzer. And that strikes me as odd.

    Anyway, It's pointless to argue. There are obviously some that feel that the overall feel of the game is historically correct and that most skirmishes were pretty even, and there's nothing I can say that will change their view on that.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...