Pak40
-
Posts
2,198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Pak40
-
-
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Surrender is surrender. I think a truce would be what you get by pressing Cease Fire.
If you surrender, you automatically lose and give the enemy a total victory, no matter how the battle was actually going.
If you cease fire, the result of the battle will be determined by how well you achieved your objectives and the other factors that grant you victory points.
Assuming that:
surrender = losing remaining pixeltrupen on the map & total defeat
cease fire = keep remaining pixeltrupen on map & accept current victory conditions
Why then would anyone ever want to surrender in a campaign? You would get the worst possible outcome AND lose all of your pixeltrupen that could have been used in future battles. And when the AI decides to "surrender" then it's programmed to use surrender and not cease fire? Kind of seems like the AI gets the short end of the stick in this case.
-
On 8/16/2016 at 11:38 AM, Bulletpoint said:
Also, based on realism, it's a bit odd that in the chaos of battle all enemy troops get the order to surrender at exactly the same time.
When this happens I've never viewed it as a surrender of forces but rather a surrender of terrain. In other words, the last remaining forces decided that holding on to the terrain is not worth the cost and decide to pull out, i.e. surrender the terrain. The forces may be available in the subsequent battles if it's part of a campaign. However, I'm not sure what's really happening behind the scene. Is truly counted as a surrender of forces or a truce?
And what if a human player decides to quit a battle as part of a campaign? He currently has two options - cease fire (which the AI must accept), and surrender. Is there a technical difference? Do I get to keep my remaining troops with the cease fire option? It's probably all in the manual but I don't have it in front of me at the moment.
-
I'm not sure if you guys have seen this yet. Just a teaser trailer but it left me a little choked up at the end.
-
All these old quotes are quite generalized. You could ask one soldier who maybe only encountered German Ost units and he might tell you that they weren't that good. Ask another that had to deal with determined Wehrmacht or SS troops and you 'll get a totally different answer.
However, it's hard to deny that despite the fact that the Germans in 44-45 were outgunned, outnumbered, didn't have air superiority, naval superiority, or adequate men and material to replace what was lost, they were still quite an effective fighting force.
-
On 7/31/2016 at 4:07 PM, gundolf said:
The Brits are already in Final Blitzkrieg since it was Montgomery who essentially took command of the 12th Army group, which would be the those allied forces you are using in that module
. Even Hasso von Manteuffel said they fought more coherently under Monty's leadership... OK I'm running and ducking now.
As if Monty were on the front line directing fire
. And I'm almost certain that it was not common knowledge that Monty had been given control until SHAEF announced it some time later.
But seriously, the only reason he took control was because Bradley, located south of the Bulge, could not even communicate with his armies on the north side. So it makes sense that Von Manteuffel would come to that opinion. In my opinion the northern shoulder was plugged up quite brilliantly between Dec 16-20th before Monty was given command. It may have been rag tag ad hoc units that barely made it to the choke points in time, but it's quite evident that these units did the job to contain the SS and the rest of the 6th Panzer Army.
-
Never ever use a covered arc in limited fashion like that. Set it very wide or at 360 degrees. If you want your unit to focus on a direction, just use the face command. Arcs are best used to limit your units from firing at long range targets, thereby giving away their positions at a low chance target. In limited visibility, there's really no need to even use a covered arc because the unit can't fire at targets past it's visibility anyway.
-
On 7/25/2016 at 9:31 AM, Pandur said:
i am not sure myself, i like the cmx2 engine, maybe cmx3 is a mobile game, maybe a browser game? i am not sure i would like that. who know what ideas they may have in future. it could be all good but somehow i doubt it. so i was kinda happy with cmx2 till i couldnt take playing the AI anymore.
I like the CMx2 engine also but it's run it's course. CMx3 engine better not be a mobile game. That's a horrible thought. Not sure if browser based is a viable option for an advanced wargame.
-
On 7/20/2016 at 5:10 AM, JasonC said:
We've heard all the changing armor quality stories, but a few less concerting facts.
First, Duckman's quote about the cracked mantlet specifically says the 122 ricoceted off.
Second and more on the actual theme of the thread, there is precise little evidence that US 57mm ATGs were ever very effective against the front of Panthers. There is in fact remarkably little evidence of their being effective vs anything, really. So e flank shots at close ranges, some hits on Panzer IVs, no doubt. But a simply horrible combat record vs serious German armor, in the bulge period specifically.
At best, they were sometimes effective when set up to get a close range side shot onto a narrow forest road, where a wreck could block the route and protect them from the rest of the German armor. When they lined up lots of them with wide fields of fire, they were generally outshot pretty catastrophically, with minimal effect themselves.
Towed 76mm were pretty ineffective too, but can at least boast some important tactical successes (a couple of King Tigers e.g.)
The actual 57mm formations were frequently cannabilized for riflemen, especially in the armored divisions, which didn't have enough infantry and had more useful AT weapons in armored mounts.
The really effective AT weapons in the bulge fighting were the armored tank destroyers, M10s, M18s, and M36s. Mines, bazookas, physical obstacles, some 155mm artillery fire in large amounts over wide areas - were more important supplements to those than towed ATGs. Non TD armor in division amounts was also AT effective; lesser doses of just Shermans, much less so.
Have you ever read any detailed accounts of the Dom Butgenbach battles? There's ample evidence there. I've read in more than once source that these 57 crews did have some of the coveted British rounds that were so effective. This battle area was basically a wide open ground with gentle slopes, however it seems the Americans used reverse slope tactics in most cases which would certainly mean closer ranges and probably not the typical 800m engagement range.
-
On 7/16/2016 at 3:25 AM, Pandur said:
me and a real life mate of mine, we´ve been so stupid, try play a TCP/IP game with PBEM helper. as said about 40 turns that means;
1. 40 times ~2 minutes looking at the loading screen loading, this by 2 for both persons as you can no longer order simultaneous. result is ~160 minutes looking at loading screen.
2. opponents can not order at the same time, waiting for opponents orders while i cant even talk to him properly on TS cause hes busy thinking how to kill my dudes. (i am slow in orders phase, i accumulate lots of wait time for him while i make orders as attacker)
3. waiting for transfer, which wasnt so bad on my side, i had about 200kb/s upload at the time(almost 1k kb/s now), i send him my file quick, but he send with 50ish kb/s, more waiting.
1 hour ago, Pandur said:steve said at some thread some time ago, cant remember exactly, that coop, or coplay, where 2 persons can play on same side is not finacially viable.
i think the "replay" in TCP/IP wego suffers the same fate, it is doable, it may be not easy but its doable. all other reasons are just a excuse, i think the commercial viablility is the real problem why we still dont have it.
Since you're original post was about CMx3, the quotes from Steve in the past about financial viability may not apply to the new engine. Also keep in mind that if and when they do develop CMx3, things like "~2 minutes looking at loading the screen" probably won't be an issue since it will be in a different 3D engine. So, if they don't provide a valid TCP/IP method of play then we can still resort to PBEM with much faster load times.
I sincerely hope that CMFB is the last of the CMx2 engine. I know they have some x2 modules to release but as far as "new games" I hope CMFB is last one.
-
3 minutes ago, sonar said:
IanL, I don't think overlapping your squads is playing cautiously. I'm talking about the men in the same action spot, there are too many of them, that was the whole point of my post. I mentioned about pushing too hard I said i don't buy that, because my point is there are too many men in one action spot and no matter how you play you will take needles casualties. Like I said it looks wrong and it is, you did not address that in your reply, you basically dodged the whole point of my post and said I am playing the game wrong and I play unrealistically. as we say in Scotland "Aye right".
Cheers.
Well the max number of men in an action spot (8x8m) is typically 5 because most squads break down into teams. The Italians might be an exception, IDK I don't have CMFI.
In any case, I think BF had to strike a balance between having a detailed map and dispersing 5 man teams. They could have chosen to make CMx2 action spots at 10m or larger but then you loose map detail. They also could have chosen to make squads split into yet smaller teams but this makes the game to much of a pain to manage and would not be historically accurate. In the end I think they struck the balance between action spot size and squad dispersal based on the historical team sized that they operated in. Having a single team occupy more than one action spot would have been a terrible choice because then we'd all be complaining that our digital soldiers aren't in the exact action spot that we specified.
-
On 6/5/2016 at 8:23 AM, PanzerBlitz said:
Yes, I play World of Tanks, way way way too much, because it's quicker, easier, more seductive..
Have you ever played War Thunder ground forces? Way better than WoT IMO. But then again, I haven't played WoT since it first came out. It seemed like I was controlling go-carts with guns, not tanks.
-
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
I'd love to see the game model this, with a little graphic to show how many rounds were stored in the rack, and how many stored in the hull at all times.
With the loader's status changing to "moving ammo" when taking out shells from storage (meaning slower reload times while he's busy with that). Not sure how much effect it would have on gameplay, so maybe not worth the effort to code, but I just love little details like that
I've been playing War Thunder's ground forces and they do indeed simulate the ready rack. If you fire off a few quick rounds and then sit idle without firing for a few seconds you'll see a small circle with a +1 appear. It took me a while to realize that this was the loader replenishing the ready rack.
War Thunder is a great game to see the advantages and drawbacks of many types of tanks. It's not quite a simulation but I think it's a lot closer than WoT.
-
On 6/1/2016 at 7:22 PM, shift8 said:
That is pure nonsense. In order for me to show there is something unrealistic in the game I do not have to prove every facet of the game code. Utter rubbish.
Shift8, this is not what ASL said. He said you have to prove something is wrong, he said nothing about game code. In other words, you need to find a source of data that says the the "real world" data shows X but what happening in the game is Y. We know that Sherman's M3 gun has a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute (source: American Arsenal). However, this is in ideal test conditions and probably wasn't done in the cramped confines inside a tank, without ready rack limitations or targeting specific objects. Other "real world" data you might want to include is any proof about time to acquire target and aiming time for point blank targets. Include sources.
-
12 hours ago, shift8 said:
Data on that was already posted on the first or second page...........
I didn't see any posted data on tank firing rates on the previous page. Which exact post are you talking about?
-
-
CMFB has just one engine version and the recent patch.
If your question is for CMBN then I think downloading the "all-in-one" package as StieliAlpha says will get you 3.0
-
I do recall seeing this in documentary, probably on the History Channel. IIRC, the real life camera man was being interviewed or narrating the footage. I wish I knew the title of the documentary.
-
1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:
The video by Shift8 is not cut at all. Watch the seconds in the turn tick down. You will see that they are ticking down in real time and there is no inconsistency. I'm not sure what to make of what happens in this video game mechanics wise, but it seems clear to me that Shift8 is only trying to point out an issue that he is seeing.
You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the "in game" footage. I'm talking about the the old WWII video footage that shows a sherman squeezing off 3 rounds in about 3 seconds. Shift8 thinks the video is not edited and the the tank actually shoots 3 rounds in 3 seconds. Impossible for a Sherman. The video has obviously been spliced to appear that 3 shots have been fired that quickly. The smoke is the dead giveaway.
-
yea, awesome footage. It's been posted countless times.
-
Hmm. I wonder if C2 played a role in this behavior? The initial tank radio'd the other tanks and reported the contact, therefore all the tanks stopped because of the Hunt command.
-
On 5/22/2016 at 11:54 AM, shift8 said:
I dont think there is edit there at all, the smoke is still handing in the air when it fires the second round....it is just old footage
That video is definitely edited. The smoke basically disappears when the next shot goes off.
-
21 hours ago, WynnterGreen said:
I'm assuming the 50 feet [15m] is hyperbole?
I find it extremely difficult to believe a 57mm ATG could be moved that far unless it was off a ledge or down a steep slope.
Recoil springs and rails take up a huge portion of the energy.
Is it possible the person was hit by the barrel blow back and not carriage movement?
A quote would be awesome, just to satiate curiosity.
OK, maybe a bit of bad memory, not 50 ft but it did bust the guy's knee cap. The quote can be read here. Pages 322 and 323.
The 50ft remark may be from another incident involving a British 17lb gun at Arnhem near the drop zones. I'll try to find a source when I have some time.
The recoil springs do take up energy but they are also part of the gun. The gun still takes the full portion of the energy no matter if there are recoil springs are not. The springs just help spread the delivery of the energy over time (a fraction of a second) instead of all at once, probably so the gun doesn't crack under pressure.
-
On 5/21/2016 at 8:41 PM, WynnterGreen said:Static bracing and digging in were desirable, but not necessary.Here's some perfectly acceptable and historicity accurate 'bracing'.
Yes but not practical and certainly not worth BF's time to program all the intricacies of manhandling AT guns and firing them. For example, in the photo you supplied, there is a crew of 4 and at least two of them are holding down the gun. What happens when the crew is reduced to 3 or even 2? BF would have to program logic and code into all these "what if" scenarios.
I remember reading about a 101st Airborne soldier in the defense of Veghel. His crew was reduced (I think) and they had just wheeled their 57mm into position on the highway when a German tank appeared at point blank range through the smoke. The gun wasn't braced at all but he had to fire, it was do or die. The gun flew back 50 feet or so and broke the guy's arm or leg.
So while these circumstances certainly existed I'm not so sure it's worth BF's time to program all these things that are possible but very rare.
-
12 hours ago, Anthony P. said:
Now that I've had time to view the films you included, I can add this: Yes, they do set it up, turn it, and move it faster than in CM. But then again, neither do they "brace" the ATG (digging the legs into the ground a bit to provide a more stable firing platform), nor are they carrying ~70 75mm shells and other accessories without which the ATG is worthless if you want to do more than fire a pyrotechnic charge from it. Same would go for turning the ATG, that means you'd have to drag all the shells and such along a bit to have them close enough.
Yes, i do believe some of BFCs reasoning for the long packing, setup and moving times account for this. Instead of animating the soldiers packing/unpacking and carrying the rounds of ammo, it all abstracted. And that's what Lt Bull doesn't seem to realize. However, it does seem somewhat extreme.
. Even Hasso von Manteuffel said they fought more coherently under Monty's leadership... OK I'm running and ducking now.
. And I'm almost certain that it was not common knowledge that Monty had been given control until SHAEF announced it some time later.
Waxing the Hood
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
All these are good ideas but certainly will not happen for CMx2. However, this is a good starter discussion for CMx3 development, the future of the Combat Mission franchise.