Jump to content

Mannheim Tanker

Members
  • Content Count

    1,019
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mannheim Tanker

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.warmglassofwouldntyouliketoknow.com

Converted

  • Location
    Wisconsin, USA
  • Interests
    military history, backpacking and hunting, and getting under Argie\'s skin
  • Occupation
    Forester
  1. Never said that. Rather, it's the manner in which you respond (you clearly take it too personally) and the fact that you seem to obsessively respond to each and every post...again in that personal manner. Shrugs. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how that contributes to you being a productive member of the BFC team when you have to delve into all of this personal stuff on an hourly basis every day. Seems to me a better use of time would be to focus on company/game related issues. If responding to forum posts is such a hassle why not just close down the board? Heh, if that's conside
  2. Mmmm, if you take another look you'll see that those non-game related posts you're referring to were mostly in the General Forum. Most of my comments in the CMBO, CMBB, etc. forums did actually pertain to the game. That's a very clear distinction. One would think that Steve would be spending more time tightening up his game than engaging in endless debates with a couple of posters on unrelated matters in the Game forum. That's the gyst of where I was coming from in that post. As for Steve's comment re: my previous 5000+ posts (made over a period of over 8 years, BTW)...the difference
  3. As a longtime lurker with no dog in this fight, I must agree with you. This discussion, if that's what you want to call it, is downright unprofessional and has really taken a lot of the shine of the company's reputation if you ask me. I'm not a fan of CMSF, never have been. However, I haven't really participated in any of the 'wheels-falling-off-BFC' discussions at Dosomefink either. My perspective is as a casual BFC customer, who frankly cannot understand how most people have the time to engage in these long-winded pointless discussions. Threads pertinent to the game I can understand, bu
  4. My AT guys must just be an extra kind of special then, because I watched two bazooka men open up on a halftrack with their Thompsons from 50 meters away. Their only saving grace was that the enemy HT's gunner was too stupid to return fire as he was more intent on the infantry I had running to cover more than 300 meters away. Somehow he thought they were the greater threat. Similarly, I cannot fathom why the enemy infantry insists on charging me from their defensive positions, only to have me hammer them in the open with artillery. I'm the one that's supposed to be attacking. Poor scenar
  5. Yeah, I guess you're right about the grenades. I was thinking more along the lines of the bazooka thing where you always seem to have to order the weapon change. It just seemed to me that the infantry use grenades very sparingly so I mentioned them as well. Either way, you have to really micromanage infantry movements to get anything out of them, and that's the point I was getting at.
  6. I tried the game when it first came out and the level of micromanagement required to get your troops to do anything worthwhile killed the fun factor for me...much more than any of the LOS and other issues. I downloaded the new patch, hoping to find an improvement in gameplay. I'm disappointed to say that the game is not fun to play; it's work. Sure, they fixed a lot of the LOS issues, etc, but the core problem of the game remains: you have to act as the frontal lobe of every single soldier if you want them to survive and accomplish their mission. I should be able to act as their commande
  7. I do this alot during my games. Unfotunately if I have one of my units target an enemy icon that my unit can't see yet, there is the tendency for my unit to leave its position and move toward the targeted icon in an attempt to get a shot. </font>
  8. Agreed. I guess my point is that there should be some time pressure on the commander. At present you can take all the time in the world. There's little you can do about the rotating to face unseen targets (see the other thread on this), but HOLD should keep your men in place. While under that command, the only reason your infantry will move about is if a tank comes in close proximity to them, in which case they scramble to move out of the way. That's actually quite sensible!
  9. Maybe if the crew was suicidal it would carry ammo . Probably tools, personal effects, etc. We have similar structures on modern tanks as well. </font>
  10. It's not a bug, as it's a common occurence in my games as well. If you have enemy coming from multiple directions, your tanks aren't as prone to this behavior, but if only 1 or 2 enemy icons appear - even out of LOS - your tanks nearly always turn towards them. I'm sure it's happening to you too, Freeboy, look closely the next time you have only 1 enemy icon showing somewhere on the map. IIRC one solution is to also order your tanks to hold fire to prevent them from constantly spinning to face the enemy.
  11. If the scenario involved clearing a town of enemy forces, the answer it 'yes' it would be different. In CM, all the armor in the world doesn't do you any good if the enemy is really dug in and you have to clear a town without wasting much time. Armor was not able to clear towns without infantry support. In TOW, infantry has virtually no cover in urban terrain. That's not an oversight, it's a huge flaw as it renders infantry superfluous. I don't even bother moving most of them any more in the few games that I still play while I wait for the patch. That brings up another issue I have wi
  12. Agreed, but the problem with infantry is that to get any use out of them, you have to micromanage them to such an insanely tedious level that it's usually not worth the effort. Take the Bulge scenario in the Allied campaign, for example. You get 7-8 squads of infantry IIRC, and you can win the scenario without moving a single one of them. Your tanks, TDs and arty can accomplish everything that your infantry are capable of doing, and in a lot fewer moves. For example, I could spend a great deal of time moving a platoon in to clear the town of defenders, but why bother when I can park a c
  13. Yeah, it's loud and can do damage over time, but as observed above, the M16 is pretty quiet compared to 7.62mm and larger. I remember a lot of the first-timers on the range commenting how amazed they were that the M16 wasn't louder. Hollywood has convinced most people otherwise I guess. Distance also plays a big role in the sounds that weapons - and vehicles - make. At close range an idling M1 tank is damned near deafening (literally). At a few hundred meters you can barely hear it above the ambient noise of a car engine, probably because it's high frequency noise that attenuates very qu
  14. We only occasionally wore our ear plugs, even when on the firing range...shooting main guns on M1 tanks. Our CVCs (tanker helmets) provided some hearing protection, but to echo the comments of fytinghellfish, you need to be able to hear orders (especially warnings). When you weren't wearing your CVC you were encouraged to wear hearing protection, even when not on the range because the turbine in the M1 is so bloody loud. Problem was that you could never hear what anyone was saying with them in, so we often went without them.
  15. I'd go even further and say that in the vast majority of scenarios, infantry is unneeded. Go ahead and try this in any scenario where you get some armor: park your infantry in the rear and order them to 'Hold Position'. Finish the scenario without your infantry, only using your armor. You can nearly always manage just fine without the infantry, even when assaulting hamlets and villages. Your uberpanzerinfanterielazer can handle any enemy grunts that venture into LOS. Seriously. At least this solution does away with having to micromanage infantry (one of my pet peeves). And before someo
×
×
  • Create New...