JoePrivate
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JoePrivate
-
-
"people that post in here are completely full of ****"... Sort of like the same people who swore a certain comprehensive strategy article on CMAK would be posted in what January?
-
This is about the only accurate statement in this thread.Originally posted by HolzemFrumFloppen:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer39:
Thanks, I think.... I meant as an outsider on this topic. I really don't know the guy in question.
No one really knows Kuniworth here; we simply have his online persona present for judgement and -- like all elements of character -- are ultimately in his control.
The lesson is: control yourself. </font>
-
-
I was the opponent in the game versus Ron and a very nailbiting one at thatOriginally posted by JasonC:You said 800m, which is a reasonably long way to close, very open, little cover, 9 T-34s start. You said only 4 made it close, which means 5 did not make it close. You said 1 of the close ones cowered which means 3 did not cower. Only 3 survived the engagement.
The obvious reading is the ones that lived long enough to get close and actually delivered their shots survived. Why obvious? Because they are known to have lived that long, and once they do deliver their shots the number of live Tigers ought to be dropping, and from 2 to 0 is not far to drop.
A last shooter, at the least, from among those that got close had to survive the engagement to win it. The most obvious way every one of those fits together is 5 burning wrecks along the approach route or performing distraction and 1 dead by the Tigers.
It can go as far as 3 and 3 without explicit contradiction of any of the statements made, though nothing explicitly said suggests as much. No reason is given why the others would not have closed.
It was not stated that only 1 T-34 remained alive near the Tigers, which would mean an outcome that could easily have gone the other way. Which would have been relevant and wasn't mentioned. So there was no reason to suppose half of the dead tanks were right next to the Tigers.
2 or more could be dead distractors around the same time as the close engagement, rather than killed earlier while closing. I could not read it as 1 at range and 5 dead close since that implies 6 or more got close, which directly contradicts the statement that only 4 did so.
With ranges all under 800m and it specifically said there was little cover (which rarely suffices to continually hide 9 fast moving tanks continually for a long period), there was no reason to suppose only 1 loss in the approach.
It takes 3-4 minutes to drive T-34s to close range from 800m away. 2 Tigers can fire several dozen of times in that period. Even at moving targets, shots so close do not usually all (or nearly all) miss.
You can put it down to my reading or to your writing, I really don't care...
I am not sure why the assumptions as I think the main point trying to be made was the T-34s actually fought instead of retreating.While it is neither here nor there, some clarifications: the "approach" of his T-34s took 2/3 thirds of the game while the final flanking manuevers and attack only took 4-6 minutes tops, my Tiger's did get a T-34 early on but the rest of the KO's happened while attacking, all under 200m, a hidden ATG accounted for one T-34 as well. The Tigers took a fearful pounding - both immobilized and at least a dozen penetrations before the crews abandoned. I admit I was lucky to have them survive as long as they did and I doubt if I could have done any better were the roles reversed.
One thing to keep in mind with this "cowering", if you can get an overmatched tank into position where the game "thinks" it has a chance then it won't retreat. In the case of T-34s versus Tigers that means directly perpendicular to the Tiger's side preferably, or the rear. Any sort of angle and the T-34s will retreat, so I guess there is some sort of "skill" in that.
Good game Ron, hope for a rematch sometime
-
And here all along I was under the impression you were avoiding a fight!
Battle confirmed, the larger the better. I think by the time you get down your list CM:BB will be out so we can arrange parameters when the time comes, I think I still have your email somewhere, if not, mine is still active. Rematches always accepted, so yes a play-to-win attitude will be required on your part -
I'm at 1280x720 and I like the font size, but I may very well be in the minority.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee:
I disagree with Mattias, but that is just me
. I for example would love you use the area fire command a little more to supress tree line (blind firing when there is no target), while my men run to it. This supressive fire currently would take out my own men because the tank will stupidly fire round after round until the end of the turn, even if your own men are present (and in full view of the tank beforehand, i.e. on the rush on the way in, no way to be mistaken for the enemy then). "Supporting/Supressive" fire is very difficult to achieve right now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me know what game you are playing :confused: ! Next time you happen to boot up CM, area target the location your infantry are about to move to and count the number of men your own tank stupidly takes out. Perhaps you'll notice your tank stops firing its main gun once friendlies are nearby.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
Some of those tanks only had a short supply of HE rounds like the Hummel and firing an entire turn would use up a good amount of it's ammo. I played one game where I had this exact tank and needed to area fire a batch of woods where I thought the enemy was before I could move in some recon. Well, with that gun I only needed a couple of shots to do the trick but not being able to pause first, I had to use 5-6 rounds which was really overkill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? Which variant of the Hummel were you using that could fire 5-6 rounds in a turn?
BTS is aware of what's posted on the board. In absence of a comment from them regarding CM2's features, and there have been none yet as far as I know, we will all have to wait and see.
-
Another suggestion though not new, give your tank the smoke order(in LOS) then have it move away after a specified pause so it will be out of LOS from the original target, voila it won't fire any more smoke. It works...
Of course you will probably insist you should be able to smoke more than one area in one 60s turn right?
-
Well said Schrullenhaft. Even if CM2 comes out in December 2001, that will be 18 months since CM:BO was released, close to half of that time spent tweaking and enhancing CM:BO. I think there were very good reasons to take the time to get CM:BO, being the 'first', right from the start. Now with the 'rightness' of the game established and a satisfied customer base, BTS probably has to consider more practical matters. Personally, I would be willing to wait 'until it's done' because CM:BO is the best game I have ever played, however I want to see BTS continue making games and would understand if they have their own internal deadline for business reasons.
-
You can tell how much ammo your AFV has left by bringing up the detail screen, it will be listed there.
The Hetzer has very little MG ammo and will only use it at *close* range normally.
-
There seems to be some conflicting views on what a lone MG can or cannot do. I would think once massed infantry got within 100m then a human-wave assault would succeed more often than not shouldn't it? I am not an authority, just curious about realistic behavior for CM.
Here's an excerpt of an AAR "Company G Annihilates a Russian Elite Unit(March 1942)
Before dawn on March 26, a reconnaissance patrol sent out by Coy G returned from the forest bordering Village S to the North without having encountered enemy troops. The distance from the edge of the forest to the defense perimeter measured approximately 150 yards. Half an hour after the return of the German patrol, 100 Russians suddenly emerged from the forest and attacked Coy G at the NW part of the defense ring. The Russians participating in the attack were armed with SMGs and moved on skis., which made the small force exceedingly mobile in the snow-covered terrain. In addition, every third man carried a frangible grenade in his pocket, presumably for the purpose of setting fire to the village. Several Russians literally blew up when their frangible grenades were struck by bullets and exploded. Because of the severe cold some of the German MGs failed to function, and the Russians succeeded in penetrating the German positions.
Half an hour later, Coy G counterattacked in order to eliminate the penetration. The Russians fought teneciously, and there was violent hand-to-hand combat. By 1200 Coy G had recaptured the positions. 89 Russians had been killed and 9, including two severely wounded, taken prisoner.
From this example it appears some German MGs were frozen and the remaining MGs(if any) were unable to prevent the Russian charge from penetrating the village. There are other examples in this book, "Small Unit Actions During the German Campaign in Russia", of massed assaults and what was effective(or not) in preventing them, ie well laid out defenses and combined arms.
-
Originally posted by Martin Cracauer:
I prefer random weather and even random time when trust is there between me and my opponents. The engine ensures enough mud then
For the record, the tournamenthouse opponents I play all agreed to random weather and time in my setup, while they play German. It can't be that bad with systematic German playing and/or cheat fear at TH.
I agree with the Random weather, you will come up with Mud sooner or later. I know I was a litle unprepared for it the first time lol, watching in pain as my Shermans mucked about then immobilized.
Mud can be a fun break IMO but a steady diet wouldn't be so enjoyable. When I'm playing the Germans I am not concerned about Random weather at all really since most of their AFVs have better ground pressure than the Allies on average. -
1 - It's perfectly safe to rotate and hide the 105 RCL without it being spotted.
2 - Tougher question, is there a possibility the Shermans will have to move closer than they are at present? Or is this it? Something to keep in mind, the 105 RCL is woefully inaccurate at long range, check out its velocity, and slow firing to boot, so if you open up now(29%) you are definitely looking to luck for a hit!
If the situation warrants it I would be looking at a much closer range before opening up. -
Originally posted by Homba:
What I do continue to insist on is that a Pause of 'appropriae' length should be available *at any point* during the move. Repeat after me: "Life ain't played in turns." CM replicates life in a game of 1 minute turns, and does a damn good job- so good I sometimes almost forget it's not real-time.
[sarcasm/on]CM isn't replicating real life, it's a Game remember?[sarcasm/off]
Your insistence is fine for you, but you have offered no compelling reasons why that would be more realistic for CM.
So, BTS: please continue to enhance the suspension of our disbelief, and don’t arbitrarily limit our Pauses to the beginning of a turn. Everything in this game is an effort to enhance realism IN SPITE OF the ‘necessity’ of a turn-based format. So why force us into gamey manoooovering (destroying our suspension of disbelief) to achieve a result that could be elegantly and simply achieved (and duplicating the actions of the real-life vehicle commander) with a Pause usable at any point in a turn ?Yes, but the pauses at the beginning of a turn weren't arbitrary, they are there for realism reasons. Do a search to find out why.[some links below]
For anyone who says BTS "already considered it"- very lame answer. Patches 1.01-1.12 indicate that BTS is not ready to call the project perfect, and there is ample room for fresh ideas, constructive criticism, and change for the better.The Pause issue spans every future edition of CM, not just CMBO. It is worthy of a second and third look.
Homba
Lame answer or not, it is the truth, if you took a moment you would discover that. I agree there's always room for fresh ideas, constructive criticism and change for the better, however that isn't the case here. All you have said, err insisted, is that such a change would be better, would be more fun, would be more realistic. If you wish to offer constructive criticism then it would behoove you to learn the history of CM, to understand the design decisions made by BTS and their rationale for those decisions. Care to do that then offer your 'new' ideas? I would be willing to listen.
-
Originally posted by Homba:
JoePrivate, I disagree: BTS has given us the ability to micromanage down to giving 20 waypoints to a move order, interspersing various hunt/move/other orders, changing waypoint orders in mid-move, etc, etc. The battles are NOT fought in 2-5 minute segments, however much you'd like to imagine it that way. Neither is the player's perspective purely that of a company commander! BTS has given us the ability to 'take over' for each tank commander, squad, and team leader. I thank them for that, because without it, the game would be much less fun- and I think most people would agree with that statement. CM is a GAME, albeit a very realistic one. It is (obviously) not meant to be a simulation of the experience of a particular company commander- and your argument for that position fails because there is just too much fun micromanagement made available to the player.
All we are asking for is a little more control. Control is fun. What are you afraid of? If you have no problem now, you won't have a problem in the future. If you like the realism now, you'll like it better when a tank CAN top a ridge, look around for 10 seconds, and back down in the same turn. This is just an extension of 'taking over' for the tank commander- an ability which is already undeniably present in the game. We just want it better represented. Assuming tanks are in radio communication, it would be possible IRL to coordinate a pincer attack from two directions with a pretty good chance of both tanks achieving LOS and opening fire within 5 seconds of each other.
The ability to be the tank commander is already there- it just needs some fine tuning to increase the fun. Why throw a wet blanket over that? You're missing the mark when you say CM only attempts to replicate a company commander's experience.
Homba
Sure, BTS designed CM the way it is at present. Was it an arbitrary decision to have 15s pauses instead of 5s? Was it an oversight to only allow pauses at the beginning of a turn instead throughout it? Think for a moment(5s
) why CM isn't like your way of thinking right now?I only offered my opinion not an argument. Read what I said again, no where did I claim CM was somehow more than a game or that the player is simulating a company commander's experience only, when obviously the player has many different roles. I'm not throwing a wet blanket on anything, I simply offered a differing description of how CM could be viewed. It isn't my imagination because that's *how* I think every time I sit down to play, ie in platoons and companys and large blocks of time.
And now back to the regular program...
-
No, I don't agree that we need shorter pauses or pauses in the 'middle' of a turn or any other sort of micromanagement in that *madminute*. I use pause often and never felt a lack of flexibility, but then again I don't look at the battle in terms of individual men and seconds to be tweaked and finessed at every opportunity. If you look at your force in terms of platoons and companys, in time blocks of 2-5 mintues, then a 15s pause is short and in the 'middle' of your current orders. It is a question of scale and what CM is trying to accomplish, ie company level battle, not micromanagement every 5s. However BTS are the designers and my opinion is only worth two cents...
-
Don't know about flamethrower fuel, but diesel will ignite wet wood and burn quite nicely in the pouring rain, so CM's abstractions, as M Hofbauer explained, don't seem that far off.
-
Originally posted by mrcobbler:
Tiger, these look fantastic! One question:
while messing with Kump's skies yesterday I found that even after overlaying bmp's 1400-1414 the sky still showed the old colors. Further checking, I see that bmp's 1430-1444 are also 'sky' bmp's. Only when I recopied 1403(clear night) to 1433(clear night) did the actual look change. I'm running 800x600, maybe that's one of the reasons? Haven't seen this mentioned before...
Shoeman
Yes I noticed also that bmps 1430-1444 weren't modded in the download, is it necessary to for these to be changed as well? When I installed Tiger's sky mod the result was quite blotchy, not seamless like the original, I have a TNT2 Ultra. I wonder if it is because of those bmps 1430-1444, any suggestions? Thanks.
Edit: I realize now that bmps 1430-1444 are lower quality, but I am still wondering why Tiger's sky bmps look so 'blocky', are there any settings I can adjust with my graphics card to make the skies look as seamless as the original? Thanks.
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-25-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Scipio:
Good points, BUT - concerning the 76mm AT - I guess after one or two or maybe three unsuccessfull attempts to take out a tank with normal AP it's really time to try a tungsten-shell.
I can sympathize with that, though my experience is the TacAI is all too willing to expend its tungsten, sometimes to my regret! You should realize also at that range the tungsten will easily penetrate the turret but probably not the sloped glacis.
I setup a quick test in the editor, 76mm AT w/5T vs a Panther, range 450m. I ran it 10 times, in each case the AT gun fired an AP shell first followed by tungsten, never varied so I don't see a problem at all with tungsten. Perhaps there were other variables you weren't aware of in your example?
I have seen the same as you with HC however. I haven't quite figured out yet exactly what conditions must apply before they fire it, seeming to prefer HE in all the cases I have seen in play.
-
As an offshoot of, and in addition to, the unrealistic nature of absolute spotting, there is no command *friction* in CM. The player can control all of his forces with near perfect precision and coordination. Would a commander have that ability/luxury in RL?
-
Here's three tests for your information that may prove interesting:
1 - 2 Vet Rifle Squads w/2 PF30s each versus 2 buttoned Shermans, range 30m, sideshot
a - 2 shots/2 KOs
b - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
c - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Hit no effect
d - 2 shots/2 KOs
e - 2 shots/1 Miss/1 Hit no effect
f - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
g - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
h - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
i - 2 shots/1 Miss/1 Hit no effect
j - 2 shots/1 Miss/1 Hit no effect
2 - 2 Vet Rifle Squads w/2 PF60s each versus 2 buttoned Shermans, range 50m, sideshot
a - 2 shots/2 Misses
b - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
c - 2 shots/1 Miss/1 Hit no effect
d - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
e - 2 shots/2 KOs
f - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
g - 2 shots/2 Misses
h - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
i - 2 shots/1 KO/1 Miss
j - 2 shots/1 Miss/1 Hit no effect
3 - 2 Vet Rifle Squads w/2 PF100s each versus 2 buttoned Shermans, range 70m, sideshot
a - 4 shots/4 Misses
b - 4 shots/1 KO/3 Misses
c - 4 shots/2 KOs/2 Misses
d - 2 shots/2 KOs
e - 4 shots/1 KO/2 Misses/1 Hit no effect
f - 4 shots/1 KO/1 Miss/2 Hits no effect
g - 4 shots/2 KOs/2 Misses
h - 4 shots/1 KO/3 Misses
i - 4 shots/2 KOs/2 Misses
j - 2 shots/2 KOs
Some observations, the squads with the PF30 and PF60 fired once each, they never fired their remaining PF. The TacAI probably concluded these were low probability shots at that range(30m and 50m respectively) and were 'saving' them. The squads with the PF100 had no problem expending all of theirs at 70m. I wasn't keeping track of any HQ bonuses.
PF30 at 30m - 65% hits, 45% effective
PF60 at 50m - 45% hits, 35% effective
PF100 at 70m - 46% hits, 39% effective
-
Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg:
I think we need to hear from BTS if tripod mounted HMG's really increase their rate of fire substantially in suitable situations(close range, inf running in the open, etc.).
Regards,
Heinz
There was to change in one of the earlier patches where MGs would do exactly that IIRC.
-
From 'Steel Inferno', the Panzer operational strength of 12thSS HJ and 1stSS LAH on the given dates, approximately.
July 25 - LAH
1st SS PzBn - 31 Panthers
2nd SS PzBn - 41 MkIVs
1st SS Stug Bn - 32 Stugs
July 28 - LAH
1st SS PzBn - 33 Panthers
2nd SS PzBn - 30 MkIVs
1st SS Stug Bn - 22 Stugs
July 31 - LAH
1st SS PzBn - controlled by KG Wunche
2nd SS PzBn - 60 MkIVs
1st SS Stug Bn - 29 Stugs
July 31 - KG Wunche(HJ)
61 Panthers(incl. 1st SS PzBn LAH)
4-17 MkIVs
101st Hvy PzBn - 19 Tigers
July 31 - KG Meyer(HJ)
22-39 MkIVs
27 JgPzIVs
August 7 - KG Meyer(HJ)
39 MkIVs
8 Tigers
27 JgPzIVs
August 8-9 - KG Wunche(HJ)
39 Panthers
13 Tigers
August 14 - HJ
7-15 Panthers
17 MkIVs
11 Tigers
10 JgPzIVs
By no means representative of the German Army but interesting nonetheless, hope that helps.
Digital Download Only?
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Is there an option? I am trying to order but it only seems to offer physical delivery which I am not interested in.