Jump to content

engy

Members
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Converted

  • Location
    Michigan USA

engy's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Andreas said: sgt goody said: JasonC said: So, we've established how it was done historically (summarized in the above quotes...my apologies if I've snipped something you consider important). But, if we're now talking about how to implement it into CMxx, it doesn't sound like the gun should be able to be transported with it's entire ammo load by just one tank, and it seems somewhat doubtful that towing caissons is going to make it into the code. Would it be accurate then to implement a 1-man-casualty-panzershreck-team type model, where the ammo supply is reduced if the gun is transported? But, then, how would the AI know the difference between being transported by a towing-capacity-6-with-full-ammo (say, a universal carrier) vs a towing-capacity-6-with-reduced-ammo (say, a T-70)?
  2. It's all quite interesting! Thanks for posting it. Now, this may be an absurdly obvious question, but I'll ask it anyway: What about ammo for the guns? Any sign of any, or were the guns being transported to an already-prepared postiion? Edit because I hit the return key when I really didn't want to. [ June 12, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: engy ]
  3. I apologize. It seemed at the time that you chose to willfully ignore what had already been posted. I see now that it wasn't the case. My response was too harsh. Kind regards, engy
  4. Very, very well stated. Your theory takes into account both the strange results of the test cases (bogging on pavement) and the confusion of the "contradictory" answers by BF.C.
  5. I'm sorry if the following sounds terribly grumpy, but it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet, so I have an excuse... Did you bother to read what I posted above...both the quote from Moon, and the entire thread I referenced? Do you think that Moon doesn't "REALLY KNOW" what is going on in the game? What source can you suggest that would be better than one of the employees at BF.C?
  6. Ok, since everyone else seems to be just as lazy as I am, I did some digging. I searched the CMBB forum on "mechanical breakdown". Something like 10 threads show up, but this one is the most important, because it has a comment by Moon.
  7. :confused: Just to add one more opinion to the mix, but I thought (and was fairly sure until I read the above) that mechanical breakdown was not simulated. Previously, it had been called "outside the scope of CM", i.e. the mechanical breakdowns would change the number of tanks that you had available for the battle, but CMBO/BB was not going to model breakdowns during the battle. IIRC, the ground pressure value, plus terrain and movement speed, are the only influences on bogging, and the vehicles do not have an extra rating for mechanical reliability. However, having said all that, I don't have the manual in front of me, so this is only my opinion, and I'm quite willing to be corrected. Does anybody have a quote from the manual, or an old thread that would settle this?
  8. Yes. No. Once I used sewer movement and several squads resurfaced ~6-7 minutes later in the exact same building they departed from.
  9. Franko's True Combat Rules If you'll go to the "CM 2001 Archive" and search on "Franko's", you'll get a bunch of threads full of comments of people who use/used them.
  10. Free Excel Viewer Edit: OK, so I'm a UBB idiot. Edit #2: OK, so I'm really, really a UBB idiot. :mad: [ March 31, 2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: engy ]
  11. Pardon the intrusion, but could you please edit your subject line (which can be done by editing your first post) to clean up the language? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
  12. "Sleestac"... This couldn't be a reference to that incredibly awful Saturday (or was it Sunday?) morning TV show with the crystals, the dinosaurs, and the slee-stac swamp monster things, could it? What was the name..."Lost in Time?" Ugh, it was soooo bad. Apology #1: If I'm wrong with the reference, ignore me. Apology #2: Sorry for sidetracking the thread. Carry on. engy
  13. Some answers can be found here. The emphasis of the test seemed to be for AT mines (single and double), but there is also some useful AP mine information.
  14. I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but DeanCo has a "Monster Army Truck Race" and a couple of other oddballs at his site. Look under the 'Hysterical Scenarios' section.
  15. You can't get any more correct than the two answers above (Defending Infantry-type units, including AT-guns, etc., automatically start in foxholes if they aren't set up on a road or in a building), but just as a bonus, here are two foxhole tips... 1. If you split your squads at the start, you can generate twice the number of foxholes, which can provide an excellent fall-back position. 2. If you want to set up in a building to start, consider setting up in the open ('foxhole') somewhat behind the building (25m or so) instead. This gives you a fall back position in case of attack or in case of a nasty Direct Fire HE attack trying to bring down the building on your head. I *think* making foxholes purchase-able (great word, eh?) was mentioned for CM:BtB, but it may just be a malfunctioning memory.
×
×
  • Create New...