Guy w/gun
-
Posts
403 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Guy w/gun
-
-
Abandoned Rifle 44? WTF? Never seen that one thankfully!
-
*yawn* This get's REAL tiresome after awhile. I admit that I found Rob/1 to be quite a character, but I eventually got over myself
Anyways, good work Rob/1. As for some constructive criticism, I really like the idea of little pictures on the interface buttons. I feel that you've done a good job with contrast on the interface, but see if you can experiment with some colors that are a little more easy on the eyes.
Keep it up!
-
Ah my best friend the Tokarev! I've seen antique toy guns at Flea Markets that look way more convincing than those
! -
If you were refering to me, I hope you realize that I was being sarcastic.
-
Will there be anyway to add pre-knocked out tanks and pre-eliminated unit markers to CM2 scenarios? I'd imagine that there would be lots of battles taking place over ground that has been handed back in forth in the course of fighting. Destroyed tanks and bodies laying on the ground would be a nice touch.
-
I think wreck is saying that from a TH perspective, the Germans are stronger. Meaning that if played in a, shall we say, ahistoric way, they have an advantage.
As a poster in an earlier thread demonstrated in a game with his inexpirirnced 14-year old nephew, an ahistoric minded player can wreak great Havoc with the Germans. And as I understand it, most high ranking ladder players do just this.
Lots of Big Cats and SMG squads is the usual OOB. The problem is since the unit values in QB are based on all around performance (even on things not modeled in CM like cross-country), the allies have higher costing, less armored tanks. True, the Sherman broke down a lot less than the KT, but in a QB it doesn't help it any.
Also Axis units don't have a lot of mortars, MG, etc attached like the Allies do. So a Company of Axis infantry costs a lot less than an allied one.
That said, I think the CM2 and it's option of point values being based on historical availabiluty will help a little.
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-27-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-27-2001).]
-
Origianlly posted by Hamster:
Plus he's confused by any battle that claims to be balanced yet has a Pershing and elite troops.
Yeah, especially since both of those never appeared in WWII, ever. Accourding to this forum, niether did King Tigers or Jumbos with 76mm guns.
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-27-2001).]
-
Guys, I think he's aware that the Sherman won't have much of a chance to penetrate. I have expirienced this problem too. The Sherman fires smoke at the Panther as if trying to hit it, not set up a smoke screen.
I also think it's noteworthy that you're giving a direct order, which to me atleast, should have a certain amount of priority over the TC natural tendencies (like the "because I said so" stuff your parents told you
). Your intentions of ordering him to fire may be out his scope for him to recognize. -
Situations grim! BUMP!
-
-
I have seen several drawings and models (but no photos) of Panthers with a machinegun (MG42?) mounted on the commander's cupola. I take it that this was a field modification and was to provide the Panther with a defense against air.
Recently I was playing a QB as the Germans. An allied fighter-bomber appeared and tried to take out my Panther. It just strafed the tank with MG and didn't use bombs. It completly missed and never returned. At the end of the game, the AAR recorded the allies as having one fighter-bomber shot down! All I had was some rifle infantry, 2 MKIV's and a Panther!!! Is the cupola mounted MG modeled in CM???
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-22-2001).]
-
Thank you again Jason. Very helpful!
-
Ok. Nevermind about the Pz. Grenadiers. I realized I must be playing really unhistorically. It doesn't really bother me, but since we are on the topic...
How the hell do you get a historically correct combined arms set up with the Germans??? How do I get a historically correct set up of AFVs and inf?
-
Thanks Jason. Ok. What is the ratio of AFVs to the number of Pz. Grenadiers? If I had a Pz. Gren Company, how many (on avg) AFVs would I be alloted to roll for?
-
Thanks for the responses so far. While the production numbers are interesting, I'm more concerened with the actual chance to encounter a Tiger/Panther/Mk IV. I didn't think that low production figures nessesarily had to mean low chance of encounter.
What was the concentration of these various tanks in the time period and locals of CMBO?
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-21-2001).]
-
So in other words, they were already at the bottom of the imaginary "stairs" but still had to run down them again to escape?
-
Panthers more common? Are you sure? I could have sworn that while both were rare, the Tiger was more common.
As to the weaknesses of the Tiger I, I don't care! I've had to many Panthers lost to allied soldiers throwing rocks and broken glass at their sides
! But seriously, I'd use Tigers over Panthers in CMBO if I had a choice. They just fit my style better I guess.Ahem...anyway...back on topic. Anyone else want to comment on the rarity of Tigers, Panthers, MkIV, StuG, etc?
-
*secures helmet*
Jawohl! Helmet secure!
-
When I play QBs against the AI, I try for a pretty historically reasonable selection of units. I judge this by what I've gleaned from this board and what little I've read.
The Tiger I is by far my favorite German tank. Mainly because it looks powerful and also because of the whole mystic around it. I enjoy using them and fighting them!
So, how common would it be for the allies to meet a Tiger or two in a battle within the time period of CMBO? How about a Panther? What about the other common QB picks (Mk IV, Hetzer, StuG, etc.)?
-
Good points, gunnergoz.
Not to mention that while US tech is really good, US numbers aren't. Technology can't always make up for the lack of equal numbers.
-
Originally posted by Blenheim:
Oh, pleaseeeee...
If I find any other American complaining about "how bad is our army", I'll send the Panthers in... please...
Come on, the US armed forces are by far the best of the whole globe. No way to win them, anybody. Really anybody (Nukes not allowed) can put up a fight against US. So stop complaining.
Since you lost Vietnam (Guerrilla warfare is the only Spanish apportation to modern war, BTW... yes, spaniard here) you really feel weak...
I swear to GOD. I am so tired of posts like this. Don't you know that this is a one way ticket to lock down? If I (an American) feel that my armed forces is lacking, I have every right to say so. And I assure you that those who feel that way on this board express informed opinions
------------------
"I saw one of the new Tiger tanks at a range of around 1000 yards & fired seven times. I saw each round bounce off the front & side armour. The Tiger traversed it's gun & blew off our left track killing the driver.
"British Matilda tank commander Tunisia 1943
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-20-2001).]
-
double post
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-20-2001).]
-
Well hell guys, at least he's trying. He made a new interface for CM. Thats exactly 100% more than I can say I've done!
Keep it up Rob, everyone has to start some where!
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-20-2001).]
-
Ok...no one's mentioned physics either. If done improperly, it's going to look REALLY stupid. A turret flying off will be hard to make look realistic.
I'm sad to say that very few games get everyday physics such as objects being hurled across open space, doors opening and closing, and human movement properly done in 3D.
In a side note however, in Steel Beasts turrets pop off so often it's actually questionable. It looks quite good as well! Too bad that game is 2D...
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-20-2001).]
Image I did, take a look!!!
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Nice...