Panther131
-
Posts
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Panther131
-
-
I agree with Tabaka, and BigDog.
More freedom of choice in ME QB's. I was always under the impression that BTS set up the points system for balance fainess to each side not historical accuracy. I wish BTS would return CM to its earlier form, where I thought that things seemed a bit more even in the playing field. ei: the armor points.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(Gee, Marv, I used to hate that Hitler guy, now I think he's a hoot<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hehehe. : )
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
I want it. Where can I get it?
-
Here is the thing Simon: I think, or I am under the impression that, before all the beta patches, the armor distribution was even or thereabouts, ( I do know BTW, becouse I originally brought this topic up once before) making combined arms fun to play for both sides.. Now with added use and effectiveness of tungsten, plus added points for allies (or decrease for axis) the allies have a much bigger advantage.
Maybe like you suggested, we could get BTS to even the armored points in combined arms play.
A word of note: from what I can recall about this topic in its first iteration was that the overall and ending response was that the extra allied armor points makes up for the german mechs, becouse german mechs have 7.5 cm guns and such. Hmmm...speaking of the reality of the war...if they have them (the 7.5 cm guns) isnt that how it should be?
In other words...why should we even try and compensate for the allied in this respect especially by toneing down the german armor. This makes no sense. If its there, it is there.
This is the equivelent of saying: gee no tungsten for the germans but tungsten for allied? Hmmmm...lets even that out...lets give the axis more armor points, or whatever you want to give them, in order to compensate the "unfairness" that the allied have with tungsten. This is ridiculous IMO.
If thats how the units were, then thats how the units were...lets not start compensating points becouse such and such doent have a 7.5cm gun on it. This is just ahistorical.
-
Absolutley agreed Kiwijoe.
I have always felt this to some degree with the axis. Especially after the latest patches.
German armor is good; but its not invincible. I don't quite get how people rag on german players as "hiding" behind the axis. IMO, the axis are definitly outweighed by the allies. Now with with the armor differential, it just makes it even tougher for the germans.
BTW, this is supposed to be for QB's not historical accuracy. I mean historical accuracy is part of it, but for QB, my impression is that they are for balanced play, while scenarios are where all the heavy historical aspects come in to it.
After all, You can purchase a Sherman Jumbo for 260(?) points, and there were only 200-400 or so made.
-
I have tooted my horn about this before. But know one seemed to care. I think its way unfair to the germans. With the allies having effective tungsten use (added with the new batch of patches), the allies have a big advantage when you give them a three to one advantage in armor points. I think this should be fixed. Just My Opinion.
Please BTS change it back. A 3 to 1 ratio is way to big.
-
Rob1...
Why did the gameranger guys turn down the CM mac guys? I just want to know why.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course. But then it wouldn't have gotten a $100 million+ budget and "no one" would have gone to see it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...execpt for us wwII nuts!
-
Agreed. I would like to see it in as well. Would make for more stisifying results.
-
Maximus: would you kindly let BTS comment on how they feel about this themselves?
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
Steve:
I have reread your post, and I have checked back with my screenshots. Unfortunatly, I play in the second one up from realistic, so the screens are in that mde as well.
I understand your post perfectly, and I don't disagree with you, or refute what you have said concerning this.
I just find this to be a very unrealsitic part of the game. Not that everything is expected to be realistic.
The one thing that annoys me is that when I check the LOS by my eyes or the proposed LOS by my eyes in view one, I see absolutley no shot possible with the wespe. I think that may be my biggest complaint about CM in general. When scoping area's for LOS with my eyes for future possible positioning of tanks, infantry, etc... it is not WYSIWYG(view 1). This confuses me at times.
-
"On the battlefield, other than a abandoned crew or unarmed vehicles there are NO non-threatening units. Every infantry unit including HQ's have the ability to kill ANY tank. How are those NOT threatening?"
If this is true, why did/does my wittman tiger turn its hull to shoot HE at them (consript halftrack crew) (funny I have brought this up before but was chualked up as bad tactics) 20-40 meters away while I have instructed it to hunt in a direction of a known enemy AFV?
I eventually got wacked becouse of this/ my tigers's turret was turned 180 degrees away from where I was hunting the suspected AFV. Got wacked becouse of it.
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
Thanks for the heads up Doug. However, my queation is why is my wespe (veteren) taking a shot at this guess of a target through a building? Doesnt seem logical. Why would a vehicle shoot through a building, to effectively kill itself? My guess is...as good as...yours?
The building was taller then the wespe.
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
Jeff H. Agreed. Wow...I actually agree with Jeff H.
Well, seriously I agree completely. A little bit more control over your units is absolutley necessary. Way too often I find in some situations I am shouting "Just shoot" or "Dont turn the hull" when I have ordered it to rotate a certain way or move a certain way and it would literally do the opposite of what I ordered it to. This is a problem becouse it becomes so very frustrating to watch in horror as your 300 point AFV gets itself killed becouse it decided to "turn its hull " at infantry 30 - 40 meters away. I had brought this up before but it was pretty much knocked down before anybody really responded by Babra. This person stated that it was my tactics, and that I shouldnt be out in the open. Geesh. 30 - 40 meters away? in the open? A halftrack conscript crew being targeted 30 - 40 meters away while I am in a firefight with a sherman firefly? Geesh. Typical peng response.
Heh.
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
I agree that usually, not rushing into bulidings in ME's is more beneficial and certainly more historical. However, if there is, say an area that is completly blocked of any LOS so as not to be seen, it seems like a sound tactic. However, I am pretty tired of the "rush in" tactic.
It would be neat to have QB's where there is NO flag at ALL. This way its a straight foward " capture this city" or "contain this area" objective. This would make a bit more realistic IMO. This way it would play out more like realisticaly in some ways. Also, It would be strictly up to you where to defend, and the winner of the game is based on who beat up the other player, instead of just being near a flag. Maybe for CM 2 there will be a no flag option. (I know we can disable flags but it would be more straight foward this way)
That being said, I dont think you should feel bad. You should feel good. You beat his pants off! Anybody that quits in the game without giving a decent reason is displaying bad sportsmanship. I would say you did one heck of a job, by knocking out a KT with a zook. I would commend yourself and chaulk it up as a great victory...after you KO'ed the KT he ran ****-less!!
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
BTS: Ok, I have some very good and clear screenshots of a wespe having a LOS but not a LOF through a building. I am sending them to krazydawg. I would love to post them here, but from what I know, thats not possible without a url.
I must say though, It is very frustrating to watch your own vehicle destroy itself, when it has full protection from any threatning enemy firepower, while it is pummeling off HE shots at ememy infantry.
-
Ok...I have gone over the sequence again. This really annoys me. My wespe, right up against a building protecting its right flank was targeting infantry. Then she decides to target a M4A1 Mortar Carrier at 212 meters. The film shows exactly, that the Wespe has a LOS through a building, and better yet, through a window. It takes the shot, and knocks itself out.
-
Tiny :::::SPOILER::::::Elsdorf revised CM v1.1
My Veteren wespe has knocked itself out by firing a shot at a target, and hitting the side of the building that was protecting itself from its flank. This is the second time I have seen this. Is this a normal occurance during the war? The first time I saw this I couldnt believe my eyes. The second time I saw this...I couldnt believe my eyes.
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Interesting how we can obsess (or think) about the what if's in war. I have to agree with Wolflord, in that germany lost her chance at winning the war when hitler blundered in not taking the oil fields, and not taking the mother of russia herself, Moscow in mid 1941. If this had happend history would be different. Its hard to imagine what hitler was thinking in stoping just short of complete victory of russia at that time.
-
Yes...It is amazin to imagine, if Hitler and the Germans had eliminated and defeated the russians when they had the chance. The world would be a much different place. Especially Europe. Germany would have owned it all. The U.S. May have entered the war against germany at all or tried landings at normandy if germany controlled all of europe. Especially since Germany had the chance to beat off the Russians in mid 1941.
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
hmmm...good post rexford. Keep em coming
-
ok...great. thanks John.
-
Apology to slapdragon.
-panther131
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-08-2001).]
-
erased. egads.
[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-08-2001).]
QB Armor pts CM1.1
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Cav Scout:
Sure is. Why not? Like it has been said, QB's are for balanced play. As it is now...allied has 33% more armored points. Thats even?
The compensation as it is now gives the allied more armor points becouse the axis mechs have a few 7.5 cm infantry guns. So lets give the allied more tanks. Yeah that seems fair.
How does a german 7.5 cm gunned halftrack compete with an allied tank?
It doesnt.