WolfLord

"A German player still has just as much chance to win now as they did in 1.05... if he knows how to use infantry." Its rather hard and annoying to be asked to take out a tank pummeling you from a stand-off position because your inadequate tank force has been quickly decimated by increased numbers of allied tungsten-using TDs and tanks. Understand, the reason Im making such a big deal is that I like playing small (around 1000pt CA ME). When I play these battles I am forced (as a German player) to rely on inadequate armor support in games. I must either buy 2 reg. hetzers, a PZIV and a hetzer, a JgPzIV and an infantry killer such as Wespe, Stu42 or Hummel, but never 2 AT capable units and an infantry killing armor unit as before. Please do not say "Play bigger battles!" I don't like bigger battles. The incr. support points do not help in 1000pt battles as the biggest inf. killer I have there is a 75 mm with meager ammo. I guess a could tow a 150mm inf gun around, but that's rather irritating in MEs. I don't get me started on MEs with computer generated forces at 1000pts and combined arms with the new points...play the Germans in this situation and prepare to pull your hair out. I now must buy my forces in ALL QB CA MEs to ensure a capable fight at all. These little battles were great fun before. I challenge anyone to tell me that 1000pt QBs CA MEs are balanced when playing the Germans now.

CavScout, if its proof you are looking for, just go back to CM ver. 1.05. There you will find equality in QB Combined Arms (Meeting Engagement) points. You seem to be consistently missing the point, which is: A difference has been noticed between a previous ver. of the game and the current version. Furthermore, this difference is what has unbalanced the game. IMHO, this portion of the game was not broken in 1.05, why fix it now???

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE: So what exactly makes a balanced Armor meeting engagement QB boring and not a Combined Arms one? Is it too much for two people to select an Armor QB and agree not to spend more than xxx on armor? I know this is not the answer that some people want, but it seems to be the answer to what they are looking for. Almost like arguing at Burger King because you can't get a Big Mac when there is a McDonalds right next door. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Answer to your first point: Because I don't want to play an Armor ME. I prefer having a Combined Arms force as this allows generation of a great diversity of units built around a sufficient (not large) armor force. Now, this is not possible for Germany. Second point: Yes. This is entirely too much trouble to be asked to go through in order to set up a quick TCP/IP game. Third: Yep, wasnt the answer I was looking for...

Well, I do not have much more to contribute to this ongoing discussion but I will say that I'm unhappy (as a primarily Axis player) with the new QB Combined Arms Meeting Engagement point allocation. Moreover, this problem is greatly exacerbated by the Allies "improved" tungsten use. It is my opinion, after conducting a few tests, that the balance (or lack thereof) has indeed shifted to the Allies. I have praised BTS's decision to leave QB Combined Arms forces make-up to the player in the past, but now I find myself lamenting the fact that I am now forced to play those boring Armor QBs if I want a balanced meeting engagement

"Yeah, those poor murderous Nazis! Weren't allowed to subjugate those filthy no-good Slavs to their Aryan race and had untrained peasants thrown at them, some without actual weapons, by a cruel regime that had anyone not fighting for whatever reason shot. Those poor, poor Germans" You missed the point. Imagine yourself as an enlisted man the Wermacht. You would love Germany and fight for it because its your home...not because you are some Nazi party freak. Most of the common, everyday German soldiers hated the Nazis, but they fought on anyway...for their families and homeland. Even some officers came to understand this...Rommel, Manstein, Stauffenburg etc. even "Sepp" Dietrich. I would recommend that you watch the movie I mentioned or read All Quiet on the Western Front (WW1 but still related)...both of those will convey better what I am trying to explain. All Germans during that time were not evil a**holes like Hitler, Heydrich, Himmler, Goebbels, Pieper...continue to insert Nasty Nazis at your leisure.

SPR...an excellent movie. However, for a view from the other side and just as excellent be sure to watch Cross of Iron (1977)...it depicts some grueling battles on the Eastern Front. Man, I feel sorry for that German squad everytime I think of it...damn show-off "noble" officers.

"But I'm playing at only 2048x1536 resolution, and high res mods cut down my framerate down to around 143 FPS! This kind of degradation is unacceptable. PLEASE FIX!!!! Or do somefink!!" Hehe...good one. You were joking correct?...as that FPS result at that rez is an impossibility (under the current DX) unless you are running some sort of ungodly SGI system.

Congrats!! to BTS on launching a successful counterattack against corporate approved gaming and bringing wargames back from the abyss...with a vengence! I salute you.

Jeezus...that post perfectly conjures vivid images of the tank hunter in my mind. The JagdTiger remains my fav. AFV of the war. I'd love to have one to just drive around town in...unloaded of course

Now if only someone could dig up those figures on PzGr40 for the Germans... I did manage to get a PzGr40 round diagram though...very interesting.

Yep, Ill second Gremlin's request if it isnt too much trouble.

I just ordered TOAW:ACW yesterday. Been playing the old Korean War demo in between Combat Mission sessions. IMHO, these games go well together: You'll be able to play a few Bulge scenarios in CM and jump to the same battle area in TOAW for the bigger picture. Im also looking forward to the modern battles, esp. the hypothetical 1962 Invasion of Cuba. BTW, playing the ROK side of the Korean War scenario is downright brutal early on...Communists almost pushed me into the Sea of Japan

"Actually 23.622" if we want to get particular" Yep, thats it exactly. Why do I even attempt doing these calcs in my head at this time on a Saturday night? Next time I'll have my calculator a bit closer.

Sorry...that conversion should be 600mm ~ 27in.

Just read an article about one of the 600mm (~31 in.) guns the Germans were using around Sevastapol (sp?). It seems Hitler wanted to use one as an antitank gun later in the war...LOL! Gen. Guderian is said to have made an exaspirated gesture and walked off when Hitler mentioned this to him. Any chance of firing this baby in CM2?...heh, didnt think so

Great post on modern armor...which reminds me: Can anyone tell me where some details are located on the Russian T-90 tank?

High density doesn't necessarily equal greater hardness. Mercury and lead have relatively high density. Sorry...can't seem to track down an exact density of DU as it is not a "pure" substance(varying degrees of isotopes and decay products)...I posted U earlier.

Just stopped by the University library today and did some research. The Wermacht wore DD's camo design about as much as they did the grey on the West Front (and East Front for that matter). Mainly they were pull over deals similar to the SS camo. Got a great source for SS camo, as my grandad has a captured uniform including helment and gasmask canister from the time he served in the war.

Density of Uranium ~ 18.91 g/cc Density of Tungsten ~ 19.5 g/cc As a comparison...d of Mercury ~ 13.8 g/cc Wolfram is the old, obsolete term for tungsten. No longer used as it places emphasis on wolframite. I still have a periodic table in the lab with tungsten marked as wolfram(nice bit of history). Also tungsten has the highest melting point of all metals (elemental) @ 3683K Tungsten can be extracted from scheelite (calcium tungstate) or Wolframite (ferrous-manganous tungstate). Leading tungsten producers: China and Russia...US at no. 4.

The 3D prophet II is a damn good card, however I have noticed better color in GeForce cards from ASUS and Creative. Can't be a driver issue as I tried the official detonator 3 (ver 6.31) drivers with all 3 of these. I finally opted for the Annihilator II Ultra.

Yep, I actually made a comment in thread...at which point I was continuing to chalk it up as bad luck on my part. Guess Ill continue to replace my Panther force with tigers...as I cant justify the slightly higher Panther cost...esp. when I lose them to 57mm's at 500m. Anyway, sorry about starting a new thread on this...just thought I would try to bring up a less technical but more historical argument/example. Thanks for the quick reply.

Ok, was going to continue to chalk this up as bad luck, but it happened again. My Panther G's (late) seem to be getting absolutely "tore-up" by 76mm Shermans at ranges significantly greater than 500m. They are also getting popped frontally (not infrequently) by 57mm's. Played a game as the US tonight and took out 2 Panthers G's(late) with a 57mm AT gun...frontally at over 350m. Just a quick question before I return to playing this addictive game: Is my "Panther dilemma" historically accurate? Im leaning toward no from all the research I have done in the past.

I'll be glad to help if still needed...just threw in a Geforce 2 Ultra and running @ 1600x1200.

"They shot themselves in the foot so many times that by the end of the war, they didn't have a leg to stand on." This was due to Hitler shifting all military say-so to himself. When you have a strategic idiot like Adolf running your military problems are unavoidable. For example: 1)Underestimating Britian's resolve and attacking Poland in 1939. 5 years too early. 2) Hitler wavering when the Germans were in sight of Moscow...he just HAD to eliminate that juicy Russian army group around Kiev. Doing this cost the Germans the ability to cripple Russian industry even though the Germans captured an ungodly amount of prisoners. 3)Bailing the Italians out of their endless fiascos. 4)Attacking Stalingrad instead of pushing on to the oil fields in the Caucases. This was sheer idiocy on Hitler's part. The Germans had the means to severly cripple Russian fuel supplies at this point. Germany had NO chance of winning the war afterwards. 5) Last but not least...the Ardennes Offensive...an inexcusable blunder. This was a sheer waste of men and material that would have been better used at keeping the raping and pillaging Russians out of Germany's Eastern Provinces. Oh yeah, you can tack fighting a 2 front war up there also. Added note...German military production TRIPLED (this is straight from Speer himself) in 1944, but due to lack of fuel most of it never saw action. As far as the point about the allies having greater success in Russia...they had nowhere near the resolve and determination the Germans did. Please understand, I am not defending Germany...merely pointing out differences and what ifs.

Heh, just thought everyone would get a kick out of this. A guy on MSNBC quoted the following out of a Gulf War military FAQ...not sure why as I never doubted the effectiveness of DU...only that there were comparably effective and safer alternatives. "The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank(bogged in) to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72s appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge round on the M1A1s frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing DU round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. The T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment and blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1s frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion.[71]"