gunnergoz
-
Posts
2,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gunnergoz
-
-
I'd be interested, because you certainly can't play with it in CMBB...</font>Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gunnergoz:
And where else can you get to play with a US Grant M-3 medium?
-
Any hope of getting a beta-tester to answer this seriously?
Or at least of getting a higher quality of potty humor...
-
Welcome to the CM community.
Your question is a common one when people first get here.
Unfortunately, the underlying 3-d models that CM uses are hard-coded into each game's engine. This is one reason the game can display so many units in the field in so much detail. This hard-coding has a large part to play in allowing the programmers to model a lot of lead flying and hitting tanks in a crowded battlefield.
As was previously noted, you can alter the "skin" graphics for almost every vehicle and weapon in the game...so the phrase "pink panther" could (gulp!) become true on your battlefield if you so choose.
Hope this helps.
BTW even if your interests lie in sci-fi, stick around a while, this is a great game and a terrific forum. Who knows, you might get bitten by the CM bug...or is it Borg?
-
True, we couldn't have gunners hitting exactly where they aim...
But at the same time, there could be some consideration to the competence of the crew increasing the likelihood that the targeted spot was indeed hit.
This would mostly be of value to the low-rated weapons like AT rifles, enabling them to get useful hits more often.
The more powerful AT weapons are just more likely to get kills.
I suspect that the guys at BTS have thrashed this about already, as they seem to have covered everything pretty well to date. They have a reasoned response to most such issues, after all. My guess is that the existing system best models reality within reasonable limits as perhaps delineated by programming budget and research material available.
I do see an awful lot of "gun hits" in the demo scenarios, especially in Citadel...anyone else notice this?
-
Regarding the Soviet use of captured Panthers as pill boxes...
It strikes me that by the time the Soviets captured Panthers in any quantity, they were already on the offensive and much less in need of defensive works.
I would think that one use for the Panthers would be as lead tanks to spoof the German AT defense. Another possibility is that the Russians simply enjoyed running them as propaganda and a visible reminder to the troops as to who was winning the war.
I do recall reading that the early postwar French army fielded an entire battalion of Panthers from captured specimens.
As to the Maus...here we go again. This one was thoroughly thrashed in the past. It was too rare to bother modeling.
Does anybody know if the JS-3 made the cut, though?
-
To me, it fairly oozes atmosphere, but then I've seen the steppes myself and have long read about the Eastern front. I think that part of the problem to those that don't have a lot of exposure to this arena, is that they don't necessarily have much to hang on to that is familiar or evocative. The Germanophiles out there will probably love the chance to go after another opponent, but those who are mostly oriented towards playing the US/UK battles will feel a bit disoriented.
Perhaps those folks will especially like playing Russians using the ample lend-lease tanks and other vehicles (M-17 Halftracks with quad 50's finally!). And where else can you get to play with a US Grant M-3 medium?
-
I really doubt this made the cut and to be honest have never heard it referred to before. It's a nice idea that might be doable in the next enghine, though...
-
Granted it's a different period depicted and a different weapon, but for fun, check out the scenes in the movie "Gettysburg" where the Rebels approaching the Yankee line get hit full on with a canister round from a Napoleon gun.
Talk about sweeping 'em down. Awesomely well done filmmaking...
-
Seeing as the guys at BTS have taken pretty much everything (that I ever thought of, anyway) into account in their fire algorithms, I would have thought that the results we see include crew competence and the likelihood of hits on any specific spot on the tank.
But, now that I think about it, your question raises an interesting point about the AI's ability/inclination to target specific weak points on the target...something easier to do the closer one is, obviously.
This would apply especially to the AT rifles, which are best used specifically against weak points, not to mention the fact that gunners were trained and drilled to aim for those specific spots.
So far, the impression I garnered from the posts here is that the AI works out the places most likely to be hit on the tank, based upon a statistical model that in turn was devised from historical hit data.
Presumably, if the underlying data was rich and differentiated enough, it would by default factor in the results of such aimed fire.
If on the other hand the algorithm models only surface area percentages, it would be an entirely different matter.
I'm sure that this has been hashed about before...anyone up to pointing out a thread from the archives?
-
My experience as the Russian was similar to most posts here. One thing I did that helped was I used the Company Commanders to manage all those little 50mm mortar assets, leaving them and the Maxims back in the start tree line. They pretty well killed off anything that the tanks flushed out.
My infantry got chopped up by the initial German mortar fire and the conscript parts never really recovered despite the battalion commander's best efforts. The more experienced, tougher infantry slogged forward and helped take out the depleted Germans in front of them.
-
My tactic here was also reverse slope. I lined up all the AT guns along the west edge with the AT rifles in a line in front of them. I sited the Maxims to get maximum coverage of the kill sack.
When the Huns were 1/2 way through the sack, the closest were almost out, I cut loose, aiming 2 guns each at the closest tanks. Those tanks died in a hurry! By the end of the first minute, 10 tanks were dead!
The other tanks were killed off in the 2nd minute...
When I replayed the scenario a second time, I again killed all the tanks, with the loss of only ONE AT gun.
Goes to show, I think, that the AI has limits. I'm sure that a human player would have been much tougher as the German.
-
There is something to be said for the idea that the CMBB scenarios better entice the existing fan base more than whet the appetite if newcomers. Was this deliberate? An oversight? I know that a lot of time went into the scenarios in the demo, but is it possible that the team could have brought in some fresh blood to give input as the demo was being prepared?
Comments?
-
Gosh, I'm a bit surprised at the negative vibes I've picked up here. I have enjoyed the demo scenarios as they've forced me to take a hard look at how CMBB has changed the basic way I play this game. The results tell me that I'll enjoy this game even more than the first.
I'm one of those guys who came to CM late...I was not impressed by the original demo for some reason, perhaps expecting more flash. Once I read the reviews though, I took a chance, bought the game and after that I was hooked. Perhaps some of you remember my "gunner grass" mania in the modding community. That's how into it I got. Now I have even more to play and mess around with. I'm content, and then some.
As always, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't ever please everybody...Those who are unhappy will have to wait for competitive games to come out. But I will bet a dollar to a donut that no company producing a competing product, will spend as much effort or passion in developing and refining their product. I also very much doubt that their developers will be as accessible to the community as the BTS/BFC fellows are.
Just my 2 bits.
-
That's as good a gotcha as I've seen in a while!
-
If the question began as something like "why isn't the covered arc command available from hide" I would stick with the proposition that a unit engaging in the act of hiding itself is not basically preparing to engage the enemy.
The covered arc command -- whether invoked at the start of a scenario or afterwards -- implies the intent to engage the enemy, and specifies from which direction and range the intent extends. Concealment benefits are a bonus, and a valuable one, but the intent to engage in a specific way is the primary reason for the command.
Hide means, to me, "lie low and don't fight unless they trip on your boots as they go by."
Units implementing covered arc are using the same profile as a hiding unit, because that's likely the closest thing to it in game terms. The big difference is, the unit with a covered arc is alert and "cocked and locked" as they like to say in the movies.
-
What's Russia? You mean the USSR, or the CCCP?Originally posted by mch:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The average college-age American probably couldn't locate Russia on a map!
In all seriousness, though..You forgot the one major component of American naivete
The refusal to believe in paved ashvault roads in other parts of the world. I don't know why, but..This one unceasingly fails to find it's way into any, and I mean any conversation with 'foreigners' I've participated in, or overheard.
It even extends to other Americans. Living in the south, most west-coasters have asked me about this. (and a rather virulent rumor about shoelessness in the public education system, but that's another story)</font>
-
Anyone here ever BEEN in a real tank?
(Of course, I know many have, I'm not trolling.)
Recall all the grease and oil splattered around the turret, deck and the engine compartments? That's the real target that the Molotov seeks.
We could be talking about almost any internal-combustion engine driven vehicle that depends upon oil for lubrication. Diesel or gasoline powered, it doesn't matter, it's all that oil and grease and gunk that will catch fire if the Molotov gets to it. After that, the fuel lines and tanks could be next, depending upon luck and gosh knows what other factors.
True, some may try to keep their tanks pristine, but I'll bet that once the war really starts, preventative maintenance will suffer to some extent and vehicles won't get washed down and cleaned as much as they did in the depot or kaserne.
-
We all had to start somewhere!Originally posted by Flibble:I know RA is a bit lacking in the realism department, but it taught me everything I know about combined arms operations, plus I defy anyone not to smile at the 'squish' noise running over a grunt produces.
Stand by to learn a whooole lot more about C-A operations...
BTW, the only "squish" sounds you will hear in a CM battle are those of deflating egos as you rip your opponents to shreds. Of course, that could be your own, as well...
(and that's probably why I'm too chicken to go against human opponents)
-
How about the inclusion of a Operational Movement Box into which we place UK units that will go around the Horn to Alexandria? This could also simulate those units that will be arriving from Empire points farther East, such as India or Australia. The units are placed in the box, to arrive at Alexandria a set number of turns later.
Hubert: could the present engine accomodate this?
-
As they say-
Hi Mom!
-
I would think that "hiding" involves the desire to make oneself totally invisible, with no regard for the efficacy of the hideout as a fighting position.
The "covered arc" command, to me, on the other hand implies that the unit is preparing for ambush in a particular direction, and has camouflaged the fighting position accordingly. This implies that fields of fire are laid out and perhaps ranges are measured (in real life, anyway). I don't see how a unit that started out with the idea of just "hiding" could somehow prepare their hide position into an appropriate ambush position...the two are quite different.
-
Damn...caught me at a bad moment and I can't order for a whole week, until next payday...
I feel like the guy who just got his balls kicked up his a.. as he walked into the cathouse! Harumph!
-
KMead:
With all due respect:
Being a big proponent myself of civility over the internet, I still feel free to exhibit a bit of humor and silliness at times, so long as it is not at the personal expense of another.
After all, our posts tell everyone much about ourselves, including our moods and emotional state at that particular time. A regular who posts on this forum knows that he/she is, with each post, adding to a depiction of themselves as a real person, to the extent that this medium permits. And, as we all know, those who overstep their bounds are quickly put in their place by the Moderators.
I like the fact that, in this crowd, we all take turns playing the "class clown" and at other times may play "little professor" or "insufferable grog." Most days, just being myself is enough, but there are moments when I just want to get silly and my post reflect it. So sue me! At other times, I'm dead serious about topics that are close to home, such as we often see in the General Forum. Take it or leave it, right?
What I don't like is when people get very personal with invective, profanity and insults that are totally unnecessary. We see very quickly what happens in this Forum to those types of posters.
If I post something here, I know that I will get the gamut of responses, from the utterly reasonable and objective to the incredibly inane and childish...but they are invariably civil, if a bit off the wall at times. I take the good with the so-so because all these Forum contributors are people I'd probably enjoy mixing with socially. I know this to be true because I've learned to like them (some more than others, of course) by reading their posts over time.
I think of these Forum contributors as my friends, and "give them permission" to be themselves here, at times bombastic and at other times silly. I feel safe enough here (Thanks to the Moderators, bless 'em) to know that I ultimately will be treated with civility. Civility is not the same as gentle handling, however! I expect to be kidded, ribbed and tumbled about by these folks, because that's our nature as thinkers and gamers.
I appreciate that this Forum encourages free speech, within the parameters of good taste and legality. I don't expect it to be the Harvard Debating Society, however...
My 2 bits worth.
-
Michael -
Kid, you have waaaay too much time on your hands!
Nice job, though.
Now, if someone would do a PanzerBlitz mod...
CMBO vs CMBB demo - poor scenarios
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Speaking only as an enthusiastic groupie of your brainchild(ren), I'd like to suggest that there is still room for another scenario to be bundled with the demo in the future...specifically a scenario that entices the new, novice war gamer by highlighting how CMBB will be FUN to play, even for a novice.
I think that the goals you have listed have been met. I am suggesting that the goals could be broadened some if you wish to see your consumer base grow with this product, rather than primarily addressing the need to ensure sales to the existing base of CM owners and wargame grogs.
Now that the bulk of work is behind you (until serious work begins on the new engine), perhaps some thought could be given to how a scenario could be devised to entice newbies into the genre (and brand) with this new title.
Then again, it could be that you all are entirely content to sell product to the same crowd as before, more or less. Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as it satisfies your needs and keeps you truckin' forward towards future similar products.
Oh, yeah, I hope it lets you buy your tank, too! That's one of my pipe dreams as well, but I suspect you may be better placed to bring your dream to fruition some day.
I'd just love to see you guys be so successful that you could afford a whole damn shedful of tanks; hence my interest in seeing the consumer base grow by means of a tailored scenario.
Just my 2 bits worth, as usual...