Soddball
-
Posts
3,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Soddball
-
-
Ideally, when someone downloads a scenario, I'd like them to receive a reminder in their email box to get them to review it, say a month after they downloaded it.
Some of my scenarios at the depot had 2,000 downloads and only 1 or 2 reviews. Perhaps they sucked, but I'll never know because they weren't reviewed.
I think just a reminder would be enough to get some people to review. Maybe the email could include a form which they can fill in and email straight back?
-
:mad: :mad: :mad:
-
For me it wasn't about reworking the engine. I just can't help but feel that the Sherman was penalised due to engine limitations in CM:BO, and when those limitations were lifted for CM:BB and CM:AK, the Sherman wasn't reviewed. I wish I had picked it up when CM:AK was released and then something could have been done about it.Originally posted by rune:Soddball,
Yes, if the engine could be changed it would be have to be addressed. I would love to see curved armour handled better, as well as variations of tank armour. T34 tank armour varied greatly by factory, by the mold of the casting and its wear, if Natalia sneezed that day, etc. There are even American test reports on the T34 that showed bubles in the armour!!! I would love to see each plate treated differently then a flat plane. I love love to factor in the actual size of the front armour pieces, that a small turret that has 18% of the front surface be treated differently then on that covers 35%. Bottom line: there is a lot I would like to see change, but it won't happen unless there is a new engine. Oh look, there is a new engine being worked on...
Rune
And I'm looking forward to the new engine, but I just get depressed when my Shermans get creamed so easily.
-
Rune, would your opinion be that a re-evaluation of the Sherman's turret armour rating to 'curved' is reasonable? (Theoretically, of course, we know it's not going to happen).
-
What a crap Haiku.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Some good :mad: though. :mad:
-
Your sig looks good Andreas. It's all lies though. I only ever charge a fair price.
Can we get back to the major point, though, which is that I don't suck at CM, BFC suck at making it which is why the ghosts of 20,000 Sherman Tankers are mocking me.
-
On the other hand (there's always that bloody other hand...), by the time they had climbed to altitude and formed into their "big wing" the Germans had already dropped their bombs and gone home. At least that's the way I've heard it.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
In some ways 12 Group had the edge - they got sufficient warning of attack to allow them to get up above the Luftwaffe, and their bases were sufficiently far north that bombers were only escorted for a short while due to the 109's limited range.
Hope you don't mind a little hearsay.
Michael </font>
-
In recognition of this, Dowding was sacked following the BoB. Institutional in-fighting at its finest.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
Park and Dowding should IMO be in the running for Best Generals/Commanders of WW2.
</font>
-
No, not at all. In some ways 12 Group had the edge - they got sufficient warning of attack to allow them to get up above the Luftwaffe, and their bases were sufficiently far north that bombers were only escorted for a short while due to the 109's limited range.Originally posted by the_enigma:ah right nice one
so 11th wasnt left alone top take the flak (well bombs and bullets in this case
)while the others waited for a plane to fly over there sector If you can find it, Kent Aviation Historical Research Society has produced a good book on the airfields of Kent "Kent Airfields in the Battle of Britain" which is very detailed.
A vastly superior read, though, is Patrick Bishop's "Fighter Boys" which should be on everyone's shelf.
Park and Dowding should IMO be in the running for Best Generals/Commanders of WW2.
-
It was divided into groups, 10, 11, 12 and 13.Originally posted by the_enigma:ok so it seems Freyberg was probably not fully to blame the loss, but what about ignoring the intel from what ive read he did do that quite a bit there?
about the BOB to my understanding the air defence was split up into several sections, each of which had command of the wings stationed there.
Since the luftwaffe where mainly trying to force the raf back from the SE does this mean that the squadrons which would have been stationed to the west and SW where not involved in that battle so ... was the luftwaffe facing off agaisnt the majoirty of the raf or just a portion (25% ish)? (i know there was sqaudrons in north and in scotland and several of these if not all where brought into relieve battered and worn out ones)
11 Group covered SE England, 10 group SW England, 12 group the Midlands and 13 group from Catterick northwards.
11 Group was at the front of the action, but 12 and 10 group squadrons were frequently in action against the Luftwaffe.
-
Just a quick thought Erikin. Are you playing All Armour?
If you're playing Combined arms, then the way to beat him on a 1,000 point map is to take as many conscript infantry as you can and leave the tanks out of it.
Maybe take a couple of Zis-3 57mm AT guns (not conscript).
How many companies will 1,000 points give you? 7? 8?
How long do you think his ammo will last against 1,200 soldiers?
Your opponent is cherry picking his situations, I think, to lean the game unfairly in his favour. I mean, he's specified the time when the Germans got one over on the Russians and before the T34/85 came out, which I think is very unfair.
You could always insist on a 1941/early 1942 battle and take KV-1s. That would give him an education.
Or tell him you want a balanced game.
Or you could play all-flamethrowers on a night battle with fog.
[ August 02, 2005, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]
-
Seconded on DD's work, the Field & Stream is truly superb. Juju's buildings and anything by Magua.
-
I had more long-lasting fun with CM:BO than with CM:BB. Magua's Normandy mods, Tanks Alot's awesome vehicle mods - the upgraded graphics turned that game from an ugly fun game into a beautiful fun game. It was almost fun to watch my tanks get blasted apart.
It's also easier to play by a long shot. I found CM:BB the toughest. For toughness, try advancing conscript Romanians through heavy snow against dug-in Russians. Fun it is not - unless your idea of fun is 65 turns to advance 800m.
CM:AK put alot of the fun back into the game - being able to play the 'good guys', and with the updated ballistics engine and the significantly improved models and graphics.
-
Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy", page 69 (referring to having to bale out of his Sherman on the approach to the beaches on D-Day):
"But I was not even that strong a swimmer and, weighed down as I was by my sodden battle-dress, boots, gaiters and revolver, I would not have gone ten yards in the water on my own, let alone if I had been trying to help someone else."
Stuart Hills was a tank commander (later troop commander and recon company commandeer) with the Sherwood Rangers.
Further on in the book Hills refers to tank commanders in his company using sten guns to suppress enemy infantry.
-
Tut tut. 'Ungrates', not ingrates. Ingrateful is not a word. </font>Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mrpwase:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:
"you ingrates!"
-
It's got a much better AT attack, but much weaker HE so if you're fighting armour it's a good bet.Originally posted by ErikinWest:I noticed though that the soviets have a T34/57. It seems to be a normal T-34 with a beefy gun. And a platoon of them is only 33 more points than a regular T-34 platoon. Hmm....
-
That's hot.
-
Ignore the Peng Buttnugget Brigade. They're just jealous of us Johnny-come-latelys and the impact we've had.
-
You mean the one that's down?Originally posted by Sergei:Try Scenario Depot.
There's The Proving Grounds which has plenty of scenarios.
-
You mean the one that's down?Originally posted by Sergei:Try Scenario Depot.
There's The Proving Grounds which has plenty of scenarios.
-
You really know how to fill the hearts of readers with excitement. Maybe you should read out in a dull monotone all the names of the plants that grow in America. That would be exciting.
Waltero is a mong. He's got the IQ of a breeze block. I can't put it kinder than that. I wouldn't waste my piss on him if he was on fire.
What do you do next to entertain us Div H? How about reciting the names of all your pubic lice?
God I hate you all. :mad: :mad:
-
A quick trawl through the archives throws up this thread, generated by our own beloved WineCape.
Rexford's post from there:
This refers to CM:BO. However, let me draw your attention to one sentence:All of the 75mm armed Shermans had sloped mantlet and turret front armor. CMBO attempts to model the ballistic resistance of the turret front/mantlet as opposed to the thicknesses and angles. For a reason.The later 75mm gun mount had an 89mm cast and curved gun shield spaced behind a 51mm cast and curved rotor shield, so 140mm of curved armor on the turret front mantlet area.
Now come the disadvantages, which are considerable:
1. spaced armor is not as resistant as a single plate, so 89+51 does not equal 140.
2. armor is cast so reduce resistance
3. inner 89mm shield is chock full of large openings for gun, vision devices, machine gun, etc, so reduce resistance for edge effects
4. penetrations of 51mm outer shield that fail to go completely through 89mm inner shield may result in something called "keying", where the round sticks in the outer and inner shields and prevents gun elevation changes
5. if projectile penetrates outer shield but is stopped by inner shield and the HE burster detonates, explosion is likely to mess up gun aim and other things.
We did a detailed ballistic analysis of the resistance provided by 51mm/89mm shield combo against 75mm hits, which took into account edge effects, cast armor deficiency to rolled armor, spaced armor factor and impact angle. The average resistance of the combo is 89mm vertical, exactly what CMBO uses.
Here are some of the breakdowns from our analysis of 51mm/89mm shield combo:
36% hit total effective resistance of 75mm vertical or less
43% strike effective resistance of 85mm or 95mm
13% hit 105mm to 125mm
8% hit 145mm to 165mm
NOTE:Above results do not take "keying" into account
So 79% of the impacts on Sherman 75mm gun shield area will be resisted by a single vertical plate equivalence of 95mm or less. Since CMBO does not treat the area as a complicated curved arrangement with all of the peculiarities and vulnerabilities, a single vertical 89mm plate is used, which seems reasonable for wargaming.
We use the statistical breakdown in our miniatures gaming, so the Sherman shields will occasionally defeat a Panther or Tiger hit, which is likely to stick in the shields and disrupt the gun elevation or detonate and mess up the sight and machine gun.
"Since CMBO does not treat the area as a complicated curved arrangement with all of the peculiarities and vulnerabilities, a single vertical 89mm plate is used, which seems reasonable for wargaming."
CM:BO didn't treat the area as a complicated curved arrangement, but CM:BB and CM:AK do have the 'curved' value for armour plate, and I can't help but feel that the Sherman would have been a logical choice for this 'curved' value.
-
I congratulate Andreas for being able to steal money from real people and spend it on banana-measuring specifications. When I am "Ruller Of Teh Galaxxy" there will be a special place for Eurocrats.
JonS, if I could communicate properly I wouldn't be here. I'd be sitting in an office in Paris making up rules on how all businesses should employ three-legged purple people.
WineCape, don't confuse MasterGoodale's Thread of Cheery Waffle with ....that...other...place. Ours is a place of mirth and savagery, and theirs is - just wrong.
Anyway, back to my Very Important Point.
It isn't just the Firefly. There seem to be a couple of models with this very clear slope.
There is a Sherman with a 76mm turret front included in the game, but its armour is 76/0, not 76/30.
Models of Shermans - slope very clear in some but not all.
I've got a couple of other photos which are unclear or at the wrong angle, but there's no doubt in my addled brain that 89/0 for the turret front is wrong.
Realistically, I know that there won't be a fix for this flaw this late in the game. But since the Sherman is the most common allied tank in CM:AK, I'd like it fixed for the next iteration of CM.
-
Depends on what your basis for measuring it is.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
That is just not, in any way, 0 degrees.
All the best
Andreas </font>
</font>
I Name the New 10th Planet Peng! And Challenge You to Dispute Me!
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Could one of you come and retrieve Boo Radley? He appears to have got lost on his way here and is paddling around in the Waffle thread looking very lost.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Post 100! :mad: :mad: :mad: Jamoomba is pleased!