Vanir Ausf B

Get the rarity for infantry displayed. It does nobody any good hidden.

Get the rarity for infantry displayed. It does nobody any good hidden.

Heh, yeah. And that thief that would steal an item if he touched you... The thing I liked about that game is that it was hard. When I finally solved it I felt like I had really accomplished something. Too many games these days are dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. Good thing that's not true of CMBB (see, we're still on topic! )

The original X-Com gripped me like no game before or since. An almost perfect blend of tactics, grand strategy, atmosphere and viseral feedback. Thief: The Dark Project, Red Storm Rising, Unreal Tournament and CMBO/CMBB would be the rest of my top PC list. Flashback for the Sega Genesis would be my favorite console game. Raiders of the Lost Arc for the Atari 2600 gets an honorable mention here.

I believe it had one in CMBO as well. I don't know why it lost it. I agree that the Sd251/17 should be a priority. How often or not the IS-2 was equipped with the AAMG, it is modeled as having it in CMBB, so the correct model should sport one as well. I did a small test and can confirm that the PzIII F does only use one of its coaxial MGs.

Perhaps, but 4 times in one minute?!

I prefer attack/defend QBs and have played them for the large majority of my ladder games. But the occasional ME is great for a change of pace. They are also the QB type where I like to use random weather :cool: The MEs I have played do not play out like the cluster@#$! PeterX describes. The action is much more deliberate and varied. I think MEs are what you make them. If you want strictly historical games, play scenarios. But even there, scenarios designed for multiplayer are balanced to give each side about an equal chance of winning, so you're still dealing with balanced forces smashing into each other. The only difference is the forces are picked for you.

IS-2, IS-1, StuG IV, PSW 234/4 Off the top of my head, those would be the ones I'd like to see the most. I personally think that if choices must be made as to which will be corrected and which will not, the units that players will use the most should be given priority. Early war tankettes would be at the bottom of my list.

I have seen this happen twice myself. Both times in the same game against the AI. I had 2 jeeps sitting behing a large bunch of trees, thick enough to obscure LOS through them. They were several hundered meters from any enemy unit. On 2 seperate occasions they plotted fast move orders on their own out of behind the trees and straight toward the enemy lines. Fortunately I was able to cancel the orders before they got too far, but at no time were they under fire of artillery or in LOS of an enemy unit. This was in 1.00.

I took your comments as a suggestion that the 1.01 changes were made in response to popular demand. Insofar as that would differ from what I think the 1.00 parameters were created in response to, i.e. a desire for increased realism, that would constitute a substantial difference in at least motive, if not procedure. I never claimed you did. "Advocating a return" was a poor choice of words. However, you have suggested that you preferred the 1.00 parameters. I'm simply saying I prefer the new ones, and why I prefer them. That's all. No reason to get defensive about it. Semantics aside, I do not think I have misrepresented your points in any substantial way. [ November 22, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I recall the same. However, "about right" is not the same as "exactly right". We may be argueing semantics here, but I do not believe the changes in 1.01 are drastic. Then you are advocating a return to 1.00 parameters basic solely upon game difficulty. My personal belief is that realism should be the bellwether for what is too sloppy and what is not. I have not been in combat either. My opinions are based only upon my general impressions from reading about combat. If a combat vet were to say "this is a step backwards in my experience" I would take his POV seriously, but I have not seen that yet.

I did not see any mention of units being less snobbish about open terrian in the 1.01 readme. An undocumented change? Are there any other undocumented changes?

I don't see why it should be assumed the 1.01 thresholds were arrived at in a manner much different than 1.00. I'm sure the patch was being used by the beta test team long before we got it. Having said that, I would be surprised if there are any beta testers who have been in a squad that broke under fire in combat. I also question the notion that sloppy tactics are now easier to use. Units will still pin as easily as before, they just don't panic as quickly. For reasons I spelled out in a post earlier in this thread, I believe this is more realistic. DOH! Steve posted while I was typing. [ November 22, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I think "bogging" also includes mechanical breakdown such as thrown tracks or FUBAR transmissions. Not sure, though.

Well, the IS-2 would be nice, since it's one of the more common tanks for the last year of the war. I could live without the IS-3 and T-44, but one can always wish

IS-2 (late), T-44 and IS-3 still use incorrect models.

Things the SU-100 has over the PzIV/70 (A): </font> Mobility</font>Armor</font>Anti-personnel capability</font>Cupola </font>Things the PzIV/70 (A) has over the SU-100: </font> ROF</font>Silhouette</font>Accuracy</font>Ammo load</font>Nahverwafflethingy </font>Armor penetration is about equal, although the SU-100 would be more likely to kill what it hit. I suspect the ammo load is a big factor. In a QB that would make the PzIV/70 overpriced because it is doubtful you would use 60 rounds, but it may be important in an operation. Generally speaking, tanks with high ammo loads are overpriced in CM for QBs because you almost never use all the ammo, or even most of it.

Looks like the Dance of Death in super slow motion. [ November 19, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Not within the context in which I was using it as an example. Replace the FO with a HMG or a mortar team, then. The numbers may change a little, but the point I was illustrating remains.

BFC's position has always been that it bases cost purely on physical potential without regard to likely circumstances it will be used in or potential of likely opponents. So theoretically a tank with 500mm of frontal armor would be much more expensive than a tank with 200mm of frontal armor even though the extra 300mm is pretty much a waste. This is an approach I generally agree with, but I think there are some common sense exceptions that could be made.

What you are talking about is recommending a complete and seperate order.</font>

BTW, since Steve is posting here, I wonder if we could be some confirmation/denial on some issues that have been brought up in recent posts on this subject. Do units that come under enemy fire while moving using the Move order experience a moral penalty compared to moving with Move to Contact or Advance? Is Move to Contact as stealthy as Move?

I think it works pretty well. There are a few things that I would like to see tweaked. Fortunately, two of them are on the list for the patch (IIRC). The first issue is how quickly units, particularly units that have taken no casualties, go from pinned to panic/broken/routed. Though I cannot prove it, it has been my general impression from reading that units in real combat will often stay pinned under fire for long periods of time without breaking as long as they aren't taking casualties. They may not go forward, but they aren't breaking for the rear either. They rightly (in most cases) assume that they are safer where they are than to move. It's when the guys start getting hit that the illusion of relative safety is shattered. I know the rate that units go from pinned to panicked has been reduced in the patch. If I were to suggest anything more it would be that units that have taken no casualties be more resistant compared to those that have. Another issue is the tendency for units that break to flee back across large expanses of open terrain when safe cover is only a few meters further in front of them. This behavior has always been in CM, but it has become more of an issue in CMBB because troops are breaking more often. It has also been discussed a great deal, so there's not much more to say about it. I last issue is "sneak to exhaustion". I think the problem here is not so much that sneaking is too tiring in the game, as it is a problem with units not being smart about when and where to sneak. This is closely related to the issue above. A HMG under fire in open terrain will try to sneak to cover 100m away, even though there is no way it's going to ever get there at the speed it sneaks at. I'm not sure what the best solution would be. I know some have said it would be better if the unit just went to ground where it was and stayed there. I note that the rate at which units tire when sneaking has been lowered in the patch, and that may be the best than can be done with the current engine. In short, I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the current modeling. It just needs some tweaking around the edges.

I know some people will look at this as an improvement, and I can't say they're wrong. It's a matter of taste. For me funky maps have character, and make the battles on them more memorable. In CMBO most people let each player refuse one map so you wouldn't get stuck with a totally one-sided map. I never did refuse a map. You can still get good random maps in CMBB, but they just don't interest me as much. It's one of the very few things I think CMBO did better.

It's the ammo load again, especially the mg ammo; 140 vs. 83. The rest of the differences between the two are pretty minor. Having said that, I'd probably take the BA-10 myself, since the BA-6 would likely not live long enough to shoot off all that ammo anyway. I think (but am not sure) CM prices ammo linearly i.e. having 200 rounds of ammo costs twice as much as 100 rounds. It would be better if the price increase decayed as ammo load went past a certain point since you wont use all of it.