Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
That does appear to be the gist of his proposal, Tom.
This was asked for a long ways back. I can't remember what if anything BFC said about it, but I've always thought it would be a significant addition to QBs.
-
That's how I see it, but it still leaves the MtC command with very limited usefulness.Originally posted by Priest:That is probably true, still I have not had a hard time moving into contact with the enemy yet. At least not when cover is ample. As you said MTC allows you to move through cover without the enemy seeing you but you see the enemy hence the problem. Well as Kwazy already said, use Move then which is sneakier than MTC and does not stop after spotting someone. Doesn't seem like an issue to me. The only thing left for BFC to tell us is if the Move command somehow supresses the urge of your troops to rip off some shots at distant units. If not then great, if it does then we can use cover arcs.
It's ironic. Two years ago when some people on the forum were arguing for a MtC command, the issue of units stopping when they spot distant enemy units was the main counter-argument given by BTS against the move.
-
I haven't received my copy yet, but according to the little webpage of CMBO to CMBB changes Madmatt put up when the demo was released the penalty for Russian troops is only to command delay.Originally posted by MrSpkr:One thing to remember -- the Russians in the early war have an effective morale penalty of -1, meening Regular troops are really Green troops; Green troops are really Conscripts; and Conscripts are really Dental Hygenists.
-
Old 20mm vs. MG discussion. It includes some tests, albeit against CMBO MG42s.
Here's what BTS had to say at the time:
Madmatt:You guys apparently have been watching SPR too much. A cannon has MUCH slower ROF and shell velocity than the MG42. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the results here. The blast rating of the 20MM is around the same as that of a grenade and against a fast moving and dodging infantry sized target it is not easy to achieve accurate fire. With a MG you can pretty much spray and pray and still achieve good results. Cannons are good against large targets (vehicle/plane size) and slow moving or stationary concentrations of troops. It also gives a pretty capable anti-armor punch as well as it's intended Anti-Air defense role. You are comparing apples and oranges here. The key here is in the rate of fire and distance between men in a squad being engaged.
A MG42 can spit out literally hundreds of rounds in a few seconds (based on between 1200-1500 rounds per minute cyclic rate) while the 20mm is only getting at best a little under 1/2 that amount (assuming between 350-700 rpm and IIRC they aren't firing anywhere near that rate in the game for the most part). While the cannon rounds explode it is doubtful that a single rounds explosion would injure more than one man in a squad using proper combat spread. Obviously a cannon shell will cause greater damage to the target but the end result in the game is same, an incapcitated man.
So, all things being equal, in the same stretch of time the MG42 is able throw out at least twice the firepower and as such cover a greater area with lead with relatively the same effect as the cannon when a man is hit.
A more fair test would be to compare the results based on similar amounts of rounds fired.
The test above shows a MG42 getting 110% more hits than the slower firing 20mm yet what no one is looking at is that both weapons are shredding the squads apart.
Is a MG42 more effective than a 20mm on a one to one basis? In some situations yes, as it was historically.
A cannon will show its greater effectiveness when used against targets in cover over a Machinegun where its inherent, albeit still small, explosive ability come more into play. As I indicated above, add in its anti-armor ability and air defense capability and you have a well rounded weapon.
The direct comparission is apples and oranges as you are taking two different weapon designs with two different intended methods of employment into an artificial situation that greatly favors the overwhelming rate of fire of the Mg42.
-
Ah, I see. As Andreas said, that is a bug.Originally posted by ParaBellum:No. The game I played vs Andreas was a QB were we both picked our own forces. He could see my forces using the 'setup-cheat' and I could see his forces, not only the map.
[ September 23, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
The 'map peek cheat' has been a known issue for a couple of years now. It is the only "easy" way to cheat at CM that I know of. We were hoping the setup sequence would be altered in CMBB to eliminate it, but it appears that will have to wait for the rewrite.
A small note: you only see your opponent's forces if you are doing a computer pick game or a scenario. If it is a QB where both sides are purchasing their own forces all the cheater sees is the map. Still a cheat, but not nearly as much of an advantage. That's why for ladder games I do not play comp. pick QBs or scenarios unless it is someone I've played previously and trust.
-
OMG</font>Originally posted by Ales Dvorak:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
I'm sorry, but as far as most of us Americans are concerned, Argentina is part of Europe. You know how we are with geography.
-
I'm sorry, but as far as most of us Americans are concerned, Argentina is part of Europe. You know how we are with geography.
-
forgive me
[ September 22, 2002, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Has anybody checked to see if the unit names can be altered? They could in CMBO.
-
Good lord, a Charles sighting! Has it been 6 months already?
-
I think you mean "WTF!!!"Originally posted by illo:WTG!!! :mad:
-
QB. 3000 pts. Combined arms. Soviets (me) attack. Random date. Random weather.
-
Ovaltine in 1% milk. If I feel like getting really crazy maybe a bottle of Mountain Dew.
-
-
-
The 3D view in Eagles Strike:Originally posted by davedial:I simply believe that gaming has surpassed this system. There's many points but the main one is that the infantry just looks like toys. The whole thing just looks like toys being played with.
It was kinda neat at first.
But I think I'll be spending my money on Tiller's new effort, with aid and abetting from Wild Bill, called "Eagles Strike".
Ya know, those soldiers look kinda like... toys. The tanks too.
-
-
Very true.Originally posted by mch:I think you'd be doing BFC the bigger favor to just drop it..There's more anti-whining threads than whining ones.
-
Cool. I was actually not expecting it to make it (call me a pessimist). Perhaps the manual will have a definitive answer?
-
Not to mention large QBs. I plan on doing some 5000 pointers.Originally posted by ianc:And I clearly said that was because Steve was kind enough to supply it. How about user made scenarios where this isn't done?
-
You know something I don't, or are you just happy to see me?
-
There was a discussion a while back (which I tried to find but could not) about the surprising accuracy of the 95mm HEAT round in CMBO and how the modeling of windage could bring it more in line with reality. I remember Steve saying that he had a German document that dealt with the subject and was waiting for Moon to translate it. He also stated that although wind was a confirmed feature for CMBB he wasn't sure if it's effects on ballistics would make it in or not. Well, did it?
-
Maybe you experts at getting canned will give me some tips.
where did my arty go?!
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted