Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,595 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
I think though that when you send your squad to attack an enemy vehicle that they need to know whether to button it up with gunfire or to physically assault it my climbing on top of it. <hr></blockquote>
I don't see the point. The way things work now, they will automatically attempt to close assaust the vehicle if it is in range, and they are not too suppressed. There is no need for a choice of "button it up with gunfire" or "close assault" because close assaulting will cause the vehicle to button anyway.
Also, in real life any commander who ordered his men to charge a tank would be lucky not to get shot in the back.
-
First time in my life I've been called a whore (as opposed to a slut, which I have heard before). I find that mildly amusing.
Wacky: It is partially your own fault for assuming. Having said that, yes, you have almost certainly been had. The problem is that you can't really do anything about it because you can't prove it, and even if he did what you think he did he didn't violate any agreement.
As others have stated, you have 3 choices:
1. Ask for a restart after confirming he did pick his own troops. If that doesn't work, then...
2. Surrender the game and be done with it. If you really don't care about your ladder record (you're not the only ladder player that doesn't BTW) it's no big deal. Or...
3. Play it out. People who do these kinds of things are almost never good players. You might be able to pull out a draw, which would surely piss him off.
Are you RD or T-House? If you are RD please email me this guys name.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:
As for your gun problem, I never have seen something like it.<hr></blockquote>
The only time I have ever seen an unsuppressed gun not fire at a targeted tank is if it has little or no chance of penetration.
-
My current rig (P3 500, 256 meg of PC133 ram, Geforce 256) will run CM2 fine. But I will likely upgrade in about 6 month anyway... for Unreal Tournament 2
I'll probably go with:
Asus 766a motherboard
AMD Athlon 1.5-2.0 Gig (depends on budget)
384 megs of PC 2400 ram
Leadtek GeForce 3 500i
I'll probably get a new HD as well. My current 27 Gig Western Digital is starting to make an odd noise.
-
I think the Grenade Toss should be made an official sport at the next Olympics. Then we can settle this once and for all.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:
When you see a ball bowled down the crease at over 150 mph...<hr></blockquote>
I assume you meant 150 kph.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Cricket speeds seem at least comparable and in many cases appreciably higher.<hr></blockquote>
While I agree with your basic arguement that Americans don't have a monopoly on strong throwing arms, the latter half of the above statement appears to be in error. Going from the page you linked to, the fastest cricket pitch recorded was 160.57 kph by a JR Thomson in 1976. This compared to Nolan Ryan's 1979 baseball record of 160.64 kph. It is interesting to note that a half dozen or so recent baseball pitchers have reportedly been clocked at speeds above Nolan Ryan's record, up to 164.8 kph. But they are "unofficial" figures for whatever reason.
The 108-135 kph figure given for typical baseball pitching speeds is misleading, at least at the professional level. It is true to a point because most pitches are curveballs, sliders, change-ups, ect. where the pitcher is not trying to throw the ball as fast as he can, but rather is trying to make the ball move through the air in a certain way to confuse the batter. It is misleading because nearly all professional pitchers can throw a fastball in the 144 kph range. Many can hit 150 and the fastest will often hit 158.
BTW, you need to remove the "." at the end of your first link for it to work.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
That would be a command I would be extremely reluctant to use if it were in the game. If the other player decided to move his tank a large distance that turn your men could end up chasing it quite a ways over open terrain getting chewed up the whole time.
-
Other people have addressed the original poster's points well, but I'll add a few thoughts.
One thing that could be improved in CM is the near impossibility of hiding tanks in LOS of enemy units. I realize this is in part a engine issue that cannot be fully addressed at this time, but I have suggested previously that tanks that begin the game in trees be made significantly more difficult to spot until they move, at which time the bonus disappears for good. As it is tanks are just not as cost effective as AT guns on the defense.
Making the QB maps deeper is a huge plus, but it will all be for naught if the flags are not staggered more front to back allowing for true defense-in-depth. This would be a logical change to make with the deeper maps, so I am hopefull.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford:
It would seem from the above that Panther glacis plate armor was fine until mid-1944, and then brittle or reduced effectiveness armor may have appeared on both the Eastern and European Fronts.<hr></blockquote>
OMG. It now appears that CM in not 100% totally wrong after all (only 97.3% wrong).
Anybody seen TSword? This will be a terrible swift revelation for him.
WARNING: The preceeding post may contain sarcasm.
-
If you are using a GeForce 256 card, use the 3.90 drivers.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford:
CMBO played it conservative, two plates together act like one plate with same overall thickness.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, Charles did adjust the Jumbo armor thickness down somewhat in the last patch because of this, but as you say, it's probably debatable how correct the current numbers are (hint: TSword).
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:
In fact. One reason less to complain.<hr></blockquote>
Yep.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>TSword:
So to set the Panther (and almost all other german tanks at 85 % armor quality) is more then questionable.<hr></blockquote>
"Almost all other"??? A quick survey of German tanks in CMBO shows only the Panther, Jadgpanther and Hetzer with 85% armor.
[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:
I remember rexfords book says the HVAP should have a worse performance on angled hits than APC or ADPS, that isn't modeled in CMBO and hurts Panthers and other angled German armor.<hr></blockquote>
Look again at the in-game penetration stats for HVAP. It is modeled.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:
Different weather and time can bring some life back into Quickbattles.<hr></blockquote>
Very true. Random weather is what makes MEs worth playing, IMO. Unlike attack/defend, adverse weather effects both players equally. It also makes you pay close attention to vehicle ground pressure ratings.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
I find the QB maps the computer makes to be pretty challenging and interesting most of the time. Some of them I've even wanted to keep and play again in the future. Hopefully in CMBB that will be possible.<hr></blockquote>
I agree. Computer maps occasionally do have illogical features, and they do have a somewhat generic appearance to them. But the one thing they have going for them is that no two are the same. Each presents it's own unique set of tactical challenges. For me, that is what CM is about: the tactics. This is why some people never grow tired of QBs, despite their limitations. With the new QB features coming up in CMBB, we may never stop
-
A few more quick comments:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:
1) Valid point about people liking to buy their own, as many do. Not that any field commander ever got a bundle of play-cash and an oob and 15 minutes to cook up a nasty force combination to crack the roadblock over the hill.<hr></blockquote>
Computer pick is available for people who don't like the idea of purchasing their own.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My self worth is not a function of my T-House ranking.<hr></blockquote>
That's good to know. I'd be willing to bet the same could be said of the large majority of those who actually have a T-House ranking as well.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>OTOH, randomly generated maps are ugly at best and illogical at worst, and the fantasy force combinations, flag rushes, and complete lack of reinforcements or non-standard units makes QBs a wash to me.<hr></blockquote>
To say there is a complete lack of standard units in QB is not true by a long shot. Flag rushes are a function of the opponent you play, not the type of game. You can rush a flag in a scenario just as easily as in a QB.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Panzerman:
I may be called anti-QB, because I enjoy making and testing battles, but QBs are more for, sorry to burst your bubble, new players.<hr></blockquote>
That is your opinion, and nothing more. I know a lot of people who are still playing QBs who have been playing CM for a long time who would have a very different opinion.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes:
Why QBs are a travesty:
1. Gamey force selections
2. Rules to prevent gamey force selections
3. The less cost effective units are never used
4. QBs are sooo predictable
5. Maps are way too similar<hr></blockquote>
Fortunately, 1-3 will all be taken care of in CMBB, and I strongly disagree with you about 4.
Despite the current limitations, I much prefer QBs to scenarios. For ladder players such as myself they are the meat and potatoes of CM. But to each their own.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
Vanir, I'll give you the fact that sharpshooters shouldn't have a higher rate of fire than infantry, but as is right now they have a slower rate of fire, don't they? It's been my experience that they fire once every 15 seconds or so...at least at tank commanders.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, they do fire slower. I'm not sure why that is exactly. I suspect it has something to do with them having only 10 "shots". They could run out of ammo very quickly if they fired faster. In my expirience it is rare that I want a shartshooter to fire more than once per turn at a specific target, so it usually works out well.
I think all units should be able to fire faster at units that are charging at them. This already is modeled to some degree in CMBO, but will be better in CMBB, at least for MGs; I don't know about other unit types.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
I have to say though, the sharpshooter especially needs to have a higher ROF. I can't understand why this wasn't simulated.<hr></blockquote>
There is no reason why the sharpshooter should have a higher ROF than an infantry squad. Sharpshooters shot more accurately, not faster.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Echo:
So in theory he would fight hand to hand, lob grenades when the situation dictated, and fire on an immediate, deadly threat that is less than 100 yds away.<hr></blockquote>
No.
Sharpshooters are not Rambo. The most important thing for them is to stay undetected. They will fire on targets under 100m if they are detected and fired at, but otherwise they will try to stay alive. This is not FUBAR, this is smart.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Tank shots (single shot calculations) arent abstracted, why is a single rifle?<hr></blockquote>
They are a type of infantry unit, so the game engine has to abstract their shots like all other infantry units. As has been pointed out 1000 times on this board before, 1 "shot" from a sharpshooter represents several shots in real life. I have seen a sharpshooter in CM hit 3 men in a running squad with 1 "shot". How's that for ROF?
[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
To the best of my knowledge the only Allied tanks on the Western front that could turn in place were the Churchill and Cromwell, and tanks based upon those chassis. On the German side only the Panther, Tiger and KT could, as well at TDs and other vehicles based upon those chassis.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by phil stanbridge:
Vanir, Are you sure about that?
You can choose 5000 points, but if you increase the advantage by say 100% you just wait and see what happens.<hr></blockquote>
Boot up the game and see if you can select more that 5000 pts for a QB.
Of course in any attack/defend game the attacker gets more points than that. That goes without saying. It's still a 5000 pt game because that's the setting you select.
-
On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't say anything.
[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by phil stanbridge:
To throw something else in, when/if you play 3000 pointers how many turns do you have? I would imagine you'd have to have the maximum (60) in order to fully justify the point size. I know you could do it with less, but I can't imagine the time you'd spend plotting the battle.<hr></blockquote>
That's what I thought before I played them, but after playing quite a few I've decided that 35 turns is best for 3000 pts. Anything more than that is pointless as the battle is over by then anyway.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Finally, what is the biggest QB anyone here has tried? If I remember, I think mine has been around the 8000 point?? Is that possible I ask myself now
<hr></blockquote>No, 5000 is the largest QB you can do.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:
Disregarding such questions like does the German figure up to that date include German casualties inflicted by the British the historical cut off evens out the American total casualty figures over a longer period of time. After the Germans lost Avrances and the Allies burst out into the open I would think the Allied casualties would shift from foot infantry to mechanized troops and armour. And that the casualty figures per engagement for the Allies would decrease. If the different nature of these two phases is disregarded then the total American casualty figure can not be distributed correctly to depict the combat during the different phases.<hr></blockquote>That's a very wordy dodge. In no way does it address my point that your 1:1 loss ratio figure you were holding up does nothing to prove your point. All else being equal, the Allied casualties would be expected to be worse than 1:1, not better. So the fact that they acheived 1:1 losses while attacking would suggest whatever they were doing worked well enough.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>They are not necessarily biased. They are just not doing their leg work properly. When was the last time a major Anglo-American WWII myth was busted ? Daylight bombing got busted, CAS is being debunked. Are there really no other myths still in the foundation ? Churchills memoires are still being considered a prime source and the views presented in it still prevail for crying out loud.<hr></blockquote>
You did not provide the specific examples I asked for, so I assume you do mean to include all western historians in your claim. I'm glad to see you're doing your legwork unlike those infamous slackers Jentz and Dupey. I look forward to reading your book.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If the mantra "firepower for lives" was true then one would expect the average turnover rate during the entire NWE campaing (June 6th 1944 to May 1945) to be different.<hr></blockquote>
Wrong. See 1:1 ratio comments above.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Please read my "claim" again. All the examples thrown at my face do not fit the bill exactly. Not one instance was provided where a single deliberate ground attack with infantry, armour, artillery and other assets before the Germans were willing to give up the positions.
All of them mention artillery busting up a German counter attack or two. Ie: the American force is either bogged down or forced into a defensive posture. And all of the examples involve a series of actions. Not one have given an example when a single Allied attack before the break out decisively busts the German defence open at the outset and the Germans are forced to retreat.<hr></blockquote>
Who are you trying to fool here? You are now adding conditions and qualifiers to your original question after the fact.
It is not true that all the examples given involve Allies breaking up German counter attacks with artillery. That is a totally false statement. How can you expect people to take your points seriously when you deliberately misrepresent the facts?
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>This is why I am trying to ascertain why these kind of infatry casualties are given and still the mantra prevails. And this is why I strive to segregate the POW figures from the other losses as they distort the Allied casualty rates because the totals are being compared, not the different classes of casualties.<hr></blockquote>
Let us know when you have all your numbers added up and your arguements sorted out. I look forward to seeing you debunk western "mythology" and telling us how it really was. I have a hunch its going to be some variation on the "Germans would have won if Hitler had just kept out of it and the Allies had fought fair" threory, but we'll see. Until then there is little point in going further as nothing anyone says is going to change your mind and I'm having a hard time keeping track of all your different arguements as they seem to change from post to post.
<hr></blockquote>
Do I have the right to bitch?
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:
Is this realy a topic?<hr></blockquote>
Is that really a post?