Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
Damn, this all sounds excellent!
Well, almost all. There was one sentence that thru up a little red flag in my head:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>We have changed and updated the movement delay system so that delays are based much more on how complex a series of orders will be to carry out.<hr></blockquote>
This worries me. Having a built-in disincentive to issuing complex orders would be a PITA. For example, like most people, when I am plotting orders for tanks to move around corners, instead of plotting a move to the corner and a second move in the other direction, I use 3 or 4 move points close together so the tank does not stop and rotate to the new direction of movement, but keeps moving in a tight curve (can be crucial if the tank is in LOS of enemy guns).
When moving around impassable terrain it is often necessary to plot a lot of different move points. This simulates decisions that would be made "on the fly" by the tank driver or squad leader, and therefore makes little sense to penalize the player for using.
Of course, I'm basing all this on one sentence, and it may well not work like this at all, but that's all we have to go on at the moment.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
An uncontested flag can be controled by a unit up to 80m away. If the flag is contested units must generally be within 60m to influence ownership. This may vary with other factors and with flag size. So, yes, a flag is a zone of control.
-
Tero, I really have no idea what your over-all point is (if there is one) but here are a few random comments for what they're worth:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:
The cut off is not the same as presented in the US history books.<hr></blockquote>
I am not aware of any "cut off" for the consideration of casualties in US history books. Perhaps you are refering to some I have not read? Could you be more specific? That is a very broad statement.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>2) The Germans were able to get a 1:1 kill ratio during the Normandy battles when defending in static positions in close terrain which curtailed enemy movement. The ratio was better if the German figure includes POW's as the American are almost 100% KIA/WIA.<hr></blockquote>
All else being equal, it is generally expected that the attacker will suffer more losses than the defender, especially in "close terrain". I don't see what that proves.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The reason why I compare the early phase of Normandy to the Soviet summer assault is because of the similarities in the tactial, doctrinal and strategic outlooks of the forces involved.<hr></blockquote>
?!
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Other than the criteria I use does not favour the US Army and present it in the best possible light. I cut off the data unorthodoxically against the conventions of the Anglo-American history writing. Does that make my conclusions wrong ?<hr></blockquote>
Here you go again with another "Anglo-Saxon biased historian" tangent. Could you be more specific, or do you believe there is not a historian west of the Rhine worth his salt?
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The data I have read over the years almost invariably show higher loss rates in the attacking units. The average US Army in ETO platoon had a 90% turnover rate. That is actually pretty bad. I would consider that normal for a Finnish platoon under attack by the Red Army having 10 guns per frontline kilometer. Or a Red Army platoon in attack.<hr></blockquote>
You're comparing turnover rates for US units attacking Germans in Normandy to Finnish units fighting a defensive war against Soviets!?
What are you trying to prove here? This whole thing started several pages back when you asked the following question:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But pray tell where did the Allies actively dislodge the Germans from their positions with a single deliberate ground attack with infantry, armour, artillery and other assets before the Germans were willing to give up the positions.<hr></blockquote>
People provided multiple examples of this, and now you are making claims of "uberAlliedness" or whatever. I have seen nothing of the sort here. Your current ramblings seem to have little to do with your earlier assertions.
BTW, I have a small revelation for you: All armies attempt to trade firepower for casualties when they can. You're swimming upstream on that one.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
30
And for the newbies around here, the last time this was done, the average age was 34.
-
From the New World Dictionary of the American Language: Second College Edition:
Open 1. in a state which permits access, entrance, or exit; not closed, covered, clogged, or shut (open doors) 2. a) in a state which permits freedom of view or passage; not enclosed, fenced in, sheltered, screened, ect.; unobstructed; clear (open fields)
having few or no trees, houses, ect. (open country) 3. unsealed, unwrapped 4. a) not covered over; without covering, top, ect. vulnerable to attack, ect.; unprotected or undefended[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
My guess would be NO. More recently BTS has come out strongly against nationality modifiers. Also, coding up a seperate TacAI for different nations and at different perionds in the war would be a huge undertaking (as Steve noted in his post).
That is an interesting quote, however. My guess is that his view has changed over the last 2 years, but it would be interesting to get a comment from the sourse. Unfortunately I think Steve has used up his alloted weekly forum time in the "chicken-wire on British tanks" thread.
Am I the only one counting down the minutes until Tero shows up?
-
SgtChris:
Yes, your system will be fine for CMBB. If you have some extra money you may want to buy a video card with 32 megabytes of memory, but your 16 MB card will still run it OK.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:
i thought that where the round landed was not entirely random? or was i wrong?<hr></blockquote>
You're not wrong. It's semi-random. Misses from higher velocity weapons tend to land nearer the target than misses from lower velocity weapons. That is why the shreck misses by less.
-
In a recent PBEM my opponent drove a jeep into one of his own minefields. Every time I loaded a turn I chuckled at that plume of smoke rising from behind his lines
-
Yes, I too doubt you will get the exact formulas. Besides that, they do not respond well to "threats"
I think it's enough to know that if you want to control a VL you need to get as many forces as you can as close as you can. If you are unsure whether the game will give you control of it or not, you probably don't really control it at all.
My only problem with they way the games does things is that it sometimes gives control to one side or the other when neither of them really controls it.
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:
so does it have a faster velocity? a faster velocity would make it more accurate at longer ranges.<hr></blockquote>
If you look at unit stats in the game, you will see that CM lists the bazooka as having a muzzel velocity of 83m/s, the shreck 100m/s. The shreck round is also larger and heavier.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Redwolf:
And maybe BTS even models that the second shot is more accurate, like they do for guns.<hr></blockquote>
They do.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:
I cannot see how this can be provided by third parties, when it would require a completely new layer for the vehicle but I admit I could be wrong.<hr></blockquote>
A third party could do it, but BTS could make it look better because they could modify the basic model. If a 3rd party modified the textures the wire would look flat instead of sticking out from the tank. Same thing with sandbags, or almost any other field mod you can think of.
Of course, then you start running into polygon budgets.
The point is that doing this for all the field mods for all the vehicles in the game would require an enormous amount of time. Unless it can be shown that these things actually worked, I can't see how it's worth it.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And why would that be. Spit it out Vanir. If you want to make an accusation, be man enough to put it out in the open.<hr></blockquote>
Well, since I have 'spit it out' into the open for you in previous threads I'm not sure why you're playing ignorant here; but, I was, of course, refering to your thinly concealed and rather obvious distaste for the US in general and the US military in particular.
Is that "man enough" for you? (snicker)
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>*SIGH* always carrying my comments to the extreme, hey, Vanir. Yet, we have the Sturmtiger, Jagdtiger, Wirbelwind, Ostwind, etc., either already in the game or promised. Now you want "Panther F, Maus, Goliath, or round-the-corner-firing SMG's also included." Production numbers please.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know why you were addressing me here, as I did not write the words you were replying to. However, as I am already commenting on them ,let me say that I have no clue where you got the idea that Spook actually wanted those vehicles in the game. If you reread what he wrote (or read it for the first time, as the case may be) you will see he said nothing of the sort, nor did he even imply it.
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Diceman:
I'm almost certain its alleged anti heat round properties are not modeled.<hr></blockquote>
No, it's modeled. My testing has shown the schurzen on the Mk IVH decrease the chance of a bazooka hit penetrating by about 30%. Even the schurzen on the Panther A has a very small effect.
[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:
SIGH whose talking about "bedsprings"? I'm not.<hr></blockquote>
As you seem to be fond of word games, I will point out to you that I said "begsprings or whatever". Whatever meaning anything you want, including wire.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>They managed in CMBO to make Schutzen/non-Schutzen available for the Germans. I see no reason why they couldn't make the same available for CMXX.<hr></blockquote>
German schurzen were official vehicle features that were at least somewhat effective. There has been no evidence presented that these field modifications had any measurable effect. Therefore what you are asking for is simply a graphics mod. This is more appropriately done by a 3rd party mod maker. If BTS had to make seperate textures for every field modification for every vehicle they would never get anything done.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Never having played US (nor interested in doing so)<hr></blockquote>
Gee, I wonder why that would be...
[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:
However, I prefer computer choose troop games (CCG) as compared to human choose troops games (HCG) because CCGs seem to have a more realistic feel. Yes, I know that many will say that HCGs are more realisitic. I respectfully disagree.<hr></blockquote>
Computer pick is more realistic for the reasons you note. It is less realistic in that you tend to get a hodge-podge of different unit types mixed together. This doesn't bother some people. That's fine. As you say, everyone has their own preferences and opinions.
My main problem with computer pick is that you can sometimes end up with some rather unbalanced forces, such as getting an army of halftracks while your opponent gets a Hetzer, a Panther and 2 Stugs. This may be realistic in a way, but it isn't very fun IMO. There is also the issue of the map peek cheat that is much worse for computer pick games.
But to each their own. I'm not telling anyone how to play their games. All that I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with picking homogenous forces, regardless of unit type. For example, I have never used a KT in a game, but if I did get a wild hair up my ass for one game I would likely buy nothing but KTs as my armored force in that game. That would be more realisic than buying a KT, a JPz IV/70, a Hetzer, a MK IV and a Wespe. And I would be annoyed if my opponent gave me a hard time about it especially if he were losing. Now, if I were buying KTs in every game I played, or in even half of them, that would be a problem, but that is a separate issue.
I understand that if you play someone for the first time and they have KTs or FJ it is natural to assume they must use them all the time, even though there is no way to know that (unless you ask them). The new rarity system in CM2 should go a long way toward changing that. Until then I will continue my policy of never bitching about what my opponent buys unless it violates some pre-game agreement. I go into every game I play more-or-less assuming my opponent will buy some cherry-picked force. I have never had much trouble beating these types of forces, so I don't get too excited when I see them, nor do I feel too guilty on the rare occasions I may use one myself. In my expirience the better player (or the luckier player) will win almost every time regardless of forces picked. Maybe others have had different expiriences.
In any case, have a Happy Thanksgiving!
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
In the 16 games I have played on the RD ladder (including current) I have used Gerbils twice.
I have never used FJ or Sturmgruppen against another human player. I usually use SS Rifle as Germans.
Does that answer your question?
Gerbil Master...
BTW, in neither of those 2 games were the type of infantry I chose a deciding factor. They were both fairly lopsided games.
In fact, I have never played a game in which I felt the type of infantry used decided the outcome.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:
Most of the trouble with human choose troops games (as opposed to computer choose troops) is the following: all paratrooper/fallshrims, all Hetzer, all Jumbo, all uber tank, all nuclear arty armies. :eek:
Oh, ... I forgot the all gerbil trooper (yeah, I know, gebirgsjager) armies.
<hr></blockquote>What is the problem with this? Generally speaking it is more realistic to play with homogenous armored platoons and infantry forces. Taking one of this and two of that and one of those is cherry picking. If you are going to use Gerbils there is nothing wrong with using all Gerbils, if you are going to use Hetzers there is nothing wrong with using all Hetzers. Or am I misunderstanding what you said?
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:
I'd be happy to see both parts of the argument answered. If it has little physical effect, its still evident that many crews believed otherwise and visually it needs to be represented, if it was present.<hr></blockquote>
The reason BTS did not use visual representations of these field modifications is that most tanks did not have them, but if they had been included in the game ALL tanks would have them i.e. if the stock Sherman textures had had sandbags on them, ALL Shermans would have been show with sandbags, which is even more unrealistic than none of them having it.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Of course, we could all fall back on the "its abstracted" thesis but if that was true, why has so much effort been expended on 3-d wireframes with bitmapped "skins" and the "modding" of those skins? If everything is to be "abstracted" then I'd suggest it would be quicker and simpler perhaps to have settled for cubes with symbols on them.<hr></blockquote>
Some things were left out to cut down on polygon counts for performance reasons. You may have noticed that the AAMG on the Sherman is not shown, nor are the "Rhino" attachments, even though both are assumed to be there by the game engine.
There is little point in asking BTS to start producing new artwork for CMBO. There is no chance of this happening. It is also pointless for the reason that any 3rd party mod maker could do what you are asking. In fact, there are Sherman/sandbag mods available now. If you are handy with Paintshop or something similar you could modify the existing textures yourself to add bedsprings or whatever.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:
The only copyright notice I have ever seen is on the MDMP mods. Thanks for the education.
Treeburst155 out. © copyright<hr></blockquote>
Crap! I think I just violated your copyright by quoting your post in full in my post. I'm broke, please don't sue.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>AndrewTF:
BTW, the German company offering the CD with mods stolen from the web was doing so FOR PROFIT. I think most people were outraged because this company was trying to make profit by using and not acknowledging the hard work of people here in the CM community. It's a totally different issue, as far as I'm concerned.<hr></blockquote>
Yes. The fact that they were distributing it without the authors' permission isn't why BTS got involved. They got involved because they were selling it for money.
-
Good point. I remember BTS catching grief for not modeling US Shermans with sandbags on the front. Turns out the sandbags were mostly a psychological aid, and added little or no protection.
-
John, thanks for the heads up. It was an excellent show, and I would have missed it had I not seen your post here.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:
I think I'll just start posting Australian TV schedules. I'm sure all the non-Australians will be fascinated with them.<hr></blockquote>
As long as it is about WW2 related programs, please feel free. You may not be aware, having not been around here for long, that people have been discussing these History Channel programs on this forum periodically for a long time. They are usually American shows, but not always. This is the first time I can recall anyone being offended by one of these posts. Well, the second time, I suppose, after Iron Chef
[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:
i just want to know how others view this trend?
thanks in advance for the input!<hr></blockquote>
You're late to the party, Chad
Check this thread out from last year: Fallschirmjager TrendWhat do I think? Well, I happen to also be on the RD ladder, so I see them all the time. When playing as Germans I pick them maybe half the time or a little less, and use vanilla infantry the rest of the time. Unless there is some agreement before hand, I don't have a problem with them.
One thing I don't do is mix them together in the same game.
-
The reason your M18s did not fire tungsten is because regular AP can penetrate the Tiger sometimes. And that's the problem. The way the TacAI works, if there is even a small chance regular AP will work, even if it is fairly unlikely, it will not use tungsten.
This is also true of the use of HEAT rounds. Run a test with a 105mm armed Sherman against a Mk IV. The 105 HE can only penetrate frontally through the turret, but that's good enough for the TacAI, which will not use HEAT.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>What's A Good Scenario For Fair PBEM Ladder Play?<hr></blockquote>
A Second Job - Vossenack
Move It or Lose It
Reut Canal
To The Last Man
49th Recce
Into the East
Last Defense
The Sunken Lane
having few or no trees, houses, ect. (open country) 3. unsealed, unwrapped 4. a) not covered over; without covering, top, ect. 
A Bone Is Thrown!
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
All your concerns are belong to us, eh? Alrighty then, In Matt We Trust.