Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,596 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
Looks to me like you won't see it until 2004 or so. By that time 1 Ghz processors and 64 MB video cards will be as common as 300 Mhz processors and 16 MB video cards are now.
When they do rewrite it, I hope they really make it a huge leap, not some minor improvement. I'd like the difference between CM4 and CM1 to be as great as from Steel Panthers to CM1 was.
-
If you are our captain, why is your name Sgt Kelly
Seriously, I think these are very good suggestions, especially the option to assign units to a HQ.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:
Reread Steve's response again. He said you CANNOT target something YOU see unless that target is already on the units' spotted list. I for one appreciate how this will work and am looking forward to seeing it implemented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think Steve was talking about how relative spotting will work when it is implemented (CM4 maybe). He was not talking about how it will work in CM2, which will not have relative spotting.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
But is it really only pushing buttons if you refuse to be assimilated and you do not memorize the party line by heart ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you were assimilated a long time ago. You're just in a different collective than the rest of us
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For example the CM2 is rumored to include the Assault command as a new feature. That is good. The implementation is rumored to be so that the firepower is DIMINISHED (halved I think) for the assaulting unit to depict one half squad moving and the other covering. A Finnish unit in assault would sneak up on the intended target location and rush the last 20 meters or so firing at maximum ROF with all weapons. So what is the command I should use as I can not get the shock rush with any command that is currenly present ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You see, this is the uberFinn mentality that bothers people so much. First of all the only way a soldier could fire at "maximum ROF" while "rushing" the enemy would be if he had a fully automatic weapon. Now assuming they all have automatic weapons, it is entirely reasonable that their firepower is cut in half while "rushing". A soldier doing this will not be able to fire accurately. You seem to be suggesting that Finn units be allowed to move and fire at full effectiveness at the same time! This is not humanly possible, yet you want BTS to let the Finns do it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there going to be Pull Back/Disengage command in CM2 ? CM assumes that the disengagement is always to your baseline.
Come to think of it CM actually assumes that you are always attacking and never pulling back unless it is a rout.
Is the current set of command nationally biased against the Germans ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I really don't know what you're saying here. There is a withdraw command. Did the Germans withdraw/disengage in a way unique to them that Allied units were unable to do?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the Suomi SMG is then (in our opinion) underrated in CM2 because the SMG in a squad, contary to Finnish national tactics and doctrine, is not very prominently rated there will be much wailing and knashing of teeth: "The foreigners have done it again. We are getting shafted yet again !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You see, you've decided that BTS will underrate the Suomi months before you know how it will be rated. No matter how good BTS ends up rating it, it won't be good enough in your eyes. You accuse BTS and anyone who agrees with their stand on nationality modifiers of being bias, yet you display a remarkable degree of bias yourself. Every single thing I have ever seen you post on this forum in relation to the game was in some way an arguement to make the Germans stronger and the Allies weaker. You really come across as a guy with an agenda. I can only imagine it will get worse in CM2 with Finns in the mix (heck, you've started already and the game won't be out for months).
Nothing personal against you, tero, you seem like a nice guy, but a little objectivity would go a long way.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
Yes Andreas, I know maybe it's time for another vacation from the board. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heck, you just got back.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:
I've never seen anyone from BTS say that they were going to hire a second programmer. In fact, I have seen Steve say that they were expressly opposed to hiring a second programmer. Where did you hear about the second programmer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Our medium term plan is to expand our programming capabilities. This probably won't be for at least 2 years though. In order for this to work, from our perspective, the Combat Mission engine needs to be rewritten. The only person to do that is Charles. So first we finish CM2, then we start to think about what comes next ...
...Combat Mission's engine rewrite might very well happen inbetween CM2 and CM3. There are no hard plans in place right now, and it might be that CM3 will be released with the old engine WHILE we are working on the new one.
Note this was written back in November.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ellros:
Do you think it might be a better idea to go right into the rewrite of the game engine after CMBB that to write CM3 and 4?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's sorta what they are planning on. Unless things have changed, BTS's general plan is to hire a second programmer after CM2 is out the door. This will allow them to make CM3 at the same time they develop the new engine, whereas otherwise they could only do one or the other. So CM3 will use the CM2 engine with the new engine debuting with CM4.
I think the main reason they are waiting a little while to make the new engine is that it is likely to have much higher system requirements than the current.
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
I'm going to shame myself and bump this.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer:
Spotting: at 800 and 1100 meters the guns
were spotted within 10 seconds of opening
fire. At 1400 meters it could take up to
a turn or two, with the tanks closing range
to about 1300 meters before the guns were
spotted.
Also, the farther into the woods you put
the guns, the lower the chance of their
scoring a hit, (according to the LOS
targetting line in setup) but this may
positively affect their ability to stay concealed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CMplayer hits it on the head. If you want your guns to be harder to spot, don't put them at the edge of the tree. Sit them back 10-15 meters. Also, range makes a huge difference. Most CM AT engagements are at fairly short ranges.
-
John, are you trying to post some images? If not, try replying to a diffent post than tero's and cut and paste his comments as needed. I just replied to him and had no problem.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
HERE is where the national modifiers step into the picture.
What usually happened was the armour would push through but the infantry would get stopped and shot up at the MLR (as per Finnish SOP: stop the infantry, it is more dangerous. Isolate the armour from the infantry and deal with the treaths in the order of urgency). In that situation a Finnish commander would gather all available troops for a counterattack. And as you are well aware the arctic day gives daylight from around 9am until 3pm. That means that the tanks would be helpless in the dark in a few hours anyway so they can be left alone to drive around while the counterattack is directed at the infantry at the point of the breach.
When the Red Army got its act together things got more difficult for the Finns. But when during Winter War the situation got gradually worse the summer of 1944 situation fared better because that time around our army had ample supplies of arms and munitions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't get it, what do nationality modifiers have to do with this? Why do you need them to do what you describe? If Finnish SOP was to "stop the infantry and isolate the armor" what is preventing you from simply ordering you forces to attempt that and hoping your opponent is stupid enough to allow it to happen?
-
The one best way to fix the problem is to alter the shape of QB maps VL placement. Make the map much deeper to allow defence in depth, square in shape, and stagger the VLs front to back as well as side to side.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blenheim:
Ah, guys, we forgot our beloved early war Blitzkrieg victims the Frenchies. Apart from the never too long Maginot Line (ops, it's not fair!!! Going through Belgium is gamey, you bad Germans !!!) we should remember all the missuse of the beautiful military equipments that France had. Those ubertanks, wasted....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, that's a good one that hasn't been mentioned yet. What was the name of that French general that refused to believe the Germans could attack through the Ardennes until they were running amok behind his lines? I remember he had syphilis and resigned a couple of weeks into the offensive.
I don't think Hitler was the worst military leader, but his mistakes had the most profound effect because of their magnitude.
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
It's an excellent idea, one which I have proposed myself recently.
-
Campaigns may or may not be historically accurate, but they are undeniably fun.
When I played Steel Panthers, campaigns were all I ever played. I loved starting my Soviets out in 1939 with BT-5s and T-35s and stuggling until 1941 when I could upgrade to T-34s and KV-1s.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:
KT were made in a lot less numbers. Most of them were probably stationed in the repair shop
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The largest number of KTs in the "operational inventory" at any given time was 226 in Feb '45. I don't have a break down on how many were assigned to each front.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Detroit Guy:
Hardcore gamers play this kinda stuff partly for historical "feel". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some hardcore gamers also like a little "what if?" from time to time. Different strokes...
I wouldn't worry too much. I've yet to see a Super Pershing in a game.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
The figures are incorrect concerning the Panther & Tiger off the top of my head, as Pz.Abt.51 & Pz.Abt.52 each had 96 Panthers as of 01.07.43. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
These numbers look closer to me (courtesy of JasonC):
Elephant - 45
Tiger I - 133
Panther - 200
Pz IV L43+48 - 859
Pz IV L24 - 54
Pz III 75L24 - 153
Pz III 50L60 - 542
Pz III 50L42 - 109
Pz II - 107
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Hey, no problem Freak
Patriotism has nothing to do with it for me, as I'm neither Russian or German.
I think the most interesting matchups in CM2 will be between the T-34/76s and the Pz III and IV. You have a tank with superior gun, armor and speed vs. tanks with a 3 man turret and radio. If BTS gets it modeled right it should be a tactical challenge for either side.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
Who to believe
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Glantz... tero. Glantz... tero.
That's a toughie. I'll have to think about this for a while when I get home
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:
Fair or not, the T-34/85 and the Panther were certainly used the same way at the same period of time, designed to oppose each other in the medium tank role of each army.
I see the point being made, but if you want to go down that road by the same token it could be said that it is not fair to compare the T-34, developed in '39-'40, with the PzIV, developed in '35-'36. Really then PzIV should be compared to the BT-5 or BT-7.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. BT-5 and 7 were certainly not medium tanks by any stretch of the word.
You can't get around the fact that Panther was developed using some ideas gained directly from T-34. No T-34, no Panther. Or maybe a Panther with non-sloped armor. People forget that one of the rejected designs of the Panther was almost a clone of T-34 (Hitler would have none of that!)
T-34/85 was a stopgap effort while the IS series was developed. It is still a T-34, not to be treated as a whole new design.
Comparing Panther and T-34 is fair in as far as they were "medium" tanks and saw combat against each other. But M1A1s and T-72s can be compared using the same logic and it is just as pointless.
Panther was the better tank. So what? Later designs are supposed to be better than earlier ones. End of discussion.
[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
I'm watching it right now. So far, pretty good stuff.
-
This whole business of comparing the Panther to the T-34 is rather silly IMO for several reasons.
The Panther was developed in direct response to the T-34. It can be argued that if there had been no T-34, there would have been no Panther. Or at least the Panther would have been a much different tank.
The Panther is a later design than the T-34. The Germans were able to take concepts pioneered by the Russians with the T-34 (highly sloped armor, high speed) and improve upon them while adding their own innovations.
Comparing the Panther and T-34 is like comparing a M-48 Patton with an Easy Eight Sherman because they were both used in the medium tank role post war. Which is better? Well DUH! I think it may be the later design
Of course the Panther is pound for pound superior to the T-34. It's a latter design. The Germans would really have had to screw something up for it not to be better. I don't even understand why this is worth arguing over, it seems so obvious.
If you want a fair comparison of "medium" tanks compare tanks developed at the same time, so T-34 would be compared to Pz III and IV. Over the course of the whole war T-34s met up with a whole lot more of those than they did of Panthers.
The T-34 needs no one to apologize for it.
-
And I could quote several sources that give the max range at 1000m. But it's all in the thread I linked to.
And now, the conclusion of Tiborhead vs his girlfriend.
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Man, if I were you I'd be shopping for a ring about now.