Catacol Highlander
-
Posts
566 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Catacol Highlander
-
-
Yes - in my first tcp game with a pal of mine he interdicted the Norwegian supply line 3 turns in a row and Norway joined the war on the axis side.
Unfortunately 2 turns later he sent in French troops and took Oslo - I had not expected such an audacious move. Win some, lose some...
-
OK - I have just tried my last game of the evening, and after 2 turns over half my forces teleported to the other side of the map. It happened during the replay of a turn based game, about 10 secs into the replay. No crash however. I just quit in disgust.
I've now seen the teleport thing twice in about 7 or 8 attempted games.
Fortunately ( I suppose) I am off on a rugby tour of South America in a few days time so I will have distractions to keep my mind off this, and I hope this is sorted soon. Cant help feeling that us AMD dual core users have had a raw deal - surely the dual core AMD chips are not so new that this fairly fundamental bug (freezes and teleportations) could have been missed? I am a huge fan of CM and have played it constantly for 7 years, but I have to say that if I went to my local PC games shop and bought a game that did this I would now be planning to take it back first thing tomorrow.
As its BFC I wouldn't dream of doing this, even if I could, but I have to admit to being disappointed.
Cheers
Al
-
Running version 1.01 as downloaded earlier as a pre-order customer.
Just had another hang - I've not managed more than 3 consecutive turns without a crash, but only seen teleporting units once
Cheers
Al
-
Ho hum... someone else who has teleporting units to the far right corner. That has happened to me too and the frequent hangs have me hacked off.
I am also a dual core AMD user.
Performance up until the hangs is great, but unplayable as it stands.
Cheers
Al
-
I'm getting a similar reaction - lock ups, some of which unfreeze themselves after about 30 secs, some that do not. It is particularly happening during replay in turn based play.
Also after one such lock up I had a vehicle suddenly reposition to the other side of the map, right in the corner where it was promptly knocked out only to find on the next turn that anther identical vehicle was sitting in the same spot. Huh???
I also had a lock up when browsing the editor, and it required a ctrl-alt-del exit. Frankly I have played the game now for about 30 mins and am going to have to shelve it unless someone can come up with a work around.
I am on an AMD Core Duo 4600 and a Nvidia 7600 graphics card.
Cheers
Al
-
Folks
Does anyone know if there is an increased chance of a tank bogging if it is crossing damaged ground? I'm not talking about shell craters - that is an obvious point, but instead about ground pocked with, for example, 81mm mortar holes?
I have noticed on 3 occasions now tanks bog in such areas in dry and open land, and am just wondering if this is chance or not.
Cheers
Al
-
Hmmm... sorting ROF doesnt work properly either. Am I missing something?
Cheers
Al
-
Excellent!
However I just tried sorting by silhouette and it doesnt seem to do it quite right. Most of the vehicles are in the right order but then it goes wrong - the king tiger is out of order and a lot of tanks that follow its silhouette of 135. The Romanian 222 has a silhouette value of 13 - is that right also? It appears alongside the KT at the point where my sort goes wrong.
Otherwise a very hand tool...
Cheers
Al
-
Bump this one up...
I play operations all the time and had not thought about this before. I had assumed that a crew that survives a battle in an operation and had not been captured counts as "escaping" the battlefield, but does the manual actually mean that abandoned vehicles will not be recovered UNLESS the crew is exited off the map prior to the end of the battle in question? I must admit I have not yet seen a single vehicle recovered in any of my ops in CMBB yet so maybe my habit of hiding crews in nearby trees is the problem.
Can someone clarify this - do these crews actually have to be walked off map?
Cheers
Al
-
Not had time to run the patched game yet, but what is all this talk of "new modelling" benefitting early russian tanks as stated by Aussiejeff? Cant see anything about that in the patch readme - has there been some alteration that is going to make russian tanks like the T34 harder to kill from the front? Is that what you mean Aussiejeff? If so my current tcp operation with arch rival Zima is going to turn in the favour of the russians... and the russians are me.
Cheers
Al
-
Folks
For those that read my previous post on the remarkable accuracy of the KV2 I have now conducted a short test. Not had eons of time to spare, but set up the following:
Green KV2s at around 600 - 650m from StugIIIB. June 1941, extreme FOW, clear conditions, flat ground.
Watched 100 first shots
Results:
23 direct hits
77 misses
Compared this to identical test but substituting Green KV1s [1940 version] for the KV2s
Watched 100 first shots
Results:
27 direct hits
73 misses.
The KV1 was marginally more accurate, but this small test pretty much backed up what I felt to be the case while in battle, namely that the KV2 has an accuracy much like a tank fitted with a "real" AT weapon. Each test was run in batches of 10, and twice while running the KV2 test 5 out of 10 tanks hit first shot. However significantly something in the region of 7 or 8 stugs were destroyed by the blast of a near miss and many others damaged. Unfortunately I only started looking for such occurence towards the end of the run and didnt count them accurately, but in reality therefore taking direct hits and near misses into account the KV2 is deadly, even first shot.
I will run a test that looks at second shot and beyond when I get the chance. Not going to be as simple, but I'll manufacture it somehow. I'll also test the 2 tanks out at much longer range. I'll post the results as soon as they are done.
One final observation - virtually all of the green KV2s acquired and fired within 10 to 11 secs. The KV1s were poor in comparision, often not firing until the 17th or 18th sec of the replay and sometimes not firing at all as it took so long to get off a shot that the stugs retreated behind smoke.
Conclusion: The KV2 is a better battlefield AT weapon than the KV1, at least in June 1941 when I ran the test. This cannot be right, surely??
More thoughts anyone?
Cheers
Al
-
Sailor
You miss the point... I am not complaining about the accuracy of the KV2 - from my perspective it is an observed reality after seeing it operate a number of times now. I will learn to adapt to it and that is that. No - I am asking everyone where this accuracy comes from. I am surprised, not outraged and simply wondered whether anyone else shared this and if anyone knew about the mechanics of aiming it at a specific moving target bearing in mind the size of the gun and the velocity of the shell.
However as you speak of sources and tests I will endeavour to run some this week and provide those interested with my findings.
Cheers
Al
-
No info anyone?
Cheers
Al
-
I think I'm in the Redwolf camp here - the numbers dont quite make sense. Surely the 152mm HOW should not be particularly accurate. I have seen near misses destroy targets, but my question regards direct hits at ranges that would require quite effective sights. I am at work - do not have a test I can run here, but my memory backs up what Redwolf says.
Frankly I am surprised that such a weapon boxed into a tank can have a 27% hit chance as quoted in this thread, particularly if that is a first shot %.
Luck? Yes... but I have fought 4 battles in a row now with KV2s in and it is happening in each and every one. I had a KV on a hill that hit 2 pzIIIs and 2 pz IIs in 6 shots at over 500m and at least 2 of those targets were on the move. In another battle a first shot hit on a pzII at around the same range.
And yet if you use them to try and hit the top of a hill with area fire, or even just fire down onto an area target from above the shell rarely seems to land on the target spot.
Anyone from BFC got info on this? I will happily eat my words if someone with knowledge of how this gun was effectively aimed can tell me why it is accurate in a direct anti-tank role.
Cheers
Al
-
Folks
Enjoying playing this game very much - no complaints - but I am getting quite used to seeing KV2s in combat hitting moving targets at over 500m with real ease and showing a remarkable ability to hit stationary targets first shot. I am not very knowledgeable about the sights this support tank might have had on board nor how easy it was to get such a mighty weapon in a very slow turret zeroed on a target, but my best guess would be that a 152mm in this early war tank was much more of a support weapon that relied on the massive blast a 152mm shell would have and not a tank killer.
As an aside the German 105mm FH which has good sights listed gets some pretty low hit % readings when trying to take on hard targets in the AT role at 500m+. My observations are that my KV2s in battle are much more accurate than the german 105mm FH and somehow it doesn't "feel" right.
I thought I'd sound the community out on this one. Thoughts/observations?
Cheers
Al
-
Not sure if this has been brought up on the forum before, but it seems to me that trenches are very easy to spot. The result is that even though units inside stay hidden any sensible player just hits he trench with direct area fire or simply stays away from that area and therefore renders the trench virtually useless.
Should they really be much much easier to spot than a foxhole or gun pit? As the game stands at present I certainly wont be using them much with extreme FOW because they give away your defensive positions.
Agree or disagree??
Cheers
Al
-
If you want an excellent analysis of "Spring Awakening" then try to find a copy of "Men of Steel: 1st SS Panzer Corps" written by Michael Reynolds and published here in the UK in 1999. He is a retired Divisional commander from the British Army and now an acknowledged expert [at least over here] on the Waffen SS. I am a historian myself for my sins and his evidence gathering and balanced approached strikes me as impressive. He interviewed the SS officers where possible, has used comment and official divisional histories from both sides and put together an excellent account. For the record the book also covers 1st SS in the Ardennes...
The 400 or so tanks listed in the thread above do not tally with Reynolds' research - he would indicate substantially less and many non-operational. Of great interest to me, however, is is assertion that the supposed massive Russian numerical superiority in numbers of tanks is a myth and that the majority of Soviet formations were also severely understrength. Spring Awakening, he claims, was much more of an infantry battle with armoured support and when the Russian launched their own counter attack in the area they did so with less than a 3:1 advantage. That may surprise a few readers here - it did me.
It is also interesting to read what happened to many of the leading 1st SS Corps officers after the war. Nice touch that...
Recommended highly - good basis for operation and scenario building too I reckon.
Cheers
Al
-
New to this thread, and not an expert on such things, but could a patch not be written for those that have to buy the European CDV version that puts right all the SS names that are to be changed? Surley this would not break any laws... D/l if you wish, not if you dont and everybody including BFC and CDV would be happy
Cheers
Al
-
the 20mm Quad gun is lethal for such hits. So is the allied bofors. They both seem too lethal for damaging tanks to me, but then again I never drove a tank at one before...
It is the way the game plays - just got ot adapt to it.
Cheers
Al
-
Folks
Many of you will have played far more CM than I manage to fit in. I am interested in your views on the bog standard M4A3 sherman or sherman V for the Brits.
Specifically I have been surprised to find it an extremely effective tank in all conditions bar long range frontal exchanges with the German cats. It benefits from the fast turret of course but I have been surprised by its ability to smash the German pz4 with ease and even outfight tigers in many situations. The US army planned all battles with German armour with a high ratio of shermans to german panzers but in cm this seems to be unnecessary.
My knowledge of WW2 AFVs is not bad but perhaps I lack the detailed understanding. However the following occurences seem to happen often:
1) The side armour of the tiger does not seem to present a problem to the Sherman at all, even at ranges around 500m. At 90 degrees perpendicular this would seem fine, but I have noticed that penetrations seem to be made even when the plating is at an angle to the incoming shot. I was under the impression that even when attacking the side armour the sherman needed to be in close and even then was not guaranteed a kill by any means.
2) Sighting and accuracy of the sherman seems superior to the German guns. I have read on this board before that the German guns are more accurate but I do not find that to be the case at all. The Pz4 seems to be a woeful shot, the tiger not much better. Most accurate would appear to be the panther, but in comparison with the humble sherman I am surprised to find this. I have also found the 88 flak guns to be a big disappointment for accuracy - the Pak 40 gets more hits. Interestingly the British cromwell couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces - why does the sherman not suffer the same or even similar difficulties?
In addition in poor visibility the sherman seems more able to acquire a target. It has a quick reaction time and outfights the Pz4 every time. Tigers in the mist?? I'd have sherman every time with the abilities they have in CM. Is this an accurate reflection of reality?
Information please... Was the pz4 really such a poor match to the sherman? Did tigers really present little problem when some aspect of a side shot was possible? Do any of you find that a ratio of 4:1 is needed to outfight the cats? Or am I simply witnessing the quirks of fate.
One more thing while I am here - I am seeing a lot of gun hits rendering tanks useless, more than I would expect. Do you find the same? And finally [for sure] I am amazed that the 37mm on the stuart or the 2 pdr on the Daimler for that matter is able to make mincemeat with a front turret hit of the Pz4. In 1944? Why would the German designers put a tank into the field that was so vulnerable in an area you would expect to have the greatest protection, especially considering the german love of thick armour in other models?? I'm curious about that...
Food for thought on the eve of CMBB. Am I just seeing the sherman at its best due to luck? Please do not think I am questioning the value of the game - I love it to bits - I am just curious as to whether any of my observations ring true with anyone else.
Cheers
Al
-
"The word is given, Admiral..."
You have been told the likely date once already on this forum in recent weeks: 27th Sept is strongly rumoured to be the target release. Do not ask me where this originates from, but my source is most usually a reliable one. Until then there is just time for a last look at CMBO - it sounds as though few will be returning to it once CMBB takes over.
Cheers
Al
-
yup - the more info on work arounds the better. I have not experienced any other sort of crash other than capturing crews - I would emphasise that it is crews and not any other troops that cause it in my experience - but thanks for the tip.
Cheers
Al
-
I have been a victim of the disastrous "capture a crew and have your tcp game crashed out" bug on many occasions now. No doubt whatsoever that capturing a crew is what causes it. I had tried many ways around it - all had failed - and in the end my regular playing partner and I have taken to warning each other as to the locations of crews and either arranging their summary executions or adapting our moves to avoid running into them.
But the problem is no more! I THOUGHT I had tried everything, returned to this forum out of curiosity a few days ago when a mammoth 3 battle op with maximum units crashed out with 15 turns to go and found the solution.
Schrullenhaft - thank you. Taking the CLIENT save and using it for a pbem turn and then returning to tcp worked first time. I have run a few saves since then and each time the problem was cured. It is therefore a reliable enough cure to make me feel finally that the problem is in the past. Having to take one turn of pbem is a pain, but it is only one turn after all... I had tried running pbem turns before and returning to the tcp arrangement but never achieved any joy. I can only assume that we always used the save on the machine that did not appear to crash, but this is in error. The slower machine receiving the file that then crashes it out has the uncorrupted save.
I hope this post might be of help to any other players out there who fall foul of this bug. If you are a lover of the huge "****fight" involving large numbers of tanks and guns on big maps I am sure you have. Give schrullenhaft's solution a try and it will work.
Thanks again. Glad the bug will not be ion cmbb, but I can honestly say that the chances of me playing the odd game of cmbo after cmbb is released have gone up substantially with this bug now fixed.
Cheers
Al
-
Thanks - another feature to look forward to then
Cheers
Al
The Request Section
in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
Posted
Are scripted events randomly generated? I tried a couple of turns when first playing the game to get a quick feel, and upon taking poland had an option not to stick to the Nazi-Soviet Pact and instead take all of poland. In 3 more starts as the axis this option has not appeared again. Are there lots of such moments built in? Dont want to ruin my surprise by digging into the editor, so just wondering aloud how it works.