Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Sarge Saunders

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    337

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Sarge Saunders

    T-34s vs. PzIII's vs Shermans

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by ParaBellum:

    Didn't have the soviets BIG problems with their AT rounds? That is, rounds that should be able to penetrate the armour because of calibre/weight and muzzle velocity but fail to penetrate because the rounds shatter on impact?

    Yeah they did from what I have read around this forum. For example, in 42 the T34s have big trouble killing a StuG IIIF (late) with frontal shots. I began to think that in close situations (< 300 meters) that the Sherman would do better. It does from my tests. Better AP rounds must be the reason.

    As a side note, Shermans still have much, much more trouble with the StuG III than it ever had in CMBO. In fact, beyond 300 yards it will ricochet more often than penetrate. I wonder if this "tweak" is because of new slope modifiers in CMBB or if it is a result of different AP round heuristics.

    Any tank grogs know?

    -Sarge

    [ October 27, 2002, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

    0

    Movement Through buildings

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Hey Shultzie! Your test is correct. Large buildings (not factories) next to each other do not allow movement directly. There is not "mouseholing". No choice but to run into the street and into the next building.

    Also note that destroying a building and turning it into rubble STILL will not allow movement directly from the rubble into the adjacent building.

    Now with CMBB there is sewer movement which is a nice way to go from building to building. But it takes lots of time....

    Cheers!

    -Sarge

    0

    More waypoints = more delay. Realistic?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by xerxes:

    The single biggest objection is the delay for plotting a vehicle going down a road that has turns. This could be fixed (and it would be really nice if it was) by a "follow the road to point A" command.

    This also is my largest concern with the new waypoint delays. But I have one more: The need to make waypoints to change speeds. I may run my squads forward in a straight line but I sure don't need them running through trees and houses, thus becoming tired. Yet, I almost always want them running across open ground. This would be standard. Thus I must command to move through trees, run across the field, and then move again when you enter the building. So it seems, to me at least, that these are things normally not communicated by commands in the heat of battle. It comes down to training.

    Other than these, I think the waypoint delay system adds a level of realism that is welcomed by me.

    -Sarge

    0

    Tank Rider Penalty?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael emrys:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

    Just a comment...but a tank should have trouble traversing with infantry riding on it....or so one would think.

    Why? A motor built to move a turret weighing multiple tons is scarcely going to notice the slight resistance of a human body, assuming that the said human body lacked the awareness to get out of the way in the first place. The other thing is that most turrets didn't exactly whip around at a great pace anyway.

    Michael</font>

    0

    Tank Rider Penalty?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I think I have discovered an interesting tactic (used against me). Infantry riding on a tank can help spot for the tank when the tank has to button up. (read "Borg spotting"). Of course infantry won't stay on the tank when under fire but it could be critical in those split-second tank duels.

    Just a comment...but a tank should have trouble traversing with infantry riding on it....or so one would think.

    -Sarge

    0

    Flamethrower Tanks and Area Fire

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Bought one of those KV flamethrower tanks recently and thought I would use to flame enemy infantry out of buildings. Funny thing is that whenever I use the area fire command it will shoot the cannon but not the flamethrower. What gives? Never behaved this way in CMBO. I am close enough (within 70 meters) and I have set up a test in the scenario editor to confirm this behavior. The tank flames fine when it actually targets enemy units but no flame area fire!?

    Could this be an intentional behavior? Maybe to avoid gamey burning but flaming known, yet hiding, infantry out of buldings is hardly gamey!!

    Anyone else notice this? Speak up! :D

    -Sarge

    0

    BFC Look Here--> Quick Battle Parameter Info: Odd?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    OK, here is the deal...

    The problem with the way CM is coded is that we can't change the order in which things are or aren't shown. In other words, we can't introduce something in a different order or way than things are displayed now.

    {snip}

    The change will be in the 1.01 patch.

    Steve

    This would be the most fair short-term solution. This way neither side knows the terrain when it is set to random. It will be a complete surprise. Those not comfortable with this should just avoid random.

    It wil be interesting for both sides not to know. Then those Super Heavy tanks won't be so great once the random weather turns out to be mud! Or the hordes of AT guns don't do much good in heavy trees, etc. Forces a player to purchase conservatively I think.

    0

    BFC Look Here--> Quick Battle Parameter Info: Odd?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Hey I don't know if this has been brought up yet but I like the new info/briefing screen you get when you load up a QB PBEM that has been sent. The only problem I can see is that the person who set it up does not get to see that screen before making purchases.

    Of course the person setting it up would know all the parameters. Except if map settings are set to random then the first person will not know the terrain (town, village, etc.) before purchasing but the second person WILL.

    BFC please fix or do sumfink! :D

    [ October 01, 2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

    0
×
×
  • Create New...