Panzer76
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Panzer76
-
-
So how do you propose that people should design the scenarios when they don't have the game?Originally posted by aka_tom_w:heck, maybe even propose a Demo scenario design competition?
(The demo would prob be released before the game is launched.)
-
-
The stupid Swedes in 1814. We all know it's Norwegian.Originally posted by Shmavis:Whoever said Denmark could have Greenland?
-
BFC has said that they will NOT include civilians in their games. I do not think this has changed with CMx2.
-
Just had to...Originally posted by impact42615:5) more environmental effects as well as bystanders. examples: hoes falling to the ground and even onto things nearby them
-
1. Campaign system where you carry your force forward, and (slowly) gains experience. You as commander may arean medals and gain ranks which gives you the ability to command (buy) more forces.
2. Multi-multi player option. 3 or more players able to play at the same time. Commanding their own forces (delegated at start of the game)
3. A point system that reflects the strenghts and weaknesses at the virtual battlefield better than now.
4. Make CM moddable, in the true sense of the word.
5. Multi-multi player campaign system
-
It was reported that to take down the IL-2 you needed 20 mm AP shells, not the normal HE variant. As these shells were in shorter supply, the 20mm Flak's success vs the IL2 was dependant on available 20mm AP ammo. </font>Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:
Light MGs that works against, but not 20mm and up stuff.
-
It was reported that to take down the IL-2 you needed 20 mm AP shells, not the normal HE variant. As these shells were in shorter supply, the 20mm Flak's success vs the IL2 was dependant on available 20mm AP ammo.Originally posted by JasonC:Light MGs that works against, but not 20mm and up stuff.
[ August 09, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]
-
I am aware of that.Originally posted by Moon:LOL... when you say "it takes so long time for the pilots to get some skills", that makes me wonder if you're aware that there is a 100 XP cap in the beta demo.
-
So, when I fisrt DLed the demo it was great and I played 4-5 hrs each day for 3 days straight.
Then.. the thrill sorta went away. It takes such a long time for the pilots (rotating and all) to gain some skills, and chances are they will die before long anyway.
When I first played the game I was certain I would order it, no.. Im no longer so sure.
-
Ah, I see. Thanks!
-
Player Name: Panzer
Pilot Name: Leader
5 kills
4 damage
70 exp
Could be other also, but I haven't bothered searching for them.
-
Perusing the leader boards I noticed that I had pilots that weren't ranked at all, and some of them should be highish, lage page 3.
Why is this?
And yes, I set the filters correct
-
How about whip lash, will whip lash be modelled? And oh, insurance agents and ambulance chasers, how about those?Originally posted by c3k:How about track whip? Lash up?
-
How about whip lash, will whip lash be modelled? And oh, insurance agents and ambulance chasers, how about those?Originally posted by c3k:How about track whip? Lash up?
-
And oh, I think Im done with our little "discussion". It also gives you more time to go back to you books and study, which I think would be a VERY good idea.
-
There MIGHT be a SLIGHT difference in hitting something on the practise range, and in combat.Originally posted by roqf77:http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_small_arms_in_the_section.htm
Check sa-80, effective range 400m
And oh, does not this hard-hitting-out-to-400m-wonder-weapon have a 5.56 mm calibre? LOL.
-
Ofcource it is. Which is why most armies do not equip their soldiers with scopes. You know, in the real wolrd, there may be some resource contrainst.Originally posted by bish777:British army does, the German army does. For most other armies its an issue of cost more than anything else.
-
Oh? I think you will find that MOST armies does NOT equip their assualt gun grunt a scope.Originally posted by roqf77:"Well, both I guess. But, if Im not mistaken, the iron sight for the WWII rifles were marked up to 500 m or more, I don't think you will find many assualt rifles sights with the same range. Or am I mistaken?"
true but most ww2 rifles werent issued with scopes either. most armies today are. unless the us army has produced some revisionist theory proving there a mistake to.
-
Originally posted by roqf77:
Are you saying that small arms made the difference in say, a year or a few months, of the duration of WWII? What I said is very easy to disprove, just dig up the caualties numbers by weapons from WWII.It might surprise you.
-
Well, both I guess. But, if Im not mistaken, the iron sight for the WWII rifles were marked up to 500 m or more, I don't think you will find many assualt rifles sights with the same range. Or am I mistaken?Originally posted by John D Salt:Or do you really mean that the design range of personal weapons has decreased?
-
And this lack of lethality is evident in short ranges as well as longer ranges. It's not the long range lack of leathality that matters, heck, you will have serious problems even hitting anyone in such a combat situation.Originally posted by bish777:The problem with the M4 carbine is that it seriously compromised lethality over the M16 and bullpup rifles that its not really that effective a weapon.
-
As the article mentioned, the engagemet ranges for small arms has been very limited in every conflict since the dawn of gunpowder.Originally posted by roqf77:besides is every war in the world gonna be faught in iraq?
Seems you confuse your pride for your big brother with objectivity.
-
So Afghanistan is an example of two modern armies clashing? :confused:Originally posted by roqf77:panzer 76 that is exactly my point and you have just proved what i said. look at afganistan and you will see a different story. thankyou for proving my point i couldnt put it any better my self.
Also, if you read the articles, it was pointed out that these engagment ranges has been common since WWII and before.
This is utter nonsense. Take a look at WWII for example, what caused the casualties? Artilliry for the most part.Originally posted by roqf77:and in a modern war, unless it turned into a nuke fight then yes they would!
And with superior MGs, the back bone of the sqd, the germans still lost. And they had the Stg44.
You seem to think that the difference between having a AK47 or M16, or a Carabine or a rifle will really matter in a modern world, on the grand scale. News flash, it won't.
I understand you are very passionate about this, but I find your opinions, and reasoning lacking focus and sense. But hey, it's a free country (some places anyway), so have a ball.
to what extent will TOEs be able to be changed?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted