Placebo
-
Posts
503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Placebo
-
-
We really need gun jams in the game. I miss that from CM1. Also what about barrel changes for the MG42, they must have happened pretty frequently.
-
The 11 years between Western Front games (CMBO->CMBN) was a little much
Which means at best every 3 years you would have a choice to either stick with what you have or pay another $100+ to enjoy a new game experience with (basically) the same game content.Steve
Agree, when you see the future plans it seems to be adding up to a lot of money, but over a 3 yr time period for one game refresh/base game it really will not be an issue.... bring it on
-
Come on, how much does a movie ticket for two hours Hollywood-bull**** or how much does a pizza or fastfood cost?
In a time where even unemployed people are getting fatter and fatter, because they are to lazy to cook, or where people don't even know, how much money they spend every week and month for unnecessary things, i find it extremely ridiculous, to complain about the handful of dollars for such a fine piece of software.
And before the poor whiners appear, here's a tip: Stop eating meat. Buy 10 kg of potatoes, rice, spaghetti, bread and butter and marmelade and eat that for only one week. Then you have the money for a whole family game saved. :mad:
Relevant - how?????
-
Boy, how does something so simple get so complicated. I must admit i am am happy to buying into the design model, as the standard for games now seems to be:
base module cheap but with add-ons, it adds up to more than a single full price game and shorter inital dev time to market.
But with so many base games coming out at $65 each this does become quite an expensive group of games. When the game engine is evolving not being re-written like CM1 to CMSF and CMSF to CM2 I am not sure fortress italy and Eastern front justify a full base game price tag.
-
Amazing news, looking forward to all 3 already!!!
-
Still playing regularly over one year after release, and the on going refreshes the game is going to get from the future modules, is going to keep me playing for a long time yet!!
-
I was just thinking about starting The Road to Montebourg again. I will wait for your update is should mix things up a bit.
-
And nothing to say about the ASH missions? :eek: How many of them did you play? Did you get to play the Odon Bridges mission? I spent absolutely ages crafting the map for that one and playtesting the AI plans.
I am only just getting to the ASH battles now, partly because I am splitting time between the german campaign but also as i did so badly in the initial battles the tattered remains of my forces made the later battles impossible so I have restarted this campaign several times
However I have learnt it is more important to preserve forces than push for every kill and VL (which I always do on single battles). This has got me through to the ASH battles on Veteran so things are looking good :cool:
-
Nobody wants to put the work in if they are gonna update it. It would be a waste. Aris already plans on doing one but not until BFC releases the fixed version.
Someone did step up and do a very nice Lynx mod, but I suspected people would wait for the update first.
-
Every other tank seems to have modded user skins, but I have not seen any for hte KT. Is that because people are waiting for the update? If there is a released KT mod please post here as i may have missed it.
-
One more for the list - the attacker being able to select one of several victory locations, without the defender knowing so he must try to defend them all.
-
A couple of interesting sites:
http://sparkyasundevil.tripod.com/id24.html
101st Airborne Division after-action reports for Market Garden.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/arnhem.html
U.S. Military Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945 - "The Arnhem Operation"
They look interesting - thanks
-
"1. GUN JAMS.
Remember when your vickers would jam up at that critical moment while covering another squad in CMBO? Can you imagine your MG-34 misfiring in CMBN? What a great and realistic aspect that would be! I miss it."
I had forgotten all about gun jams - and miss the feature now you have reminded me!!
Fire - absolutely
I did love the mis-identifying of tanks and sound contacts, it added a real twist to battles. However I think it has been confirmed this is not possible with the new game engine
Prisioners - have to say i prefer the system now, you still have to go and secure soldiers with their hands up, but it is much better that they dissappear and do not need escorting off the field.
-
I have just ordered a couple of books in preperation for the next module (not that I am bored with CW yet
) The Battle for the Rhine 1944 : Arnhem and the Ardennes - The Campaign in Europe
It Never Snows in September: The German View of Market-Garden and the Battle of Arnhem September 1944
They seem to get good reviews on amazon, does anyone have any recommendations for good reading of the operation?
-
From the benefit of Mr Salt's work. Extracted information not all of which is readily comprehensible to me!
WO 291/472 Performance and handling of HE grenades.
A trial of grenade-throwing accuracy was conducted using the 36 grenade (Mills bomb), taking the average of 18 throws (3 throws by 6 men). The average errors, in feet, at different ranges were:
_______________15 yds 20 yds 30 yds 40 yds
Guards Range_____ 5_____11____ 14 ____12
____Line________________4 _____10 ____10
Devons Range – ___-______26 ____11 ___14
Line _____________– _____9 ______8____ 11
For stick grenades, "the stick does not seem to increase the maximum accurate throw, but it does prevent rolling". Average errors and length of roll, in feet, are given as:
________________Range Line Roll
Mills 36 ___________ 15_ 8__ 9
Time-fuzed stick ____ 8_ 8___3
Chances of incapacitation, at different distances from different grenades, are given as:
Distance--------- 36 grenade---- USA grenade ---------------German stick grenade
(feet) -----------------------Normal filling TNT filling ----------On base As thrown
3 ________________________________________________________-97%___ 83%
6 _________________________________________________________92%___ 75%
9 _________________________________________________________70% ___45%
10 _______________45%______ 20%______ 40%
20 _______________17% _______7% ______18%
30 _______________13% _______2%________10%
40 _______________10% ______0.5% _______5%
50 –
60 ________________3.0%
70 ________________1.4%
80_________________0.7%
The USA grenade was given an experimental TNT filling for these tests. Only one German grenade was available, so this was fragmented on its base and the results used to calculate the expected results "as thrown", the orientation of a thrown grenade being significant in affecting its burst pattern.
The 36 grenade, it is stated. "has a very irregular burst". The lethal area of the 36 grenade is given as 1550 sq ft on meadow land, and that of the USA grenade 350 sq ft. The lethal area of the 36 grenade is calculated as 2000 sq ft on perfectly flat ground, which would correspond to 1500 sq ft on normal ground. On perfectly smooth ground, incapacitation probabilities are stated as being 84% at 10 feet, falling to 14% at 30 feet.
Maximum throws, in yards, for different types of British grenade:
Grenade Standing Lying
70 _______33 ____31
71_______ 28 ____23
36 _______30 ____26
"The conclusions with regard to the 69 grenade were:–
(i) A direct hit would be lethal
(ii) Apart from the concussive effect and flying stones there seems to be little probability of injury
Length of throw, in yards, for British and US grenades:
A Standing behind cover
B In the open
C Crouching behind cover
D Lying in the open
British 36 A31 C21
US fragmentation A31 C21
British 69 B32 D26
US offensive B28 D26
Average length of throw, in yards, for different British grenades:
AGrenade Standing behind cover
BCrouching behind cover
C Lying
___A_B__C
70 29 24 23
71 25 22 22
36 30 25 24
69 26 23 24 (segmented jacket)
69 28 23 22 (plain jacket)
Screen test results giving percentage chance of incapacitation at different ranges:
Grenade 4 feet 8 feet 12 feet
70 85 39 20
71 98 63 36
36 73 29 14
69 (segmented jacket) 96 56 31
69 (plain jacket) 91 44 23
Finally, the average percentage chances of incapacitation at 10 to 20 feet are given as 33% for the 36 grenade, 25% for the US rifle grenade M9A1, an anti-tank grenade, but with good anti-personnel characteristics.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All very interesting stuff. Inaccuracies in throwing, the benefit of not rolling, the lethality etc all very interesting. Note that these range experiments show up some inefficient grenades justifying the value of the work. Thanks to JD Salt for letting these War Office extracts become more widely known.
I think the biggest danger of this grenade test is death by statistics
-
"Not just some new models, but dozens of hours worth of scenarios and campaigns"
Agree totally ,the campaigns bring the game engine to life and are probably the major investment in terms of developent.
-
Just a thought on the next module and campaign. As the outcome of op market garden was so not dependent on other areas outside of the scope of the operation, (compared with normandy, where one battle groups actions would not have directly affected the overall success of the invasion).
Will it will be possible to turn market garden into an Allied victory (and the war being over by Christmas
) if all the Allied objectives can be achieved. -
I am really looking forward to the Operation market garden campaign (hopefully they will be Allies and German playable versions). The way the latest CW campaigns have evolved from the initial release is really good. Gone are the days of endless QB's, now I prefer the set piece battles with the reuse of forces over a campaign.
-
Just to clarify I am not blind just had signatures turned off
-
I can't see a link in the thread, should i be looking in the repository?
-
Paper Tiger, is seems a waste to not let those unfinished maps not see the light of day. Perhaps they could be standalone battles as they could be interesting to play from both sides.
-
That's what you get for taking a uber Tank Destroyer on the attack. I learned never to assault, attack or probe with a tank destroyer.
I am sure i read somewhere that Hitler diverted Jadgpanther production away from the eastern front to units preparing for the Andennes offensive. Taking from its ideal role of defending in open countryside to the offence in forest and hills!
-
I have read some posts about the poor A.I so have to own up to being surprised and soundly beaten in a quick battle (wego).
I setup an assult on a village with panzergrenadiers and a platoon of the Nazi wonder weapon Jagpanthers vs US mixed formation (auto selected).
The attack on the village all goes according to plan but there is no sign of the platoon of shermans I know are out there. So I send my tanks to the ridge at the back of the map to flush them out.
My first tank is taken out with a side hit, wasteful but i know where they are now and send in the tanks head on to finish them. The first tank over the ridge is hit with 3 or 4 frontal shots and the 105 manages to distroy the wepon controls so my tank is now useless. Then to my surprise the shermans come flying out of their hidden positions in a flanking maneouver. I take out 1 sherman but the speed leaves one of my tanks open to a side hit which takes it out. Desperate to keep my last tank fighting i reverse while targeting another sherman, however do to the limited angle of fire it moves out of my line of sight while reversing and another faster sherman is now behind me and finished off my last Jadgpanther.
I am gutted about being shown up against the AI destroying my superior force but had to post on the forum as I was so impressed with the way the AI acted!!
-
Panthers seem to be able to take a lot of punishement and keep firing, I had 1 panther with at least 3 partial or full side penetrations and it was still going despite crew and equip damage!
They can be really rugged, a very different to the sherman "tommy cooker" experience.
Which means at best every 3 years you would have a choice to either stick with what you have or pay another $100+ to enjoy a new game experience with (basically) the same game content.
)
CM 2.0 Ripoff - wrong payment strategy
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
A great game deserves support and on-going development (however i do hope the patch price is closer to MikeyD $5 than Schrullenhaft's $40 guesstimates)