Iron Chef Sakai

looks like i'll be signing up for rugged defense then, thanks alot!

Dorosh, that link to the cmbb forum is nice!! finaly a mod for cmbo where the german infantry are not dressed in battleship grey!!! i can now use the same green in wich they actualy had. why do all games model the germans in grey? whether it was axis and allies years ago or this game or anyhting inbetween, the germans have to be grey.

the russians had great winter boots as well, these were also a highly prized item for the beleguered german troops during the winter.

on rugged defense, are the games strictly pbm, or can you play ip games agaisnt oppononets as well?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: If you mean the flak halftracks with the 37mm or 20mm cannon, they are generally considered to be gamey when used in games against other people. The reason is that they aren't armored at all, so tanks don't shoot AP rounds at them, they shoot HE rounds under them so the blast kills them. However, this makes them a lot harder to kill, giving them an unrealistic advantage, especially against zooks, 57mm ATGs, and similar units with very little blast. The 20mm will take out the M18 without any problem, and I think it might be able to kill the M10 as well.<hr></blockquote> how is that "gamey"? the 20mm/37mm were quite common on the battlefield. just because the 20mm is a good weapon, does not make it gamey. they are alot easier to take out then you think. does the king tiger have an unrealistic advantage vs the 57mm and bazooka squads as well? if you want to call something "gamey" why not pick on the panther, or tiger. compare the number of 20mm guns produced vs the number of tiger tanks produced. the only thing i find "gamey" with other people is the massive use of the puma, or any other scout car for that matter thrown into a front line combat role. just does not make much sense, but it's not a big deal to me. the 20mm was a good weapon, but i'd say its a little more vulnerable then you think. from what your describing, your making it sound like a heavy tank, wich they too are vulnerable as well, along with every other squad/vehicle you want to pick.

i still can't beleive they are doing the whole eastern war, 41-45. i'm still having a blast with cmbo and that does'nt even cover a whole year, and it's still my favorite game right now. oh by the way, i recently reformated my computer so lost my mods. the site where i got my mods is gone now, they were soem realy good mods too, would you by any chance know of a realy good site for mods?

in the winter months though, the soviets would wear white, the soviets were not in berlin until april right? the germans, after the winter of 41 also used winter cammo for their soldiers and vehicles, on both fronts.

i have a question about the uniforms in cmbb. i have noticed from the sneak peeks of the game on the cmhq site that there is no winter cammo. i saw a winter map with russian soldiers running around in the snow wearing brown uniforms, and it made no sense to me. are we going to have to download winter mods for cmbb? the russians commonly dressed in white during the winter, as did the germans so i was just wondering if this will be modeled or not :confused:

i find ai in general bland. this is not a gripe mind you. the ai in this game is much better then others, it's just i enjoy the inconsistancies and unpredictability of humans. sometimes they do what you think they will, sometimes they will surprise you. i also like to chat while i play to, the ai doesnt make much for conversation :cool:

playing people is the way to go, thats all i do is play humans, i played the ai once just to get a feel for the game. this game is funnest againdt other people in my opinion. as far as once fool proof tactic, i.e massing forces, well it won't always work, you need to take a look at the map first, even better is if you can figure out what your opponent is going to do or will want to do.

i suggest going to the doctor first if your having real pain before it gets worse, then replacing your mouse/mouse pad and what not.

i have a question about the eye strain part, my eyes are fine, and i have a 19" sony monitor, but it better to play with dim lights, or no lights at all? just wondering.

those BT-7's are going to be alot of fun. and i'd like to say here that i was very happy to hear the inclusion of finnish troops. i'm just way to excited about this game, i'm going to stop this here before i type into the nether regions of forum space that would circle half way around the forum to connect with the peng thread.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: It's on my sound effect list, yes. Actually, I am hoping to add a great deal of stuff to the total CMBB audio experience. Time will tell what I can and can not do. Monitoring this forum 24/7 certainly isn't helping matters I must tell you... Madmatt<hr></blockquote>i understand that things from time to time may get unruly on this forum, but is it me or does this sound like he is trying to talk to us like children who won't get presents from santa if their bad or something.

the allies were going to use chem warfare on the germans, but the ships that were storing them were destroyed by stukas at anzio if i remember correctly.

yup, i saw stuff like that on that eastern front footage, t-34's, tigers, kv's, you name it.

i can't wait for vehicle morale in cmbb.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Herr Kruger: Mopey turret?! LOL! That was funny! I'd love to see damage effects, I don't really need tanks flipping over (is it really easy for 20-40 tons to flip over in the air?)...<hr></blockquote> you have no f-ing idea my friend , the show i mentioned was real war footage and showed t-34's going up 10-20 ft in the air. you'd think the tanks were light as a feather from the way it looked. i have only seen this show i am refering to once, and i almost could'nt beleive what i was watching, it made saving private ryan look like the little mermaid. it was'nt a remake or anyhting it was actual war footage taken from russian and german archives.

play with green troops.

forget stalingrad, i was to see sevastapol, and kharkov.

anyone spot bill cosby as a german tank commander yet?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: Here is an example of a CM nebelwerfer barrage, used as they were intended. The target was a green US rifle battalion with various attachments and modifications. The line companies were deployed in a wedge, each in a diamond formation with the weapons platoon the rear corner. In the center of the formation, behind the lead company, there was a road column of trucks and jeeps carrying the recon platoon, MG platoon with attached jeep MGs added, ATG platoon, and a platoon of engineers attached. Off the road to the left was the battalion mortar platoon, and off the road to the right was an HQ position with trucks, jeeps. The total frontage was around 1400 yards, and the total depth was about half that. There were 22 vehicles in the road column, and 12 more in the mortar and HQ positions off the road. The total manpower, including drivers, was 858 men. The Germans had 4 regular 150mm rocket FOs, with the ammo for each nudged to 27 rounds. Thus together the salvo would be 108 rounds, which is one "ripple" by a nebelwerfer battalion (6 rounds each of 6 launchers in each of 3 batteries, firing together), and the way they were actually meant to be used. There is a bit of lead time for the rockets to start landing, and some time dispersion from random variations from the FOs. Once the first rocket landing, it was a two minute affair. The targets had about 45 seconds of recovery on the last turn after the barrage, then both sides (hot seat of course) agreed to cease fire and I examined the results. The US force lost 89 men including 19 KIA, which was slightly over 10% of the force. In addition, 21 out of 34 soft vehicles were knocked out, including about a dozen burning. 2/3rds of the road column was knocked out, and the road completely impassable due to burning vehicles. One 57mm ATG was dismounted in the roadway. 3/4 of the vehicles of the HQ section were also knocked out, but the 81mm mortar position was spared. The flank companies were mostly alright, though one platoon lost 7 men and another lost a bazooka. The center company was slightly harder hit. But the largest losses happened in the column, with the recon platoon (at the point of it, which was an aim point of 2 of the 4 FOs) cut in half. Broken drivers were scattered here and there, pinned MGs crawled about, a few HQs were eliminated and others reduced to 1 man, the engineers lost 1 FT and a couple of zooks were gone as well. A spoiling barrage like that would not KO the battalion fired upon, but it certainly inflicted attrition losses and disorganized the unit. In this particular case, the loss of vehicles was also important, and realistically would have stopped the column for the day - though the infantry might have advanced without their heavy weapons for a klick or two. In addition, each rocket fired inflicted on average 5/6ths of 1 casualty. Now, the Germans were making and using 1-2 *million* 150mm rockets each year (1 million in 42 and 43, 2 million in 44). Anything like that rate of attrition per rocket fired would mean truly important levels of overall losses. If they got targets of the right density and size, accuracy was irrelevant. They could just keep chucking the things and rack up wounded enemies. Since some targets were thinner or smaller, some misidentified, some missions harassment or at targets that had already moved, or were dug in, etc, the actual losses per rocket fired were considerably lower in the real deal than in the above CM test shoot. What it shows is that the level of effectiveness they can have in CM, used on the right target, if it had actually been achieved historically would have made the German shooters very happy. The impression of uselessness comes simply from trying to use a weapon meant to shoot at battalions, against single platoons. And from trying to use 25 rounds instead of 100. A salvo of 100 rockets costs in CM about what a US 105mm battery with the same number of shells costs. The 150mm rockets have twice the blast and arrive in under 2 minutes of firing, instead of 8. As long as the target is large enough, they therefore give considerably more bang for the buck than US 105mm batteries. But they do not do tight targets, one platoon at a time. If you aren't going to dump an industrial load of HE onto a large target covering a wide area, they are simply not the right weapon for the job. But if you are, they will do it well, and cheaply. Which after all was the real historical point of the things...<hr></blockquote> the german army in 1944 to say the least, did not have enough of anything or anywhere close the numnbers they needed, you did not comment of the katyusha tactics, look up how they were deployed, say in 1944 when the russain war machine was rolling.

i have seen some gruesome footage of the eastern front on pbs a long time ago, and it showed tanks being hit by ground attack planes and dive bombers. here in lies my question, will the effects of the destroyed tank look the same as if a tank knocked it out? when ground attack planes and dive bombers hit tanks, it was common for the tank to go flying up into the air and land on it's roof, ect... i don't see this being modeled, but will there at least be improved effects, mabe turrets getting blow clean off under a hard enough hit? even shells that hit the tank and don't knock it out, say form another tank, will they leave a mark, dents, mabe effect the pretty paint jobs if on a german tank a little? i've seen some screen shots from the game and it looks very good, thats why i am inquiring about graphical damage since they are deciding to take the graphics high road,instead of just completly copying cmbo and adding russain units, wich was a good idea.

20mm were commonly used against ground targets, as was the 88.

best was to take out anti-tank guns is with mortars if possible