Puff the Magic Dragon
-
Posts
278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Puff the Magic Dragon
-
-
...well, and for some reasons I also don't like to have all the mods in my CM folder. Example: I'm not so familiar with CMMOS - does it allow to remove a modpack from the drive? If not, then I would for prefer to test it first. This can be done when I have it in an extra directory, but difficult when it is somewhere in my BMP folder, together with some hundred or thousand other files. Direct extraction from the zip would be a good idea, too, to keep the disc 'clean'.Originally posted by Gordon:That's certainly not out of the question, but there are a couple of issues that need to be considered. First, it would increase the length of time it takes to select an option due to the slower data transfer rate of the CD drive. Second it would involve having to remember to do the CD-shuffle to make sure you've got the mods CD in the drive and not the CM:BO (or eventually the CM:BB) CD in the drive.
As I said, not out of the question, but not necessarily without downsides either.
Gordon
-
If I understood it correct, then I have to copy all mod files into my CM BMP folder, yes? To be true, I really don't like that, cause I have to waste a lot of my diskspace with 'dead files'. I guess it will not get better wen CM:BB is available.
Wouldn't it be a good idea when the files can be saved in a different directory (so I can even burn them on a CD)?
-
Where is the third bone of Operation Bone throw? Have I missed it, or is MM to bussy making PR for other games?
-
...like Daikatana?Originally posted by Stixx:Think of it this way...
The longer they spend working on it the better it will be!!!
-
I don't like the Fionn-75 rules for a simple reason. The German 75mm is better regarding penetration and Vo. The Allies 75mm is very inaccurate on the long ranges.
I prefer Scipio's medium class rules for the uninitiated, check www.warfarehq.com . They allow the Hellcat and the M-10 (Woolverine). The 76mm US gun is not much better then the German 75mm (without Tungsten rounds), while both tanks - especially the Hellcat - are relative vulnerable. I think it is a better challenge.
I also like his more detailed artillery rule.
[ May 20, 2002, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Drop dead? How about a big cheque from 'someone'?Originally posted by Brian:Mmmm, raises an interesting question, perhaps one some people might not like to contemplate. How dependent is BTS on Charles's expertise at programming? What would happen if he (heaven forbid it) dropped dead, tomorrow? Would BTS be able to survive and move forwards?
[ May 10, 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Hah - I'm always right. I'm a dragon!!! I will tell this my mommyOriginally posted by Madmatt:I am always awake Puff but it is YOU that I see being out of line. Andreas asked some legitamate questions and now you resort to childish comebacks and distorting his name. Knock it off and learn to conduct yourself with more maturity or else I WILL be coming back here, hard.
Understand?
By the way, units are affected to various degrees to what happens around them including being scared to some extent becuase of the presence of enemy units or to what occurs to adjacent units. In CMBO it is not always evident, in CMBB it is MUCH more so, espically with the new vehicle moral system in play.
Madmatt
. However, Andreas still doesn't offer better facts. This is the typical way of acting here. He attacks my position - what is his good right. He is been asked for better facts - he disapears. Well, anyway, before I must go back to kindergarten.
Madmatt, I have not said that troops don't react - but IMO they reacted in reality much more, even when they were not affected. Unit A is slaughtered by tanks. Unit B see that and runs away, even they didn't received a single shot yet. Panic is a 'disease' that spreads out very quick and can make a whole frontline break apart. What usually happens in case of armored breakthroughts.
What has it to do with tanks is close combat? Well, I think it is important why a tank crews can miss a shot on short distance. They just lost the nerves. I know that vehicels will have a moral factor in CM:BB - however, I still think this is something to work on. Maybe it would be a nice idea to show the moral of a crew - even for some moments - as 'Scared'
. This would help to understand some situations.BTW, just seen today in a battle : three Tigers and one Panther vs two Jacksons on 200 meters. Only one Jackson was known. Lost one Tiger to the unspotted Jackson - one shot, one kill. The Panther killed the already spotted Jackson with one shot. The other Tigers targeted now the second Jackson, both missed (Iassume they were scared, cause they've lost a comrade). The Jackson killed another Tiger with a one-shot-hit. Then the Panther killed the second Tiger, also with one shot. Sounds like a realistic result to me. The only unrealism here is - IMO - that large battle tanks were not issued to fight on that close range. I guess it was Andreas who said that? Tigers were long range weapons. However, CM battles usually doesn't take place on maps that are big enough and with open terraine. If you make the right map, you can use your tanks in the right battle situation, and you can see realistic results.
[ May 02, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Puff, if you don't like someone questioning your unqualified and meaningless generalisations, maybe you should refrain from making them? The question for the location of Shisdra is important, because if it is in the Orel area, I take it that is Steppe country? Now obviously very stupid people would compare combat distances in the Steppe to those in France, but I am sure that would not happen to such a distinguished contributor to this board as you.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:
Antrollas - I'm not sure if I should take you serious. Your whole post only sounds the way like 'I don't like what he say, let's ask a bunch of - sorry, partially very stupid - questions to undermine his position.'
Late war is generally accepted to be 1944-5. In your head you are welcome to claim that late war is 1937 in Spain and draw conclusions, or whatever else, but don't expect others to follow.
I will also report your post to the moderators. We have so far had a reasonable discussion, I will not let you wreck that.
Have a nice day.</font>
-
Sorry, I forgotten to mention the year: 1943. I see this as late war, when long range guns were used, not the relative short range weapons like the 3.7 - 5 cm calibers or the short 7.5cmOriginally posted by Andreas:Puff, basing very general conclusions on one example is maybe a bit rash?
More specifically:
Where is Shisdra? What makes you think this was a late-war example? What makes you think it is generalisable? What makes you think these are confirmed kills? Where did you find that quote saying 'maximum possible distance' for the Pak40? What is the definition of 'maximum possible distance'?
Tanks die fast when they are hit - maybe, but do you always know they are dead? I have a nice example from Stug Brig.276 showing the opposite.
Antrollas - I'm not sure if I should take you serious. Your whole post only sounds the way like 'I don't like what he say, let's ask a bunch of - sorry, partially very stupid - questions to undermine his position.'
To locate Shisdra, take your atlas. Care for possible misspelling. It's somewhere in the Orel area.
The autors have an excellent reputation. The example was taken as exemplarily for the performance of the PzIV with 7.5cm 40/L43 in Spring 1943. Of course I can't be sure how generalizable this is. Of course I can only assume that the autors know what they are talking about. If you have written something else in your books, then please excuse - what was their title, and where can I purchase them, please?
If smoke comes everywhere out of the tank, burning crew members jump out the hatches etc, I take this as a good indicator to say : 'This tank is taken out'. I said that each hit with the Pz.Gr.39 resulted in a burning tank, did I? Beside that, this were reported kills for the four mentioned tanks - reported by the 5. Panzer Division, lead by Oberst Johannes Nedtwig, Panzer Corps Scheele, 2. Pz Armee, Heeresgruppe Mitte. Please excuse, I wasn't there personaly - I assume you have this advantage?
- again I must believe that this numbers weren't fictional.The 'greatest possible range' is the range where the gun has a good chance to hit & kill the tank. However, the correct term was IIRC 'start the fire as early as possible'. Maybe I interpreted this wrong.
-
Tero
Yep, right. I forgotten to mention this.The TC is always the first to go no matter who would be killed/disabled IRL.
This is right. A higher ROF results in a faster overheated gun, this reduces the muzzel velocity and has direct negative effect on the accuracy.IMO high ROF should not give you an advantage just because you can in theory bracket a target faster than your opponent. There were also disadvantages..Here a quote from the book PzKpfw IV by Spielberger/Doyle/Jentz :
What can we learn from this?The 5. Panzer Division, equipted with 4 Pz.Kpfw.IV - maingun 7,5cmKw.K40 L/43, reported kills of this tanks in the time from 22 February to 20 March east of Shisdra(Russia):17 KV-1
26 T-34
1 T-26
1 Mark II
3 Mark III
1 General Lee (M3)
The battle distance was ussually 1200-1600 meters
With the Pz.Gr.39 2-3 shots were needed, each hit resulted in a deadly burn out (hope this is the correct translation of 'Brandwirkung'), with Gr.HL/B rarely made the tank burn, 1-5 were needed per kill. In this time, the Division lost only one of the four PzKpfw.IV-7,5cmKw.K.40L/43
a) I was wrong in my earlier post. Tanks die fast when they are hit.
The normal distance for real tank battles is above 1000m, at least in the later war. The normal CM battle distance is - even on big maps - usualy below 1000m. I also remember a report about the 7.5cm PAK - the normal attack range was the biggest possible distance to the target. c) The German guns were very accurate. The chance to hit is about 33-50% on 1200 - 1600 meters - in real battle conditions.
Now I checked this in CM with a stationary PzIV and a stationary Sherman on 1432 meters, optimum possible targeting circumstances, the Sherman shows his side. The chance to hit is shown as :
22% for a regular crew
24% for a veteran crew
28% for a crack crew
33% for an elite crew
So the CM hit probability is even in best circumstances with the best crew on the lower end of the possible results, compared to the real war results.
[ May 02, 2002, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Matt, do you really think we love it to be tortured with bones?
Well, I won't appear as ungrateful - I just feel a bit fed up with bones. I want meat : GIMME CM:BB NOW! GIMME GIMME GIMME
-
Folks, please excuse if this has been said already - I have not studied all answers above in detail. Just my opinion about gun accuracy in
CM.
- Gun accuracy is, if I understood it right, resolved by a die roll and a hit probability. Of course there are some factors that can't be abstracted in math formula, but most of this is nothing but hard coded physics. I mean hardcoded by the programmer of the universe we live in
. There may be a random factor for each fired shot, but all what I have read about guns, it was much smaller then it seem to be modeled in CM - of course speaking as a person without knowledge of the CM source code and used formulas. For example, in reality the chance of hit dramatically rises if the distance to the target is known. This is absolutly not modeled in CM. For the same reason the probability to hit rises with each shot that is fired on the same (not or slow moving) target. That was - and is still trained today - the common technique to aim : First shot goes to far, second shot to short, but at the third shot the distance could be calculated - hasta la vista, baby. The real difficulty is to find the distance to the target. In CM I always see the shells fly far to the left or right. This is - maybe - only an 'optical bug', or it is wrong modeled.- Unfortunatly I wasn't yet able to find a reliable source for or against my second doubt. I can only refer on some eye witnesses in different books I have read about tank battles. It appears to me that the number of hits were higher than we see in CM, while the chance to place a deadly hit was lower. Tanks got often badly damaged by several hits before they were really taken out. Part of the problem seem to be here that CM does not simulate duds or low quality ammo in general. Each fired round is in perfect condition. Same of course for the guns - 'worn out' barrels does not exist. Beside that, the damage model for tanks is very limited. Track hit = immobile. Gun hit = gun damaged. Penetration = 95% knocked out or abandoned. I wonder why it was so important in my military service to learn and know the really vulnerable points of a battle tank. However, this is only a personal theory, until I find a reliable source for hit probability and damaged caused by a hit.
[ May 02, 2002, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Scipio has made one for rain. Excellent. Look at www.warfarehq.com
-
MrSpkr This is correct, but I didn't said that VL-battle should be history. Area-battle should be an additional mode to play. How about the 'no step back' doctrine?
Beside that, of course the map would have still 'key points'. But the player would be forced to find them by himself. And - talking about QBs - what is the difference to the arbitrary placed VLs? The player must develop the ability to control the map and destroy the enemy. With VLs, the posibilitys are limited. The attack points are obvisious.
BTW, I didn't mean the flag-storming at the end of the battle. A mean the general concept. Of course VLs often makes sense. But an example for the 'Area-control'
I once played a battle with only tanks. A had an exellent fire position inmy first third of the map. My opponent knew that and hides all his tanks behind some hills after some casualties, and we ended that no side tried to attack anymore. I shot down more of his tanks, but he controled more of the map (we didn't counted the VLs). The point is, why should I risk my tanks when I have no reason? If my order would be 'advance as far as possible' = takes as much territory as you can, it would mae sense.
[ April 18, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Just an idea:
Instead of VLs CM could use the share of the whole map that each side controls to calculate the victory - additional to the casualties.
The players must use the whole map, not only the parts with flags. This would end the 'you know where you must go' thinking. This is of course not a problem, but after so many games I would often prefer to be free from the need to take a specific VL.
The first question will be: why control areas? Why not only count the casualties? Because this is the sense of war - take enemy territory. Destroy enemy forces is only a way to reach this goal. What sense would it make if you have destroyed a lot of enemy forces, but you wasn't able to hold or take territory?
And I guess it wouldn't be to difficult to realize - AFAIK the victory in operations is calculated that way.
This of course additional to the 'traditional' game mods. I think this could be interesting especially in QBs
[ April 18, 2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Well, just a question, because this isue rises at least weekly: CAMPAIGNS
I wonder what people have in mind when they speak about 'campaigns'
- what should be the opportunity
- why is it so important
- etcetera etcetera etcetera
-
Has somebody already mentioned mods? Try the one from my sig. This is a must have for every serious CM player!
[ April 05, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
Here is a real must have have. I think it's even better then the 'Toggle wife sound' switch!
Cossacks has it already - so why not CM??? Just look the preview movie
-
Redwolf Well, it was my error to include tanks. I agree that tanks - especially with turrets - don't suffer thereunder so much. The problem is more related to guns, especially the bigger, slow turning ones.
-
Houses: I target the upper level of a large building - the LOS line is red - I draw it closer to me, and then it 'falls' to the lower level. The problem seems to be that I can't move the target line free in three dimensions. It is similar for small buildings.
Imagine that : I 'target' a virtual point in the air - this sound unrealistic, but it isn't - all I need is the vertical and horizontal angles. Of course, the shells continue their flight when they pass the point. And if a building is in the way... In CM I can only target a point on the ground (or the second level of a large building).
-
My favorites (beside the artillery system, that must be IMO completly revised):
a) A gun (or tank) targets a moving vehicel. It is natural that they sometimes loose LOS to the target. Why do they try to aim something else immediatly, even if it is (for the human player, of course) obvious that the target will be back in LOS in a few seconds again. A small delay (maybe even preset by the player) could help here.
The 'target a house' problem - You try to target a house, and a few meters before the house you loose LOS. Especially problematic if you could see only the upper level of a large building. I think the cause is that the engine has a problem with the height of a building. In theory, you can draw just a straight line from your muzzel to somewhere else, and if a building is in your way, you hit the building.c) The 'focus target line on unit' issue. Situation - a gun, right out of LOS of your own gun/mortar/tank. It is a common practice (and IMO realistic) to fire direct as close as possible on the gun position. But if you draw your targetline to close to the target, the target 'steals' the focus, so you can't fire as close as it would be possible. Could be avoided with a key command or a key that must be hold while targeting.
-
I guess part of the problem is the borg spotting. Once spot, everyone in the area who is able to target will target the AT-team/gun.
-
1) Relative Spotting
2) Relative Spotting
3) Relative Spotting
4) 'Jaeger' Infantry
5) Realistic artillery system
6) 'Hold fire' command for tanks (no, I don't want them to shot on a tank, 2000m away, while moving with full speed)
7) dynamic LOS range (is fog/rain/snow etc always homogen? - Is dusk/dawn static for a half hour? Who has stolen the shadows?)
8) Starshells
9) Bratwurst & Sauerkraut
10) 'Goliath' Sprengpanzer
P.S.:
11) tank barricades
[ April 03, 2002, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]
-
He should take part in the CM:BB model contest
. 
The normal distance for real tank battles is above 1000m, at least in the later war. The normal CM battle distance is - even on big maps - usualy below 1000m. I also remember a report about the 7.5cm PAK - the normal attack range was the biggest possible distance to the target.
Fionn's latest AAR at MODs & MODers:
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Fionn, most of your doctrine seem to be based on lots of artillery. Have you ever played under the Scipio artillery rule?