Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
A few hundred meters still too close?
-
I'm wondering, what are parameters for infantry guns, that they can shoot, if the spotter has clear LOS to the target and the distance to the target in the open is a few hundred meters, too?
I always see the message, that there was no line of fire. Time in the battle is running out due to driving around all time and searching for new positions.
-
Great idea.
+1.
-
... it's the nazi-fanbois, who like ... their jews well toasted
I always again find it funny and interesting to discover people like you, who believe people in non-plutocratic regimes or earlier times were manipulated with hate-propaganda; while they believe to be well informed.
-
It is even possible the propaganda ministry over inflated the event and told Barkmann to put his signature on it to help boost morale.
In the west there is free press and no censorship and propaganda ministry exists. Everyone can write what he wants.
The City of London was bombed by the Luftwaffe and Britain had to defend itself. But 99% of the people in the western regime don't know, it was Great Britain that started to bomb Germany - the target was old civil city-centres. The answer of Germany were several warnings, that it will have consequences and Germany will also bomb British cities, if the bombing of civilian cities is not stopped.
Or you surely have heard about Saddam Hussein's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - to mention a more recent example, that in the western regime no propaganda ministry and no official censorship is needed...
And how do you imagine this could have been done in reality in Germany?
The German Reich was an authoritarian state.
You know what that means and how that works in practice? It's a pyramid, from top to bottom. Every well functioning organization, like police, military or company is an authoritarian organization. There is one person that is clearly responsible and that therefore also has the competences. The leader-principle: no competence without responsibility (contrary to systems of anonymous voting and majority decisions = organized unresponsibility)
In the german authoritarian system competences were strictly bound to persons. Competence of a person meant full responsibility of this person. In our system, where nobody is responsible, it's a normal thing, that people who give orders, afterwards hide behind majority decisions. In the german system a person needed competences to command anything. But if this person had the competences, then the person was responsible for it:
Because of the clear separation of competences (i.e. the RSHA could not investigate the trait in the high ranks of the Wehrmacht) lies the reason why Dr. Goebbels could not give Oberscharführer Barkmann any kind of orders regarding this episode. And since the comrades of Barkmann have survived Dr. Goebbels would have needed to ask them, too.
And do you really believe, the German government had with four Knight's Crosses every day, not enough heroic stories to choose from to boost morale?
You see, the world is a bit more complex, than the black & white from Hollywood.
But if you don't believe me, feel free to ask the people in Kisdorf, who knew Ernst Barkmann, what they think about Ernst Barkmann being a liar...
-
In the thread about "Impenetrable Bocage" i stumbled across this post of Vark:
...Would it ever be possible to have a future CM where attacker and defender are given different maps, especially if the defender has had time to recce and enhance the natural defences? the true nature of the terrain would then be revealed, rather like spotting an enemy unit. There was a thread about a Panther hitting an ATG through a forest, defenders often remove blocking vegitation, small trees etc to create just these lines of sight, which to an attacker looked blocked, it would be nice if this could be simulated.
Could that be a possible solution for T-FOW: each side has it's own map; scenario designers specify the areas or elements for each side on the map, that can be seen at the beginning?
-
I'm really missing the detailed infos for units, like in CMx1. I always enjoyed to learn something about the units, especially about the enemy's units.
It would be a lot of work for the developers to bring the data explicitly into a consistent and convenient form, and it would be another part of the software, that would be needed to be kept updated. The development overhead would rise.
How about this idea:
BFC implements a unit-window, but does not fill it with any data. In fact it would be only something like a file-viewer.
If a correctly named file with unit data is present, then it would be displayed. If the data is missing, then the window simply would show a message like "No additional unit data available".
If the viewer could display more than one page, then this could be used to present additional infos about the unit (think of tanks: when were they produced, what were the differences between this and other models, how much were produced,...).
I believe the community would fill the unit-windows with data in no time (ofcourse they have no game internal influence, they only provide - like Marco Bergman's excellent interface pics - additional Info).
If BFC would offer an empty template, then the chances are high, that the look would be consistent even from the beginning, too.
-
Unless you want "out of command" lines too.
Yes, i want it that way.
In CM1 HQs could command any unit, so if there was an HQ nearby a unit would have a command line. Now they can't so it won't. If you want to know where things are, just double-click.Double click and i still do not have all info.
But mostly it's best to try and not get things so muddled that the situation is unclear. Once the situation is unclear, I don't believe command lines (or the lack of them) would help one iota.One HUGE positive aspect of command lines hasn't even been mentioned: if a unit breaks and loses it capabilitiy to control or receive orders, in CMx1 they display that, too. Now you need to click & observe units.
Regarding not muddling up:
Often not possible with support weapons under another C&C.
And when reserves are thrown in, then it becomes even worse.
Just make it optional and the players who prefer nice graphics over a much better user interface, can switch the lines off and click away.
Target lines are a bit less clearcut. You wouldn't want targetting lines for infantry units. They can be targetting all over the place. But target lines for vehicles are perhaps useful, and doable.
Perhaps? That's the understatement of the month.
I would already be very happy, if at least vehicles would have them as option. But maybe with a clever idea, also infantry would benefit from it (i.e. show for a few seconds only if a target is newly engaged or switched - that way they would not clobber the screen all the time, but only if something happens (new target could be new threat), the player is "alarmed" for a short period of time.
WEGO would benefit, but i think RT would benefit even more from that.
-
And ofcourse C&C lines. I think a solution with the floating icons do not solve the problem if the units on the map are overlapping (belongs this HMG now to Plt1, Plt2 or is it the one from the BTN cmmdr? Click - cklick - click + the time it costs).
-
What i really miss badly, are target lines. They are so great when you are watching something else and in the background is a tank. With a target line, you would be noticed, that the vehicle is engaging in a firefight. Now, every minute must be watched over and over again.
Target lines are also great, if you jump through the replay phase, because you can miss the shoot, but the yellow and red lines appear for a longer time.
And target lines are also veryhelpful, if you have more than one vehicle in close proximity: now you have to rewind and watch carefully to identify the vehicle. Then rewind again and watch the action. With target lines, you immediately know which vehicle is shooting and being shot at. Much less searching for action in the replays, much less replays, much enhanced information for the user with less efforts.
What i also miss, is a display if a vehicle is buttoned or unbuttoned.
And i also think, that the amount of clicks could be reduced. For example, i often have to click on the last waypoint, to add a "face"-command to it. I think the more efficient method would be, if the face or hide command would be active for the last plotted waypoint.
-
If reducing the speed reduces the problem, why can't this problem be solved with a simple check of the angle of movement paths?
If the angle between two movement-pathsegments on a street > X and vehicle speed > Y then automatically insert an additional segment around the corner with lower speed.
-
We all know that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the attack on the USS "Liberty" was an accident, Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy on his own, the Lusitania was not filled with weapons and the "war on terror" based on 9/11 is based on truth, too! So do not disturb our insightful discussions! We have hundereds of TV-stations and newspapers and it's not possible to spread lies in the free western society, because the "free press" is not censored!
Reading this forum one could get the impression, the Soviets were NOT informed about every german attack, about the forces and the operational plan.
And that the invasion of Normandy only succeeded because german traitors kept the perfectly placed german Panzer divisions away from the coast as long as possible?
Steiner, what are you talking about? I have never heard about that, you evil Nazi!
Our western media tell us the truth about our enemys, you evil, evil revisionist...
-
Enemy tank 600 yards out moving through terrain with woods and hedges, hard to get clear view. Stationary tank for reasons unknown never seems to get a view and able to lock on target. but moving enemy tank seems to spot my tank in woods and brush, while on the move, aim and fire within some small window of terrain that my unit could not even spot them at for some reason. That is why people are complaining, something is wrong. How many times have I seen that type of thing play out. Maybe 10 times already, stopped counting because I JUST EXPECT IT MIGHT HAPPEN NOW. You can say it always has been a problem, but it was hard to notice, likely because of the fact MY CMX1 tanks could miss hitting a target at point blank range even when they were not moving and firing more than once. So my issue has just changed from one to another.
It's fascinating, how fanboys ignore such a good explanation and observation.
Fanboys, do think it is good for the game, if you ignore such things?
-
If I were to lodge a complaint about CMBN in general it would not be that the game doesn't work, but rather that figuring out how the game works is difficult at times.
The UI is functional once you get the hang of it, but getting to that point is not as easy as it should be. For example, being able to click on the C2 display to go to the HQ unit it represents is great, but I had been playing the game for several weeks before I discovered I could do this, because the UI doesn't make use of some basic UI conventions that have been standard for years, such as tooltips or highlighting clickable items when they are moused over. At the very least this should be in the manual, but I have not seen it in the relevant sections.
Although i'm part of the fraction, who has stopped playing, and while i'm patiently waiting for the first patch, i can only support your statement.
CMBN has a complexity less like a game, but more like a simulation. Since it seems to be way too much programming labour to include interactive learning-sessions, i think different video tutorials aimed from the bloody beginner to the experienced user, from fundamental game handling to handling tips for experienced users, from fundamental tactical explanations to tactical tips would help a lot to attract new gamers.
If these videos are made well, they could attract viewers only to learn more about realistical tactics - with indirect positive side effects...
-
I would pay the full game price for a module, to get a more refined version.
-
We wish all other war genre games well, and financial success too. Alas, I also have heard over the years a lot about punted products purporting to be iPhone & iPad killers. And I have a BlackBerry phone.
We? Are you a BFC employee and paid by them?
-
I'd be really interested to see the results with tanks not facing torwards each other, but one 45, 90 or even 180 degree turned away.
-
You would be if they hadn't been. Guaranteed.
You logic is outstanding.
-
Take these results, add the very high hit-probability and - voila - tank tactics are useless...
-
Who says it's unnecessary? Modelling LOS/LOF for single trees is one (among many) of the reasons the engine is so demanding on the kit. I consider it to be quite an important one, if you're trying to model things one-for-one. If you wanted to make the engine less demanding, you could also decide that 1:1 modelling of soldiers could be abstracted, or projectile ballistics. But then you would be moving away from the intent of CM.
Ok, let me be more precise:
Unnecessary for a better gaming experience and better simulation results.
And the rising CPU useage with much trees and dense woods.
And we don't even know, how much development time this has been sucking up and will suck up in the future (say hello to the Ardennes or Germany with the dense woods) and therefore other things are missing because of that.
It's a graphical abstraction for vehicles only.Only?
There are, in my opinion a hundred other things that would be better done first, most of them to do with the interfaceExactly my thoughts.
Didn't you write single trees were so important, otherwise CM would lose focus?
We probably also differ from BFC in our opinion on priorities, but since it would be impossible to get a player concensus on which features to develop first, it's BFC's list that actually matters.Who ever asked for single trees being modeled?
-
That the HIDE-status is not displayed in the movement paths and in the unit-window is one of those things, that make me shake my head, that this comes from a developer with decade long design expierience.
And I also don't understand, if the game engine is known to be heavy for CPUs, why there even was precious CPU- and GFX-power wasted on modeling single trees instead of abstracting such unnecessary things as much as possible.
Inconsistent behaviour because of trying to model something 1:1, then noticing the CPU is not sufficient enough to handle it anyway and finally use workarounds seem to be not a very clever design decision.
I believe this has been sucking up LOTS of precious programming time (if i imagine how much additional labour only the trees must cost programming wise, to make the unit's-AI "see" single trees and position accordingly, every programmer has my sympathy).
Not even the best programmers in the world can compensate for such bad design decisions.
-
Links to charts for the main calibres:
37mm
http://i52.tinypic.com/sztv1d.png
http://i52.tinypic.com/2d2jbpd.png
57mm
http://i54.tinypic.com/w7d854.png
http://i52.tinypic.com/f2oglv.png
75mm
http://i51.tinypic.com/b635ee.png
http://i56.tinypic.com/hrzv29.png
88mm
http://i55.tinypic.com/2nhkej5.png
http://i55.tinypic.com/nuzde.png
What is the difference between the pics? They seem to contain the same data.
-
Wow. Incredible. Thank you so much!
-
Steiner14,
Do I take it from that last post that you have stopped playing CMBN?
Blackcat,
yes.
New file at the Repository: Spam and Jam (2011-06-17)
in CM Normandy Maps and Mods
Posted
Thanks for this very nice scenario.
ACHTUNG Spoiler!
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
I moved the cats as far away as possible around the intersection on the left to wait for any arriving tanks coming from the north, but also planned to use the cats for crossfire support, while infantry attacks the intercunction.
The surprise for the Shermans worked well, with only one escaping, and i already thought the rest would be a walk in the park. But that was not the case!
I approached the bridge in the woods on the right. Everything looked nice, i carefully moved one group after but suddenly mortar fire rained down on a group before the minute was over, this whole group was gone.
The 2nd evil surprise was, when i tried to capture one house at the T-junction: suddenly the group was panicking and i didn't understand why. Later i discovered, that there were good shooting corridors from the other side of the river torwards the houses.
After that was cleared at the cost of a shakened platoon, the next surprise was the street, that led to the bridge: that it was covered well from the other side.
I really like the nice map. Intelligent, tactically challenging with several options and a good placement of AI-units.
What also worked very well for me, was the felt time pressure: not too much, demanding gamey, rushing and unhealthy tactics but also not too much time with endless time to liquidate one unit after the other.
I guess this was my 8th scenario i played in CMBN and so far it is my favourite.
I achieved a total victory 10 minutes before end by conquering the building at the first bridge but didn't feel i deserved it (i'm still in the learning phase of CMBN). So the victory levels may be a bit to generously?
With only one Panther i think it would have been be a real hard nut and even without the JPzIV and only one Panther it should be a challenge even for very experienced CMBN-players.