Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
Come on you lazy bastards!
Maybe it's not too late to get that into CMAK.
So raise your voices!
-
The effeciency of the Stukas and specially the JU87G in CMBB is a bad joke.
The 37mm cannons were way enough to penetrate the upper side of the turrets of T34s.
I noticed in a few scenarios that the accuracy of the older Ju87D is as good as from an IL2!
Stukas were absolutely deadly against tanks but what we have is, that even an IL2 is more dangerous...
-
How about a Shoot'n hide command for AT-guns in CMAK?
-
But you really cant limit borg spotting without limiting what the "all-knowing commander" knows. You can make changes that have a minor effect on borg spotting, but as long as the commander knows all, then its impact will be minimal.</font>Originally posted by Cpl Dodge:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> no Borg spotting, and multi play
-
Any chances for that option?
IMO the turn limit gives way too much information what you can expect.
I often find myself looking at the turn# and deciding, how the battle is developing.
I would estimate, the displayed maximum turn number takes around 50% of the thrill away.
In reality you can't decide how the battle is developing, by looking at the minute-pointer.
IMO 'Eliminate Enemy' battles would add a complete new dimension of game experience, if players really don't know what could happen and that EVERYTHING could happen until the enemy surrenders.
All they really know, is the information given in the briefing.
Real surprises would become possible: the possibility of huge enemy reinforcements, if you can't achieve your goal fast enough and force the enemy due to low morale to surrender (additionally maybe scenario designers should be able to determine the auto-surrender level).
This leads to another option: reinforcements depending on morale.
Remember: this gamey trick is invisible for the player. Only the scenario designer knows about it.
It would make great new things possible.
And not showing the turn# shouldn't be too hard for Charles to implement into the current engine.
The problem for scenario designers is, that they have to keep the turn# moderate, because otherwise the majority wouldn't play their scenarios, if they see a 120 turn monster.
If there would be no information about the turn#, the game could develop into every direction and i'm quite sure, all those playing just for fun and not ladder games, would really love such battles due to the higher thrill and more realism.
At least they would be a good alternation.
Any information about the battle given to the player, would be decided by the scenario designer and not by the game-engine.
[ August 31, 2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
I'm talking about recon.
I mean that with the current engine it's not possible to recon in a realistically way:
you need to offer the vehicles as target, instead of driving from cover to cover as fast as possible.
Then one person (not the whole crew!) leaves the car and takes a careful look around.
This kind of recon is not possible and IMO it would be fantastic if BTS would implement that ASAP.
[ August 21, 2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
I don't remember anymore from where i have the knowledge, because i heard/learned about that from several sources.Originally posted by Andreas:Maybe you can give me a single source for your claim?
I can't understand, why you are that stubborn and can't accept such a simple (and quite logical) fact.
If you are interested in, simply take a look at the history of anti-tank weapons.
There are enough books and surely websites about that topic.
Due to the well known Panzerschock from WWI, Panzerabwehrabteilungen were included into infantry-divisions.
Their name was program: simply to be able to withsand tank-attacks, or at least to give the soldiers the psychological feeling, that they are not completely helpless.
If you don't believe me, inform yourself.
After war against Poland, tanks (i.e. Panzerjäger I) were attached to the Panzerabwehrabteilungen and in consequence soon they were renamed to Panzerjägerabteilungen.
Anti-tank weapons, their use and the organizations were in the same way developed as every other weapon.
And as reaction to the Panzerschock the PzAbwAbt. were included.
And as logical evolution when enough experience was collected, they were supported by flexible AT-weapons.
@Scarhead:
Have you ever heard from the old german saying: Mehr Sein als Scheinen? (being more than seeming to be).All GE unit designations were inspired by propaganda.Don't make the mistake to believe, all times were that shallowly and full with advertisements everywhere like actual times.
Panzerabwehrabteilungen were renamed not because of fooling the own soldiers, but because of the included tank-hunting units.
[ August 01, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Because when the nomenclature 'Panzerabwehrabteilung' was choosen, it was meant to be an organization for defensive tasks against tanks, to give infantry a better chance to withstand tank attacks or breakthroughs.Originally posted by Andreas:How did you come to the conclusion that they are two different things?
But soon it became clear, that also an 'offensive' element is needed (Jagdpanzer, Sturmgeschütze) to be more effective.
Therefore the Panzerabwehrabteilungen turned into organizations capable of active tank-hunting and the change of the name was only logical.
I didn't think about that 'jagen' hunting could also mean just to sit and wait.
But i would say this is the only exception.
Usually 'jagen' means to follow something actively.
And that was the reason, why they were renamed from 'Abwehrabteilungen' into 'Jagdabteilungen'.
If i remember correctly, an Infanteriedivision had around 15 and a Panzerdivision the double amount of tank hunting units (usually StuGs and Hetzer) in their Panzerjägerabteilung.
Maybe someone can give you the exact numbers.
[ July 31, 2003, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
That's not correct:Originally posted by The Tungsten Kid:I didn't see the programme myself,but would just like to say a word in admiration for von Paulus,who could easily have airlifted himself out,but instead chose to stay and go into captivity with his men.
Paulus was the last one, who would have been able to leave the pocket.
And a non deserting general is nothing to admire.
A word in admiration for Paulus? You don't know much about him, do you?
He already knew, that he will be treated very good by the Soviets, if he goes into captivity.
He made a great career later in the communistic DDR...
A typical unprincipled person always on the side of the winners.
Imagine: tenthousands of soldiers died because they followed his orders.
But when the end was near, and he should had finally taken the consequences, he simply changes the sides like a dirty rat and spits on his former soldiers.
I suggest you, to read a few of the statements from the soldiers that fought under him. What they thought about him and why.
Then you'll maybe reconsider your point of view.
-
Double post.
[ July 31, 2003, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Quite wrong. I am reasonbly certain that no official "Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen" (sic) ever existed in the Wehrmacht. The term was always "Panzerjäger", whether towed or SP. </font>Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:
The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers.
-
Before you try huge maps, i think you should be able to handle fewer units on smaller maps.
How do you set up your units?
First I always group them platoon-wise together.
Once this is done, i form the companies out of the platoons.
Afterwards i inspect the map and decide where the main focus locations and paths will be.
Then is assign PLATOONS and not single units to the areas.
Try to look at your infantry units as platoons. When moving the squads, always look at them as a part of a platoon. Once you've got the feeling, that a single unit without the adequate HQ is like naked, you won't have this probs anymore.
Then you'll automatically keep them as close together as necessary.
Also keep in mind, that it's always better to attack with more firepower than the enemy. Then you'll automatically have to keep platoons together as good as possible.
Very soon a unit out of c&c and mixed up units will be the exception.
After a few games you'll see that there is no difference between the handling of units on huge or small maps, once you're 'thinking in HQs'.
-
Gerald,
indeed very strange.
Can you replicate the results or make some tests?
-
Dunno what you mean with SP company, but with 'tanks' i followed Combat Mission's convention, of counting Panzerjäger (tank-destroyer) as tanks.Originally posted by SFJaykey:I am open to correction but I believe the Panzerjager ("Tank Hunter") battalions in infantry divisions were mostly Pak. Along with ith an SP company that was usually Marders, or Panzerjager Is early on. So still no "tanks."
The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers.
-
Interesting thread.
Here's only one example of the
3. Infanteriedivision (supporting JasonC's explanations):
year 1939:
Infanterie-Regiment 1
Infanterie-Regiment 22
Infanterie-Regiment 43
Maschinengewehr-Bataillon 31
Artillerie-Regiment 1
I./Artillerie-Regiment 37
Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilung 1
Aufklarungs-Abteilung 1
Pionier-Bataillone 1
Nachrichten-Abteilung 1
Sanitäts-Abteilung 1
You see, no tanks.
year 1944:
Grenadier-Regiment 1
Füsilier-Regiment 22
Grenadier-Regiment 43
Artillerie-Regiment 1
I./Artillerie-Regiment 37
Panzerjäger-Abteilung 1
Division-Füsilier-Bataillon 1
Pionier-Bataillon 1
Nachrichten-Abteilung 1
Sanitäts-Abteilung 1
-> Panzer.
During the war, it was a target, that ID were more able to handle tank-breakthroughs on their own.
Some ID, had already tanks (Panzerjäger-Abt.) in 1939.
Another point regarding your recon-question:
maybe it is of interest for you, that only the Germans used strong combined recon forces (mech. Inf. & tanks) on a regular basis.
The usual tactical procedere of small recon forces getting in touch with enemy lines and waiting for support while the enemy has time to react, too, was avoided:
immediate attack & breakthrough with strong, fully mechanized and combined forces, cutting off and taking the positions before the enemy can react and bring in stronger forces.
-
Trigger levels for AT-guns.
It would greatly increase the TacAI's possibilities, if scenario designers could create cover-arcs with trigger levels.
The level could be determinded i.e. by points of the targeted unit, by light/medium/heavy tank, or by hit/destruction percentage, or combination).
You think an area is safe, bring the best tanks in and suddenly they become knocked out with rear shots? All possible without big changes to the TacAI simply with trigger-levels.
-
http://www.codemasters.com/battlefieldcommand/uk/downloads.php
Didn't want to promote it to much, but in the meanwhile i read throught the forums and found out, that it will only contain ~300 units for the whole war and all fronts.
Units will fight only within ~1.5 km x 1.5 km, while maps can be much larger.
Still no info about infantry modeling, but it already seems, that as much as possible realism is NOT the main target.
I think it's the best that could happen for BTS: a tactical WWII game, with a major distributor getting all the attraction for that genre. Tenthousands of people will discover, how absurd the 'wargames' are they are playing right now and how fascinating tactical wargaming could be.
And a some months afterwards, the real thing will appear...
[ June 10, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Just saw the BattlefieldCommand demo-video and YESSSS, CMX2 definately will need that, too:
motion captured, historically correct hand signals, at least from the tank-commanders.
Doesn't affect gameplay, but looks fantastic.
[ June 10, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
What is see as biggest threat, is the eye candy of Battlefield Command. Soooo sweet. Also the soldiers.
Will CMX2 be really able to compete?
-
Will finally the camera angle of each viewing level become stored?
-
PanzerLeader,
many thanks for that tip!
-
ROFL.
This is a real funny thread.
-
Will it offer a GRID ON/OFF option?
-
They must be crazy, if they will be making modding impossible.
I can imagine, even the opposite will happen (and so i hope):
the program will be able to handle much more textures/sounds and uses them if they are available. If not, the standard-textures/sounds are used (like with the winter-textures).
That would allow BFC to save a lot of labour and development costs because they would only need to include the real necessary textures/sounds and make the game in long terms even greater.
A greater game and saving costs.
CMAK: BTS battles without turn limit PLEASE!
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
You don't have to hunt to the last man, due to the auto-surrender when morale drops to low.
In addition i also suggested if that would be possible, that the scenario-designers can set the trigger- level of moral, that causes the surrender.
How do you come to that conclusion, if you would have read my post?The player simply doesn't know if he's already chanceless (unlike now with the known turn limit), because there can be a lot of surprises.
Surprises that no scenario designer uses now, because of the turn limit the player knows about.
But if you don't know?
You think you're losing but suddenly strong reinforcements appear.
So the game could turn several times around and you never can be sure until the enemy is really defeated - simply like in reality.
And such battles would also allow for one aspect from reality, that is now totally absent in CM, once the turn number is close to the end and you're losing: die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt (hope is the last thing that dies).
I'm quite surprised that such a gamey thing like a turn limit could even be defended for a game with the aim of fun AND highest possible realism.
And finally, if you don't like them, you simply don't have to play such scenarios.
Nothing would change for you.
So where's the problem?
[ August 31, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]