Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

V

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    705

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by V

    No Love for the panzers?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I have seen many MODs for Soviet tanks. But I seem to notice that the Axis panzers are not getting modded up as much.

    For example, Tom's CMHQ has all kids of Soviet tanks up, but no Axis tanks.

    I have found some axis mods on other sites, but still find way more Soviet ones. Is it because all our beloved MODders wore themselves out on thepanzers in CMBO and are getting off on the Soviets now?

    If so, please get back to working on the Tigers and the Panthers...

    And the of course, the great Mk. IV

    thats all. thanks.

    0

    CMBB review at gamezone

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    First he says this:

    In Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin, it is you who call all the shots and it is your job to come up with strategic decisions that could lead your men to their deaths or on to history.

    Then he says this:

    When finished deciding where to move your troops, the Go button brings them all to life. There is nothing much you can do but watch your men follow your orders through. You can’t even manipulate them in any way while they move so you’re stuck looking over the action.

    I wish he would make up his mind. Is your job in this game to be the "landser" or lead the "landser"?

    I cannot believe some of the people they get to review games which are obviously out of their league. This guy has no idea what he is reviewing nor how it should be reviewed.

    He continues:

    There aren’t even any noticeable special effects, especially when a tank manages to destroy another tank.

    Well, he has obvioulsy not seen a tank explode into flames from another tank round. But he probably thinks that when tank shell meets tank, the tanks always go "KA-BOOM." The guy is reasoning like a 7 year old. When the truth is that way more often than not, at least in WW2, tank on tank combat did not lead to massive explosions like this guy seems to think.

    oh well...

    0

    One more thing on bunkers...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Lets just say one of your "regular" German wooden MG bunkers main gun and gunner are knocked out by an air strike. The remaining crew stumbles out. These guys are more likely to be trained infantry than a tank crew, and they do have rifles in their bunker. I would think there should be a chance that one or two of the crew members, depending on experience, will grab a rifle while in the process of bailing.

    They do and run off for the best cover they can find.

    Eventually, the enemy infantry comes stomping along and bypasses the knocked out bunker. Now, depending on the moral state of the bailed crew, if the enemy does not spot them, the crew could do some minor, but critical damage to enemy infantry which I don't think would be too unrealistic. For instance, if this crew I am speaking of manages to get a flank or rear volley at a platoon hq and panics them (we are talking about Russians here) that could really ruin your opponents assault. And like I said, I do not find it to unrealistic at all.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not un-happy with the wat CMBB and CMBO handle bunkers as is. But, of course, I think it could be slightly enhanced without too much trouble. As far as whether it is possible int he current engine, I do not know. But it is something I would not mind seeing and I bring up here for the sake of discussion.

    0

    One more thing on bunkers...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by akdavis:

    He has a good point. Men in bunkers aren't really crews, but parts of whatever infantry unit is fighting in the area. That is you don't have B Company manning the trenches while Special Bunker Detachment (I can only imagine what the word for this would be in German!) 90210 mans the pillboxes. I also wish that bunker "crews" were a bit more integrated into the battle, but I'm sure this is something we can expect to see worked on more in the rewrite. Sure works fine now and could only get better.

    Once again, very well said. They do work well now, but we can always talk about it possibly getting better.

    smile.gif

    0

    One more thing on bunkers...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

    When they leave, they have pistols only. Remember, a lot of things in CM are abstracted. Maybe they do have rifles, but they are low on ammo, and are too shaken up to be effective at long range with them. Crews in CM are not made to fight. They are made to move off the map, or to be killed/captured for bonus points.

    Chad

    I understand that. And I do not expect them to charge enemy positions or even last long in combat. But I was thinking that their punch might be a bit stronger when stumbled upon.

    Any crew that has bailed something should always be easily paniced or routed. I just think they could possibly use a rifle or two in the process.

    But I am really more interested in them firing the rifles from the bunker itself when they run out of ammo for the main weapon.

    0

    One more thing on bunkers...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    This conerns bunkers of all types.

    Didn't the crews who manned the bunkers have rifles also assigned to them? And shouldn't they be able to fire those rifles if they run out of their main ammo (AT shells or MG rounds, etc.) until the bunker is knocked out or they run out of rifle ammo?

    And when it is knocked out, wouldn't they also take their rifles with them when they bailed?

    0

    HQ losses

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

    I save 1-3 HQs to fill in for any platoon HQ casulaties I may have, but in a QB on offense, I'm in the habit of using "extra" HQ units as scouts. They often die. My question is: Does the loss of HQs have a more profound effect on the "casualites" element, or "final score", than regular units?

    Yes they do, a big effect.

    And the tactic you speak of would be considered "gamey"

    0

    Are history books wrong?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Not only was the T-34 a great tank. It was produced in great numbers. The Germans nearly always had the tactical edge over the Soviets by having more experienced crews and great tanks themselves. But the Soviets won the war on the operational level and the Germans just could not match the tank armies the Soviets were fielding later in the war.

    0

    Level of Intensity ?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

    I think the most intense moments are when you spend 10 turns sneaking that Panther around the flank of an ISIII, cursing as it misses its first shot, and watching as the IS sloooowwwly turns its turret and aims...who will fire first?!?! The winner lives while the loser goes home in a box! Your entire flank is hanging on this engagement, and if you lose the previous 20 minutes will all have been fought in vain! It's the height of drama!

    So what happened? Who won?

    :D

    0

    Command question

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Inform me if I am wrong, but aren't company HQ's able to keep platoon HQ's in Command and help to rally them?

    In the manual, on page 139 it say "Company HQs and Battalion HQs can keep any non-vehicle unit (regardless to which platoon they belong) under command."

    The reason I ask is, in this scenario I am playing, Green Hell, I am trying to rally a routed platoon HQ of company B with the Company B HQ unit. The company HQ is rallying every unit of the platoon in question but it will not attempt to rally the platoon hq. The Platoon HQ is well within the company HQs range, so that is not the problem.

    I could have sworn that company HQ's kept platoon HQ's "in command" in CMBO. But it has been a while, so I do not fully trust my memory. Am I wrong, or was this changed in CMBB. And if it was changed, how come this is not stated in the command section of the manual?

    0

    Sharpshooters- How sharp is too sharp?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Fishu:

    If it hits that badly at target in the open within 200 meters, how can I expect to hit target which is concealed and most likely in covered position from 500 meters?

    I think the point is, from that distance, the sharpshooter will probably last longer instead of being blasted in 30 seconds if he opens fire on a TC at 200m.

    Sharpshooters can do a great job for ya, or they can't. I have had excellent results in CMBB using them, and they are very handy just for keeping Russian tanks buttoned.

    Usually, that is all I ever really need them for.

    [ October 12, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: V ]

    0
×
×
  • Create New...