Bone_Vulture

If i was a tank commander, I'd hightail it pretty fast to cover if I spotted an enemy gun... If the gun has enough potency to take my armor out, then it's likely that I'll lose a shooting match.

I admit that the lunacy is quite well contained inside the dreaded "Peng" threads, but sadly that doesn't change the fact that I've heard the worst jokes and puns ever in this forum. It appears that most of the WWII history hobbyists have the sense of humor comparable to a rotten piece of Edam cheese. :mad:

Burn this forum for displaying the lousiest humor in the short history of the internet. :mad: [ October 15, 2003, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Bone_Vulture ]

I'm personally not so thrilled about desert combat... Will there be any other cover than the backs of the dynes?

I'm personally not so thrilled about desert combat... Will there be any other cover than the backs of the dynes?

Yes. Have you played CM:BO, the first part of the series? The 37mm flak could be called the "Hellcat killer".

I've always thought this "no re-embarking" rule to be a bit silly. I think guns of that caliber should have a semi-automatic "set up" order: meaning that if the vehicle hauling the gun is damaged beyond repair, another vehicle could pick up the gun as long as it is not ordered to "set up". The current situation where a heavy gun magically becomes 100% immobile the second it loses contact to the hauling vehicle is more or less ridicilous.

The Stielgranate might have a rather disturbing penetration force, but it is also dead slow: it flies in a slow, ballistic arc. Securing a hit on first shot is a dream anywhere beyond 100 meters.

The T-35 is an interesting curiosity: I'd like to see how it'd handle pure infantry at a given distance. But as already mentioned, the tank has ridicilous armor: I think even a standard 20mm AP flak round can achieve a frontal penetration.

Oh yeah, I forgot about mentioning that the artillery Gungalley used were rockets.. Anyway, as said: rockets have a terrible spread, so they're hard to utilize with pin-point (if any) precision. When used pre-planned, the rockets do have a certain "clear skies" advantage in comparison to normal howitzer assets: normally, a gun battery will fire it's pre-planned barrage for minutes, effectively barring your own troops from entering the bombarded zone, and granting a more mobile defender a chance to maneuver outside the fire zone and prepare to move back in once the barrage stops. But most rocket batteries on the Soviet side are exhausted in a single huge salvo: with a little luck and a good aim, a majority of the rockets will fall into the vicinity of your opponent's fortifications, shocking his troops. With some talented use of the "pause" command, your infantry will be ready to storm the front as soon as the rockets have landed. Very tricky to execute properly, but is guaranteed to catch your opponent off guard.

Who on Earth would attempt to use heavy artillery against tanks anyway? (In CMBB I mean, in real life it might've worked).

No, I think these are bare ground attack planes with meager air combat capabilities. No melee is simulated to my knowledge.

If the part where a hit tank takes the blow is truly calculated at random (taking the facing and concealed parts of tanks under consideration of course), then it'd obviously be more tactically savvy to maneuver boldly with tanks that have hull armor sturdy enough to withstand AT gun fire, than to attempt firing behind cover. The only problem is still the "sissy tank crew syndrome" that drives especially Russian crews hysterical in the worst possible moments.

I was thinking how exactly is the progressive aiming and firing round after round from a AT gun to the target armor is modelled: Does the AI simply roll a "hit dice", see if the shot hits the target and then calculate the most probable part where the hit will occur? Or does the gun AI aim at a part of the tank with the best hit/penetration probability? Will the gun AI attempt to scire a hit on the more fragile turret once the tank is zeroed in? A whole bunch of questions... This started puzzling me when I thought of the IS-2 dilemma: it has well enough hull armor to withstand German 75L46/48 rounds, but the turret front is the Achilles' heel. If the gun AI aimed for the easiest to hit part of the tank, wouldn't it be more practical to expose the IS tanks completely to lure easy, non-penetrating shots to the hull plates? I honestly don't know how the AI/simulation really works in this case.. Have there been any investigations?

I was thinking the same thing as John. But doesn't the muzzle have to be rather airtight (projectile still to exit the barrel) in order to veer some of the combustion gases to the brake vents? If so, the round will suffer from a momentary friction after the pressure peak of ignition inside the barrel.

You can just hold 'n drag to select the tank crew, unless they're out of your control (in which case selecting them won't do much good anyway).

The key in preventing infantry stalemates is artillery, either in the field or off-board.

I think a 3-player setup would be grand, like in CM:BB scenarios. Imagine a force of Romanians and Germans against the Soviet horde...

I remember a match where I was defending against an Axis attack as Soviet infantry. I had placed a plaoon of troops on the edge of a large patch of forest, the side that faces my end of the map. My opponent snuck it's own infantry to the forest edge, and miraculously failed to notice the hiding troops in front of him. The Germans fired of the foreheads of my brave platoon for several turns, before they managed to spot my forces. I could've handled the close combat, but sadly my opponent brought that 251/21 to the fray: three squads of infantry were chopped to shreds in thirty seconds. :eek:

I realized some time ago that the rampant unfunniness of the Peng threads made my sanity falter for a length of time, causing me to develop a spontaneous interest on Vanilla Ice. After regaining my senses, I've avoided the Peng at all costs, to prevent the phenomena from manifesting ever again.

I've noticed that small scale meeting engagements are notoriously risky of turning dull,when both sides have very limited assets. When a single botched assault can result in a disastrous tip of of the scales, neither side is willing to risk it, and instead snoop in buildings and patches of forest near the flags.

A bit of an incomplete title, but I fail to set it better. I was thinking, does a buttoned tank that still has the spotter alive have a better spotting ability than a tank that has been forcibly buttoned up after the spotter has been sniped or otherwise killed?

I agree with the fact that 1st person view doesn't automatically mean FPS. But I'd like to refine the bird's eye view: like giving a "LOS indicator" option. This feature would a selected unit a color-coded "aura" that woud spread in all directions as far - literally - as the unit can see, with the colors defining the spotting capability at that distance.

In ATI's own settings panel you can only choose "application preference" or a factor between 2 and 6 for D3D Smoothvision. I've also installed the Rage3d thingie, but can't seem to locate such an option there.

Good news! It worked! Now, if someone could just find a sure-fire solution to prevent the black screen bug, I'd be all set. It would appear that antialiasing cannot be disabled in D3D mode...?