Ant
-
Posts
404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ant
-
-
Full (extreme) coverage. If I find I'm losing track of troops I turn unit bases on to spot them.
-
AFAIK there were two types of grenades, defensive and offensive grenades. Defensive ones had a larger powerful blast, you could throw it from your foxhole and duck back down again thus avoiding the undesireable effects.American 'pineapple' grenades were another matter entirely! When one of those big steel square breaks off its more than capable of spiraling off further than a solider could throw so the thrower absolutely needed to be under cover when it went off. You don't seee many G.I.s in CM fragged by their own unit's grenade in a tight firefight!Offensive grenades were less powerfull so that you could throw them into a room or into an enemy foxhole with less risk of injuring yourself.
-
No such command AFAIK. Are you sure you aren't thinking of 'Hull down'?
-
LOL. You call that telling off customers. Compared to some of Madmatt's more choice comments I'd say it was being positively obsequiousOriginally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:Generally though, its not good for business to tell off customers. Personally I dont know how many times I've wanted to clock one of my clients or at least tell them to sod off so I definitively understand the frustration.
But still...
-
No, 16.Originally posted by Sergei:How many units do you have in Total War under your command? 20?
I don't doubt that CM makes more calculations because of the fact that there's usually far more units in play at any one time. I'm just taking issue with Joachim's assertion that MTW makes very basic and simplistic calculations for each unit, it doesn't, it makes quite complex ones.
-
Actually Joachim MTW is far more complicated in this area than you seem to realise. It's true that morale is based on the unit rather than individual troops (as does CM actually) but there are more factors taken into account than you seem to be aware of, and is actually every bit as complex as CM in calculating this, possibly even more so:Guess if Total War would incorporate light infantrists individually panicking when seeing heavy cavalry in the distance, they would need much more cpu time. But if all units follow orders and only ignore them once panicked by massive losses, they need much less time for this.Example 1:
You have 100 infantrists in tight formation. The unit spots a threat but marches on as threats are ignored. It takes losses. Based on the losses, the TacAI decides how many of the unit rout. Any action the individual does is based on the units perception. (Unit is the base for decisions though individuals are depicted. Only commands and events in the immediate vicinity influence unit behaviour)
1. Distance that the unit is away from the General has an effect on morale.
2. Whether the unit's flanks are protected or not has an effect on morale
3. distance that the unit is away from the main body of the army has an effect on morale
4. fatigue level of the unit has an effect on morale.
5. Casualty levels and has an effect on morale.
6. Rates at which those casualties are occuring has an effect on morale.
7. Unit proficiency has an effect on morale.
8. Individual attributes of the Army commander has an effect on morale.
In fact, if anything, I'd say that MTW makes more calculations for this than CM.
-
The total war series uses 2d sprites to represent troops, not 3d polygons like CM does, the difference is enormous when it comes to graphics processing and CPU cycles. However, having said that the new Rome total war is going 3d...it'll be interesting to see how that runs on a mid range PC.:Total War run smoothly with battles involving a thousand soldiers on each side, each of these soldiers tracked individually (though on a less complete/complex scale than in CM), plus a full 3D map much more detailed/complex than CM ones, so technically those 10 soldiers wouldn't be such a major feat... -
It was a very sad day when Rowan was no longer in the flight sim market. Something they did better than any other flight sim company was immersion. Their graphics weren't usually the best, their flight models often felt 'twitchy' (more realistic, many would say) and the games could sometimes have a sort of strange 'quirky' feel to them compared to other, seemingly more polished, sims, but for making you feel you were actually there they had no peers. Mig Alley is still one of my favourite flight sims ever, and argubly the best dogfighting experience to be had on a PC.Rowan's Battle of Britain: Less well known than IL-2 and much less accessible it is never the less -the- best simulation of World War II air war. The flight models are all incredibly realistic and difficult to fly, and the AI ranges in qualities from rookie to ace, etc. It's just so damned immersive. There's nothing quite like taking off with the 66th Fighter Squadron, Spitfires, from Biggin Hill on September 7, 1940 and meeting over 900 German planes heading for London being attacked by 300 Royal Air Force fighters. And they're all on screen at once duking it out. And that kind of battle happens all the time. In fact the majority of fighting you're going to see in Battle of Britain will be between at least 100 aircraft. Or maybe you'll find a small flight roaming around and jump them. Also am particularly fond of flying for the Luftwaffe as a Messershmitt Bf109 pilot in July 1940 and engaging the RAF in pitches battles over the english channel. Man I love that game. -
I remember reading a story regarding British intelligence during WW2.
In 1941 when the Germans were building up their forces to move in to Greece the British intercepted a message which said that the Germans were building up their forces at a rate of one Platoon per day. They were somewhat puzzled by this extremely slow and leisurely build up of German forces until one fluent German speaker pointed out that the German word for platoon...Zug also meant Train.
The Germans were in fact building up at a rate of one train load per day
-
Great stuff as usual Andrew, Thanks.
Also, are you thinking at all about revisiting the commonwealth uniforms? Your current ones look pretty good but they're a little plain at the back with just a water bottle. Have you thought about adding an entrenching tool or something to them? Pretty much like the one here:
-
Hmmm. You wouldn't be talking about a certain 'Wartime Command' would you?
-
Not me. A bad game is a bad game regardless of what it's setting is, WW2 or not. In fact games that pretended to be realistic that weren't were particularly irksome. I really enjoyed Return to castle Wolfenstein because it didn't have any pretentions at realism. I hated Medal of Honour because it pretended to be realistic but still had things like health bars for tanksA few years ago any WWII product would have us (at least most of us) jumping through the roofs.
I didn't need CM to realise that sudden strike sucked.Sudden Strike, Battlefield 1942 etc.In fairness it wasn't that it was necessarily a bad game, I'm sure it wasn't, and lots of people seemed to enjoy it. But they way I saw it advertised was that it was a realistic WW2 RTS game, and I very quickly found out that it wasn't realistic at all, in fact it was just another C&C RTS clone that happened to be wearing WW2 battledress. No bad thing if you like that sort of stuff....but I didn't and still don't.
Well there were other games before CM that tried to be realistic, Talonsoft's games come to mind, but others too: Steel Panthers, Close Combat; even stuff such as 'Horse and Musket' for non WW2 eras. Although CM has definitely raised the bar for realism I think it's more of an evolution and an improvement of what a few other games have tried to do previously rather than a revolutionary new concept of making a warsim as opposed to a wargame.But CM brought something else, realism on an amazing scale. Measuring this, calculating that, factoring in gobs of real-world elements. And while it might take a while to appreciate what's going on, once that happens, the bar is raised considerably. -
For me it was the Great patriotic war museum in Moscow. The dioramas in particular were very impressive.
-
Yes.Originally posted by Agent Orange:Ok, so the fact that all my Italian soldiers have routed and my Romanian ones are holding fast is becasue of my command ability and not an inherent disposition of the Italians to run like hell.
There's no difference between Italians and Romanians given the same experience levels and the same HQ bonus'
-
Oh, and the fact that the Soviets can use human wave but nobody else can.
-
No. The only nationality difference is the Soviet command delay in the early war
-
If US marineas are supposed to be such great shots then why do so many Americans have difficulty believing that Lee Harvey Oswald was capable of shooting Kennedy?
-
Whilst the whole forum seems to be on a fashion for 'What if' scenarios at the moment this is one that has always peaked my curiosity. Could Britain have beaten Germany alone?Germany only has to face down England. If Hitler can keep his ego in check enough not to go into Russia, he prolly can manage not to declare war on the USA after the Japanese do Pearl Harbor. This leaves Germany and England facing off in the West, while USA goes after Japan in the East. Two seperate wars. Eventually, England would sue for peace (especially if the Germans managed to push hard in the Med, and take Suez).War over.
Everybody always seems to assume that given no war with Russia or the US then Germany automatically wins....maybe it's just misplaced patriotism but I'm not so sure. It wasn't just Britain that Germany was fighting against but the whole British empire. Also, if we give the luxury of not fighting the US or Russia to Germany then Britain should also be afforded the luxury of not having to fight Japan either.
On balance it looks like stalemate. Germany never had any realistic chance of conducting an invasion of the UK and it would seem that Britain would be unlikely to have pulled off a D-day style operation on her own. So what might have happened?
-
You're correct. It started with the sword that was issued instead of the traditional bayonet with the Baker rifle during the Napoleonic wars.Originally posted by flamingknives:At a rough guess, the swords reference alludes to the larger sword bayonet issued to riflemen to make up for their rifles being shorter than the issue muskets.
-
I thought it was only the RGJ that used the term swords in the British army.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:
Rifle Regiments use the term Fix Swords. I know the Light Infantry use buglehorns in their insignia, but they also have Regimental Colours and don't wear Battle Honours on their cap badges, at least in Canada. Is it possible you've confused the two? </font> -
Just in case the above replies may leave you scratching your head in confusement Sequoia understand that this topic has been covered over and over and over again and I'm afraid people are bored to death with it now.
-
It's not a good idea to assault an enemy unit that isn't supressed unless you've got a good numerical superiority and can assault from different directions
I suspect that in the real world if frontal assaults were conducted against organised unsupressed enemies then, yes, 99% would fail.This is happening in two games where I am playing Commonwealth against human German and it is ridiculous. If this had happened in the real world 99% of infantry attacks would have failed. -
You can certainly place an AT gun during setup. Just select the gun and click 'place' it will be disembarked and placed. You can only do this within your setup zone, however, so I'm not sure how much use it'd be in an ME.
-
I see. Looks like the scope is sort of snapped down on the left side. Was it movable? Or was the scope simply mounted on the left side instead of on top?Originally posted by Dandelion:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:
No
Looks like a Korea photo that, no? </font>
PAK's in the streets
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
To go back to the original question of PAK 37s being used in an anti-infantry role in urban environments, I have seen real wartime footage of at least one occasion when a PAK 37 was used that way.
As Sergei said, it didn't seem very impressive to me. No explosion and seemingly very little fragmetation, just a fair bit of brick dust and a small hole in the wall. Even the gunners looked less than impressed with the results. Nevertheless, if you've got nothing else at hand to do the job with I suppose it would be better than nothing.