Cpt.Kloss
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Cpt.Kloss
-
-
If you set background to anything but pure black or white it will work. I changed letters to white and background to very dark gray and it looks ok.
-
Maybe it is time to change BTF profile from "homemakers" (resourceful and genius in a way) to software company? Clients will be more and more demanding, and programing difficulties challenges even greater.
-
Maybe it is time to change BTF profile from "homemakers" (resourceful and genius in a way) to software company? Clients will be more and more demanding, and programing difficulties challenges even greater.
-
--->Schrullenhaft:
"The new engine will be programmed in OpenGL and hopefully there will be fewer problems".
Great news.
As for drivers and cards. I had Ti4600 and I had problemms. Now I have Radeon 9800 PRO and it gets worse. No other game I played had problemms with ANY driver either on nvidia (earlier) or ati (now).
So maybe IT IS cmbb not a driver problemm? Maybe
it is time to change coder in BTF? As a gamer I do not care about api and directx difficulties. What I care is that cm is my only installed game I have problemms with!
-
--->Schrullenhaft:
"The new engine will be programmed in OpenGL and hopefully there will be fewer problems".
Great news.
As for drivers and cards. I had Ti4600 and I had problemms. Now I have Radeon 9800 PRO and it gets worse. No other game I played had problemms with ANY driver either on nvidia (earlier) or ati (now).
So maybe IT IS cmbb not a driver problemm? Maybe
it is time to change coder in BTF? As a gamer I do not care about api and directx difficulties. What I care is that cm is my only installed game I have problemms with!
-
I changed my video card from Ti4600 to Radeon 9800 PRO. This time (with newest ATI drivers) FSAA makes game unplayable (alt +tab does not help).
I am tired with different gpu driver - juggling. And maybe some guy form battlefront instead of pityful explanations like "certain drivers have a problem with CMBB" would admit that "CMBB has a problem with certains drivers" and do somethnig about it!
If FSAA, fog (ATI) etc. run fine on ANY other game maybe it is a time to admit own mistake.
However, if it is truth that the game was build upon outdated verson of directx I fear nothing can be fixed now.
But please Battlefront, learn from this lesson for your future releases and do not try to put the blame upon nvidia or ati drivers...because as I said : it is pityful approach...
-
I changed my video card from Ti4600 to Radeon 9800 PRO. This time (with newest ATI drivers) FSAA makes game unplayable (alt +tab does not help).
I am tired with different gpu driver - juggling. And maybe some guy form battlefront instead of pityful explanations like "certain drivers have a problem with CMBB" would admit that "CMBB has a problem with certains drivers" and do somethnig about it!
If FSAA, fog (ATI) etc. run fine on ANY other game maybe it is a time to admit own mistake.
However, if it is truth that the game was build upon outdated verson of directx I fear nothing can be fixed now.
But please Battlefront, learn from this lesson for your future releases and do not try to put the blame upon nvidia or ati drivers...because as I said : it is pityful approach...
-
You moved your mortars and can't take advantage of HQ spotting...I think this is the reason.
-
--->xerxes
"The reality is the column was ambushed because by necessity they were moving fast to exploit. Letting the player setup the column off the road in hulldown positions would be gamey."
And not letting leads only to unnecessary frustration. If they (those tanks) are meant to
be destroyed scenario designer should make them destroyed before actual battle starts.
-
Yeah, if their transport doesn't get waxed and they are left alone while setting up...</font>Originally posted by Tigrii:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:
Another and cheaper solution:
Bring forward 3 45mm AT guns (they are amazingly fast for that kind of stuff)and open fire from any distance <1km. With their rate of fire you have a BIG chance to immobilize Stug.
-
Another and cheaper solution:
Bring forward 3 45mm AT guns (they are amazingly fast for that kind of stuff)and open fire from any distance <1km. With their rate of fire you have a BIG chance to immobilize Stug.
-
----------------------------------------Originally posted by Mike:Ummmm.....maybe because when teh guns weer built they could....but then some smart arse on het other side figured that they could put more armour on their tanks and then the guns couldn't any more??
The AT guns in the Kursk scenario of the demo are 1940 vintage, the tanks are 1942-43. In that time armour basis increased from 30mm to 50-60mm (IIRC).
Oddly enough this means the tanks are harder to kill with those guns!
The Soviets kept the 45mm guns in production long after their real useful life because rejigging the factories to produce better guns like the 57mm would've resulted in a widespread shortage of guns, and it was better to have a poor ATG than no ATG at all.
It is worth adding that 57mm ZiS2 gun was very complicated and about 10 times more expensive than 76 mm Zi3, not to mention 45 mm guns.
-
--------------------------------Originally posted by Kirill S.:The axis superiority is displayed with the scenarios which are bundled with cmbb. Some designers are dumb enough to add a crack KT and 5 green T-34s in an open field and call the scenario historical. The QBs, on the other hand, have the best equipment bought by the players on both sides, leaving only their skills to fight.
Well, You are unjust for designers - they did very well, yet I must confirm there are some annoying things:
1)Maybe I am wrong, bur as far as I know towards the end of the war germans tended to crew their heavy tanks with inexperienced crews to compensate their lack of skill. Therefore it was much more common to meet green KT crew than veteran.
2) Designers fail to acknowledge that apart form several famous commanders german cracks died in 43 and 43 as best german pilots did.
The same goes for infantry. In 1945 apart from several units it was hard to find all- veteran company. Anyway where are those green replacements?
3)Idealizing german equippement by increasing level of experience. In "tiger-tiger: scenario near Leningrad russian face veteran tigers. And where those crews achieved veteran status? - they were just learning capabilities of their vehicles!
regards
-
Scottdt,
As russian commander if there is such need you are supposed to waste all your people. It is nothing wrong. If you want WWII russian approach think about them as you are thinking about ammo. What may worry your superior is lose of valuable equipement.
Worrying about this and not executing your orders will lead you to suicidal head shot - not to waste time of any martial court.
-
Question to Battlefront:
I think that terrain crossing capability is included in the cost of vehicle. Am I right?
If so, this makes an important point to this discussion: with immobilization possibility excluded they would be more expensive in game terms.
-
Andreas,
"The real problem was an absence of 50mm ATGs, Stugs, and 50mm armed tanks in real life, all of which are routinely bought in CMBB battles"
- maybe their rarity should be increased?
-
I wonder what was the accuracy and range of that HC round.
-
Schoerner
Your fat heavy pigs are supposed to sink in a mud
If ground pressure wouldn't be an issue, heavy vehicles would be more expensive in game terms or light vehicles be cheaper.
As it was said earlier if you set game conditions to "random" you know them before your opponent does. I can't see anything unfair here.
Maybe not knowing the weather and ground conditions is not realistic, but only to prevent gamers like you from even more unrealistic behavior - purchasing equipement and units for specific weather conditions or even time of a day.
/Company commander to his superior:
"Can't you see comrade we are going to fight our quick battle in a thick fog. Take away those maxims and give me flamethrowers! And the same for rifle squads. Let them rest. I NEED smg teams! At once!
Mud? You said MUD? Trade my trucks for halftracks! No? You can't?! Treachery! I will complain to Comrade Stalin himself!!!"/
Just see how silly it is.
-
Some people stated that each country can ensure/enforce its national interest by any means - even aggresion against other countries.
Well, this justifies any counteractions, taken exactly from the same reason by Arabs.
So it is a big difference between acting in own interest and in the interest of all civilized world. Keeping a current course of action - when anything blows up in US again, the rest of the world will say: "well...you are wageing war..expect casualties".
And stop understand war as only strictly military actions. Current century gives more and more opportunities to harm other countries in different way than sending troops.
As for haughty declarations as "we will prevail": well -personaly I wish you that -, but what history shows no empire prevailed as dominant superpower...against time. What if in the next 20 years China starts introducing your policy?
I must also disagree that once induced hatred can easily be calmed. No, it can last for ages.
I think that regardless of military might it is not wise policy for any countries to make enemies out of half of the world.
regards
-
Have you ever wondered why they hate US so much?
Inefficient and stupid US Middle East policy will be very very costly...
During Balkan confilct US forces were quick to react, where are US "peacekeepers" when people in Palestina are being deprived of their homeland? Some country leaders are being judged for war crimes, some others (those firendly - you know whom I mean) are very well.
If it wasn't earlier it is now obvious that the only thing US cares is its national interest - and nothing more.
It is a disaster for civilised world, but I fear
WTC was only a beginning...
-
And one more thing about loses. Many russian tanks considered destroyed were quickly repaired and even knocked out again during same battle, resulting in "double count" by german crews.
-
--------------------------Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:[QB]
It is a controversial topic though, for some reason I dont really understand, many people want to keep the old image of a German defeat at Kursk. QB]
Why defeat?
German attack didn't meet its operational objective - encircling russian armies. It was a terrible loss of valuable assets which destroyed german offensive capabilities. Russians were able to replenish loses quickly, germans not.
Simply...russians could afford that kind of battle.
-
--------------------------------------------Originally posted by Bastables:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:
qb]
-> Bastables
1)Panther's turret rotation was dependend upon
engine work- 2500 rpm -17 seconds, 1000rpm - 92 seconds!
2)Sherman was good enough, for a very long time better tank was not designed because - with air superiority - there was no good sufficient reason to.
3)War is not won by inflicting casualties, but by achieving operational objectives.
4)Towards the end of the war German economy was more and more devasted, lack of metals and fuel was crippling German forces.Contrary for US -one Sherman destroyed was a reason to build several new ones. While german economy was ruined, US economy contributed greatly from the war.
regards</font>
-
----------------------------------------------Originally posted by Berkut:-------possible spoilers------------------
I have not had time to play through all the scenarios in the Stalingrad pack and have just started with the first.
Into the void features an attempt to secure vital highground and an equally vital crossing over a river. A vast portion of the terrain is very open and any attempt to cross it will be observed from the hilltop.
Also of concern is a village near a dry riverbed.
Your initial force consists of a recce unit of 6 PZII's and a recce platoon. for artillery you have a 81mm FOO. Stukas are roaming around to take out any targets of opportunity.
Now I have played...or should I say started to play this on 6 occasions now. Each time I played saw 50-70% of the recce force being knocked out by two 47mm AT guns within 5 turns. Which I'm sure many would agree is some very accurate shooting at ranges in excess of 700 mtrs.
I am playing with the scenario defaults and full fog of war.
Has anyone here found similar problems with these scenarios or been able to beat the AT guns without significant losses to their force?
How does it handle when played as a pbem?
SPOILERS!
The best recon you can make in this scenario is no recon.Just wait for PzIIIs. This game could start on turn 6, with some german wrecks added and commentary in briefing "some of our recon forces were ambushed, probably by AT units at the edge of forest". Riverbed also gives you no protection (I do not know whether it is exactly like author intended), because visually your AVF are covered, in term of game engine - exposed.
A modest proposal regarding SMG squad and Rates of Fire
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
If you want to decrese SMG firerate, do not forget to decrease its firepower accordingly, which - in my opinnion - even now is too high on distances above 50 m.(that is - spraying not aiming).
You also seem to forget that smg actually do better with "ammo low" status then rifles. You deploy smg in close combat and in enemy's direct proximity (their optimal distance)they shoot more often then "ammo low" rifles at their optimal distance.
Anyway, I would also add one more opinnion:
I think that firepower values are to much spread out, making a god out of a weapon, not man wielding it. More should depend upon skill and luck. Put riflemen close to smgs and in CM they will alsways loose (assuming no surprise). In reality very often one well placed or lucky grenade decided the outcome...which never was so obvious as it is in CM.