General Jack Ripper
-
Posts
2,326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by General Jack Ripper
-
-
If you want some context:
-
Let me check my favorites list for something new...
... ah, here it is:
-
Part five will be published on Saturday.
-
I figure I'd share my videos of this here, since some of you old guys don't know how to work YouTube:
There are five parts so far, all taken from a single two-hour game session then cut into smaller chunks.
There shouldn't be any major spoilers, because the scenario is still near the beginning, but it should give you some idea as to the size and scale of the map, and the gear you have to work with. -
Just FYI, I've submitted the CMFI.exe to Microsoft as a false flag.
Hopefully, someone might do something about it. -
This is all well and good, but you might want to re-check the typing on your thread tags.
-
I do think the equipment quality would be something that gets fixed up.
The old system allowed separate settings while purchasing, and then modifying purchased units.
For example, you set equipment quality to "Poor" when purchasing a formation, then set it to "Good" to reflect the fact they're equipped with old weapons, but are keeping them in good shape.
Thankfully, that system was excised when CMBN came around. -
-
4 hours ago, Erwin said:
-SNIP-
Hopefully, others can come up with other ideas...
I was shooting for more "current issues that can be fixed" rather than "features we would like to see implemented at a future date".
That being said, I completely agree with everything on your list, aside from #1.
Not because ACQUIRE doesn't need work, but because the issue you have raised isn't important. The two turns it requires to split a squad, acquire ammo, then merge a squad IS the time penalty you suffer for having dudes break open ammo cartons, and pass it out to their buddies. There is no need to model it any other way, IMO. -
On 8/28/2017 at 8:18 AM, IanL said:
Not until today. Now yours is the second post about that. Must have been a Windows defender update. Grrrr. I don't even know how to get defender to ignore files.
Just place your combat mission installation folders under the list of exceptions.
Settings> Exclusions> Exclude a Folder> Specify CM installation folder, in my case (D:\Battlefront Games) which houses all my Combat Mission games. -
Instead of having a wish list of features we all know won't be put into the game
, instead I thought it might be more productive if we could assemble a list of issues that are in need of fixing, with the hopes that some bug squashing, or missing features might instead be fixed or added into CMSF2.
To begin, one of the oldest missing features in all of CMx2, the Recon Variant of the Humvee, with it's large mounted optical device, does not function. At all.
I'd like to see this thing actually working in CMSF2.
Also, I've noticed that the mast-mounted primary gunner sight on the Marder 1A3 does not function either. Placing the vehicle, buttoned up, hull down to an enemy vehicle no more than 100 meters away on an open, flat surface, leads to no positive contact at all, despite the large optic looking directly at the enemy.
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had noticed issues like these, or had some old bugs they would like to see squashed. -
-
On 9/4/2017 at 10:06 AM, MOS:96B2P said:
Good info. Even when you're throwing in the towel you manage to get some interesting information out on the forum boards.
I haven't thrown in the towel, I've merely hung it up to dry.
-
3 hours ago, BlutUndEhre said:
1. A 162 grain bullet being pushed at a maximum velocity of 2,400 fps is not going to be a terribly flat shooter. It does not have the mass to hold a flat trajectory over longer ranges and it does not have the muzzle velocity to be firing that heavy of a bullet very flat at closer ranges.
2. You keep going back to the flatter trajectory but I have yet to see any ballistic chart showing this and my common sense and ballistics knowledge tell me that those numbers make a very flat trajectory for the 6.5 Carcano impossible.
3. Go watch the service rifle matches at Camp Perry and, if you really want to find out for yourself the truth of this argument, bring a 6.5 Carcano to compete with the M1 and M1A shooters. It won't go well for you.
4. I'm well aware of what a battlesight zero is as I was in the service for a short time, thank you.
5. The Carcano rifle itself is crap, so even if any of the above vague "facts" that you are quoting to me were verifiable it still wouldn't matter.
6. Find me some ballistics on 7.35x51mm Carcano to prove what you are saying. Again, this is a case of numbers not lying and the numbers don't look good for this Italian dog, either. The round is just a 6.5 necked up to 7.35 with an extremely lightweight 128 grain bullet pushing in the 2,400 fps range, again. At close ranges, yes, this is no doubt going to be a flat shooting round but nothing that slow and light is going to hold hitting power or a decent trajectory over range. This is simply physics.
My firsthand experience shooting these weapons does not reflect what you are saying.
1. You are basing this assessment on what, exactly?
I am not arguing MAXIMUM RANGE, I am arguing BATTLE SIGHT range. The TAC Ai in the game does not care one bit about maximum range.
The Game Manual lists the effective range of the M1 Garand at 440 yards (402 meters) and it lists the effective range of the Carcano M1891/41 at 600 meters.
600 meters, is LONGER than 402 meters.
So... WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
2. You, yourself have no hard data, but your "gut feeling" seems to do just fine for you?
3. Shooting matches are not Combat Mission.
4. The words "battlesight zero" did not once leave my fingertips, until right now. Once again, you are confusing Battle Sight Range, with Adjust Sight Range.
5. Once again, your "gut feeling" seems to count for an awful lot here.
6. The bullet design itself is superior to the 6.5mm. That is readily apparent by simply looking at it, the replacement of the older "Alaska" bullet with a new "Spitzer" bullet is a no-brainer.
The first thing you need to know is, your firsthand experience shooting a rifle doesn't count for two bags of snot when playing a game. Italian riflemen DO open fire at longer ranges than their opponents. This firsthand observation of in-game behavior is not changed one bit by anything you have said here.
Now the fault is mine for trying to drag real world opinions into this discussion, and for that, I apologize. This should have been kept to a discussion about IN GAME observations only.
I do have a tendency to get sidetracked easily, which is why I avoid discussions such as these as much as possible. My simple attempt to add a small piece of useful knowledge to a thread went out of control very quickly, didn't it?The second thing you need to know is, internet isn't real. If you get angry because of a discussion on an internet forum, you ought to re-examine your life.
-
Well if you can find ballistics charts, by all means post them.
They don't seem to exist in any place I can find.
Most of my google searches turn up nothing more than the Wikipedia entry, aside from a book I'm not going to buy.
http://www.schifferbooks.com/the-model-1891-carcano-rifle-a-detailed-developmental-and-production-history-5898.html
C&Rsenal shoot every weapon they test on their own range, using period ammunition.
All opinions expressed about weapons are from their own experiences, shooting and comparing hundreds of weapons.
However, I do trust their opinion, and their work. -
13 hours ago, BlutUndEhre said:
Actually I need to dig out my ballistics books because I believe I'm high balling these numbers and we might actually be talking about a 2,400 fps muzzle velocity for the M91/41 and even lower for the M38.
http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/
"While it is true these low caliber rounds lacked “knock down power” they traded it for the advantages of requiring less production material, being easier to pack and carry, maintaining a flatter trajectory over distance, having superior penetration at range, lower recoil easing follow up shots, and less muzzle flash to give away the shooter."
My point is, such things are noticeable in CMFI, and there is a clear difference in performance between the M1903's .30-06 and Carcano's 6.5mm.
The M1 Garand is an obvious overmatch, given it's greater volume of fire, but I have noticed Italian riflemen tend to open fire at slightly longer ranges than those of other countries.
The battlesight range I was referring to is the range at which one can aim at the breastbone of the enemy, and without using the adjustable sights, strike him between the top of his head, and belt buckle.
With it's flatter trajectory at normal engagement ranges, the Carcano has a longer battlesight range.
I'm not talking about maximum range, I'm talking about the useful firefight range.13 hours ago, BlutUndEhre said:The failed 7.35x51mm round was designed to make up for the 6.5's perceived long range shortcomings during Italy's Ethiopian adventures and it was a long range lemon, as well.
Yes, the 7.35x51mm would have been an excellent round, if Italian industry could have produced it in sufficient numbers.
The reason the Italians switched from the M38 Carbine back to the M98 long rifle, was precisely because of the loss of accuracy at the long ranges fighting occurred in Africa. -
I'm not talking about the M38.
The rifle in CM:FI is the M98/41. -
If I could add one small thing, be mindful of the difference in small arms.
6.5mm is small bore, but very high velocity. These rifles the Italians use were intended for use in mountain terrain, where very long line of sight is common, I.E. from one side of a valley to another. They have a longer battlesight range, and can lay down effective fire at slightly longer ranges than equivalent rifles, like the 7.62mm. I'm only talking about maybe an extra 100 meters, but if the TAC AI is capable of recognizing it, you can expect to send and receive rifle fire at ranges you would not be used to fighting against the Germans.
I have not thoroughly tested the Carcano against the Springfield yet, but I have already noticed a difference in ballistic performance from the few battles I've fought against the Italians. -
On 8/28/2017 at 3:06 PM, BlutUndEhre said:
Sorry if this is just too damn much reading and I hope I don't piss anybody off by filling a whole page with my ranting but I find this subject fascinating and I love to go off about it when given a chance!
Welcome to the forums, and no, write as much as you want.
-
On 8/27/2017 at 11:42 AM, Erwin said:
What I don't understand is how one can possibly use it accurately from the heights depicted in the video. Unless they did this hundreds of times and these were the only 3 or 4 useful hits.
The same way you can drop a water balloon onto someone from the roof of a tall building.
If anyone asks, I've never done that...
In fact, forget I said anything. -
Remember when drones were super-secret uberweapons used only by the most technically advanced militaries?
Me neither.
>Buy camera drone at Best Buy.
>Fit remote-controlled grappling arm.
>Instant UCAV. -
On 8/3/2017 at 6:42 PM, gundolf said:
not to take away from your plea for coop multi. Hope to see it too. But I searched this new BSG game. The link i read actually mentioned Combat Mission as its style of Wego for the battle star galactica deadlock game. Pleasing coincidence.
Players will take turns issuing orders to their fleets, and then watch the action play out in scalable, pausable real-time. It’s similar to a system made popular by the Combat Mission series,
Star Hammer: The Vanguard Prophecy had a similar system.
-
On 8/12/2017 at 10:52 AM, jon_j_rambo said:
First two models I made: Arizona & Yorktown.
Mine was the Saratoga.
I was just a kid when I built her, and I didn't glue down all the little airplanes, so I could play with them later.
That was a lot of fun._underway_port_side_aerial.jpg)
-
On 8/23/2017 at 3:05 AM, Warts 'n' all said:
Most of the youtubers play turn-based. But in many cases the Command Phase is edited out of the video.
Indeed. Otherwise a 20 minute video would have 19 minutes of orders, and one minute of action.
Combat Mission: TTP
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Indeed. Life came at me quite quickly, and shows no sign of letting up, but now that I have a library of videos to keep my subscribers busy, I'll have some time to dedicate to the next part.
Thanks for watching, and I'm glad you enjoyed things so far.