Jump to content

undead reindeer cavalry

Members
  • Content Count

    1,224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by undead reindeer cavalry

  1. sorry if i misunderstand what you are asking (simulation or game ui or what), but here's one take. in the real battlefield everything by default is isolated and fighting their own battle. the isolated elements do not know much if anything of each other -- they are preoccupied by their own battle. in a typical WW2 firefight the largest natural unit is probably that of a team: the guys in the team are able to share information and make decisions as a group. this is because they are close enough to usually see one another (at least by popping their head up to observe for a while or by using
  2. i wonder how AI make its decisions if the engine doesn't know hit or kill probabilities.
  3. i am aware of the difference between the two. the rules of thumb expect typical conditions in general sense (e.g. target troop concentrations). the lethality area really is just that: 100% losses. it's not just neutralization. the numbers do not make the 60mm or 81mm impact fuzed HE rounds puny at all. the 60mm has 140 square meter lethality area against standing men - everyone dies in two action spots as a result of a single 60mm round.
  4. in theory being prone should reduce the effects considerably, as these rounds are all impact fuzed and the 60mm is highly sensitive to soft ground effects.
  5. yes, something like that. the 60mm round has 20-35 meter suppressive radius (i mean in reality, not in the game). combined with the 1 square foot killzone this makes 60mm round a suppressive weapon against enemy in foxholes. btw 81mm has 5 square feet lethality area so we are still talking pretty much about direct hits against foxholes.
  6. haha yes there's an error with my number. the official lethal area for 60mm grenade with impact fuze is still today 1 square feet against troops in open positions. i am sorry for enlarging the area to that with radius of 0.5 meters.
  7. fwiw this was the Finnish experience as well. they were considered totally worthless. in practice they were used only in static trench conditions, where the high angle effect could be utilized to annoy the enemy.
  8. assuming there's no treeburst or similar, the effective radius is about 0.5 meters - a direct hit on the foxhole. other than that it's just suppression - forcing the guys take cover.
  9. what's the reasoning behind this idea? Germans are still preparing for a long WW1 style war when they go for Western Europe in 1940. that they are able to finish the war so quickly is not the result of their strategy. when they go for USSR in 1941 their strategic aim is to get the large material resources located in USSR in order to be able to fight the coming long war against US and UK. the only short war aspect i see is the planning for the summer campaign against USSR. here they expect that they can defeat the Red Army in the European Russia - they are not aware of the Soviet capac
  10. my only issue is with the effects caused by light mortars, especially what comes to infantry in foxholes. causing losses should be rare, requiring direct hits. light mortar grenades are of handgrenade class. their main effect is causing suppression and with close hits taking an individual soldier temporarily out of action (for a couple of minutes, not hours or days). light mortars are harassing weapons. German 50mm mortar grenade has 0.28 lbs TNT. US 60mm has 0.34 lbs. 20% difference. a small or a big difference? well, a German mk.24 hand grenade has 0.36 lbs. 81mm mortar has 3.5 ti
  11. well, you said command delays would be brought back with CMBN and you appeared to have a positive opinion about command delays. this change regarding command delays is somewhat surprising but naturally not something totally unheard of. for what it's worth i don't recall seeing much opposition to the delays in those threads, but perhaps that's just blissfull senility on my part. and yeah yeah, this is pretty useless discussion.
  12. i think it's common amongst computer game boards, especially if sequals are quite different from the original games. it's the same with many other things, but i think it's more productive just to let it pass. lol, i have thought about that many many times during the years, but i always thought it would be far too nasty remark to make.
  13. German (various in Torn Fu and Feld Fu series) and US (SCR-300) back-pack "walkie-talkies" were quite similar and used in similar roles. both were for company-battalion communication (one per company). the heavier battalion-regiment sets were carried in jeeps and such. Germans had SCR-536 style platoon-level smaller "handie-talkie" sets only for panzergrenadiers and similar. the German ones were "real" radios, while the US "handie-talkies" allowed only communication within a company. CMBN style communications net could not be established with these radios. for example a platoon leader co
  14. regarding relation of poverty to the riots: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/18/england-rioters-young-poor-unemployed
  15. that's very true and i was trying to address that by saying my simplistic playing with the OR numbers would not address German armor losses to AT and other non-armor arms. Germans need to neutralize Allied armor and tank vs tank combat is one part of it. it seems that it's a part that wouldn't require much tweaking. perhaps it's a bit obvious, but it's good to be methodological. what would be needed next, is looking at other types of battles and finding what the actual failings were and what could be realistic and sound changes. again it may be a bit obvious (lack of recon, overly
  16. unfortunately i don't seem to have any. it's been at least a couple of years since i looked into this. if i have bookmarks and documents, they are in some old harddrive in the closet. but i did have two papers somewhat related to the subject. i was using them for estimating battlefield effects of illumination lamps in WW2. the main effect and purpose of the lamps is of course not that of aiding in target detection, but i was curious about the theoretical or practical effects on the ability of tanks to detect enemy tanks (yes, a most silly subject). the papers are: AN ANALYSIS OF TARGE
  17. hopefully. i used to play RO and i liked the larger more open maps. however i hated the urban etc maps. i'm just wondering if this initial release is any good for me, or if i'm better off waiting 6 months to get good maps.
  18. i think it's very unrealistic. there's nothing in the scenario that prevents the tanks from spotting each other on second 1. some spottings lagging till around second 10 could be tolerable, but not being able to spot in the whole minute is ridiculous. there are numerous field trials about this very subject and none of them show anything like this. buttoned tanks (without using thermals or similar), do routinely spot enemy tanks in 20 seconds in complex real world terrain and at considerable ranges. like i said the trial data has some peculiarities and it may be that spotting suffer from
  19. are there videos that show more open maps? in the videos that i have seen, the engagement ranges seem to be 1-30 meters, with most shooting taking place at around 1-10 meter ranges.
  20. on a couple of the maps there was a lot of action in RO style. fast spawn + spawn almost in the middle of action = lots of shooting and dying. there was a nice map that left more room for tactics and coordination. i didn't play much, so perhaps i got a bit wrong impression of the maps.
  21. lol yes, you are of course entirely correct about this. it's hard with the numbers for both sides. yeah, something like that. June and July (taking British loss numbers at face value) are both 2:3, what comes to the turreted. August would be something like 1400:1500, or 1:1 in practice (i'm probably causing too many German losses here). the total ratio would be 5:6. September would then be 2:7... the alternative approach (containing September) gives end ratio somewhere around 2:3.4. i did a silly thing and used generic OR numbers of France 1944 to toy
  22. there are some strange things with the results of the test, but it's almost impossible to speculate about them because we only have those 50 runs. it could be that the game uses a more advanced system than just one single percentage (by which i mean that the percentage may change over time). there also may be a system which makes only a part of the units to spot at any given moment in time, and the system may select the active units somewhat randomly. there may also be some bugs.
  23. i by accident bounced on the Excel file i used in the calculations and realized i forgot to answer this question of yours (yes, i get the rhetorical nature of it). i didn't make any real probability calculations, just very basic statistics. basicly i took your spotting data from post number 6 and i calculated for each second (1-59) the number of tanks (separately for the two types) that had spotted during that second and the number of tanks that had still been spotting during that second. so for example for Shermans on second 1 there are 50 tanks spotting and 2 of them spot. so 4% of
  24. i played it a bit yesterday. i think it's very close to RO. the biggest difference (together with not having vehicles of course) seemed to be that suppression effects are far more effective (yay!). in RnL suppressive fire has a real function (it does suppress the enemy when there's enough volume of fire). the morale system (as far as i understood it -- being close to squad / section leader adds suppression tolerance or something) and 3D voice chat also encourages team work even further. the voice chat also adds some nice tension to some situations (everyone becoming quiet when trying to sne
  25. how do you get hl2 engine for free? how does the gameplay compare to RO or Arma WW2 mods?
×
×
  • Create New...