Jump to content

...................................

Members
  • Posts

    178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by ...................................

  1. Well well well. Let's have a look in this thread over the last 24 hours.

    The first thing I am struck with is the whining. Yes that is right, whining, from BFC. Then we have the usual clueless retard opinions about USA being 'da best' and then there is the name calling by Steve - FWIW 'childish' really sticks in the throat. You have no idea at all.

    ISTM that anyone who thinks that an Iraq simulator is not a good idea is automatically abused by BFC and subsequently the occasional redneck joins in when he feels safe. Off the top of my head I could not think of a more deplorable idea for a computer game except perhaps for a concetration camp simulation. It is wrong on so many levels.

    As intelligent guys BFC know that it will offend many. The fact that they haven't got the balls to call it what it is trying to be makes it worse. Oh yeah - it's a vapid fantasy attack on Syria, right. Although this thread was a plea for WW2 I don't care what they go for, anything EXCEPT Iraq, it's disgusting. What kind of person would get any kind of thrill out of mowing down badly equipped, badly organised Arab boys.

    Anyway, it's my last post on this awful twist in the history of BFC. What a waste. Good luck with the corporate and redneck dollar.

    [ October 10, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

  2. Oh rah-rah, but I'm not going to start on who invented what. I don't mind playing as the US from time to time, but not having the option to do anything else for the next couple of years from what was the brightest star in computer wargaming is pretty poor. I and probably others don't want an anything centric game - we want choices.

    Oh and I don't doubt Steve that your income from military contracts is not your primary source, but by god you'd like it to be wouldn't you. Having a product to show is an important step. If you weren't looking for that kind of action then you could have chosen something far less offensive to many than an Iraq simulator.

  3. Except that is 6-12 months on top of whatever the development time for CM Screw Forigners turns out to be. For those who would be less than thrilled with having to play a computer game entirely as the US we have another 6-12 months wait for a *possible* non-US centred game on top of that.

    In short, unless you are an American it's all vapourware. Even if you are American, your WW2 'module' is still so far away as to be a definite maybe dependant on many things.

    Their financally prudent choice no doubt, and I guess if the Iraq simlulator goes down well with the military then they won't need to give a stuff about wargamers, American or otherwise, any more.

  4. Gah! Who cares about graphics. Hopefully the devs aren't going down the Total War series route, where they are so pleased with their new graphics engine that the basic underlying game gets worse.

    AI, Improved QBs, Multiplayer, Campaign, OOBs, Graphics in that order for me please!

    I'm dreading it being a gee-whizz graphics fest restricted to pre-designed (and flawed like most are) scenarios only. It would have a lifetime of days instead of years like the old CM.

  5. Please Change:

    1) Drop all placeholder graphics - they ruin immersion. Fewer units done well is better.

    2) Rolling barrages (plan at scenario start, shift barrage to location X on turn Y etc).

    3) AI artillery - especially pre-planned barrages. Simply shelling a random terrain feature near to any objective at the start would force players to rethink deployment, and definitely help the AI attacking. Especially useful if combined with rolling barrages shifting between several random terrain features near to objectives. No more useless drops in the middle of nowhere and players stuffing handy woods with units to wipe out the AI without concern.

    4) An end to the AI's procession of units in huge streams bunched together between terrain features en-route to whichever flag it has decided to attack. There must be a better alternative.

    5) An AI which can keep the front armour of its tanks facing the most likely threat direction at all times.

    Overall it's the AI which needs most attention. TCP & PBEM will always be great fun with much better use made of units. However a reasonably challenging AI is priceless these days, especially one which can attack, and we all have times where we need a quick wargaming fix against a computer.

    [ August 26, 2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

  6. Oh you lucky man, Sicily is top of my 'to visit' list, one day. It's not WW2 but I recommend 'The Normans In Sicily' by JJ Norwich. It would be a great travel companion as you'll be around some of the key sites from that golden age. It's an absolute joy to read and my favourite medieval book by a long, long way.

    [Edit: URL fun]

    [ June 02, 2005, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

  7. The 3AD had begun a four-pronged attack on the city, which was heavily defended. Division armor were finally able to enter the city slowly after numerous concrete tank barriers were destroyed. With 3AD tanks fanning out, and 36th Infantry riflemen following, the Super Pershing reached an intersection and began to round a corner to its right. Unknown to its crew, a King Tiger had apparently been waiting in ambush at a distance of two blocks or roughly 600 yards away, and in the same direction that the Americans were turning into.

    At this distance, easily within its capability, the Tiger fired at the Super Pershing. But its infamous high-velocity 88mm shell, of the type that had destroyed so many American tanks and vehicles during the war, went high and was not even close. Gunner Cpl John "Jack" Irwin, only 18 years old, responded almost instantly with a round that struck the Tiger's huge angled glasis, or front plate. But the shot, a non-armor-piercing high explosive (HE) shell, had no effect. Ricocheting off the armor, it shot skyward and exploded harmlessly. The Super Pershing had been loaded with an HE only because Irwin had been expecting urban targets, such as buildings, personnel, and light anti-tank guns. "AP!", he shouted to his loader "Pete," which meant an armor-piercing shell would be next.

    Maduri and crew then felt a concussion or thud on the turret. It was never known if this shot came from the Tiger, or from some other anti-tank weapon. In any case, no serious damage was done - probably a lucky glancing impact. In the next instant, Irwin aimed and fired a second time, just as the royal monster was moving forward and raising up over a pile of rubble. The 90mm AP round penetrated the Tiger's underbelly, apparently striking the ammo well and resulting in a tremendous explosion that blew its turret loose. With near certainty, the entire crew was killed.

    OK, why would a King Tiger waiting in ambush decide to move forward in mid-combat to a target only 600m away and expose its belly? Oh and I thought that Germans shooting without being able to hit the broad side of a barn door was a Hollywood myth, but maybe not smile.gif
  8. Yes indeed, plus another problem with 88s in a QB aside from their doubtful setup is their cost. If the Allied player has on-map mortars, or guns, on overwatch (which should be pretty common) then the 88 will be spotted and targetted almost immediately. Considering that 88s are 2-3 times more expensive than Matildas then an allied player should be quite happy to exchange them one for one. He'd have to be pretty dumb to allow an 88 to survive and inflict damage in reasonable excess of its cost.

    Thanks for the comments GAJ, I meant to finish commenting every British AFV FWIW on CMAKdb but arrived at the Shermans and couldn't quite face 9 lots of cutting and pasting. Good to see people are still using folke's site smile.gif

  9. Ah, here we have the nub of the QB problem for CMAK. In terms of armour, the Brits have been crippled by having all their cruiser series designated as 'burns easily' for no good reason. In CMAK the Italian M11s and M13s will beat them one on one because the Italians usually take many more hits to knock out. Of course the Panzers have an even easier time. Therefore the Brits will be picking Matildas, which are ridiculously cheap and virtually unstoppable, and early war QBs involving armour tend to be very unbalanced in favour of one side or the other.

    As we get to mid'42 there is a better match up between long barreled PzIVs and Grants/Shermans, but as Stugs and Tigers start to appear the advantage lies squarely with the Germans. This continues until the Tiger killers such as 17pdr equipped units appear.

    So IMO for armour there is no 'balanced time' at least until 1944. But hey, who said war was fair! If you are looking for a 'fair' armour battle, then you'll need house rules. For example try a '43 battle with a no Tiger purchase rule. Unfortunately if you want to play a '42 or less battle, the armour situation will be so unbalanced as to detract from the game, even with house rules.

  10. Originally posted by coe:

    I'd also be interested to know of Italians vs. whoever when the Italians were in a situation where they weren't outgunned, out tanked, out airforced, etc. (i.e. pure head on fight or something like that)

    Coe

    East Africa '40/'41 - Keren. 30,000 of the most determined and best of the Italian Army such as the Savoia Grenadiers, Alpini, and Bersaglieri face off against two Indian divisions while defending a mountain fortress.

    fire09.jpg

    Plenty of reading to keep you going there. smile.gif

  11. Sorry Zitadelle I missed that you were only using the trains in the earlier post.

    However in light of your wife's family connections I'm going to give the IWM Duxford an even bigger shout. Amongst its buildings is The American Air Museum which was built as a tribute to the American airmen who flew out of Britain, and unsurprisingly among the many aircraft there is a C47.

    It's a bit fiddly to get there by train, as you go to Cambridge and get the complimentary coach from there, but I'd be amazed if you didn't think it was worth it.

    Anyway I'll get off the soap box and wish you all the best for your trip.

    Cheers.

  12. Yes the IWM London is well worth it IMHO. I have just one word to say on the matter - Jagdpanther.

    London to Portsmouth is approximately two hours by car, but only if you are lucky with the traffic. London to Bovington approx 3 hours and likewise. HMS Victory is very nice, but one warning, almost all of the cannon on board are plastic replicas to avoid straining the hull as she is stored in dry dock. I like Portsmouth, but a day trip could well involve a 5 hour plus round trip from London, and although I've never been, AFAIK Bovington is even further.

    A good bet and most definitely worth a visit IMHO is the IWM museum at Duxford, which is only about an hour each way. A superb collection of aircraft of all kinds and a very worthy Land Warfare Hall tagged on to it as well. It's my favourite site and I think even better than the London IWM. Website is here.

    You could also check out one of the Kent airfields like Biggin Hill, or go further down to Dover to see the Castle and the rooms inside the cliffs from where they ran Dunkirk. Possibly take a trip North to Bletchley Park where they broke Enigma. These aren't as well developed as the IWM sites but they are fairly close and you will probably find them interesting.

    I haven't been to the new Churchill Museum yet, but I did visit the Cabinet War Rooms and they were worthwhile in their own right.

    If you are loitering in the vicinity until mid-July there is the excellent War and Peace show also in Kent, which AFAIK contains the largest collection of working military vehicles in the world.

    [ February 24, 2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

×
×
  • Create New...