Gurra
-
Posts
463 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gurra
-
-
Aren´t objecives 'force relative dependant' in CMBN? In CMx1, you could hold a flag by greater firepower and good positions, but now it seems it´s enough to position a squad or a team a few metres inside an objectiv area to deny it from the opponent.
Played Bois de Baguin yesterday and was surprised that my friend succeded in denying me my objective by having just a few men inside 'my area', pinned by and opposing a + platoon or so of my troops. Also, [POSSIBLE SPOILER] he got his points from having men inside his objective area some 30 meters from my force, since the two sides objectives were overlapping each other, I think.
Could someone clarify how this works in detail? I must confess I get a little disappointed if it is more effective to get the company cook into an objective as a last desperat effort, rather than setting up, say a couple of heavy machine guns with possible direct fire to the objective.
-
Nice work! Eagerly expecting.
-
14. The game tells the LOS from the gun itself re shooting capability. (Currently it could be from the 3rd loader or some other non-essential spotter, while the gun itself can't fire at the target.)
Is this actually happening? It could then describe some indescribeable problems I have experienced with target and LOS.
-
How odd. Many veterans of the war mention tracers in just about all the medium calibers, and yes they were meant to be visible in daylight too. Certainly Allied tank guns fired tracer shot and shell. It has been noted in several narratives that Bofors 40 mm guns fired tracer above advancing British infantry at night to guide them and keep them on course. I'm not sure that large caliber naval cannon used tracer, but the shells were red hot when they emerged from the barrels anyway and could be observed in their trajectories at night. The smaller caliber AA (40 mm and less) certainly used tracer as hundreds of feet of movie film shot during air attacks will attest.
Well, I am certainly no expert in this field and what you say sounds very convincing. I guess that is so then.
-
check out my latest AAR if you have some time to kill.
https://lostvictories.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/eroudeville/
Finally took the time to do another one.
cheers
-
Oh, and may I add, I have seen 40mm ~ 60mm AP ammo shot in real life as spectator, and I can´t remember anything like it at that time either.
-
I'm not sure I understand the question ....
I was referring to the tracer effect when tanks are firing. Like a massive blob of yellow heat about half a meter in length flying to the target.
Yep, it would be pretty confusing to play without some visual cues. "My guys are firing at... uhm, what?"I have actually modded my game so there´s almost no tracer effect at all when my tanks fire, and I have no problem understanding what they fire at. The impact of their shooting often tells...
With small arms fire it would be odd though, I agree.In that youtube clip there´s definitely a red glowing thing flying away from the gun barrel. I´d say it´s tracer ammo. But during day time? A massive tracer effect like seen in the default game graphics would show even on a black and white war footage. I have never seen anything like that. Just a big puff at the muzzle brake, and then......kaboom 1000 meters away.
-
Did they really use tracer ammo for big calibers in WW2, like for tanks? I am thinking about the noticable graphics when tanks fire in CMBN. Or perhaps that is for game play reasons?
-
Any idea why a pioneer section refuses to blow a hole in the bocage, in shelter and with plenty of satchels? I don´t know how many times I ordered them with the blast command. Instead they just made a quick move through the first hole. Oh yeah, intention was to blow two holes to let a tank through.
-
Aah. Of course. That would be the strategy. And when my kids ask me to babysit as grandfather, I will just tell them to get lost.
-
I totally agree with you Erwin. I played CMBB and CMAK right up until CMBN was released. I then made the decision to move on, since the new graphics card enabling me to run CMBN well enough didn´t allow me to use any Anti Aliasing or Aniso in the older games, ever since Nvidia changed their implementation. If it weren´t for that snag, I would probably still have those games on my hard drive.
I miss the Eastern Front. Very much. Problem is, until BFC gets to Fall Blau, which is sort of a favourite period, I will have grown grey hair. Turning 38 today and the first ones are starting to show up
-
I still use a lot of your mods Gurra - thanks for making CM1 look so good.
My pleasure. Nice to hear some are still used...you are an eastern front buff, I take it?
Probably the system looks for schurzen versions. So, if there are more versions by one modder that are numbered correctly, it's possible that the extra ones are getting mixed in since the system chooses these things randomly.Yes, I realize. Hmm.
BullGod, I named your package with a 'Z' first of all. Should overwrite Aris stuff, as far as I know. Well, I am going to try some other file structure, sure it will work fine.
cheers
-
Hi, thanks so much for these. They actually remind me of some of my own I did in the halcyon days of CMx1
The bmp's seemed properly numbered and everything, so I just wrapped them and put them into the Z folder. But then one tank showed up with mixed schurzen - some of yours, some of Aris. Any idea?
-
Nice, I like the scraping of paint along the edges. It serves the double purpose of weathering and accentuating the lines. Did you do the front wheels on the 250 as well? Looks really good. On another thought: Bullfrog, since you like the vehicles heavily weathered, would you consider doing some of them with a lot of dunkelgelb paint scraped off, so that the dunkelgrau or the primer shows in larger areas?
Thanks for sharing your work, it looks really good!
-
Thank you sir. Was very much impressed with the whole synergi effect of your mod-playing a battle was a much more in your face experience compared to stock, which was to my personal liking.
-
And so it happened once more: unbeknownst to me, the HQ unit somehow stayed selected, and all carefully placed units were moved in one swift stroke and had to be arranged once more. Could there be implemented a ctrl Z function in the set up phase perhaps?
best regards
-
In an ever changing world, it is so a warming thought that Tanks a Lot is still around and create mods (that actually goes for Juju too). I want to thank him for this upcoming wonderful work, and also all the great times I´ve had with his stuff in the past (that actually goes for Juju too).
Cheers!
-
I have been waiting for this....thanks thanks thanks
-
I think I should add that I by no means mean to degrade allied troops here. Of course there were allied formations that showed as much professionalism and esprit as any elite german formation, not only airborne or obvious elite corps. And there were lesser german troops as well showing unexpected resistance. So truth shows width as usual.
-
Nazi Germany was soundly defeated by a superior enemy, the Allied tanks were better, the troops were better, their weapons better, the logistics better, manpower better and under more or less air supremacy.
Well, I wouldn´t say that tanks and weapons were better, probably the contrary on a piece by piece comparison. They were better, however, in respect of availability and numbers. And in the long run, that beats narrow excellence nine times out of ten. It was definitely shown on the eastern front, i. e the T-34 'doctrine', where a good solid tank with predictable performance was the way to go in the long run, as opposed to more expensive german solutions - not just tanks - that seem to have fragmented and drained their pool of resources. The Sherman I think shows a similar pattern.
As have been pointed out many a time before, the outcome of the war was decided on the eastern front. Germany had not the resources to fight a long drawn war on two fronts, much the same as in the Great War. They did however, and just like in they years 1916-18, they managed to do so much thanks to a absurdly effective economic and arms program drawn up by equally suited men to their tasks; Rathenau and Speer.
Speers armaments program started to show effect despite heavy allied bombings in late 44-45, and the effect was what would have been needed much earlier: streamlining production focusing on a few rationalized weapon designs. Believe it or not, even though (from my point of view) german organisation was in general remarkable and in places outshone allied counterparts, armed forces management were at the same time suffering from fragmentation and lack of consensus. And a lot of people in charge late in the war were just dilitants. IMHO, late in the war, one perspective of the defeat of Nazi Germany is that it was as much a work of itself, as the Allied war effort.
-
US shortcommings and how did they win.
Well, a very general answer to that would be something like r e s o u r c e s.
(Debateable) shortcomings did only matter on a tactical level, not the strategic level. And I suppose that the germans were really the ones who proved that tactical flair do not win campaigns. But nevertheless the tactical aspects forced the Allies through a much longer campaign in France than perhaps anticipated, not mentioning reaching Berlin.
-
Good to hear. Off to place the one hundredth and eleventh house in a believable angle....
-
Hmm. Didn´t think about that aspect. Heh, I was aiming for some intense urban fighting...is there any word on static operations for future installments?
-
So, I have finally started to explore the editor. Now, As I have understood, there is no way to create 'operation type' of campaigns as in CMX1, where you fight back and forth over a single map? But I guess you could use one map and set sequential objectives along it? Then progress would be conditional of course, rather than dynamic.
With small arms fire it would be odd though, I agree.
Objectives...how was it now again?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
That must have caused you to grind your teeth down to very fine powder.
This is exactly what I mean. I guess I am on the side of those who favours an 'on top of the game perspective' where a probable continuation of the battle after its limit is reached, should be taken into perspective. Which it is when taking into account how victory points might be dealt out in relation to losses or inflicted losses. And it is also very true that it comes down to the scenario designer to make this work in a realistic or gamey way. But having it regulated that way also makes it uncertain and a fall trap for certain play styles; i.e hold back and contest the area with firepower (most realistic) and make the final push another day, or force some remnants of a squad into place because the game's mechanics sets the rules.