30ot6

The 76mm AT guns available to the allies in '45 aren't designated as captured.

Why can the Germans get captured 76mm guns at any time of the war when the allies themselves can only get them in 1945? Error in the TO&E, or is there a plausible reason for this?

My impression of meta-campaigns is that they try to do too much. Perhaps they would be easier to pull off if they only tried to simulate a division versus division engagement, or maybe even smaller? Although...a massive meta campaign set in Africa would be very cool because it was small enough that you would be able to fight the whole theater. At least, I think it was...the Afrika Korps only had about 3 German divisions, right?

"Puss" has two esses. It's an angry, confusing, TNT slathered issue. :mad: </font>

:mad: :mad: GRAGRGRGRGGGH!!!! WHERES THAT NASTY TANKY??? Fee, fi fo, fum, I smell the blood of a Tanky!!! He must pay! The people of my fiefdom demand revenge!!!! :mad: :mad: Send me a setup, you pus soaked worthless maggot! We'll settle this dispute the real way with hot TNT!! I shall melt your pitiful soldiers into little pools of mush! None of this petty Fiefdom squabbling!! :mad: GRGRGRAGGRAGGRGHGRHAGRAGAGGRRRRRGGGHGRGRGGGGRHGRHGRARGH! :mad: :mad: :mad: [ January 25, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: 30ot6 ]

Well, I know the snowy tree bmps do exist; I've seen them in game. Weather conditions have to be frozen for them to take effect. I have no clue why they don't appear in Spaghetti Western. Maybe something to do with the fog?

This brings up a question: do highly trained troops fight better then their standard equivalents? For example, would green Rangers be better fighers than a green rifle squad? Is the intensive training that fallschirmjagers recieved modeled in the game by making them superior in some way the standard grenadier? Curious to know.

Was playing The Last Defense CMAK conversion, and was surprised to discover that the SS Mechanized soldiers can have more than one assault waypoint as well as having other commands attached to the end of the asssault. I presume this is to simulate better training. Anyway, I thought it was prettty cool. Another one of those little details that you surprise that seem so prevalent in this game. [ January 24, 2004, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: 30ot6 ]

Hmmm, Moon, does this mean CMx2 will do away with the god-view? *hopeful grin* I want the game to put me in the boots of the commander, and it has often occured to me that limited ground view is the only way to do that...

What we need are battles happening in continuous time. Continuous as in non-stop for a period of say, 12 hours(just for instance, it should be infinitely variable). A player would command just one unit(probably a company or battalion) as part of a larger battle. As the player's unit comes in and out of the battle, tactical gameplay is activated. Not for the constant skirmishing, only when important tactical action is going to take place. It's a very rough idea, but I think it might be workable, if people with enough knowledge put their minds to it. It's essentially a meta campaign automated. It would be easy to use this format for a three month campaign, too. And with true multiplayer, wow would it be fun! I would like to know how a unit on the offense resupplied. Were reserves sent in, was the position abandoned(I would assume not!), did they bring the ammo forward to the new position? I suppose it varied depending on the individual situation.

I'm gonna have nightmares now with some guy saying that to me, and then they'll truck me off to prison for being a being opposed to the Nazi regime or sumfink. But seriously, is that sound used in the game? I haven't heard it, and can't imagine...??? Perhap's an actor got goofy and somehow the cut sneaked onto the CD? A secret codeword telling BFCs contacts to go ahead with the secret plan? I must know!

:mad: It had better be good! :mad: Point taken, ya'll?

Hey, how'd all these MBT denizens get out? Back to the pit of slime, you poor souls!

One of them recently said that they are now more open to other possibilities, maybe Matt? This was specifically in the context of whether BFC would do a Pacific game. He didn't say they would; he just said that they could. As though they might be considering it. Very vague, but it leaves one hopeful.

Controlled in what sense? As for it being modern weaponry, not necessarily. At standard issue competitions, the most modern weapon you'll find is an AR15(civilian equivelant of the M16). WWII weapons were more accurate than that. Also, standard issue rifles of WWII were as accurate as pretty much anything today, with the exception of course of the super high powered high tech sniper guns. The gun that is issued to US Army competition shooters, however, is the M14; basically an updated M1. If I were to decide to get into high power competition shooting myself, I would probably start looking for a K98. I'm pretty much with Treeburst. Given a prone position and properly adjusted sights, hitting moving targets at that range isn't in any sense of the word impossible. It would take a skilled shooter, yes, but those aren't that rare.

Speaking from my knowledge of firearms...300 meters would be no problem for a trained marksmen. In high power competition shooting, the ranges go out to 600 yards; even at that distance shooters hit bullseye frequently, and the good ones consistently. I don't have the figures in front of me, but the largest the bullseye could be on those things is 1 foot in diameter(I think it's more like 6 inches, but am not sure), which is smaller target than a human. So anyway, 80% sounds to me about right, definitely not superhuman(shooting is not nearly as hard as some people imagine). Of course, how accurate a shooter is varies from individual to individual. [ January 01, 2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: 30ot6 ]

That is a lovely tank, isn't it? When Moon referred to "Panzers", he meant the 3D RTS coming out sometime next year. CDV is the distributor. Too RTS-y and cartoonish(far more so than WC) for me. I still agree with Moon on the terrain, though. The colors are just a bit too pastel. Also, the ever present mist drives me crazy. Makes everything look too smooth and soft. Maybe the colors just aren't quite vibrant enough. Good terrain needs strong contrasts. I suspect that we're only going to know how good WC really looks once we see it in motion. I won't be surprised if it's spectacular.

Hey you. Keep your flames limited to forums where you normally hang out. Here, if you ask a question, it is assumed you are sincerely looking for an answer. Maybe you should have written your post like this: Battlefront is so stupid for not using GameSpy. Obviously, anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. Agree with me or you are stupid(and arrogant). Battlefront had better change this. That's what you really meant, isn't it?

It's trees are certainly part of it. They are all scattered about, one tree by itself, or two or three together. Trees are usually in groups. The colors might be slightly off, too. There's something about the CM terrain that I like. It's grainier and rougher looking than newer engines, but at the same time it feels slightly more real to me. I'm glad you're commited to hanging onto that characteristic. Also glad to hear you're setting your sights high for the new graphics engine. I don't care what the purists say, eye candy is half the fun.

Okay. I've played both demos extensively. Based on my experiences, I think I like CMAK better. The infantry model seems slightly different to me; though just as likely to pin and retreat as in CMBB, the CMAK infantry doesn't seem to break as easily. Also seems to me like the CMAK infantry is more likely to recover from a state of panic. For instance, in Yelnia Stare playing as Russians: when the Germans bring down artillery, my infantry seem to break very, very easily, and not just the green and conscripts soldiers. In contrast, I was playing Line of Defense, and the Germans somehow managed to bring down artillery fire on two of my platoons that were crossing a wheatfield(the one behind the ridge overlooking the town). My soldiers hit the dirt and crawled for cover, but didn't even panic, much less break or route. In any case it seems that soldiers are less likely to break in CMAK, which feels more realistic to me. For my troops to hit the dirt and head for cover feels right; for them to break simply because they were under fire for an extended period of time(and didn't even take casualties) doesn't. So then, my question: are my perceptions somewhat correct, or are the two actually pretty much the same, with the only difference being that in the CMAK demo scenarios there is more cover? If I'm right, I'll probably only buy CMAK; if you guys tell me otherwise, I may reconsider and go for the bundle pack. [ December 29, 2003, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: 30ot6 ]

Lands, you two sound like a couple of 6 year olds. You should both shut up before you make fools of yourselves in public any further. How about this: set up a nice little scenario in CMBB sometime in 1943. Mr. Tittles play as Russians, and Bastables you can be Germans. Both of you take lots of tanks, T34/76s for you Mr. Tittles and MkIVs, Tigers, and Panthers for you Bastables. Then you can both let out your frustration on the battlefield. Then, let bygones be bygones, and you can live forever more in peaceful harmony...

I was under the impression that at El Alamein, the infantry spearheaded the attack and carried the brunt of it(Tobruk too). I seem to recall that it may have been a night attack, though...anyone know?

Wow. Someone with a life. Didn't know there were any of those types on this board.

When I played it from the German side, I waited for all my tanks to show up, then just spread them out on the ridge and told them to advance via the seek hull down command. They moved up, sat on the ridge, and just pounded away. At the end, all American tanks destroyed, 4 MkIIIs lost. Rolled forward and finished the job, easy win. Then when I played as Americans, the stars smiled upon me again...the MkIIIs moved up, and got holed. Twas like clockwork. KO'd all fifteen, while I lost only one Sherman. Meanwhile, they put all their infantry in the center, and were solidly repulsed, in large part to being pounded by my artillery. So, with their armored support wiped away, I moved my Shermans down the left and Honeys down the right. After after killing the one final MkII that had been hiding behind the ridge and cutting down or forcing a a surrender of the few tank crews that had stuck around, I closed the pincer maneuver and turned my tanks back into the faces of the fleeing German infantry. Poor buggers never had a chance. Total victory. 273 enemy casualties inflicted, 54 captured, and 22 vehicles destroyed. A mere 36 Germans walked away from the battlefield alive and free. I had only 17 casualties, and one tank destroyed. Ah, the sweet taste of complete and devastating victory...

Well, I don't know about Vietnam, but Israeli-Palestinian wars? What are you guys thinking? That war really is still alive and kicking, and as such, I would almost consider it immoral to desenitize it in a computer game. Some things are better left alone; this conflict is definitely one of them.