Xipe66
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Xipe66
-
-
The last waypoint is only a Backspace away, but it would really suck if your first waypoint out of a chain of ten was amiss...
-
I bombed on the first mission. And the second time through Disembark was greyed out alot of the time - I really like how everything flows over time from a situational angle, I just need to understand the why and how.
Good thing they modeled CNN and FOX News into this, because otherwise I'd have won.
[ July 27, 2007, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
-
Pretty, fitting music and really hard.
I have no idea on how to conduct MOUT warfare and my men are paying for it.
The sounds, music and graphics are good though, I can't really comment much on the actual game yet (except I'm struggling) after just playing the first two training missions.
The controls were intuitive enough, but I would have preferred if keybindings had stayed as they used to be (no biggie though) - gonna have to RTFM about how to easily change between command groups though.
In the first mission I unloaded my men at WWII MG ranges (about 500m), and lost one MG team and half a squad right away despite trying to suppress the enemy with the Strykers.
(my original plan was to unload the MGs earlier, but I didn't know about the Disembark not being among the Movement commands, so my MGs Quick-moved without moving when the Stryker paused).It's going to be a learning curve.
EDIT: Oh, and I didn't see any map generator in the Scenario Editor - I hope I just need to RTFM, because that's a big reason as to why CMBB has lasted on my HD up to this day.
[ July 27, 2007, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
-
What Fußball said, but damn the Tigers - play cause at that point the T-34s are pretty evenly matched with the new guns and armour of the Pz.III and Pz.IV - and so both sides get to play with the IRL work horses of the armor war on even terms.
-
First german tank that can take it on and win by KO (not by bailing it, or getting gun/track disabled from hail fire) is probably the Pz.III 50/L60? (e.g. empathically not during Barbarossa - just curious though)
-
Nope, apparently because the engine can't handle multi-turreted vehicles. Same goes for the T-35.
-
I find it funny how "German could have won the war, or averted this or that if only", just a few topics down from this one I found;
Sattelite divisions were usually supplied with old equipment, if the Germans supplied them at all. If they were better supplied, Operation Uranus (the encirclement of the 6th army at Stalingrad) would not have happened. After the withdrawal from the Caucasus, the sattelite units (Hungarians, Romanians, and Italians) were mostly left to fend for themselves; no longer recieving support from the Germans. -
Check your hearing then. Since Germany lost the war such hyptethical questions are much more interesting - all while allied questions can be interesting too (concerning how they could have won with lesser manspill for instance) it's quite "fun" to ponder about what turn the war would have taken what if something had happened.Originally posted by General Colt:I'm sick and tired of all these hypothetical questions :mad: :
What if Jerry had won Stalingrad, Kursk, etc? What if Feyberg had screwed up Crete worse and the Falschrimmers were still a viable fighting force?
All I hear is: Friggin Go Herman Go.
Doesn't mean anyone's rooting for Herman, just an intellectual exercise.
As for Poland I pretty much agree with Tero and even more with Zalgiris - it's not even a very good pro-allied "what if" scenario you proposed.
-
Google is your friend.
Froogle search 1 (battle for moscow)
Froogle search 2 (barbarossa)
Check the books at Amazon for reviews (to see if they're any good or not).
BTW - You've gotta love the "barbarossa" search!
-
-
Jason,
Very interesting numbers, but when you got to the Crusaders vs. the Pz. III's in CMAK that got some questions raised for me: are you saying there's some general übergerman bias in all of the CM games, or are you saying that penetrating hits don't always kill?
If the latter, why not complete your tests with with german vehicles hitting allied ones, cause as it stands now what you present could be dismissed as FUD from a known über-german-modelling-has-to-go proponent.
-
Funny...I don't remember me or anyone else saying anything about having an "on/off" feature for immobilizations.</font>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:
Regarding the idea of it being an on/off feature, I am with flamingknives. What else do you want to have as on/off? Where does it stop?
-
If the ZIP-files are "garbled" you'll get CRC errors when extracting them - barring that happening the saves extracted should be quite alright.
-
On battlefield.ru under the development history of the KV-1S they offer this appraisal of the KV-1:
According to one of the KV-1 designers: "During 1942 we were still in need of a reliable heavy tank. That's why we were defeated in Crimea and at Kharkov. The KV-1 completely discredited the concept of a heavy tank." -
But a game trying its best to simulate historic realities -> this more than just a game.Originally posted by Sanok:This is still a game, after all.
The other side of the coin is games like Il-2 Sturmovik where every unit is unaffected by any bad manufacturing or raw material realities... which is also fun, but leads to unhistoric use of some units (like our Überstug) - while bogging helps players use tanks a tad more careful - and possibly more realistic - when moving them.
I do however concur that an option to turn bogging off and on might be good, but I would probably still play with it turned on.
-
Very interested in participating too, won't mind helping out with "paperwork" either if that should be needed. Not a top notch player though (only played a few times online, but a veteran against the computer - I fear this experience will prove nothing online again though) so maybe I can be given - if a seat at all - lower echelon troops with subpar commander.
I can play most of the week but am in europe (GMT+1) so 09:00-02:00 (GMT) works best.
-
My tests were done at 1000 m and always with the Panther coming sideways behind some forest and ASAP turning its front towards the "ambushers", and 70% of the T-34's cowered on the first turn on average (some times they all cowered, some only 40% on the first turn).
Never tried with having the Panther just move along as a nice sideways target (better Kill-chance) nor did I try out different experience levels for the Soviet crews.
This STILL echoes what's already been said IMHO - the tac AI doesn't take into account other friendly units, while the damage model is open for non penetrating hits that disable (gun damage and immobilize) -- I think that's the main peeve.
I.e. even if 100 T-34's face one single Panther at 1000 m - unless the Panther dies from the guys that don't cower on the first round - all T-34's will have cowered on the second round (this was true for 20 T-34's vs one Panther in the test I did).
It's a numbers' game.
BTW, I am guessing the T-34's have at least some chance of penetrating the big guy at 350 m?
[ April 14, 2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
-
Simply: the downfall is that tac AI doesn't take numbers into account. For smaller scenarios this doesn't play much of a role (rather the tac AI overrides suicidal decisions) - but for larger armor engagements it plays a pivotal role: even 20 T-34's in hull down position will all cower within two turns (80% on the first turn) against a single Panther - while if they all stayed they might suffer only a few losses (one or two, tops) before damaging or routing the Panther.
Given existing hardware abilities, and the suggested system requirements for CMX2, I would venture to hope that this will be incorporated in the next iteration. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:
Another way is to set additional If-thens before the existing routines kick in, to make their choices more sensible. Only check tank cower if the gun state reads "reloading", for instance. Only cover panic if there is 25% better cover (absolute exposure difference) within 50m.
-
They still cower, maybe not as bad though (up to 60% will stay at least for a while, or until they notice being targetted).I wonder. What if the situation were moved-up to VERY late war and T-44s substituted for T34s? I bring up the T-44 because it and the IS-3 are about the only things in the game capable of reliably taking a Panther gun hit. If THEY cower we've got a problem!Setting up armor cover arcs and experience seems to play a role too, but without extensive testing its hard to say how much.
At 1040 m the T-44:s have Kill: Rare while the Panther has Kill: Good.
This is in May 1945.
In the example at hand (July 1943), the T-34's have Kill: None, while the Panther has Kill: Very Good.
Despite the T-34/44's being hull down the Panther still also had better chance to hit, it also has higher ROF (1-on-1). In one turn it's reasonably that it will take out 2-4 T-34's - would you stick around for the odds this presents?
Taken together I think what should be blamed is the tac AI's inability to take damaging hail fire into consideration; with lots of luck 5 T-34's might get a disabling hit - in the example at hand it seems rather prudent not to gamble that way. I.e. they're wiser for the fact that they disobeyed that particular order - maybe if there had been 10 of them they should stick around, take some losses and hope for a gun hit or for demoralizing the Panther...
However in the example with the T-44's I think they should stay around if ordered so and in sufficient numbers (5-6+), the Kill: Rare has a greater chance of partial penetrations which might shock or route the Panther - or with some luck a lucky penetration that will finish it.
According to battlefield.ru (I think it was) only three T-44's actively participated on the eastern front - no documentation exists of any IS-3's seeing action against the germans.Unfortunately for the historical pureist, I rather doubt there were any T-44/IS-3 fights with Panthers dring the war.[ April 13, 2005, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
-
A good example of historical game unfairness is IL-2 Sturmovik - where the designers did a marvelous job at mimicking the different WWII planes characteristics, and then didn't bother to give russians any historical problems due to low production quality (every La-7 is a perfectly manufactured La-7). CM-series has pretty much captured the historic feel of what it portrays though. Keep bogging.
-
Once they truly bog they're immobile for the rest of the game. However, there's a window of time sometimes where you have a chance of still unbogging - if you can still give the tank orders it's still got a chance of unbogging. I think I read somewhere that putting the tank in reverse works best, never noticed much difference though - some unbog in a turn or two - rest stays bogged.
As for the subject and critique I extremely seldom get bogged tanks when I use Move and stay away from bad terrain. If the overall terrain is snowy or wet it happens sometimes but not often enough to be irritating - guess it was worse in CMBO and CMBB 1.2 though.
Somehow I think it should stay in though - CM-series is not primarily a game - it's a historical game. If it was just game to maximize fun and fairness alot of things would be different.... IMO.
-
Ouch, didn't know that. Does this hold true for CMBB too (armour covered arc not targetting armoured cars)?
-
Well, the AI certainly uses up its tank points, so you really have to prepare for it. And if you're playing a human adversary he'll probably do the same - and since it's no fun getting your infantry mauled by his T-34's after he's finished with your sub-par tank counter you'd better think about how you buy your forces.Ah, once again it all comes down to tanks.The example with the Tiger above was not optimal though, a Tiger played right will kill all six of those barring an unfortunate tracks or gun hit that puts it out of comission (I just finished a battle against AI with 4 Tigers and 8 Pzkpfw. III (inspired by original doctrine) against 48 russian tanks, AP ammo - not longevity - is a concern when you field a Tiger (esp. in 42-43)).
A more fair challenge is sticking to Pzkpfw. III/IV and Marders against an armoured allied assault (the setting "Armoured", not "Pure Armour") - at 2000 pts the AI gets about 18-25 T-34 and IS's, while you get 2-4 III's and a handful of Marder's + 3-4 75 mm AT guns.
... then once you replay and pick a Tiger instead of the III's it's a breeze.
[ April 09, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
-
What they said.
In any QB the russian AI will have more tanks (if tanks are allowed at all) unless you buy the lower order of cheap german vehicles - and if you play an allied attack or allied assault the AI will get approx. four times the points you get for armour (IIRC one allied attack battle I played, I got 600 pts of armour and the russian AI got 2100). So stock up on anti-tank firepower (AT guns, 75 mm bunkers and anti-tank mines + the tanks you buy).
To check the actual values just set that the human will buy forces for both sides - then cancel and let the AI buy (if that's the way you prefer it).
Works Fine For You? - Tell Us Your System Specs, Please!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Runs like a charm, four year old computer with upgraded GFX-card.
P4 2Ghz
512 Mb RAM
nVidia 6600 GT (128 Mb)
Windows XP SP2