krill

Yes. I didn't want to offend your high Pengness by comparing you with lesser mortals like Fionn and Username/Lewis, it were just examples of names that gave flavor to the boards of yesteryear (in my opinion). This reminds me of a classic post from your hand; The Awful TRUTH about Smilies: What the Thought Police Don't Want You to Know.

That's from a preview of CMBO from a build somewhere between the Aplha and the release of the beta demo. I remember the Aplha screenshots, they were more basic then this and had triangles under all units to show 'heading'. [ September 24, 2005, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: krill ]

Heh, lot's of fun searching the old forum archives. Bumping into Fionn, Peng and Lewis... Too bad the thread that caused the 'refresh monkey meltdown' seems to have disappeared. PS: Graphics powerrrr

Coming back to these forums and reading up on the plans on CMx2 I really hope BTS doesn't make the same mistakes they made in the past. So help out and gather some valuable lessons here in this thread to remind the crew of 'past embarrassments' so we will be spared of them in the future. 1- Listen to the first hand experience of the know-all re-enactors and make HMG crews able to run marathons. 2- Make note of the well-documented combat use of the kitchen sink and their dreaded side-effects. 3- And for peep's sake at least do some basic research on the correct bird sounds this time. (Still cracks me up ) 4- And above all; don't tell anyone (but me) when you are gonna upload the demo, remember the refreshing monkeys feeding frenzy. Ah, good times..... PS:

Yeah, so, I dug up the ol' specs thread so shoot me. I'm currently orientating on hardware to buy a new gaming rig in time for the year's end flush of new games. Also, if BFC repeats their magic somewhere in 2006, I want my new baby to give the best CMx2 performance possible. So I wonder if CMx2 is going to be just as CPU-intensive as the CM1 engines? I remember a hefty Athlon did wonders for CM:BO back in the day. Will the ranking of CM important PC-components still be as followed?; 1-CPU (hefty FPU work) 2-CPU (gosh, please make the turn go faster ...) 3-CPU (bloody huge Rune scenario's :mad: ) 4-Graphics power 5-RAM size 6-HD space (gazillion mods alert) 7-Number of buttercup holders Or will graphics power be more important this time as Charles is working on bump-map support for shiny lobster armor?

I'm thinking the CvC sounds to me like a 'Nice to have'. Good for scenario-designers, but I see little gain for a casual player like myself. And I don't care for a 'rerun' of the movie, it wont add anything to the game for me. Besides, won't that potentially hurt ... ehm ... [mutter] PBEM play [/mutter] ? :confused: Blunt maybe, but these are my thoughts.

Ah you sad bunch ..... real man don't care about graphics and just want BF to code the ultimate historical accurate portrayal of WWII tactical combat. Stop whining about graphics and give them the time to put in historical detail like ....... airdropped shermans ! Large pic panzer para's Other games are doing it so it must be reaallyistuc !!!11! PS: the mauss comes in on a glider I guess [ September 12, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: krill ]

Don't worry about that they are on track Linky: Http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004103;p=1#000013

Zalgiris1410, I got the other figures from ' Handbook on german military forces, US war department', there is an online version somewhere. I don't have a huge library on books on WWII, and sadly all those books and all the weblinks I find only mention things as anti-tank performance and weight of the guns. So far I have found no references or accounts on survival ability of ATG's on the battlefield. I would think that a double 4mm plate would give much added protection over a single 8mm plate. It is my understanding that solid rounds tend to 'tumble' after penetrating an armour plate. Thus giving the second plate a much higher probabilty to defeat the incoming round. That was also the purpose of the 'Schurtzen' later on. Obviously the 2x4mm on the gunshields were not going to withstand hits from ATR's but I think they weren't designed to. An ATG needs only to surive MG-fire in order to force a tank to a gun-duel. So it would be logical if the gunshield was designed with that in mind.

I don't see what you are worrying about, all grogs know that there were close ties with the empire during the last years of the war. Many of their protoype weapons were being field tested under german command. Who better than George Lucas to provide all the needed technical information to provide authentic simulation? And the tie-in with the movie will generate great interest for the demo! For example, here's a rare unedited picture from Lucas his archives;

This is the gunshield of a Pak40, and those are not two 24mm plates you see. I stand by my previous post. Edit: typo, and; The 2x 2,4 mm is probable but the only two sources I have contradict each other on this. 2x 2,4 mm or 2x 4mm ? [ July 14, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: krill ]

Amen to that. Played the original demo to death and beyond, a very serious hook. Considering I correctly understand the design philosophy, all a CMx2 demo needs to showcase is an interesting scenario or two. The rest is part of the engine so all 'gameplay features' will be there. Question is what setting for scenario's will appeal to the american market the most ... France 44, Desert storm ?

I believe Alex Buchner (German infantry handbook) got these numbers wrong. They are just to incredible. More credible are the stated two 4mm plates at 25mm interval for the PAK38 and PAK40 and a single 5mm plate for the 37mm PAK. Sufficient to defeat incoming MG fire and not much else. [ July 14, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: krill ]