Jump to content

womble

Members
  • Posts

    8,022
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

womble last won the day on June 18

womble had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About womble

  • Birthday 01/06/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Location
    Leicester, UK
  • Occupation
    IS Manager

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

womble's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

346

Reputation

  1. Have had similar with ATG in CMBN... The gun in question was 'sniping' at a pTruppe in the upper storey of a light structure, IIRC, and an overshot went into trees and inflicted casualties way downrange.
  2. Absolutely true. Once it bounces off a thing, a round's "IFF" is turned off...
  3. Sadly, the opinion seems to be that this period would not sell sufficient copies to be the "first and biggest" launch of a new title. However, with some clever architecture choices, my pessimistic outlook might be unwarranted. One of the big chunks of work for any of the titles is the TO stuff, and the base data for that changes not one whit with a new game engine. All that work could be re-used. Similarly, the data behind all the armour values and such is already crunched, and could be imported. So perhaps the CM3 family would inflate with Big Bang speed (relatively speaking), rather than taking a decade and a half to get from partial '43 to mostly-ETO '45... which would mean that the AK period and first couple of years of Ger-v-Sov could come along sooner than we might think. There's hope yet.
  4. I'm not sure a direct comparison of CM1 and CM2 in terms of longevity is quite appropriate. ISTR that one of the reasons for getting rid of (rather than iterating upon) CM1 was its monolithic spaghetti code which was not amenable to updating without totally breaking. CM2 was designed, I get the impression, to avoid (at least to some degree) that stumbling block, and that's why we're on engine... is it 4? now. Nevertheless, the base engine and concept is, for some values, showing its age now, and there are obviously some core tenets of the code that would be good to upgrade, in the light of experience, but which are too deeply embedded to be readily changed. A fresh start on CM3 would be good, especially if it could leverage the non-code-specific work that's been done. But then we would definitely never get to the early war setting...
  5. That seems abnormally long, IME. ISTR it depends on the soft factors of the team in question, but 15-30 seconds is more 'expected'.
  6. Here's a question I don't have time to test: since the MG can "ammo share" while dismounted, can it do so from other carriers in the same platoon? As if they were ammo bearers in a leg MG formation. And if that's true, can they share from other carriers while mounted? Or doesn't it work like that?
  7. A Target Arc will turn a turreted vehicle's turret axis to bisect the arc it's given, potentially meaning that the hull vision blocks aren't pointed in the direction of the TA while the hull axis is deflected from the turret weapon's axis. This might reduce the number of eyeballs that get a "chance to spot" something.
  8. I don't believe it is, no. You get a "tentative contact" or a "full spot", and that's it.
  9. Relative experience and leadership levels of the vehicles matters, as does prior information about the presence of a target and the actual viewing quality/vision aids of the given tank, and which of those are available can be affected by the axis of the target arc (whether that's a target armour or target anything arc). Terrain will have an effect too; it's possible that a tank sitting in ambush can have its LOS obscured if you're not careful about tree foliage, while still being visible to its putative ambush victim which hasn't got a tree in its face. And it's still random, so sometimes even the lower-chance-of-spotting element will get the drop on the one you'd 'expect' to spot and fire first. Once the PBEMs are over, you might get a better idea of the issues involved in the specific cases if you can cooperate with your opponent to go back and rerun that turn a few times to see if there's something systematic, or if someone just got a better dice roll.
  10. For the same price? You really don't interest me enough to fire it up and dig out Jagdpanzer prices... It's not that I want to use them that way, it's how they end up getting used, both in-game and historically, because of the strategic stances of the forces involved at that time of the war. And they're not "mediocre"; they can kill most Allied tanks (even most Allied tank marks; there were a lot fewer Churchills than Shermans and Cromwells in Normandy) and can stand up to the most common opponent at mid-or-greater ranges. As Assault guns, they're mediocre by that time in the war, having a low ammo count. Sherman 76s aren't as good as 75s in the HE-chucker role. But having some to engage the enemy armour, like a proper tank should be able to is a good idea. Unit pricing is a really tricky art. There a bunch of assumptions that have to be made, and if they're different to yours, you'll disagree with the pricing. Thus it will ever be. And BFC aren't going to enter into any discussion about it. And we're not going to be able to do anything about it. It is what it is. Buy those "Better options", and stop worrying about the missing "common weapon" in the artificial arena of a QB.
  11. For the most part, I've been talking about the AP shell. Because CM vehicles will (right or wrong) elect to use an AP shell. The HE round will tear a turret off the KT, or just kill the crew, and doctrine was changed IRL to reflect that. But CM has limitations. One of those limitations is that teams of infantry can't spread out as far as they would IRL, so HE doesn't rock the world quite as hard as it "ought" to.
  12. I was working at a defense show the other year. A client had some gear mounted on a vehicle that they had to make sure they absolutely did not turn on by accident, because the bill for fried mobile phones would be astronomical. And it wasn't aimed at mobile phones. Drone denial around airports is a different animal to drone denial in a battlespace...
  13. Ah, no. Paintballs do not travel at Mach 0.9ish... That would leave some welt... As to ringing the bell of the crew, the 152mm AP round won't come close to penetrating the glacis of a KT, let alone an Abrams. I'm sure the clang would be impressive, but that's way better than having 40 kilo of steel come roaring through your cramped fighting compartment...
×
×
  • Create New...