womble
-
Posts
8,872 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by womble
-
-
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Steve
If I was saying it like it's a bad thing, I'd've left off the quotes. I giggle at outrageous firepower, same as the next messed-up kid
-
To be honest what I find interesting is the ground all chewed up around the track when compared to the rest of the road.
That looks to me like an HE near miss stripped the track. What started the engine fire? That was Numbnuts cooking his breakfast on the engine manifold while waiting for the recovery vehicle... slipped with the cooking oil.
-
I really hope the hot key for bail out has been changed. Can't recall exact numbers ( it was a ton), of pbem turns that went to hell because I accidently hit [ trying to issue button orders.
You can change your own hotkeys
And there's an alternate set being included with the release version, we're informed. That has 'B' for bail, though, so you might want to edit that, even. For my money, 'Bail' is a command that doesn't deserve a hotkey. It's not an every-turn command (you'd hope... ) and even in RT, it's probably a low priority command, and even more important that you don't do it by accident. -
No, this is under assumption that for example SPW series of halftracks having up to 14.5mm of front armour (page 181 of CMBN) with some sloped armour plates should hold themselves against small arms in MOST cases and not having the amount of threat at "BAD".
And yet, .30-06 AP ammunition (which is commonplace) is capable of punching through "more than half an inch" of plate at 300yd.
http://www.m1-garand.com/30_06%20Discussion.htm
I was an ammunition specialist in the army, 62-65. I recall the specs on the .30 AP as being required to penetrate 1/4 inch of face hardened armor at 30 degrees obliquity at 100 yards, and 25 inches of white oak at 300 yards. These were the minimums and by testing in the field, seemed low. The .30 AP would usually clean a half-inch steel plate at short range, and penetrated better at around 300 yards, after the bullet had stabilized.Also, was that 14.5mm a 'headline' figure for that big flat plate on the nose? Was the rest of the frontal armour just as thick and just as sloped?
This questions the rationality of having a very simplified and overgeneralised 5 grade armour system of (BAD-POOR-AVERAGE-GOOD-EXCELLENT).Now, this might be semantics, but the armour system doesn't use grades. It's just a summary. It has to cover many factors such as the open top, what additional protection the driver viewing slit has, whether the armour had known manufacturing weaknesses, vulnerability of external equipment and drive components. Even a modern MBT can be damaged by small arms fire; its external sensor compnents aren't bullet-proof.
As I said I do hope there are much more complex calculations behind...Ah reckon yew must be new heuh.
The USP of the CM brand is its detailed simulation. Especially of armour effects. Fret ye not: the 'poor-excellent' rating is just a very rough guide.
The same goes for the threat itself (Anti-tank rocket- Large Caliber-Medium caliber-small caliber). For example, Soviet early 57mm can be viewed as small caliber but its penetration power is more superior than “large caliber” 76mm ZIS.In short I will be missing the detailed information of the vehicles/guns we had in CMBO and CMBB /AK.
You and many other people. Unfortunately, there are arguments for not including detailed information, ranging from the work it would take, through interface considerations, via it's inherent impossibility to account for all factors to the fact that even relatively experienced troops didn't have penetration tables at their fingertips.
-
I read somewhere U.S. HT were only meant to transport troops to roughly 900m or so from the front (a lot closer than open trucks could go), not accompany them into battle. U.S. HT side armor was only 1/4 inch (6.4mm), and 6.4mm armor was as bad at stopping steel core rounds back then as it is today.
Sd Kfz 250 side armor was 10mm set at an angle. Its front plate was 14.5mm at 12 degrees (I think), while the US HT had 12.5mm windshield/radiator covers at 25 degrees. So the U.S. vehicle might be marginally better at taking a hit to the front.
Most of a klom sounds good. Some protection from incidental (battlefield) environmental effects, basically. And not much incoming from the sides, hopefully.
Edit: Of course, we'll push them much closer than that, relying on their bullet hoses and large ammo supplies to suppress anyone that's going to be rude enough to actually shoot at the vehicle. Probably best to have the crunchies dismounted though...
-
I think it has been said that there will be no printed manuals in the hardcopies that go out after release. It'll probably just be a CD in a paper envelope.
Not so. They are running out of steel boxes, but have a lot more manuals than boxes. Harware versions sent out for some time after release will have a manual, but one day the manuals will run out and they're not aiming to print any more.
-
Even if one grants that not every Tac Air sortie resulted in a kill, enough were flown, often enough, that over time serious materiel casualties were inflicted on the Germans in the months following D-Day. And that is my point. This revisionism would have it seem that the Germans actually shrugged off the Tac Air offensive since it did not really hurt them that much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even apart from the significant morale and C3 impacts the strikes were causing, they were steadily depleting the numbers of German combat assets available to fight with and the logistical tail to support the combat assets was similarly being eroded.
I think the key here is that there were a lot of missions flown. So the 'revisionists' as you call them are correct in their assertion that air power wasn't that damaging, if you read an implicit 'per sortie' onto the statement. Which is what matters for the game.
This lack of individual, tactical effectiveness, if properly modelled, should make 'em cheap-as-chips, points-wise, but the sheer scale of the operations means that they should have a high rarity cost... Maybe.
-
I'm pretty sure that the 'shipping from the States' thing was what stopped me preordering it. I have no idea how I noticed that they were shipping the steelboxes from the other side of the Pond, or even whether I just assumed it, but HMRC can whistle for any import duties, and Royal Mail can kiss my bepimpled behind before I let them get 'handling fees'.
-
Imagine the whole new level of grogginess...
"I'm sorry, but there's no way my AT-AT should have died... it has 80mm of face-hardened plate at 17 degree angle, and it was mid-step, which grants an additional 3 degrees of slope, making an effective armor thickness of 97mm, while the velocity of that bomb-laden swallow was only 3 mph... Unless, of course, that was an african swallow was carrying a shaped charge Mk IV and coasting between wingbeats at the moment of impact..."
Unfortunately, Groggus Grognardi would have trouble in arguments with G. Handwavii, since there's no physical parameters to work with in the SW canon. It's all Unobtainium and Midichlorians.
-
Or else corrupt people playing the system. And there are always people who will work their way towards the place where they can game the system. That is what power is all about.
I find the whole notion of a speculative market in stocks and shares to be inherently corrupting. The original concept of a shareholder having a stake in the future of the company they buy shares in was fine. That has, over the years morphed into the unholy short-selling, perception-led feeding frenzy that is today's (even semi-)automated stock exchanges.
Maybe restricting shares to only being tradeable once a week (each individual share, I mean), or some such, would make the idea of exploting the market less attractive. Or require stockbrokers to pay negative commission on loss-making sales, or something. At the moment, a large part of our world's economy is based upon people selling notional products (bonds, currency, shares) with no actual intrinsic worth back and forth. It's insane, and it can't work forever.
-
Heck with teh WW2 setting you could easily use Harry Turtledove's books the "WorldWar" series. Imagine fighting modern armor, artillery and aircraft with WW2 weapons...OUTSTANDING!!
Reading another thread about the integration of modules and games, it occurred to me that there should be some scope for bringing SF content into the WW2 game, should that, erm, idiom appeal as a product, and the thought of those very books crossed my mind...
-
Not that it's likely to be much of an issue. If the demo comes out even a few hours before the full game, most people who're going to get the full game will probably d/l the demo anyway, I'd hazzard...
-
Does that mean we are finally at the holy grail of buying a base game once, upgrading it over time and having a series of modules that allow us to maintain a library of game components?
Not to its complete extent, no. BF release new games with a few modules per game. SF had Marines, Brits and NATO, IIRC, and BN will have Brits and their chums, Market Garden and 'odds and sods' pack, then there will be a new game for Bulge, which will only cover its period. How much of the BN-plus-three content will be rolled through into Bulge, I have no idea. Same, once the Edit: first East Front game comes out: how much of the Western Allies TO&Es, for example, and the equipment to support them that wasn't the sort that got lend-leased, will be available, is a great unknown.
But the fact remains that for each of the selected punctuation points, you'll be required to buy a new 'game' rather than an add-on module for BN.
Or will I have to buy it all yet again in 10 years time ?I don't imagine I'm the only one who fervently hopes we won't have to wait quite as long as that for Bulge... Even the gap between SF and BN would probably have some of the refreshmonkeys certified.
-
No - I was reffering to armoured halftracks - all have "BAD" protection against small arms.
I do hope there are more complex calculations behind it but to me "BAD" agains "light MGs and rifles" seems like they will not survive a volley from a inf squad, not to mention MG42 etc.
BAD protection is better than NO protection. And I remember many occasions in CMx1 when light vehicles got knocked out (or at least mobility and weapon killed, even if they weren't burning wrecks) by heavy .30ish calibre fire.
-
Why not???
what is the difference between burning tanks an burning Houses???
Burning tanks stay there burning. Houses on fire tend to fall down. The fire spreads to neighbouring buildings and wheatfields. Modelling this realistically is very difficult. Modelling it less-than-realistically would almost certainly lead to game players using deliberately set fires in even less-realistic ways.
The flames on a KOed tank are little texturey things and the damage to any unfortunate crew can be abstracted easily; no one is going to get back in a burning tank. The flames from a burning building would have to be much larger and better-rendered to be even halfway realistic-looking. Damage to units in the buildings would need more detailed calculation. Players would want to be able to send units into parts of the building that are not on fire.
They're apparently working on overcoming these and doubtless a thousand other difficulties with having fire modelled on a large scale in the game.
-
My experience with newbies is that they often forget to de-select before selecting the next unit, which can give comical results if they try to give a bunch of units movement commands, and it results in the first unit running back and forth.
Yes. Definitely. I meant to mention this. Would it be impossibly confusing (barring an obviously traumatic transitional period
) to have 'select' on the left button and 'act' on the right? -
Amen to that! Still don't know why they did it that way in CMSF
To stop people picking 'unrealistic', 'gamey' force mixes like Panthers backed up with AA half-tracks only...
-
I'm very familiar with CMBB and CMAK games.
But fresh in CMX2 engine and CMSF game.
I 'm a little bit trouble to select my troops and targeting the enemy.
Is it difficult according to the CMX1 engine or only my incapability?
Selecting units.
* Click a unit with the left mouse button to select it. (same as CMx1)
* To select multiple units at once, you have to hold shift while you drag your mouse over the units you want with the left button held down (different to CMx1).
* To add units to ones you already have selected, use shift-click. Same as CMx1.
* You can use '+' (actually '=') and '-' to step through your force, one unit at a time. (Same as CMx1.) If you have no unit selected, pressing either of these keys will select one for you (not sure which one). Same as CMx1.
Targetting the enemy
This is quite different in many ways, but the default easiest way is quite similar:
* Select a unit
* Press 'T' and you'll get a targetting line. This also functions as a Line of Sight tool.
There are lots of other options for targetting, but I'm not going to rewrite the manual here. Just one more thing.
The spacebar menu
This method of issuing orders works the same all the time, so is easy for me to describe.
* Select a unit
* press the space bar; a menu will appear
* select an order from the menu.
Easy as that.
-
Nice replies.
I am going to analyze the AAR which has the Allies attacking the German road crossing.
Some of what you say about the "Barkmann's Corner" scenario itself is, I think, made redundant by the particular nature of that scenario. Specifically, and my recall may be faulty, I don't think the Allied attacker has any infantry at all. I don't remember seeing any in the AAR...
1. The duel between the [Panther] and the Shermans was dangerous.Perhaps not as dangerous as you might think. The Shermans will have difficulty penetrating the front of the Panther, and its flanks are pretty secure. And with the chaos at the far end of the road, the kitty will have the drop on its victims most of the time, so even registering a hit before getting killed is going to be challenging for the green tanks.
I would have put the tank further back.I'm not sure there us very much 'further back'. The Panther sits at a kink in the road and any further back will mean very short engagement ranges, not longer ones.
The main feature which sticks out to me is the woods along the main road, on the right side. Some infantry and some infantry AT go there.Yes, I'd say that too. Don't think they can be deployed there, but I'd be wanting to sneak some 'Schrecky goodness up inside that treeline if the scenario allows it.
The other infantry AT assets would be in a perimeter 50-70 meters out from the intersection, in whatever covering terrain is available, pointing toward the intersection--or perhaps even further out, in clusters, so as not to be subject to indirect fire on the intersection.I think the further out option would be best. Gives you a good chance to nail any flanking elements before they see your Panther's side armour.
The Panther would only be used once the infantry was stripped from the Allied tanks, and most of tanks were burning from infantry AT or assaults.Generally that's a good plan, but given the lack of Allied infantry, and the sheer numbers of Allied tanks, I don't think the ammo load of a couple of Shreck teams would be enough to hold the road without the AP of the long 75 to help. Even if they survived the devastating HE/coax area fire they'd receive from the rest of the column after the first noticed launch.
I reckon so, too.
Avoiding the Panther is the key, here. As you say: stay off the road. A human Allied player would be a different proposition entirely.
A somewhat optimistic hope, sure, but if you're not ready for it and they do...
Would depend if your infantry had transport available, I guess. Having something to bring your overwatching squads up to the cleared starting point for the next bound helps keep them fresh for that bound, and the ones who just bounded will be sat pretty catching their breath in overwatch.
Yeah, it's an obvious killing ground.
Since I think you only get Tanks, but lots of 'em, I'd be inclined to rubble every building and coat the rubble in a thin layer of flattened lead, advancing by inches down the middle, with a 100m wasteland either side of my column/V
-
Is it me,or did those Guys get a lot of time off.There were some periods of a week or more where they were listed as no change in Status.
I'm pretty sure the NCOs would keep the men pretty busy, even if they were dug in (during their apparently towed days) in a sector that wasn't expecting counterattack.
-
Cancelling the Firefly show has to be up there with one of the stupidest decisions ever made.
Haven't heard any rumors with substance.
I heard rumours of a followup film to Serenity.
-
NVG are, for the time frame in question, image intensifying only, so they can only amplify available light (or make near-IR, like that used in television remotes, visible) but they will not show emitted heat from anything but the most energetic sources.
That makes some sense.
British Snipers ought to have thermal imagers, but I don't think that they do.
They had the same NVG icon as all the other troops, in this scenario.
The Javelin CLUs are pretty good at spotting targets. If you have any (and I think that you do) then split them up and get them into spotting positions.
Yeah. There's a quartet of 'em, but I had them hunkered down out of LoS, in order that they didn't pick up any unwanted attention and were ready to pop up and slot the expected reinforcements... So they didn't get a look at the objective until the show was all but over.
-
I understand there will be very tall buildings in the game. Up to 7 levels high. I was wondering if, like their small versions, they're destructible with 'simple' 75mm HE shells, however many it would take. Or are the really tall ones flagged as indestructible?
Just wondering. Not much better to do...
Why would they be? They'll be exactly the same as any other building, in principle, I'd expect. Some 7 storey stone bell tower might take a little concentration of fire to level, and its ground floor I'd expect to be pretty resilient (since it's going to be thick to take the weight of upper floors), but enough HE will be able to drop even bridges, so don't expect large buildings to have some sort of exception rule.
-
In CMx1 after 1-2 tries...
Did you retry that often? Given that if you did, you had to re-select your forces? And how much of an inhibition was that to discarding a given map?
judging from CMSF stock QB maps, can have an impact on quality. 70% You get really plain maps, with a hill or two and patches of woods here and there....I expect some of the 300 CM:BN maps to be really nice but I dont think tis possible we can avoid those boring football fields with an obj in the middle.Of course, that remains to be seen, but there have been some pretty emphatic noises from the testers that would seem to indicate that your fears may be somewhat unfounded. Let's hope it's not their love of the game blinding them to its lacks
Fire in buildings???
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Ah, I get you now. I don't think we'll ever have that situation.
I think CAD save-files had a better-defined set of parameters whe AutoCAD was first being designed. BFC haven't had the resource to design a truly open-ended save-game format. I'm not sure that's even practicable, given the material. And I would hazzard that major 'version releases' of AutoCAD have been relatively pricey 'new buys', even with an 'upgrade discount'.
I think that's not impossible. It seems to be what CMx2 is working towards, but the resources available mean that if we had to wait until it was all done from East to West, North to South, start to finish, we'd all be old and grey (at least) before we started to play.