womble
-
Posts
8,872 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by womble
-
-
Not a CV but a cruiser. That particular Hitler's fantasy would have sported a twin gun turret of naval proportions. I think the smaller popgun was supposed to be 128 mm. How the whole thing was supposed to get from point A to point B escapes me. Perhaps move it in parts and assemble it at the final destination?
Michael
It's what the Autobahn was for: one track on each carriageway. And a rolling repair crew behind the thing...
-
Huh? Pack animals???
:confused:
I eagerly await clarification on this point. Seriously.
Michael
While 'pack' might not be the correct term, we are a social species, evolved from a tree that has numerous other social species dangling from the fruiting growth. Most other primate social groups are called, I think, "troops", though chimps live (generally) as part of "communities".
However, I don't think it's necessarily fair to ascribe the morals that DT does to even primates, except maybe Bonobos.
-
Diesel,
Not sure how they decide happiest nation in Europe...I have alot of very happy relatives in Germany also lol.
My point was actual Christian base(really, actual RELIGION base) to politics to give a moral backing...
I think you did this once before, Abneo: equating religion with morals. Please stop it.
-
I have often thought that anyone who actually wants to be elected to government office should be disqualified due to a lack of mental facilities.
Less 'lack of mental faculties', for, though it can be a tough job, there are also plenty of potential rewards. More because "Power attracts the corruptible". It's well to be suspicious of the motives of those who seek power over others' lives.
I am also close to supporting the concept that only those that actively contribute to government coffers should have a vote. I know this is not possible, and has a multitude of problems with dis-enfranchisement. But I am a firm believer in the old quote "A democracy will only last until the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the treasury".It's not possible, no, nor ethically desirable. Nor would it even lead to any disenfranchisement, since everyone pays taxes on something: sales taxes, import/export duties and the like.
-
If your infantry units have no vehicles then yeah they can't re-supply - they need something carrying the ammo to re-supply from....
[snip]
If there are vehicles on map then your grunts can re-supply from them. So if designing a scenario it's worth thinking about length of action, likelihood of running out of ammo and plan accordingly.
I'm guessing that there's not an infinite supply of all and any kinds of ammo sitting in the back of every carrier/jeep/kubel/truck/halftrack... So, do vehicles come with a standard load of 'spare' ammo? Or does it have to be placed in the vehicle explicitly? And assuming the latter, is it something that can be done as part of a QB setup, or only in scenario design?
-
To all my future Axis opponents: FEAR ME!!!
How big is the tank that stores 300 rounds of 105mm?
-
In my ignorance, I'd thought the Wespe was a relatively commonplace piece of kit, at least across the war as a whole. Is it just vanishingly rare in the West, or at the end of the war, or have I just gotten the wrong end of a stick? Again.
-
That must be a seriously engaging piece of writing in Danish, cos even with all the GTrans artefacts, it was a good read...
-
So, will messengers be simulated or abstracted somehow ?
My feeling is that messengers can really only carry the sort of information that you, as the CM player, will already have. Things like:
"There's armour over here. Please send us some extra AT assets," or
"Get your platoon into that farm complex, pronto," or
"Link up with 2nd Platoon on your right and provide flanking fire".
So I can't see them being directly simulated. C&C seems, from what I've read, to have most impact on the transmission of spotting information and on how 'supported' a unit feels, when it comes to assessing their morale.
-
While this link is awesome and useful, and everyone should look it over at least a couple of times, it's not really answering the OP's question. He doesn't want to know what types of battalions there are, he wants to know what the composition of individual battalion types are.
I think the major point the link makes is that there's no such thing as "...a standard US and German Infantry Battalion in CMBN..."
-
Correct, [units] do not count for points [in QBs]. The "count" in the sense that they matter for gameplay, which in turn decides (in part) who wins.
There are a number of technical problems with having a good, balanced scoring system for casualties in a QB setting. As is so often the case, those issues are not apparent to end users because simple outcomes are usually thought of being simple to produce. That's not the case here.
I have a suggestion. I think all the elements required for it to be implementable are potentially present, though of course the development time for the interface needed could take some shaking free
I like the concept of user-definable (including a 'random' setting) victory condition weighting. QBs are, as has been pointed out, inherently potentially 'gamey', artificially created situations with possibly false artefactual incentive/reward balances. I would like to see an interface that had some sliders, each with a 0-100% range, but tied so that the total of them all would be 100%. The sliders could be:
* Victory Locations
* Points value killed
* Rarity (multiplied by points value) killed <- this one's just a whimsy
At the moment, the game is fixed with the VL slider at 100%. I'm sure the other two values are held by the game and could easily be presented to a number crunch. The base total value of the VLs would be set to some multiple (I'm thinking 1, by default) of the points each side has to spend.
This doesn't seem complicated. The interface is a known quantity. The values are available. I only suggest it because I wonder if BF thinks we want something more complicated. I can see that having some auto-balancing thing that takes into account force mix and terrain fought over would be a beast, even to assign parameters to. Having it user-settable, though, allows the grogs who want to encourage 'historical' caution to set the slider to high on units value, and the ones who want a gung-ho charge for the VLs can set it the way it is now, with a last, cowering squad having the chance to claim all the VPs
To get even further off the reservation, and make MEs have a closer feeling to 'reality', how about a 'random force balance' option, which could set one side to be a different size to the other, with a commensurate increase in return on VPs (you'd have to include some factor for units destroyed, cos the smaller side might have no chance of ever getting any VLs). Would encourage recon and having asymmetric VCs often makes for interesting games.
-
Heavyweights will simply consider lighter bridges unpassable. So you won't be able to plot a movement path across them. About stacking up Tigers onto one bridge until it fails, that's an indication that there's more problems with your scenario than just bridge weight capacity. It's not a problem with the scenario if that's what it was designed to check.
I say, I say, I say,
How many Tigers does it take to collapse a Heavy bridge?
I don't know, how many Tigers does it take to collapse a Heavy bridge?
...
-
German tank going through trees (1:20 in)
Mind you this is from propaganda footage but still gives an idea.
Modern tanks are BEASTS when it comes to navigating woodland terrain.
I liked the bit at 2:05ish where the Panzer IV hides behind the little evergreen sapling. Trees do indeed provide good cover, but the Very Important Lesson taught by the great Monty Python on "How not to be seen" springs to mind.
Minute 13As a bonus this turn I wanted to show you an image of the road wheels deforming over rough terrain. As cool as this image is tanks are even more beautiful in motion:
Next: Minute 14
That is so very, very cool. I thought the tanks rocking on their bogies when they fired was cool, but that's completely sub-zero.
-
Hopefully the activation code will be accessible to a copy action so it can be pasted into a file for transfer between computers... Indeed, would it be possible for the activation process to have, perhaps, the option to dump the code into a file for this eventuality?
Edit: I know you could copy the number down longhand, but that way lies madness caused by transcription errors...
-
Pardon my history, but didnt the US first encounter the Tiger in Africa? Am I wrong to remember it was in the Kasserine Pass?
"A Tiger? In Africa?"
-
Aren't rarity points separate from purchase points in CMBN?
Even if they are (and that's what I've gathered from the various knowledgable folks on here), if you get 12 rarity points and a Tiger takes 6 where a IV(H) takes 1, you can get (assuming you have the purchase points) the 2 and 12 MikeyD mentions. If there were armour that had zero rarity cost, you could fill your entire OOB (subject to whatever other limits the QB system might apply) with it. I'm guessing too that a Tiger doesn't cost 6 times the purchase points of a IV(H)
-
No team play possible. But I did a lot of 2 vs 2 PBEM with CMX1 and this is also possible CMBN. Just divide forces and share password with counterpart and you can have a lot of fun
Awwww. Shame, that. Not, by even the slightest whisker of a smidgeon, a dealbreaker, but I do so like co-op game play
Thanks for clearing that up. -
Apologies if I'm being slow on the uptake, but I noticed in a couple of the recent preview reports that some games were being played with 2 on each side. Is that actually 4 computers involved, with the forces of each side formally split between the 2 team members? Or was it just that each side had two people looking at the same computer and combining ideas and observations?
I looked at the Features list, and it doesn't advertise team play, as far as I saw, but it'd be a welcome feature if it's gotten in.
-
A test: I don't have a grenade to test throw, but my wife does have an 8 pound cat....
That's cheered me up no end. Ta
An anecdote: a pre-positioned, but not dug-in, Marine unit met an attack of Syrians. The Marines were in a tree line (light) facing the anticipated enemy. The Marines were unsuppressed. They consisted of 2 full squads and 2 mounted M240G machineguns, plus the 2 man platoon HQ. The Syrians advanced (QUICK?) over OPEN ground. The Syrians, taking casualties, halted and threw a grenade barrage. Over 20 were thrown in a few seconds. The Marines suffered 15 casualties (KIA, Heavy WIA, Light WIA). The Marines were TOTALLY suppressed/Pinned. More mayhem followed.
That specific example (given the range and power of grenades as modelled) seems to be a good argument for 'volleying' grenades being a standard doctrine...
-
Well, if the artist's impression is anything to go by, we'll have developed a means of transfering power without the use of gearboxes or drive shafts. Fantastic stuff.
Maybe it's an autogyro concept with no power to the rotor...
-
They really should have built protection systems into those towers: ratcheted rails or something you can just clip into and climb and it drags its way up, but won't go back down unless you want it to.
He let go with both hands to fiddle with the carabiner, looked like, once he was stood at the top.
-
Adds fertiliser to boot.
Not that that will make any kind of inroads on the damage that a fuel-air conflagration like that would do to the lawn...
-
Or perhaps a Maus ?
[throws jtcm2 a cookie]
-
This is why AOL should be disconnected from the Internet. With extreme prejudice.
Mortar Resupply?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Can you put a bunker in a building?