mav1
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by mav1
-
-
One qustion was about ww2 and the other about cmsf. I only used the sturmovic question as aa contrast between ww2 and modern warfare.Originally posted by ParaBellum:Why do you post your questions on multiple forums? You have posted the exact same thread in the CMBB forum and got answers there.
By the way I must be unlucky because the sturmovic's for me are ****, they allways miss the target. But not for the computer they are always good for the computer.
-
So airattacks on tanks are exagerrated?
But can't a sturmovik with 37mm gun penetrate 30mm, meaning it is possible to penetrate the 25mm top armour of a tiger tank.
The strifling of aircraft on infantry is useless in cm, so i take it this is true.
It look's like I was wrong. No matter, my knowledge has increased,. Being wrong is sometimes a benefit. But now I ask the question why do people who supposedly know better than me, agree with my wrong assumption in many books or on the internet.
[ June 09, 2006, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]
-
Sure you can, were American and Soviet armors identical? And battlefront says straight up that those figures vary considerably from vehicle to vehicle as to what is being shot at. Those displayed figures are only a vague reference.Originally posted by ww2steel:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yoy can't have different figures, just bacause one sceneraros is set in Italy and the other in the eastern front.
Mike </font>
-
In cm the aircraft are useless in destroying tanks unless they are open topped. Aircrft such as the Sturmovik are unable to knock out tiger and panther tanks with gun fire. The stastics say they can and in the war they could but not in cm.
The sturmoviks nickname in the war was black death but in cm it's nickname is the black pansy.
-
So how effective are aircraft in cmsf going to be in knocking out tanks?
In the ww2 games, aircraft were useless in dstroying tanks unless they were open topped. Aircraft such as the sturmovik were unable to knock out tiger and panther tanks with gun fire, even with a direct hit on the top armour. The statistics say, this is possible and it was in the war, but not in cm games.
The sturmovik was nicknamed the black death in the war, In cm it's nickname is the black pansy.
-
I think the german gun penetration values were more accurate in cmbb apart from the 75/48, 88/71 and 75/24, which were more accurate in cmak. Unless new info has come about that I don't know about.
By the way how much can a abrams firing an apfds round can penetrate? Is there anyone in the forum, who has worked with abrams tank's and knows the secret.
-
why do the german tanks in cmak have a higher penetration value than in cmbb, against the same armour thickness? The figures seem to me to be more realistic in cmbb apart from the 75/48, 88/71 and 75/24 guns, which are more realistic in cmak.
Yoy can't have different figures, just bacause one sceneraros is set in Italy and the other in the eastern front.
-
This is a confusing issue, both cmbb and cmak had different penetration values. So can a penetation value be agreed on. There is a lot of conflicting statistics out there. But will it be even harder to agree on the penetration values for cmsf, as some of this info is classified.
Does anyone know what the penetration values of guns will be in cmsf.
-
This is a confusing issue. Both cmak and cmbb had different values for penetration og guns against armour. Through the research I have done, half of the values are more accurate in cmbb and the other half in cmak.
So what do eveyone else think, was cmbb or cmak more accurate. Can an agreed statistic be agreed on, as there is a lot of conflicting values.
-
Didn't the Italian's have Industrial buildings? So why are they not available in CMAK?
-
Great info raz_atoth and JasonC. I was trying to find info on operation sring awakening myself. By the way, where did you both get your info from.
Also what artillery did the Germans and Hungarians have for the operation (type and numbers available).
-
I will have to use the IS3 instead of the IS2, just to make the change of giving the Russians an advantage.
But how did BFC get the IS2 armour so wrong. If you look at any military books or web sites, then it tells you the figures. Theres a great book on german afv by Chamberlin (I think thats the authors name)that BFC can use.
The other mistakes I can think of they did with armour protection was 100 instead of 110 for the Panther G and 82mm instead of 80mm for the Tiger.
Is the fire rate really so slow for 122 and 152mm Soviet armed tanks as they are in CMBB. I can have a nap or make the tea by the time they fire their guns.
Out of intrest why didn't the Soviets make a tank like the T54 in ww2 instead of wasting their time building the ISU122, ISU152 and T44.
Also where the T34/75 and KV1 not able to penetrate a TIgers armour in 1942 and 1943. Because when I use the TIger in a battle I romp to victory. It's rather boring because its too easy. All the battles supplied with CMBB between 1942 and 1943 with the Tiger Tank are like that.
-
The armour of the Is 2 tank is too thin, than it realy was in ww2. The Is-2 had 160mm front turrent armour and 120mm upper hull armour. In cmbb the Is 2 has only 120mm front turrent armour.
Plus the fact that the is2 acts strangely in cmbb, means that in cmbb the Is2 is out classed by the panther tank. When in reality both tanks were equal.
One of the most strangest behavoir in cmbb is that of the Turan tank which charges forward and dosn't fire it's gun.
-
Peter,
Well I made a map with 10,000 buldings and the game didn't slow down. I have realised that the thing that slows down the game, is when units have los of other units. Which means for cmX1 you can have seperate tree and ground cover. You could have individual trees and it wouldn't slow the game down. If Cmx2 works similiar to cmx1 then you can have seperate ground and tree cover. But the impression I get is that things will be more complacated in cmx2.
As for the buildings you won't be able to create (true) flats in cmx2 as there might be a maximum of only 6 stories.
-
What about the Arab and Israel wars. That war was about national survival.
[ May 04, 2006, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]
-
Peter,
Its all to do with numbers, you can have hundreds of buildings, roads and walls. But you can have thousands of trees on a map. Every single tree will have to be calculated for los and this will slow the process time, I think.
I would like ground cover and trees to be seperated, but Iam not sure if its possible.
Iam going to do a experiment, Iam going to create a huge map and fill it with hundreds of buildings. I will see if the game slows done a lot.
-
Ok Peter I will try to answer the question. My answer is no, because I think it will take too much processer power and memory to achieve this. Iam not a programmer so I dont know for sure. Instead you could have different pines, taller or shorter ones. The taller pines could be programmed to block los from a taller height but give low cover and not block los from ground level. The answer could be having more different tree terrain made up of smaller or taller trees. These trees could be also be thicker together or more spaced out. But the ground and trees would be still be counted as one on the same grid. By having smaller grids of 1x1m you can add a lot of variety with different tree grids to choose from. The ability to choice individual trees on the terrain is still in the future.
-
Thanks for the info Peter
-
I have done several search's in google and I still can't find free detailed topography maps with contours for Europe and North Africa.
-
There was a lot of Italian afv's missing in CMAK as well as British tanks. This includes the Italian afv's that the Germans used in Italy.
Hopefully in cmx2, in the Western Europe ww2 game, all afv's used will be included. This includes all the French and modified French tanks used by the Germans in France.
As well I would like to see Afv's that just failed to make it into ww2 such as the Centurion.
-
Does anyone know where I can find a website with topography maps, which will allow me to print a map for free. I need the info to create historic maps.
-
I doub't that trees will be individual objects in cmx2 and i guess you won't be able to precisely position soldiers behind real physical objects. All this would be very welcome and would add to the realism. But I don't think computer's are good enough yet to handle such complex calculations, but I could be wrong.
But I think the grid for cmx2 could be smaller, 8x8 is an improvement but i reckon it's still too big to create very detailed enviroments.
On a different topic, the developers were thinking of doing Napolonic or civil war etc.
But I wonder how big the armies would be. Are computers powerfull enough at the moment to create large armies, or will they be division size at most.
-
Hopefully LOS and cover will be more realistic in cmx2. I would also like to see more complex abd realistic vegetation than the limited choice in cmx1. I know that urban areas will be much more complex in cmx2, I wonder if vegetation will match it. It all comes down to number crunching, what will be possible with computers at the moment.
Also much small rises in height will add depth to cover, by creating small dips in land to hide behind.
I have to admit, I would like to see the vegetation (amazing trees) ftom Elder Scrolls Oblivion in CMx2, but that's me dreaming again.
-
Thanks for the info, Ellros and MickeyD.
By the way, which is cheaper, ms paint or Photoshop
and which one is easier ti use.
[ April 06, 2006, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]
Doe's the computer have an advantage
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Doe's the computer have an advantage in tank battles? It seem to me the computer spot's faster and it's shot's are luckier. I have tried the same scenario over and over again and the computer has the edge.