Sgt.Squarehead
-
Posts
8,910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
85
Posts posted by Sgt.Squarehead
-
-
No disconnect on my part mate:
Just someone who doesn't actually play these games waffling on again, as far as I can tell.
-
-
-
Let's start at the beginning:
-
19 minutes ago, IanL said:
Any notion that exposed sub systems are not effected by artillery is just not correct
Did you look at the videos in this thread:
-
Hold on.....I've used these munitions in CM:BS palying as the Ukrainians, in the scenario 'Brutal', they worked just fine (but are bordeline useless against tanks).
I always use them at mission start with a five minute delay and thereafter until their precision ammo is gone.
Only the forward observer (with a laser designator) among my forces can call for these munitions IIRC.
-
On 1/13/2022 at 10:19 AM, lcm1947 said:
Yes, strictly that video but I assume it was accurate and that is why my comment. I mean the reason I play these games by Battlefront is I know that stats and specs are as accurate as possible. That is where I get my interest and loyalty and enjoyment from this company and if not, accurate it lessens my interest in them.
There's absolutely nothing in that video that hasn't been known for decades.
I can pretty much guarantee you that the Battlefront researchers have read all the books that I have, plus lots more (in Russian).
I'd describe myself as being at the 'frothing maniac' end of Trackhead society, but even I don't broadly have gripes with CM's representations (except the inability of modern Russian & other tanks to 'make smoke', which annoys the hell out of me as it was a huge part of Soviet tactics and CM:CW is massively the worse for not having it).
-
2 hours ago, Erwin said:
open long range desert maps and dry heat
Not in H&E (although we still can't make it rain, sadly).
-
2 hours ago, Codreanu said:
I remember people talking about this in one of the CMBN Commonwealth campaigns where making infantry less likely to break cover significantly increased the difficulty of the campaign.
I think the balance change you are referring to may have had to do with the way MGs were handled.....The 'running-away' issue was a whole other kettle of fish.
But your point is a good one.....I'm sure it would.
-
1 hour ago, Frenchy56 said:
If you couldn't guess I used the box from the Sherman IC Firefly
That's so funny.....I nearly asked if you did that.
The box on the back of a Firefly turret is actually the counterweight.....They often had stowage boxes mounted onto that:
-
8 minutes ago, CanuckGamer said:
I am also thinking that Russian anti-tank rifles don't have a hope in hell of knocking a Tiger II out even at point blank range with a rear shot.
Nope, but they could effectively blind it and scare the bejesus out of the commander too, if they were good (& brave & lucky).
Soviet anti-tank rifles were never really for tanks, by 1939 the Soviets were making tanks with armour a lot thicker than anything Germany had.....But a 14.5mm AP round will go through the gunshield or hull of a Sd.Kfz.251 like a hot knife through butter.
-
-
16 hours ago, Drifter Man said:
I hope some of those words make sense
The words themselves are just fine!
-
4 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:
I guess that this will be hoping for to much...But are you guys able to do anything about the armour values of these 'modified' tanks ?
Nothing they can do.....The weapons, armour etc. of these vehicles will be whatever those of the underlying vehicle are, in this case a T-70 I believe.
-
5 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:
but people are still failing to grasp the basic problem with fragmentation damage
I take it you mean by this that the tank's subsystems don't appear to take damage from fragments?
-
Still reading.....I'm into the references now.
-
11 minutes ago, dbsapp said:
Fact of observation changes the observed object.
It appears that the quantum variant of this conundrum is even stranger:
15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:Quantum version
A quantum version of the paradox illustrates some points about the relation between classical or non-quantum information and quantum information, as encoded in the states of quantum mechanical systems. The formulation is loosely based on quantum game theory. The three doors are replaced by a quantum system allowing three alternatives; opening a door and looking behind it is translated as making a particular measurement. The rules can be stated in this language, and once again the choice for the player is to stick with the initial choice, or change to another "orthogonal" option. The latter strategy turns out to double the chances, just as in the classical case. However, if the show host has not randomized the position of the prize in a fully quantum mechanical way, the player can do even better, and can sometimes even win the prize with certainty.[65][66]
-
7 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:
Man, this one went on a long time before getting political. Let's keep the forum open and keep the political stuff to somewhere else.
Quite how we made a mess in CM:CW (rather than CM:BS) I'm unsure.
Apologies, either way.
2 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:There is good documentation that artillery damage against subsystems isn't just too low but outright broken.
Direct hits do seem to be rather under-modelled.
-
I'm still reading.....& as yet unconvinced.
-
Just been reading through the Wiki article
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:Pigeons repeatedly exposed to the problem show that they rapidly learn to always switch, unlike humans.
I'll play those b******s at poker any time too!
(Excuse my dubious quoting once again)
-
Which essentially reduces the question to a fifty fifty choice....The initial three boxes become irrelevant. Surely at that point the probabilities are reset?
-
Try it out, I'd be interested to know if it actually makes a difference.
Always fully exit the game, between monster maps.....Loading one after another will be a trainwreck.
When working with them, save often and once again, fully exit the game and reload before continuing.....It's a chore, but it's a hell of a lot less painful than losing a couple of hours work, ask me how I know.
-
Mathematical Bollocks.....Pick a poker site!
-
1 hour ago, BornGinger said:
Pure Combat Mission magic
No magic needed!
Either the other player used Area Fire, or the AI had Area Fire Orders.
PS - Trucks @ Front Line = No-No.....That's why APCs (& then IFVs) were invented.
Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Maybe not as a matter of course, but I strongly suspect that it is possible.....That the US went to great efforts to conceal actual Abrams losses to IEDs & other weapons while they were deployed in Iraq is a matter of record.