Jippo
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Jippo
-
-
The camera system is actually the same as is used in all 3d-modeling platforms. Indsutry standard almost. Not saying that million flies couldn't be wrong, but generally professionals try to find the easiest way to do their work. Now I'm talking about the middle mouse button of course.
Press it to rotate the camera, and scroll to change the altitude(or zoom in on ground level).
Moving mouse to the edges of the screen initiate the camera to move in that direction.
And then there is the minimap, to get fast from A to B, click the location you want to go in map.
I don't know how difficult that can be, for me it was intuitive straight away. Granted that I do work in 3d environments.
-
Ah, it's ok then. I will just use missions by others.
-
"Wrong game version. The application will not work with current version of a game Theatre of War"
AMD X2 4200, ATI 800 GTO, 2,5Gb DDr, Vista 64bit Home Premium.
Vista is newly installed, all the drivers are up to date & game is running fine except for the editor.
Ideas?
-
They have some, at least I remember seeing them with mp's.Originally posted by Destraex:tank crew certainly don't have thier mp40s
-jippo
-
We don’t have preceding fire in game. Aiming is made on spot where enemy is present in the moment of shot. I hope that is clear. </font>Originally posted by SoaN:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SirReal:
So the fact that the spot moves does not factor into your calculations? That explains a lot.
-
Numbers in the encyclopedia are not the numbers used in penetration calculations.
-jippo
-
Hit angle means angle relative to the hit surface. So plate angle is taken into account. </font>Originally posted by SoaN:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf:
So does "hit angle" include the mounting angle of the armor plate or not? From the sound of it this only uses the positional angle from the vehicle positions (and that would be in line with what was said way before the release).
If that is the case, that the plate angle is not talen into account, that wouldn't be a problem, but you would have to make an approximate conversion from the plate thickness and base angle to a base thickness.
-
Depends on the tanks really. With superior armor/weapons engage further & face-to-face, with inferior try get close & to the flanks.
Try to get as many own tanks fighting with as few enemy tanks as possible. It's all about numbers: if you have four guns in a fight and enemy one you'll win. You may start with even forces but try to engage part of the enemy with all of your own tanks.
Divide your force, they don't need to be in the same place, they only need to be able to engage the same enemy simultaneously. Preferably from different directions alltogether. This way you get flanking shots.
If you are outnumbered, retreat and gain local superiority and attack again.
-jippo
-
Wasn't it quite clearly answered that it assumes. But the penetration is calculated with the actual loss thickness, not horisontal 55dgr/80mm LOS thickness.
-jippo
-
For what I know A came around the same time as IV Ausf. F2
-jippo
-
No it wasn't. Up until Ausf. F2 model IV tanks had next to no chance to penetrate T-34. Ausf. F2 was a direct development to counter the threat T-34 posed.Originally posted by Kettenhund:PZIV Ausf. A-F was able to destroy T34 up to 1000 meters. But, also deadly sure on 50 meters.
Next think is quality of russian poor moulding amor steel...
Study before making claims.
-jippo
-
That was actually the case back then, T-34 could be penetrated routinely by very few means in 1941. Namely heavy caliber AA-guns.Originally posted by SirReal:SoaN: You believe that the PzIVC is incapable of penetrating a T34/41 at 50m. Alright. Next please.
-jippo
-
Main task for Russian tanks was to support infantry, at times engaging into battle with enemy armor was actually prohibited.Originally posted by Scheer:I think the devs had to take a middle of the road approach to this. The high number of HE is strange, though .
-jippo
-
Boy is it getting really old with these one liners.Originally posted by BillyBob:Boy, are you ever in for a huge disappointment!
For a person who doesn't like the game you waste a lot of time in the forums. I only write to forums of games I like. I guess people are different.
-jippo
-
I've read multiple accounts from WW2 of crewmen pulling tracks on under fire, so it is possible in certain conditions.
But I don't find it an important addition to gameplay. Timescale of the battles most often doesn't allow enough time to pull on the track anyway.
-jippo
-
I see that the Finns are already well known here.
And for the right reasons too. If you have questions about AT-pine cones, or Molotov's toothpicks and their usage, feel free to ask.
-jippo
-
It is a about half an hour job for the tank crew to put the track on depending on the design. Track is not lifted on, but pulled by the engine.Originally posted by seppDieter:]lol you have any idea how many tons each set of tracks weights? you need two persons to carry only one link of a tiger or panther tank.
and mostly its the front of the track that breaks, so before the driver realises whats happened, he has probably already thrown the entire track in front of the tank.
even a maintenence crew needs several hours to fix tracks.
[/QB]
-jippo
-
On the contrary, it is impossible to hit one's head to the roof if it is already touching.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I could certainly fit in a T-72's commander's position, even with the hatch down, but it would be far from comfortable while moving and over time. Remember, when bouncing up and down over terrain certain physics demand that the commander bounce up and down as well
Not a problem if you have a few inches of headroom to spare, not so good if you are already almost touching to start with.Steve
I found out that the commanders position was very good since it was rather tight: it keeps you on your seat even whilst bouncing around the countryside.
-jippo
-
Ex Finnish army.Originally posted by MikeyD:This board pulls in people from all over and the T72's not been a Soviet secret weapon for a long time. Any ex-T72 crew out there?
I don't know if the Russian thing is true, but Finns use HEAT ready in the tube. There is no reason why not to, except that once loaded round can not be removed any other way than firing.First the autolader.I'm of the impression that its a pretty efficient piece of equipment (much western criticism of the autoloader sounds like quibbling to me) but I hear Russian manuals prohibit tanks from keeping a round chambered for quick-reaction firing.
Loading is one press of button, so not many seconds.First, is this true, and second, what would a typical quick-reaction time then be between spotting a target, loading and firing?-jippo
-
I like too.
Performance could be better FPS wise, LOS could be more clear especially with trees and infantry should be able to man buildings.
But other than that it is great! Tactics can be applied realistically, and AI is not bad (like CC). It is great to see enemy man their objective and then retreat again in the face of encirclement and counter-attack. Very enjoyable after one learns how to really control the troops (hold position etc.)
-jippo
Not a problem if you have a few inches of headroom to spare, not so good if you are already almost touching to start with.
I found out that the commanders position was very good since it was rather tight: it keeps you on your seat even whilst bouncing around the countryside.
M-16 vs. AK-47 clip
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Once again discovery channel "documentary".
Barrel flex makes not so big difference on single rounds (cause it tends to flex in a similar way each shot), and there is no point firing burst or automatic fire for longer than very short distances (up to 25m) because of the recoil.
Accuracy test is as bad: New russian AK's can be shooting 1-1,5 MOA, which is about 50mm group at two hundred yards. Not all of them do because of their relaxed tolerances in manufacturing, but some of them do. Finnish army RK is a close relative of AK-47, and all of these rifles are shot into 20mm x 20mm box from 100metres from machine rest. That is sub-MOA accuracy from your AK. Good AR on the other hand will punch holes even more accurately. Accuracy test proves that these guys aren't good shoots, as both of the rifles could shoot within the limits of the head of the target at that range.
Machnigun argument is very lame as well. If you shoot AK you will notice that selector lever is far easier to move to single shots than to automatic. Even the guy in the video fails to put the rifle in automatic fire (check it out!). So in case your weapon comes of safe it is easier and faster to move it to single shots, then if you require automatic fire you will move it one notch up. (I have to admit that originally it was simply mechanically easier to do it that way, it is quite clear if you study the internals. layout is very simple there.)
Not much of a documentary.