kulik
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kulik
-
-
4x4 seems alright. And about the battle sizes of the previews and aars, I'm sure that is more an issue of what is manageable to write about. Imagine the work needed to describe every turn from a batallion vs batallion battle? Madness!
Sparta!!!!
-
These infantry animations seems awesome in this vid.
-
The discussion board demanded demanded demanded that fog of war rules apply to trenches and foxholes. So you have trenches and foxholes where FOW rules apply.
I was one of those who demanded it, and im proud of it. God damn, i shouted so hard i almost passed out.
-
Try to scroll up an down on that picture! The damn thing lives!!!
-
No WeGo!? Blasphemy!!!
In all seriousness, WeGo is what attracted me to CMx1 in the first place. No more taking turns and no more realtime clickfest.
Me too. But i somehow can enjoy realtime if the scenario is troop-wise small enough. I play it without pause, because every time i start to use it, i end up pausing like every 10 seconds (as the guy in this AAR vids
)Still my dream is realtime with forced pause every minute. ...best of both worlds.
-
I think that there would be no special positioning needed, the driver just could break with one track split second earlier to end with some lateral angle. I admit that while i read about this stuff in some manual i never read that it was common tactics.
BTW since CMBN isn't "design for effect" it may be possible to just run a test and see if angled tank has a better survivability chance.
-
Yeeehaaaw!!!
-
"Russian Tank Tactics Against German Tanks" from Tactical and Technical Trends
The following U.S. military intelligence report on Russian tank tactics against German panzers was originally published in Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 16, Jan. 14, 1943.
cit.:
"(2) In order to decrease the angle of impact of enemy shells, thereby decreasing their power of penetration, we should try to place our tanks at an angle to the enemy."
link- http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/russian-tank-tactics-wwii.html
Im sure i saw a historic picture of a tank positioned at an angle to impacting round even with the formula where lateral angle was part of the equation for armor penetration. The text suggested to not face the threat frontally. I suspect it was a russian manual though (that's why i instantly thought of t-34 ).
-
Thanks Redken, although i don't remember the sausage resemblance.
-
All this talk of angles leaves me cold... do you think a WW2 tank commander actually worrried if his tank was 20 degrees off axis or whatever to an enemy tank? Of course not, he only cared that the strongest part of his tank, the front hull, was facing the enemy... I say get into as good a position with your units as you can, let the steel fly and hope for the best.
Are you sure? I always thought this was the proper way to position to position a panzer in WW2:
HAND ME THE T-34 MANUAL!!! Im pretty sure i can dig out the historical version of this sketch.
-
Depends on range. This is again one of those things which is interesting to learn about German tanks. Their slow turret traverse mechanisms (compared to Shermans) doesn't really matter that much when the target is out 1500m or so, but becomes CRITICAL if the target is a few hundred meters away and moving rapidly perpendicular to the turret's alignment. Same thing with an AT Gun. A target that's far away is going to be easy to adjust and hit because the relative speed of the target at that range is not difficult to keep up with. An infantry target moving the same speed at 100m distance is going to be a lot harder to hit. Again, situationally dependent since if the gun was already mostly pointed in the right direction it might not be that difficult.
Steve
And in terms of the explosion effect itself? Since the squad is somehow bunched up for the action spot spotting reason, isn't it also prone to get wiped out easily with HE? Does the abstracted cover system providing enough (or additional) cover from explosions to make up for the lack of formations/dispersion?
-
Does the game count the horizontal slope of armor? I mean if the vehicle stands diagonally the armor becomes more slope than if the round hits it from the front.
-
Hmm I've decided to build my own rig as it will work out cheaper in the long run plus it's more future-proofed. The question is, do I opt for a ATI 6950 which has 2gb of memory, (which may help as I have a 24" screen @ 1920x1200), OR do I opt for the old faithful, and purchase a quiet and reliable Nvidia 560Ti, which only has 1GB of memory but it is more likely (possibly?) to give me less hassle in the long run.
I recommend to chose some of the overclocked version of 560Ti. Like Asus GTX560 Ti DirectCU II or Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC.
-
For me lack of TCP/IP wego in CMSF was an absolute killer. I tried really hard to adapt, but the file sharing was too distracting and dragged the game down. There was only handful of games i actually finished.
Then i went for realtime...oh god i was clumsy at it. And the worst thing was i didn't enjoy it, i couldn't stop to watch my troops fight and couldn't enjoy those small details the game had to offer.
It got better with time, i got used to enjoy the stressful kind of gameplay CMSF offers in RT. Company level battle is the max i can handle and that's a shame cause the best battles i remember from CMx1 was battalion level.
So to sum it up im looking forward to CMBN, but much more im looking forward to what CMBN will become over time when autopauserealtime or similar stuff will be added so i can have my big battles.
-
I think not....
dismounts in tall grass = descent concealment if stationary. A 2.5 - 3 Ton Truck moving in tall grass = BAT
Im not talking about concealment. Its just when your target is on a meadow without objects near it, its hard to judge its speed and distance thus correctly adjust the lead and drop for the round. And im not implying something is wrong here nor drawing any conclusion, it just catched my attention as a helluva shot.
As i remember in CMx1 the unmoved guns and mortars had bonus for shooting on targets on or near TRPs. Did this stay for CMx2?
-
I was curious, that PAK which shoot and hit with first shot the moving truck. It seems like it was moving in tall grassfield (hard to guess the distance when you can't align the target with objects near it) from what it seems to be pretty far away.
Astonishing gunner skills, luck, bug?
-
What about the multiplayer feature? More players on the same side?
(Didn't wanted to start a new topic for it.)
-
The thing that amazed me is that defended woods, lightly defended in some cases, seemed almost impossible to advance into.
Me too, this may be related the type of formation movement of the infantry. In reality their would advance through the forest in a skirmish line so if they encounter enemy contact they may bring most of theirs firepower on it. If the TAC AI chooses to advance in a straight line the moment the first men get engaged the rest of the squad can't shoot cause they don't see the enemy.
Second thing is that you can order target area only on places you see, so in forests you can't provide advancing squad with cover fire on suspected enemy positions.
-
I'd be careful working up a conclusion based on a sample size of one situation.
I'm not making any conclusions, nor do i talk about any "hero code", im just talking about individuality. And how much immersion adds the fact that soldiers aren't robots and can act differently under same circumstances.
-
Every action involving humans should involve a variable.
Like in latest part of JonS DAR. He came up with a decent plan of disposing of enemy's sherman. He managed to bring his badly beaten men with a panzerfaust close to its flank. They morale was so bad, that they didn't dare to attack even if they were in a great position.
Perfectly fine and believable if you ask me but that shouldn't mean that someone else wouldn't take the shot even in such bad shape. Having hard coded that unit with such low morale in such position always wouldn't shoot is bad IMO.
-
... and is loaded with a crudload of ammo. Anti tank guns of both nations similarly have an ammo bearer team.
btw I read somewhere that in CM:SF the load-out of infantry doesn't affect theirs stamina and speed. True/false? And what about CM:BN? Are those overloaded ammo bearers sprinting like scout teams?
-
I believe cover will be like CMSF as in, the path of the bullet is traced and if it intersects the gravestone, building, soldier it will react accordingly. There is some fudge to take into account the less than perfect TacAI of course, but in general this is how it works.
So when the tombstones are in rows, and the fire comes perpendicularly on the rows the men hiding behind them are getting a decent cover while if the fire would come parallel to the rows they would only get limited cover?
-
It is the opposite. Gravestones provide cover. Steve miswrote earlier and
Then corrected himself.
Real cover or abstract cover?
-
A question:
Gravestones are a flavor objects, right?
Flavor objects provide concealment but no cover, right?
In reality wouldn't such stone plate provide cover?
Thanks
Possible (good) idea for TCPIP MP WeGo approximation
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Autopause realtime is a feature which would have tremendous positive impact on multiplayer. I may actually prefer it over tcp/ip wego. It takes the best of both worlds. And the ratio of work needed for its implementation and the effect it would make is making it imho a feature which brings the most bang for a buck.