HetzerII
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by HetzerII
-
-
The loader-carousel itself only contains 22 shots out off the 44 onboard a T72. The rest is stored mostly in "bunkers" within the tank but some (6-8 shots and their propellant-charges) were stored "unprotected" within the fighting compartment (ready racks and stuff). At least 4 of these charges were stored on top off the carousel.... exposed to any spalling or penetration hit.
-
I can support what Damian says. Having talked to some former ex East German tankers the most dangerous practice was to transport ready-ammo and expecially propallent charges within the turret basket. Besides this the whole design seems to be pretty safe.
For some nice pics also take a look at this german web-site:
-
And what are the latest decissions regarding "musts" or "needs" of foxholes and trenches? You cannot debate that they are not a fundamental part of german tactics in Normandy. For me the same approach like in CMSF will force me not to buy any Normandy game.
-
Talking about it... would it be possible to rework the tcp/ip code? I sometimes play with some friends and we always have trouble... loosing connection, having to pause due to waiting for data and such stuff. At the moment neither tcp/ip with its flaws (inability to do all the micro-manage, connection problems) nor the wego option via files (time-consuming and annoying) seems to be valid options for future multiplayer games. So if there´s only tcp/ip realtime in the near future, please sort out the biggest problems.
-
Why no official statements from BFC? I mean i dont just wanna know what people think might be in game or not, i want to know it exactly.
-
Hi, I have a question about ammo quality in the red tanks in CMSF. Because they are Syrian is the ammunition much worse than the Russians use? If so, how much worse is it? Is there any variable or option that influences ammo quality in the editor? Thanks for the info.
-
-
-
Good documentary - cheers Adam.
Hey, thats unfair..... it was my discovery
I dont think you can compare this to the universal carrier since the universal carrier at least offers protection for driver, gunner and the rest off the crew. It has armored sides and if you stay low you should be save from small arms fire. In the vehicle were talking about youre simply prone to enemy small arms and even against splinters from the falling mortars. Imho if this is "just" a recce-vehicle i would stay completely out of the way of any arms and not try to slug it out.
-
OK, maybe its because off my bad english:
Im not talking about the game-mechanics(code). Im not interisted in why you changed the coding or that there is technically a big difference about CMAK and CMSF. I know this
All in all it is also unimportant if we have a 1 to 1 simulation or a 3-stoges type. I bet that it would have been possible to make MGs easier to spot in CMAK if it would have been wanted. So it seems to be a question of design and decision why we see this differences.
The question remains: What was the reason to change the general treatment of spotting of small arms/concealment in general? Are they realy easier to spot today/ or in Syria? And when yes.... why?
Maybe because trees and brushes in Syria are not as dense as in the scenarios of CMAK?
Maybe because modern soldiers are specially trained to recognize enemy fire?
Maybe because modern optics enable soldiers to quicker spot?
I dont know.. im just interisted to know the decisions that lead to the behavior we see.
-
I've had actual MGs shoot at me, I don't need to watch a You-Tube video.
Hm... would you please tell the whole story?
Here we are again with using CMAK as a baseline. Please go back and actually read my last post. I'll repeat: comparisons between the two meaningless.So whats the point? We have the same phenomen simulated by two different programms. I dont take CMAK as a baseline... i just want to compare what i see. And what i see are two completely different things. So since we speak about the same thing in two games.... only one can have it right. Since Battlefront had its reason (you can look up the discussions in CMBB and CMAK-Forum) for simulating phenomen a in game x the way they did... whats the reason for simulating phenomen a in game y a completly different way?
For me youre awnsers about taking CMAK as baseline is a kind off deflection since this can end any discussion. Some kind off silver-bullet for ending argues....
-
Bump....
Keep up bumping until we see some official thoughts on the topic
-
CMAK is not necessarily correct, and since the two have nothing in common code-wise, the comparison is completely meaningless.
I didnt said that CMAK is the correct one... but its not hard to see that there is a huge difference in how small-arms-fire and its detection is simulated in both games.
Using CMAK as a baseline only means something if the game was Modern Day CMAK. It isn't.Were is the big difference in small-arms-fire from 1945 to 2010? Are weapons now noisier, with bigger muzzle flashes and some flashlights installed? Or are our ears and eyes much better than back half a century?
Regardless of CMAK... watch the video and tell me that you would easily spot this MG3 from 300 meters, not to speak about bushes or trees.
-
What does CMAK have to do with CMSF? Who cares?
It might be like this: Battlefront is the company behind CMAK. They decided to simulate small arms fire in CMAK in a specific way and now in CMSF they decided to simulate it a different way. Since neither small arms nor the human ability to spot has improved much since WWII, it is a valid question to ask why. I can also remember some topics about this back in CMBB-times... there the "common sense" was that small arms fire is quiet hard to see at all from some distance and due to the natural ambience also not accuratly detectable by ear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNYJ2lpbzgo&feature=related
Imagine some bushes and trees at the position... how hard it would be to spot quickly... not to speak about the enemy fire you receive.
BMP-3 Ammo Storage
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
But most off the "bunkers" are place well within the lower part off the vehicle like the carussel itself. That way they are not prone to direct hits and they are reasonably protected against spall. Also to place warheads within the compartment isnt such a big problem. Placing charges at a such exposed place is.
Stefan Kotsch told me that they had orders to either feed the exposed ammo as soon as possible into the loader or to wast the charges completely before combat.