Jump to content

Skwabie

Members
  • Posts

    603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Skwabie

  1. In a CMBN pbem match I have going on right now, I had a broken aa crew being attacked by a squad of Canadians. One of the Canadians was trying to throw a grenade when one of the two men left in my aa crew shot him. The grenade fell at his feet taking out two more men. One those guys was also trying to throw a grenade and his also fell at his feet taking out one more man. So one rifle shot took out 4 of my opponents men and broke his attack.

    !!!!:eek::D

  2. I'm sorry but I'm just doing massive amount of tank penetration/damage/destroying tests and I see the damage done by the killing shell.

    One moment the tank is 100% operational and undamaged, second moment (after penetration) the tank is "destroyed" and has various amounts of damage to tracks, engine, optics or something else. So the game UI definitely shows the damage done by the killing shell. If it doesnt' show all, this should be corrected.

    The cases where there is no damage and tank is destroyed are of course rare, but they happen too. There are also cases where there is almost everything damaged on tank (engine, tracks, optics, main gun, weapon controls ect) and it is still NOT destroyed, so the "destroyed" state seem not connected with systems damage state. I wonder what else in tank can be damaged, that is not displayed, but decides about destroying. That steel frame that mounts everything ? ;)

    developed 2 theories on this

    1. energy past armor reaches a certain level.

    2. energy past armor accumulates to a certain level.

    and there must be many random factor in play in these... otoh i don't think subsys dmg contribute to tanks KO based on same evidence in your post.

    all just theories ofc, tho no need to think the system cm uses is very complex. games are just games...

  3. Will the airstrikes be called in by on map teams or operate like Red Thunders aircraft ?

    I think the aircraft in Red thunder is specific to the ww2 setting. the use in BN/FI was inherited from SF and appeared 'too modern'. nothing will be too modern in 2017 again... just my own thought + what was written on the foras tho.

  4. I think it's a combination of being able to conserve ammo *while* not being any less effective. If high ROF weapons really were more effective than lower ROF weapons, western armies (at least) would use them despite the higher cost).

    I.e., over 2000 javelin missiles (@$80,000 apiece) have been fired in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost all of them at infantry targets. It's hard to see that cost is really an issue if you get increased effectiveness.

    actually i meant to say weight rather than cost. a high rate of fire is always preferred but obviously not everyone is arnold schwarzenegger in predator/ terminator.

    apparently he dropped the ball in the last stand. but lets be honest, cold war's over for more than a decade, there's no need for overkills..

  5. I understand from previous and multiple discussions over the years a campaign map is never going to happen, that's fine if its not worth the investment BF. But more support for linked maps (in terms of persisting destruction for example) would help bridge the gap between linked scenarios (and anything more creative).

    well look at the other side of the coin. with a more functional campaign cm might just become too addictive. you might end up with small countries going bankrupt coz ppl spends all their time playing it.

    just kidding:D

  6. Open terrain should favor a general trend toward lower unit density compared to more closed up terrain.

    I don't think larger maps necessarily need to have higher unit count. I think larger maps are great, and with lower unit count would provide for some excellent maneuvering and options for the attacker/defender.

    agree, it's why i and i believe many liked the german campaign in CMSF.

    but maybe the terrain in theater is like that. i mean you can't have a desert campaign for the russian front. at first the open steppe comes to mind, but turns out it's not so either. anyway...

  7. ..lower ROF...

    i fear it is more for ammo conservation... obviously one man can only carry so much weight, meanwhile they're supported by the m134 and stuff, 3k rounds/min rof:p, apparently ammo is less a concern when it's vehicle mounted, i mean who doesn't like more firepower.. but for mg42 if you fire 2 second bursts per time the basic ammo load will be gone in 20 something shots.

  8. ...save ammo...

    actually i've been using some way to remedy the ammo expense problem.

    if the HMG guys are mounted and i envision a heavy firefight, acquire all the ammo from the vehicle... the german HT carries 1850 rounds of 7.92mm so divide it 1000/850 for the 2 teams.

    target light. although not much it does save some.

    target briefly.

    alternate area fire. team 1 area fire for a minute, team 2 stands watch; next minute switch roles. thus ammo level is kept even between teams.

    however the perpetual downside is when there're multiple squads on map all with troops in contact it inevitably becomes click fest-ish, MG guys are easy but with platoons of infantry with teams split...

  9. Reminds me of the manga 'tigers in the mud' by Miyazaki Hayao... quite popular in my high school years. apparently taken from a part in carius' memoir so i later bought the book.

    http://www.mangatank.com/manga/otto-carius-tigers-in-the-mud

    still thinking of making a campaign in cmrt outta it. smallish scenarios, against the odds and well depicted by pics so seems fitting.

    If I'm not mistaken they have public vending machines where you can buy used panties that were worn by school girls. Its nothing over there, but you could imagine what a stir that would cause here.

    yeah that is actually true - I've seen it.

    asked my cousin who's been living in japan for about 10 years and seen no vending machines like that... i wonder where you guys had been to during the visit:eek:

×
×
  • Create New...