Zonks54
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zonks54
-
-
I would like to see;
* An option for setting the range for engagement for units, including setting the HQ unit and all subordinates, this would help with ambushes & preventing AT units from firing outside effective range.
* the option to set the number of purchase points in Quick Battles.
* More detailed information on the purchase screen.
-
Diversity is always a good thing, peoples from different cultures bring different points of view and experience.
The problem with these so called different points of view is that each culture in the nation thinks that their point of view should be adopted, a classic example is the Muslims wanting us to adopt sharia law.
What you say may happen in an ideal world, but most of us live in reality, the majority of immigrants coming out here just add to the welfare burden, and it's hard for them to share their point of view or experiences with us when many of them cannot even speak our language.
-
I get offended when people say "I have just insulted your country and I am going to keep insulting your country" and I get offended when people say that my pride in my country is misplaced. I know I should be big enough not to be affected by the opinions of others, but I am. I actually agree that Australia Post (and Telstra) should not have been privatised. The reason I felt offended by Steve's post was the context of his suggestion that Australian Post should not have been privatised. To break it down for you, this is what I understood to be the point of Steve's posts:
- I am annoyed at Australia for levying a Homeland Security fee
- I don't care that the fee was levied by Australia Post I am still annoyed at Australia
- I am now going to insulting Australia by unfavourably comparing it to the USA
- Australia is not a country worthy of national pride
Put in that context, if one likes one's country it is hard not to to take offense to an assertion that the Australian government has made a bad policy decision.
I know Australia isn't perfect. If Steve had of expressed his sentiments in a less pejorative fashion I would have agreed with it. But what upset me was Steve's statement that he intended a deliberate insult to Australia by suggesting that Australia Post should not have been privatised and what really really upset me was his statement that my national pride was misplaced.
My country is not perfect. I welcome any rational and objective criticism of the shortcomings of my country. But I am still proud of it and I find it hard to tolerate deliberate and premeditated insults of Australia.
I'm an aussie, and I can honestly look back 30 years ago and compare it to now and I don't like the way things are heading, the govenment seem intent on ruining this country.
How can you be proud of what this country has become ?, I served in our armed forces, I was prepeared to give the ultimate sacrifice for my country, not now, not a chance, all I care about now is my family and the kind of life my children will have in this multicultural country, were the people we are letting in hate our guts.
- I am annoyed at Australia for levying a Homeland Security fee
-
There is a big difference between max range and effective range, the effective range of the Panzerschreck (Tank Terror) was approx 150m, thats not to say that green troops, or troops in a shaken condition may let them of at a much greater range.
Maybe a feature like in steel panthers would be good where you could set the engagement range of a units weapon.
-
It all comes down to how many hit locations are modeled on the tanks, are the "driver's vision slit or the hull MG mount" even a factor in the frontal armour? if so then maybe the text could be more specific, if the program knows it's happened, then I'm sure it can produce a text message to inform the player.
The OP has found what he thinks may be a bug, and as we have always been told, test and produce saves & Screen shots for the devs, he's done that, now let BF look into it if they deem it a priority.
-
I've seen this same argument on several forums about the movie 300, it's not supposed to be accurate, it's supposed to be entertaining, if your going to sit there looking for historical errors, don't bother watching movies anymore, read a book instead.
-
Its not a matter of doubting your word but the BFC guys have been working on this game for about 5-6 years (on top of the 5-6 the spent on its predecessor, CM1) and have done a bunch of research, programming and testing for authenticity of results. They get tons of questions and complaints about this and that and over time they have more or less adopted an informal policy that gives more weight to people who can, with save files or other data (like test scenarios), show that a problem exists and is replicable. The game does simulate some of the randomness on the real life battlefield and because of that some weird things are going to happen, interspersed with many realistic events. Saves and test scenarios help them figure out if its a fluke or not.
I can understand the reasoning behind that, you can't checkout every complaint nor do I expect them to, but if we at least make it known that these problems are occurring, or at least what one might consider a problem, and enough people experience that problem, then the need for a saved game should not be necessary, although I agree, much more helpful, but this thread is up to 34 pages, so it's obviously a hotly debated topic.
-
Do you have a save for the developers to look at? Might be useful to BFC if you did and there was something wrong. Otherwise, anecdotes just don't carry much weight here...it happened, but we'll never know why without that further research.
"anecdotes", I figure it's the same as "screenshot or it didn't happen" ?
Checked for a save, no go, No autosave and don't save during a battle, the game is pretty stable and I don't reload a save if I make a mistake.
-
The Machineguns definitly need looking at, I had a squad of Vet Germans firing on a US mortar team in the middle of the road, at 100m, the two squad MG42 fired at the Mortar team for just under a minute, no kills, no suppression, the mortar team setup, aimed and landed about 3 rounds wipping out my entire squad, I quit the battle in disgust.
-
My first impression is good, I like the game a lot.
The only issue I could say is the fact that AI tanks seem to have a constant 360 degree vision, it doesn't matter what terrain I'm in, I cannot get a couple of soldiers to sneak up on one without being spotted almost instantly, if either crawling from 100m away through tall grass or steping out from behind a building.
-
Zonks40, makes the point that when using a MG in bi-pod mode, he was trained to fire in 5-8 round bursts because anything longer would end to make the fire too inaccurate to be effective. However, MGs are designed so that the bullets spread laterally. That is their purpose. They are not supposed to hit a point target but to put down bullets on an area (one of the criticisms of the Bren was that a burst produced too tight a group and so made it less effective than it needed to be). The point was also made that when mounted on a tripod longer bursts could and would be used, the basic accuracy was not affected but the longer burst gave a greater supression effect on the target.
Bull****, haven't you ever heard of Point target?, Area target?, Linear target? deep target?, linear target with depth?, is this what they taught you in the army ?
-
In my opinion the controls are much better now than before, at least I can do it all with the mouse, before it was a pain having to hit a key to change elevation.
I'm really quiet suprised with the nitpicking, if you were expecting the perfect game then of course your going to be dissapointed.
-
I actually remember one of the Beta testers, Chris "tyrspawn" Krause and the AAR series he did commenting on how quick the tanks aquired targets, if you watched them you may remember.
Im sure that if this is a issue it will get fixed, the one thing that worries me though is if the code contains info from prior games, are the tanks and ATs behaving as a modern tank would?
-
zonks40, thanks for the comments. It is always greatly appreciated when we can get feedback from people with actual experience, especially since the MAG58 has a similar design and shares certain design elements with the MG42.
I was wondering if you could clarify two points in your post. When in combat, do you stick with the 5-8 rounds bursts or fire longer bursts? and what would be a typical burst when using the tripod?
At the range we would use the regulation 5-8 round bursts with a bipod, (unless it was at the end of the financial year and had to use up our ammo allocation or get given less in the next year)
The reason behind the 5-8 round bursts is that when you fire the machinegun at a specific tartget you aim at the legs and it walks up the target as it kicks back.
In the field it basically comes down to the situation, If I had a squad coming at me in open ground, I could easily increase the rate of fire to 20 round bursts, even full rock & roll as the saying went, the adrenaline alone would ensure a much firmer grip on the weapon, where at the range it's much more relaxed.
When the machinegun is used on a tripod it is usually being used as a support weapon, we would setup 4 MAG58s on tripods from our Battalion support company, these machineguns would then fire upon an enemy position from up to 1000m away as a prelude to an assault on the enemy, we called it harrassing fire, basically hosing down an enemy position to keep their heads down, the rate of fire from the tripod could be anything up to 100 round bursts or more, but mostly around 50 rounds, the control of the weapon from a tripod is nearlly total, and a 50 round burst is only 3 seconds.
-
I carried the MAG58 in our section during my military time, 1000rpm, 7.62NATO, we used it as a direct fire weapon or a suppressive weapon, we get a contact, I lay down a blanket of suppressing fire towards the enemy, the rifle team go forward and throw grenades, thats just one tactic, it's pretty hard to stop them when you have 7.62mm flying over your head sounding like the crack of a whip.
You only need to spend some time at the range down at the target butt to know what its like to have rounds going over your head, the suppressing fires effectiveness comes down to the skill of the gunner, and the nerve of the troops on the receiving end.
As far as the comments go on rate of fire, 5-8 rounds bursts with a bipod, anything over that and the kick throws the aim off and further fire becomes ineffective, tripods the kick is much less, therefore you can increase the rate of fire, you can read the military textbooks all you want, it all goes out the window in combat, I've seen machineguns barrels glowing red, I've never seen anyone counting the required 200 rounds to change a barrel, when you have enemy charging at you, your not going to stop to make a barrel change.
We were always told the the machinegun is 80% of the sections firepower, it's a meat grinder.
-
Well they aren’t.
So I guess the rest of the request falls away from there, doesn’t it.
You can cross me off your preview attendence, I have interest in going around to your house, your an arsehole.
-
I had figured that a Campaign generator similar to the one used in the steel panthers series would be a matter of interface, if 2 guys could do it 16 years ago, I don't really see the problem today.
Then again, it could be like me telling a mechanic that he should be able to install that engine in my car in an hour.
-
A link to a "campaign generator" discussion we had last week.
-
Coincidence, not only are you also from Sydney, but I was stationed at holsworthy as well with 3RAR.
I'll put myself down as a yes with the same "Duty calls", I'm pretty much on call 7 days a week.
I'm from out past Camden.
-
Well FWIW I reckon its the other way round.
In WEGO you issue orders and sit back and see what happens. If 15 sec into the turn something unexpected happens - too bad your men are commited to the current course of action and you have 45 secs of stress and hope that at the end of the turn you'll have enough stuff left to react.
In RT you can micro manage to your heart's content and adjust as often as needed.
Guys not going where you want them to? Simple, cancel the remainder of that movement command and issue new ones.
New threat emerges? Simple. Issue new target commands and that squad will instantly react to your new orders.
If you are supposed to be the Company commander (say) then you have infinitely more control and much less lag / "friction" in RT than you RL counterpart has.
Exactly, thats one of the big differences is that WEGO really simulates being a commander, in your example, after giving orders to your aid to get the 5th Infantry to leave the trenches and assault that hill, the order is passed to the 5th's commanders, the assault commences, and then you notice some Vickers machineguns that you did not see before, to late, need to wait it out as your now committed (wait out the remaining 45 seconds), because there is no way you can order them back without a delay.
In realtime, it is as though the commander is giving orders to each individual soldier or squad, all the orders are instantly carried out, not my cup of tea I'm afraid.
-
Difference with CoH is that you never have more than what's equivalent to two platoons ever (at least in multiplayer). Not to mention the maps are minuscule compared to a CM map.
You have totally missed the point of my post, it has nothing to do with COH other than to mention that I have a game with my oldest boy now and again and that I'm not a big fan of RTS.
Playing over TCP is not realtime unless there are no turns/pauses, if I remember correctly, previously playing over TCP we still had our orders phase, clicked go when complete, then the orders where played out over 60 seconds of realtime, then began the orders phase again, it was a perfectly good system.
Why they are going back to a PBEM as the only option in my opinion is only going to limit interest in the multiplayer component of the game, but if they are happy and can get by with a tiny share of the market, thats their decision.
As he has said though, "if you don't like it, thats tough", but as he also said, "We have made mistakes".
-
but why sledge those who havent said their piece yet?
Yeah, they did the same in a thread I started last week.
PBEM is fine if your going to have a turn or two a day, though some people like to sit and play a battle out, and it's going to be a pain in the arse checking your email and loading up the game every turn.
Obviously some people need plenty of time to think their moves through, usually the ones who slam realtime, I'm not a big fan of it but I do enjoy a game on COH with my son on occasion.
PBEM is vintage, it's fine to have the option, but as the only option? I think this decision will cost these guys some sales.
-
It's not easy to implement a system that realistically depicts this as far as I understand. If you follow the BFC forums you'll find out there is a huge list of "To Do" stuff and prioritizations have to be made. A campaign generator will only come when the other stuff has been done. Better not get your hopes up.
I'm quiet happy to wait, I was not hoping for anything like this in CM Normandy, just sometime down the track.
I think that Theater of war 3 will have a dynamic campaign system, that will have to keep me going until that day.
-
gibsonm beat me to it
-------------------
This is actually a topic that has popped up continuously throughout the years of CM and it has been discussed heavily on many occasions.
So if you are interested in a deeper answer to your question then please do a search and you will find many both old and new threads ... however the short and sweet answer is:
"Nope! Not going to happen as it is not realistic".
Happy reading!
What is not realistic about a unit fighting in several engagments throught a war ?
Also, if the topic has popped up continuously over the years and there are many old and new threads, then its obviously a wanted feature.
US shortcommings and how did they win.
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I don't think it was so much the battles that won the war for the allies, but instead the fact that the Germans were fighting on too many fronts, The Americans came into the war when most of the nations at war were nearly broke, the American industrial capacity was way out in front of the Germans, so even if every German tank Destroyed 4 US tanks, it would still not be enough.
The US did not win the War, the Germans lost it, and If the Germans were not at war with Russia, the Allies would never have taken back France.