db_zero
-
Posts
1,554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by db_zero
-
-
Oh my. How could you keep track of so many games and not forget what the situation is in each one?
I have all the CM games and modules except for the NATO one for Shock Force. I always wanted to try that one though but never got around to it, since CM is such a time sink.
Must have good memory and multitasking skills. I also manage my own investments and keep tabs on the markets, overall economy and global political, economic and social trends. I've pump out 1-2 sometimes 3 turns a day after work and 1-8+ turns on the weekends depending on my opponent as well as is I'm doing something else.
Work is also mentally challenging. Your brain is like any other muscle. Use it or lose it.
-
I like to play as the Syrians/Jihadis. I guess that's why I liked Shock Force. I like the setting and can't wait till they return to it again.
Also, your post reminds me that I've still never really played CM H2H before. I've never played it with CMx2 at least. Now that I think of it, I vaguely remember playing a couple hotseat CMx1 games with my brother ages ago. I've never had anyone else to play with...
...anyone looking for an opponent by chance?
I may take you up on this...I'll have to see. I have 15 CM games going at the moment as well as a full time job and like to do things in my spare time besides gaming. I do want to try Shock Force h2h sometime and I have all the modules.
-
The only way to resolve this debate is a duel.
One side gets 5 Shermans, the other side 1 King Tiger.
Best of 7 game duel on a battlefield is the winner.
-
Could be a case where both sides of the argument are right and wrong. On paper the KT was quite maneuverable off road, but in practical terms the reality of the situation dictated otherwise.
Here is some info that indicates while in perfect conditions and on paper the KT was indeed maneuverable off road, the design reduced track life, could be problematical in bad conditions and the maintenance requirements were so high as to be unattainable in sustained battlefield conditions, that in practice the full potential was not going to be attained.
Sounds like the same situation for Japanese fighters that were produced in 44. On paper they were far superior to American fighters. In fact when captured Franks and NiKi's were test flown at Miramar the American test pilots were stunned at their characteristics performance-which in the hands of a good pilot could best the P-51, P-47, Corsair and Hellcat.
In reality the subpar material used caused issues such as landing gear collapsing, bad engine wear and performance and the lack of experienced maintenance crews and pilots meant the Japanese fighters never really lived up to their potential-except for a few instances where all the right ingredients were in place.
The KT probably suffered the same pitfalls as the Japanese fighters like the Frank and NikI.
-
The Tiger I, II and JadgTiger are cool tanks. I have cool 1/32 metal replicas of them and they look cool along with my other tanks and AFV's.
That being said...
My .02 cents is the Germans would have been better off using 50% resources and materials allocated to designing and producing these super tanks to making more Panthers, 20% of the resources to making more Assault Guns, 20% of the resources to maintenance/supply vehicles to support the tank force and the rest to producing more assault rifles and ammo for the assault rifles.
I agree with the historical consensus that the time, effort and resources used for Hitlers fascination with super tanks was a colossal waste.
-
Shock Force when it first came out was a buggy mess so that may contribute to its score. The CM/SF series really shines in h2h and that may be a problem for Shock Force. Its not really fun to be the Syrians/Jihadis. They are really outclassed in so many way by the American/British/German forces. The complexity is also probably greater due to the advanced weaponry. What can be seen can be killed-and at great distance.
I haven't tried Shock Force h2h, but maybe I will. We'll have to see how Black Sea or whatever it is will turn out. Personally I'd like to see Korea done, but its probably not sexy enough to do. A Viet-Nam module would also be interesting.
It also appears most players h2h and otherwise are in North America and Europe. Its easier to find those who are willing and enthusiastic to play the German in WW2 than it is to play the Syrians/Jihadis in a modern game like SF.
As for CM vs Company of Hereos. I have both. I played the first CoH on to death. The Eastern Front on I've hardly touched. Its nothing against the second CoH, but I find h2h Combat Mission more challenging and entertaining. I've played CoH online and I found it to be nothing but a bunch of what seemed to be adolescent boys doing constant tank rushes and telling you how much you sucked because you don't click the mouse quickly enough and pump out units fast enough and do massive tank/infantry rushes fast enough. I just saw it as WW2 version of Starcraft.
I'd like to see Combat Mission have a h2h campaign. I will stop playing Combat Mission if I ever see life bars and the ability to plop down barracks and factories and start pumping out tanks and infantry like CoH.
One thing I really like about Combat Mission is the PBEM H2H system, I can play, put out a turn and then go to work or live a life. When I'm ready I can have a queue of turns to play and do them at my leisure. I don't have to dedicate a block of time to play. I don't really see the WEGO as completely unrealistic either. In real combat you can't just order units to do something and then change them on a dime and expect it to happen. There is a lot of friction, confusion and chaos.
-
Meh...the only critic that matters is me. If I like something thats good enough for me.
If you really want to start a war go on a gun forum and bring up the AK47 vs M16 or 45 ACP vs. 9mm debate. Now that I think about it I'll see if Metacritic rates it.
-
I had to snicker when I first saw this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/marines-turn-noses-obamas-new-girly-hats/
-
Not the all in oneapproach, but the old Strategy and Tactics from SPI woulf often do superb coverage of Civil War battles as well as the overall war. Strategy, tactics and operational aspects as well as interesting tidbits and personalities was covered. Not always easy to find. My stash of them are valued.
A couple of years ago someone was selling the entire collection on DVD, but haven't seen it in a while.
-
Looks like a great battle. I want to play it h2h, but most of my opponents don't have MG and one who does already played it so we started another MG battle which happens to be in Normandy.
I was pleasantly surprised to see MG have some Normandy battles.
-
Does the ai take into account the relative ineffectiveness of certain AT weapons and try to target the treads or sprocket wheels to try and immobolize tanks like King Tigers? If not could a target to immobolize be implemented? Grunts aren't stupid and must have known the best shot was often one to immobolize a tank like the Tiger.
Also got to think the mobility of a King Tiger was always limited due to size and weight. You had to do careful recon and many areas were unsuitable for it. Once it got stuck you probably needed another Tiger or 2 to recover it. I'm not fimilar with Holland, but isn't most of it at ir below sea level? Those types of areas tend to have soft ground which doen't seem conductive to armored warfare.
-
Taking a direct hit or near where a salvo of rockets hit was said to be like getting a broadside from a light cruiser so it couldn't have been good news-even for a King Tiger crew. Typhoons and P-47s could also carry a pair of 500 pound bombs and that must have been hell to have them go off near you.
8 .50 cals from a P-47. A King Tiger may not get tossed, but not all upper areas could be heavily armored and ground attack pilot were trained at where to aim. Same with the 20mm from a Typhoon. By the time the King Tiger appeared the allied were pretty experienced in coordinating air/ground tactics and techniques and pilots on TDY were attached to ground units. By this time many if not most ground attack pilots and FACs were pretty experienced and given the opportunity pretty decent killers.
-
This may be another version of a frequently encountered myth. The geometry of such a shot would be almost impossible to set up. Even if you could get the round to strike the underbelly, it would do so at such a shallow angle that it would ricochet off even thin armor without penetrating. Also the round would lose a lot of its energy in striking the ground first.
Michael
Sounds like a job for Mythbusters.
-
iirc there was something I read years ago about how US AT gunners would aim their 57mm guns so the round would hit in front of the thick hide German tanks and skip up and penetrate the thinner underbelly .
For you shooters out there u can use the same principal to hit soneone taking cover behind a vechicle.
-
HT gunners do seem to die fast and I don't know if that really was the case or.not, but I would hate to see a tweak that make HTs into Bradley fighting vechicles and players start using them that way.
I don't think the my squads can't hit infantry , but have little trouble hitting HT of gunners is a valid comparison. Infantry even at close distances can be very difficult to spot. Even on what appears to be clear and flat terrain there are folds and other places where infantry can hide. You could easily walk past infantry hiding in a fold or slight undulation and never see then.
HTs on the other hand are large targets with outlines that make them easy to see and giid aiming points.
-
Combat is generally hair raising. Beats waving hello to the enemy across the street as you tip-toe thru the front door. But to your point, I'd thought of that and had the troops covered from the second-story windows of the adjoining houses - woohoo do I think of everything....NOT. To no avail of course. And I hate wasting precious HE rounds for such a task.
But my question really is whether or not the pratice of using heavier weapons to break thru walls using heavy infantry weapons is simply not modeled in the game for programming reasons or am I missing something gameplay-wise in order to bring it off. Sounds like the former. This game is so brilliant that I'd be surprised if the capability didn't exist. I was thinking perhaps it's not modeled bc it simply wasn't done but then I remembered an account of troops using grenades to break thru interior walls of adjoining bldgs in order to advance down a block w/out needing to go outside.
Going to need one the WW2 weapons experts to chime in as well as the programmers. Bazookas/PF and Shreicks are HEAT weapons. I have no idea if the high speed jet produced by these sort of weapons will blow a large enough hole in a wall for a grunt to get through or just a tiny hole that is often produce when they hit a tank.
They may have also been non-HEAT rounds for Bazookas and Shriecks that may have been able to punch man size holes into walls. There is also the issue of what the wall was made of and construction technique used to build it. A brick wall has different properties than a stone or concrete wall. I also don't know if the use or rebar was a common practice in the time period, but if it was it would have a huge effect.
-
I downloaded and tried the Infantry Squad Attack in MG. Very well done on all levels and very highly recommended. I'll try out the Tank Section Attack soon.
This should be integrated into the game as part of the basic training.
-
Its bad enough having to go through a door-oftentimes referred to as the fatal funnel. You really have to practice with people you know and trust for some time to get really good at it.
Windows are another problem altogether. Probably best to use ropes and assault from above-but that once again takes a lot of training and practice. Simply climbing through a window is an open invitation to get shot. This is where grenades come in play as you toss them in to kill, wound and stun the occupants. The blast and concussion affect is magnified in an enclosed space. I don't really see this simulated in CM-I may be wrong. Once again it may be something for the designers to consider for future CM and SF modules to have some sort of way (command) to explicitly be able to grenade a building before entering.
While I haven't tried it or know if its possible-but I don't see why not is to have infantry use demo charges to blow a hole in a building and enter that way.
My impression right or wrong is most of the urban combat in WW2 was "on the job" training. They didn't train for it like they do these days when it's a given you'll be fighting in urban areas. Back in the WW2 days most of the population was still rural. These days the trend is towards urbanization.
-
Hopping over high walls with combat gear and a rifle is a good way to injure and ankle or knee. Not a good thing.
There are methods that are practiced today to allow a group of soldiers buddy assist one another over a wall. It goes without saying a smaller, lighter grunt is easier to get over than someone build like an offensive lineman. I can't imagine they didn't know or practice this in WW2, but unfortunately its not modeled here, but is something that should be considered.
It would also be nice if you could drive a jeep up to a high wall and have soldiers hop on the hood to get a peek over or even shoot, but once again that's not modeled and not sure they are going to put resources into it.
Now I remember from SimCity4 the little icon you used that would display the area under your city so you could lay water pipes. That would be awesome for the Stalingrad module to simulate the battles in the sewer system...hint, hint.
-
demo charges is your friend. Now you know why engineers were so highly prized in general and especially when fighting in built up areas.
-
Weather conditions could often prevent effective use of smoke. Logistics also came into play-no available or stuff not where it really needed to be.
Also smoke could be a double edge sword. Could blow back into your direction or in a direction you didn't want as well as blocking the sight of your heavy weapons.
-
Aside from injury from jumping off a moving vehicle there is the very real possibility of an unintentional discharge of a hot weapon-bad enough with a bolt action or semi auto and even worse with an automatic weapon. Training and experience lessens the risk. Poorly trained and inexperienced troops will tend to make more of those careless errors.
A grenade that unintentionally went off would be a disaster.
IDK-the jumping off a moving vehicle looks great on film, but I really gotta wonder about it.
-
I also would like to know the reality of infantry jumping out of a moving halftrack. Even at 2-5 mpg there is a real risk of ankle, knee or some other injury. I'm not saying it wasn't done or common practice, but I've had the opportunity of trying it a few times with a rifle and gear and even on pool table smooth ground it's far more difficult than it looks and the risk of needless injury is present.
On uneven ground the risks go up considerably. It would seem that if at all possible you'd want to bring a personnel carrier to a complete stop and have infantry exit through the door-not over the sides. Same hold true to ingress a vehicle. Best if done at a halt-which may not always possible. Entering a moving vesicle-especially if its moving over 5mph is not as easy as it looks and you can get injured far more easily than you might realize.
-
When you stop and think about it a person behind a metal gun shield is the exact or very close replica of the metal human shaped targets used in shooting practice.
Now imagine taking a metal human steel target and have it protruding halfway through the sunroof of a car. The silhouette is about as good a target as one can imagine.
That is one serious bullet magnet. Anyone who has shot at metal targets knows the real danger of being hit by bullet fragments which is why you always wear eye protection. Automatic weapons fire greatly increases that risk.
Halftrack gunners...
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Here is some info that may be relevant. Also keep in mind that a HT gunner is on top of a very large and recognizable vehicle with a very distinct silhouette which makes a big difference.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110726200647AAXqgqH
An elite sniper shooting from an 8 story building is going to be able to hit a lot more than just a gunner in a HT.