SergeantSqook
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SergeantSqook
-
-
3 hours ago, Artkin said:
I said CMBN runs worse than the other titles, this isn't lying.. it's a fact. Wake up.
First of all, you didn't say "CMBN runs worse than the other titles" you said
Which is objectively not true. Not only that, but just because YOUR CMBN runs worse doesn't make that a universal fact
Second of all, that is one of the things you said that was a lie
You also said this, which is also not true. All of the scenarios, at least in MY CMBN, including Operation Linett(all four versions) work fine.
We keep plenty of logs for exactly this kind of thing, so don't waste peoples time any more than this.
-
2 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:
huh, you ever been on it?
He left on his own after he got muted for 10 minutes for lying to someone asking if they should buy CMBN and then getting snippy when he was called out on it.
Truly the mod team are unhinged savages.
-
Isn't this already in CMBS
"The Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) round will replace most other Abrams rounds, including HEAT and canister rounds, allowing for simpler logistics and more effective battle loads. The AMP round uses an ammunition data link and a programmable fuse to act in a variety of roles on the fly, allowing a single round to effectively engage a wide variety of targets. For example, after lasing the distance to a target, the AMP round can be programmed to airburst over an infantry target, negating the protection gained from walls, ditches, or earthen slopes. With a delay fuse setting the AMP round can also be used to engage bunkers and fortifications, buildings or to breach walls."
From the manual
-
5 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Tells me exactly where you came from.
Yanks(pardon my slur), am I right?
Stay hydrated fella
-
Scenario requires CMFI+GL+R2V
Designed to be played as Allies only
The setting is an extremely rapid raid on a German position. British Airborne v Gerbigs Pioneers. Get in, inflict as much damage as possible, get out. It's not designed to be a challenge in of itself, it's more just about trying to make a mission with the time constraint. (and an excuse to play with my favourite, the wasp)
Thought it would be fun to stick to the absolute minimum so a quick 208x208 map, and a mission that is effectively 10 minutes long. The actual timer is 15 but you probably don't want to be on the map after 10.
I don't necessarily intend to do any more work on it, but feedback is always appreciated.
-
1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:
I thought you were leading Charlie company in the desperate defense of Washington state?
Don't think that Bannon is in position to be posting
RIP to a real one
-
On 10/31/2021 at 9:33 AM, Pichelsteiner said:
I can only find the Gebirsgjager Battalion in the Editor, not in Quick Battles. Is there a reason for this, or am I doing something wrong?
Are you making sure the time/date/location are the same?
-
3 hours ago, Artkin said:
The real question is - what is the pricing based off like @SergeantSqook said? Rarity in theater? Pure performance? After this is figured out then yeah we can gauge the pricing.
Edit: forgot about rarity points. It would make sense that they are based off performance.
The way it's been described from what I recall is that they punch all the "stats" of the vehicle into a formula and then that gives the cost. Historical performance is not counted for specifically, and obviously presence is counted for using rarity points.
-
13 minutes ago, holoween said:
From this picture guess which costs 190 and which 299.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
-
Spectacular ability to miss the point.
6 minutes ago, holoween said:Only in pure penetration. HE is at best equal, it has far less ammo and is limited by not having a turret.
Okay so the gun is better, like I said. Thanks.
6 minutes ago, holoween said:Until the sherman goes hulldown and then the sherman is smaller.
The fact that you tried to raise this as a point is legitimately hilarious and doubled by the fact that it's basically not even true.
They have a near identical ability to take cover behind terrain and the Sherman being able to cope for it's vulnerability based on terrain isn't a factor in it's characteristics as a vehicle. The StuG can also be much closer as it hugs the terrain since it isn't trying to hide it's barn-sized hull. It also has better average armour in this stance, since the mantlet is the only stronger part on the Shermans turret. Which are also both irrelevant to points cost.
Anyway, you managed to completely miss my point about direct tank on tank, saying the StuG should be cheaper than the Sherman because the Sherman is better on cherrypicking stats or because the Sherman would probably win a 1v1 has nothing to do with how the points cost is calculated.
21 minutes ago, holoween said:with all player experience
"all player experience" must explain why there is a unanimous agreement on this in this thread and all the other threads and definitely not a long discussion that gets completely ignored every time.
-
15 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
Now, a question to you: you seem to think very highly of the StuG (this commend) and the Panzer IV (last page). Are you happy with the StuG being 25% more expensive than the Pz IV?
Sorry missed that at first. See my previous answer to your previous loaded question.
-
8 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
Nobody in this thread has based pricing on 1:1 battles.
7 hours ago, Redwolf said:OK, let's look at Shermans (any Sherman) versus the Stug:
- both can penetrate each others' front armor in a direct confrontation
- at long range the StuG's gun will score quicker, however at those same ranges the StuG shell starts bouncing off the Sherman's hull
- the HE from the Sherman is substantially more powerful, useful for anti-infantry work
- the StuG only has a single MG crippled by low ammo. Sherman has two regular MGs with lots of ammo, and a .50 cal on top
- Sherman has a 5-person crew versus the StuG 4
- obviously the turret is a difference. The Sherman doesn't only have a turret, it has a fast turning one
- the Sherman has self-defense smoke launchers, the StuG does not
And that applies to all US Shermans, starting from the 190 points costing one. And the StuG is 299 points. How can that look right to anyone?
-
7 hours ago, Redwolf said:
OK, let's look at Shermans (any Sherman) versus the Stug:
- both can penetrate each others' front armor in a direct confrontation
- at long range the StuG's gun will score quicker, however at those same ranges the StuG shell starts bouncing off the Sherman's hull
- the HE from the Sherman is substantially more powerful, useful for anti-infantry work
- the StuG only has a single MG crippled by low ammo. Sherman has two regular MGs with lots of ammo, and a .50 cal on top
- Sherman has a 5-person crew versus the StuG 4
- obviously the turret is a difference. The Sherman doesn't only have a turret, it has a fast turning one
- the Sherman has self-defense smoke launchers, the StuG does not
And that applies to all US Shermans, starting from the 190 points costing one. And the StuG is 299 points. How can that look right to anyone?
This has basically nothing to do with how QB costs are calculated, the vehicles characteristics are punched into a formula which gives the output, they don't base it on a vehicles ability to epically 1v1 a different vehicle.
The StuG has comparable but slightly better armour, a better gun and a much, much smaller profile.
To have any relevant discussion on this, the vehicles characteristics should be compared side by side and then that compared to their cost; rather than this weird 1v1.
(again though big props for the uber-loaded comment where you mention all the Shermans advantages but none of the StuGs. Very cool)
-
14 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
And in your opinion the 75(W) with the 90mm turret front should still be cheaper than the 50mm turret front Pz IV?
Sorry, let me reply properly.
I don't base my opinion of QB costs on turret front thickness.
-
2 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
And in your opinion the 75(W) with the 90mm turret front should still be cheaper than the 50mm turret front Pz IV?
Kingly loaded question
-
1 minute ago, Redwolf said:
That one (which is substantially better) doesn't change the fact that there is a 190 points one. With turret, multiple MGs, and 76 mm turret front armor. The cheap one mind you.
Or look at the British Shermans if you prefer.
The 190 points one has significant flaws in armour (questionable quality and multiple weakpoints) and visibility (has no cupola) and is priced appropriately. It seems kind of weird to cherry pick the worst Sherman against a "standard" PzIV as a point of argument.
-
13 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
Of course. We want the formula adjusted so that it ends up with these three being equal.
There is a 14 point difference between the "standard" Sherman and "standard" Panzer IV
-
This seems like a fundamentally flawed argument to me. Surely the question should be "does Battlefronts points formula accurately reflect how useful certain vehicles are" rather than arbitrarily making three different vehicles the same price.
-
11 minutes ago, dbsapp said:
But I was rewarded after I found in you faithul and passionate follower.
I am a big fan of your work
-
17 minutes ago, dbsapp said:
Don't worry, they will never "nerf US" and you'll be able to play your fantasy toys and magic Abrams in the rainbows and unicorns world as long as you wish.
It is a crime that people don't take your complaints seriously, I do wonder why that is
-
1 hour ago, dbsapp said:
Repeat after me:
- Abrams
- Bradley
- Thermals
This trinity makes God mode in CMCW and in CMBS and everybody who disagrees is heretic.
Well, that's convinced me. Nerf the US because dbsapp said so.
-
25 minutes ago, Artkin said:
Yeah they both saw I2 and neither saw I1. Similarly, I2 sees both tanks and I1 sees nothing. But how do the panthers have such great visibility to the rear with the light conditions? Their reaction was simutaneous too. Pretty much instantly both recognized a threat to the rear, I2, who was advancing behind trees. I dont know how so many pairs of eyes could be so oblivious.
Both the Panthers clearly end the turn targeting I1 though. And there's a full platoon of stationary Panthers, it's hardly unfathomable that one of them gets a spot and passes it on. It's also not to the rear, P1 starts moving first when the Soviets are to it's right, not behind it.
-
11 minutes ago, Artkin said:
It seems pretty ridiculous that two panthers got the spot on an infantry squad running behind a treeline
So I can only comment on the Panthers to a limited degree since I only have the Soviet perspective but;
Probably because that doesn't happen, Panther 1 spots Infantry 1 at this point, when the infantry is in the open next to them. It then tells Panther 2 who starts to move too.
At the end of the turn, two of the Panthers are aiming for I1 (who are barely in the treeline and are still moving) and P3 hasn't reacted at all.
It looks a bit like P1 is aiming at I2, but the hull indicates to me that it's aiming for I2.
As for why the guys in the rear don't see the Panthers. Poor RNG? It's dark, they're in trees, they're still moving? You can kind of pick whatever you want. They do all have very strong partial spots though.
33 minutes ago, Artkin said:I don't understand how dark it can be at 9am with snow all over the ground.
It is still dark though.
-
42 minutes ago, Artkin said:
If we want to talk about abstractions I can make you a military simulator in MS paint. You just have to believe. Here's some more abstraction for you.
My HQ being shot through about 5 trees, about 150 meters behind the treeline.
Probably the known bug where the M113 has thermal sights
Official Discord Server Combat Mission
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I'm friendly IN the Discord, that counts right?