Fionn Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 http://www.gamesdomain.co.uk/gdr.cgi?zones/previews/feb00/cmbeta.html If the link doesn't work then someone with some patience who has learned how to do html linking can make it right . BTW let's meet on the Combat Mission club in Yahoo to chat about it tonight... But let's meet earlier so Europeans etc can visit too... How about starting at 12pm GMT ( 1 hour from now). (that's umm 7pm EST I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Link works, Fionn. Also guys, it's got several new cool screenshots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Chat areas seems to be having dificulites logging people in! Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 It just seems to take some time to get it to log you in. Just wait and it will work. ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Mekanik Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Just....won't.....let.....me.....in..... More power Scotty...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 I got in, finally...Not many in here yet thouhg... Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Won't let me access any site that are Yahoo! right now. Even Yahoo.com isn't working. Odd anyway. ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GriffinCheng Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Hey, I just read the preview. Sounds exciting. The "quick battle" and "unit purchase" shots are interesting. Since Mr. Tim Chown is not the reviewer of "The Sims", I am trying to see if my "sexy Sims" bribe would get the beta CM disk for me Oh, one ignorant question: what is "Panzer IV/70" I saw in the purchase screen? Griffin @ work [This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 02-21-2000).] [This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 02-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 22, 2000 Author Share Posted February 22, 2000 Jpz IV mit 7.5cm L/70 Otherwise known as the Jpz IV lang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueball Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 It looks something like the Stug III, but instead of being based on a PZIII chassis it uses a PZIV chassis. It is therefore longer with more road wheels. It's also lower to the ground, heavier front armor and mounts the same 75L70 gun as the Panther. It was a little nose heavy and unmaneuverable, but you'd have a devil of a time hitting it if it was hull down. Good for ambushes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GriffinCheng Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Why don't they just call it JPz IV/70!? Hey I see two other JPz IVs on the list, it is just kinda confusing to a ameatur like me. Thanks everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Two different versions. One has the normal PzIV (IIRC) type gun, the other the Panther's. The were all supposed to have the Panther's, but production of the gun system wasn't good enough to meet early demand. Like the StuG, it is a bit of a deadly bastard on the defense, but WATCH OUT if you are in a battle involving movement. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Yeah, the Stugs in Chance encounter demonstrate that well. I ran all my Shermans and infantry up the left side. I thought to overcome previous difficulties by massing my tank fire against the Stugs as they appeared, hopefully one at a time. One did appear and knocked out 3 Shermans standing toe to toe. Well not quite, but close enough. Anyway two other Shermans were out of LOS having advanced across the lateral road. I tried to keep them that way and succeeded. The infantry battle went on with my troops taking some beating from the Stugs. But, they held their place. Reinforcements were sent up right side to take the near objective there. They hid in the woods near enough to control the VL, fearing what would be sent after them. They were correct to so fear. The Stugs started after them. My Shermans found their rearends most accomodating and eventually killed all three. I feared for my Shermans against Panzerfaust bearing infantry sneaking up on me from their wooded haven. I sent a platoon in there and obtained some security. My tanks prevented my infantry from being overrun and eventually went on to lead the attack to a total victory. Against a human opponent, I suspect a more conservitive approach on their part would have resulted in a draw, which is was the sort of thing the German diehards at that stage of the war were expected to accomplish in slowing the Allied advance. This brings up a victory condition question. If that was the German objective, then the game's automatic victory calculator would not reflect that a tie was really a victory for the defense. Does a designer have any options available to so tweek victory definations? I suppose a device is available as has been seen in another game I play. The scenario description section can be used to tell the player to ignore the arbitrary game engine result and spell out another set of conditions that must be obtained to declare victory. Yet, it is nicer where the game engine itself can be engaged to make the declaration according to the designer's wishes. I suppose one remedy available in any event is a more careful selection of victory locations. Play testing should reveal them. Still, an imaginitive player can sometimes compromise the best schemes obtaining a technical win without having accomplished his real goal or having thwarted the enemy of his. Consider Thermopoly. How would well would that Greek victory type gained inspite of annhilation of the force enaged, be evaluated by the CM game engine? I suppose even here a designer could do it with appropriate turn numbers and VLs. Still something to think about for the future. No doubt experence in deslign and play will reveal any necessary adjustments. [This message has been edited by Bobb (edited 02-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Thermopoly? I can't remember...is that the battle where the greeks got too hot and surrendered? or a board game where you try and form a dominating position in the energy market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 22, 2000 Author Share Posted February 22, 2000 *chuckle* Now we all know he meant Thermopylae . (although I do prefer the explanation that the Greeks got too hot and surrendered ). Bobb, As for your concern.. It is possible to lose all your troops yet still get a win in CM. You can give one side or the other "bonus points" at the beginning of the scenario so that their aim becomes merely to kill enough of the enemy to gain a points win. Then you have exit values etc etc.. There are lots of ways you can create games in CM which have interesting objectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 Ah, a nice subject Jg Pz IV´s: Basically there are four "versions" to consider. The first type was armed with the 75L48 KwK. Early production vehicles had 60mm frontal armour and later (chassis 320301 and onwards) were fitted with an 80mm front plate. I guess the two versions in CM will reflect this too. The JgPz IV/70 version mounted the 75L70 KwK as has already been mentioned. It was built with an 80mm front plate from the outset but there exists "two" versions, this time due to the necessities of war rather than a real development of the vehicle. The Pz IV/70 (V) was the basic version, 930 being produced before the end of the war. The letter "V" in the vehicle designation stands for Vomag, which the abbreviated name of the manufacturer. The second version of the Pz IV/70 is the Pz IV/70 (A), here standing for Alkett. All in all 278 were produced and though they seem to have been intended primarily for units fighting in the East the desperate need for replacements saw a lot of them fighting in the west, at least 38 in the Ardennes offensive for example. The "A" was an interim solution that used a standard PzKw IV hull and put the Pz IV/70 superstructure on top of it. The result of this union is interesting because it highlights on of the best features of the other JgPz IV´s (the "V" as well as the 75mm L48 versions), namely the excellent shape of the front armour. When considering the similarities between the JgPz IV hull and that of the PzKw IV tank it is important to remember that the hull front of the former was completely redesigned. So, on top of being much higher the "A" thus suffered a significant reduction in survivability due to the less than optimal layout of the armour in the old PzKw IV hull, with the vertical plate in front of the driver being a critical weakness. As far as I have seen the "A" model is not in CM right now but I´m sure we will see it, if not sooner, then later M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 02-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GriffinCheng Posted February 22, 2000 Share Posted February 22, 2000 BTS and Mattias, thanks for all the clear up. I have just checked that "Panzer IV and its variants" and well, looks like Pz IV/70 is really a kinda monster. Griffin @ home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts