Fionn Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 Inclination of ground the vehicle stands on IS modelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 So it appears that putting it in is simply a matter of BTS preference since it does fit the scale more or less. I think it would be an interesting toy to try to use properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 Yes, it does indeed sound practical to implement. And also would be quite usable on medium to large maps (and even smallish ones using slopes to simulate elevation adjustments below 14 degrees). I think it would be a fun and interesting weapon to have in CM and would be challenging to try and use well. Charles could calculate the dispersion of the rounds using the tables that have been mentioned and just adjust the dispersion according to range using the rate of spread given at the two ranges in the tables as the basis for the dispersion rate at any given distance. Also, I imagine that the graphics would be pretty easy. Just add the launcher graphics to the side of the vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 18, 2000 Share Posted February 18, 2000 Fionn, Thinking about it I realise it should be no different than considering the restricted elevation of a gun, right? The shell leaving the barrel of a tank is governed by the laws of physics, as implemented by BTS, and so should the rocket leaving the launcher, ok? What got me wondering was if this has been implemented “completely” with regards to weapons with “minimum” ranges, like mortars? If, for example, I put my mortar on a steep hill side, will the minimum range be different down hill or up hill? Basically, are all weapons coded to consider the most extreme situations imaginable for their firing or is there a measure of abstraction “accepted” in each end? Or more to the point, do you think, in theory, that vehicle mounted sWF 40 could be put into CM as it stands today with firing ranges from absolute minimum (arming range) all the way out to maximum range? I’m not really pushing for its inclusion but the discussion is furthering my understanding of workings and potential of CM. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 17, 2000 Share Posted May 17, 2000 Would the webmaster or whoever handles such things please reformat this thread so that it displays properly in a standard window? At least one page is in some bizarre oversize format, making it hard to read. Thanks! John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 17, 2000 Share Posted May 17, 2000 Things look fine on this end. Same HTML as all the other pages, nothing special. Must be a browser but thing Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 17, 2000 Share Posted May 17, 2000 Since this resurfaced, and there was no commentary made by us originally, I will make some comments now... At best this is a borderline on-map weapon (six pack version). If the map is at least 3500km deep perhaps. But anything smaller and it is a definate no. Think about it. If the map were 2000km deep (which is pretty deep BTW) then the HT would have to sit on the map edge and fire at stuff on the opposite edge. Not much flexibility or purpose here and impossible to use if the map wasn't very deep at all. We don't include things like the 120mm mortar on map for exactly the same reason, or any other form of nebelwerfer for that matter. So these are certainly not going in. There is really no benefit game wise, unless you are in the CC3 direct fire camp. We aren't Also, how would we handle the ammo situation? I mean, how many rockets could be stored INSIDE the 251? None? So if they were on the map they would be a one shot deal, and that doesn't seem either realistic or usefull. Sorry, no go. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted May 17, 2000 Share Posted May 17, 2000 Was worth asking. Would have been kind of cool. Oh well, your reasons make sense. Especially the ammo problem. But wouldn't slope use enable the minimum range to be significantly reduced? Of course, that would mean you'd need such a slope to be available, but any decent grade would do. Make the trajectory so low that it never climbs much above horizon and so falls short where you want it. Think it would work, Steve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 17, 2000 Share Posted May 17, 2000 What you are talking about is introducing a feature that can only work using special, and perhaps artificial (i.e. not historically accurate) situations. They really have no place on a CM sized battlefield other than to make people go "cooooool". Which is probably why they were put into CC3 There are probably 100 other features and vehicle models that are far more worthy of our time than this. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts