SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 10, 2000 Author Share Posted April 10, 2000 oops ;p [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 10, 2000 Share Posted April 10, 2000 Hey I wanted to be 100. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 10, 2000 Share Posted April 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I have no idea what you self deleted from the post above, but knowing how close you came to being banned for previous comments I am sure it wasn't pretty. If you are just stalling because have no sources to cite because you are moving, might I just suggest that you stop trying to argue until you do? Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I deleted bold type that Simon found as an abuse of the UBB code. Stalling? Is there some time constraint or deadline that has to be met? I can perhaps answer "when its ready". C'mon Steve you are sounding a bit stressed there. Take a chill. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 10, 2000 Share Posted April 10, 2000 No, frustrated is more like it. I feel like I am talking to a politician, something I have had to do a bit of as of late. The issues seem pretty clear and irrefutable. All the facts support each other and add up to one thing -> the StuG was deliberately changed from Infantry Support (its original role) to tank plinker. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 12, 2000 Share Posted April 12, 2000 A POLITICIAN!!!?? Hey now thats personal. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxhole Posted April 12, 2000 Share Posted April 12, 2000 lets make this the longest page thread EVER!!!! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 What.. Nothing new on this thread? Man, I was enjoying this one even more than Nahverteidigungswaffenss. Come on guys, we want to hear the EXCITING CONCLUSION!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Foobar: Come on guys, we want to hear the EXCITING CONCLUSION!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We should all be expert "waiters" by now. Wait till you see how long my response is going to be. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 Better block out some time away from the manual formatting, eh? Seriously, someone else is probably going to have to respond. I spent a bit too much time during the initial discussion, so I am likely going to have to bow out for about 2 months Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 (raising a suspicious eyebrow) Whats this now? Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Well, I dont care if Steve isnt watching, I want to hear the rebuttal to the long, point-by-point post by BTS. ( I am not trying to stir up arguments, as this is actually a pretty interesting topic. IF it is responded to in a non-confrontational, "just the facts" kinda way) Some of us have NO idea if it was designed as Anti-Infantry, Anti-tank, Anti-Establishment, or whatever. So its cool to hear the heart of the debate, without having to read 10 books on the topic myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 In a previous post I wrote that STugs were respnsible for killing 30000 (thirty thousand) russian tanks...so wasn't it a tank destroyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 This thread was getting to far down to the bottom. I had to bring it back to the top. ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 Bungis I think there is a somewhat steady truce between me and Steve on this. He is busy making a manual and I am busy moving and selling my crap. I have already shipped my extensive war library and my local public library is for the birds. I am biding my time..skirmishing on other threads.. but still ready to spring my stug surprise shortly.. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 So having no new information you're being bellicose for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: So having no new information you're being bellicose for the sake of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have alot of old information. I want to quote it with titles, authors. Its packed away 'stables and I should be reunited with it within 2 weeks. Funny how anyone would be bellicose on a webpage called battlefront. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 I of course will not forget how you impugn my metal stability with that ‘Waco’ remark. A highlight in level headed debate I’m sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 I have a feeling round 10, will be on a different thread. Or will Lewis dig into the archives and bring out this dinosaur in 2 weeks. ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 Well there is certainly interest (and amazingly still hard feelings) but I will have to wait two months and respect Steves wishes. I also believe in "when its ready". I was actually expecting alot more of the CM gang here to jump my sh*t (I am obviously playing the "bad-guy" here..duh) but now I feel perhaps there really is interest in how a thouroughly obnoxious brat can perhaps win in an debate against a BTS "expert". Really I think the point I am making is small and perhaps not worth any effort. I just despise the simplistic viewpoint people have of "weapons". Especially armor. They will see a fighter plane and squeal "OH a good pilot could do so much better than an ordinary one". Well armor was the same and even had its subtle differences beneath that. I am contending artillery trained crews manning the same weapons (stugIII) used by panzer and panzergndr crews should have different "effects". They were better when working with infantry and more effective in the direct fire mission. I never said that they werent used as AT primarily or secondarily on occasion. Believe it or not, human beings make all the difference in the performance of all weapons. CM is at the scale where these effects should show themselves. It just adds flavor and depth to an already great game. Lewis Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 ‘Really I think the point I am making is small and perhaps not worth any effort. I just despise the simplistic viewpoint people have of "weapons". Especially armor. They will see a fighter plane and squeal "OH a good pilot could do so much better than an ordinary one". Well armor was the same and even had its subtle differences beneath that’(Lewis). So an Ace fighter pilot upon mounting say a Ju88 will be just as effective as he was in his Fw190 A-4. Artillery men trained in the arts of firing low velocity IG’s or long range fire with Gun’s and howitzers will find that there( frigging spell cheakure supposed to be their) former skill are worthless. People are constrained by their equipment, a sniper will not be able to run around plinking people in-between the eyes with an MP40 at 500m. As I’ve stated before the mounting of a high velocity gun decreases HE performance. So why give the Sturmgeschütz-Brigaden and the Sturm-Artillerie-Brigaden a weapon which trades off HE performance in favour of anti-armour performance. Quite as its kept the artillerymen were being trained as Panzer killers. You mention airbursts as an idiosyncratic penchant of the gunners; if I may I will quote JonS words upon the subject. Since he is an actual artilleryman he can give it the treatment it deserves. ‘With artillery, the rounds fly in a parabola, and approach the target at something around 45°. The momentum of the round is along this parabola, and the parabola terminates at the target (or thereabouts). When the round detonates in the air the momentum of the round carries the fragments forward in an expanding circle, which impact at great speed and effect around what would have been the point of impact if it had been fused with a regular, point-detonating, fuse. Now, with relatively flat trajectory direct fire weapons - which would include ALL the StuGs and StuHs, to get an airburst above the target would mean that the point of aim would have to be lifted above the target, so the momentum would carry the mass of fragments over and beyond the target, giving little effect on the intended target. Another way of thinking about this is to imagine the round doesn't hit a tree above the target - not that likely anyway IMHO. The round would happily sail on past the target to explode several hundred metres away when its low angle parabola brought it back to earth. The same applies to the fragments, although the overshoot distance would not be as great.' [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-15-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-15-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 'stables It reads so well. You should be a novelist. A stilted novelist. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 Username, Having a little trouble following the debate I have a suggestion. It might clarify things if you would give a suggestion as to how this difference that you are trying to show should be implemented in the game. I’m not saying that you should to come up with anything revolutionary, just a hint on how you see it. While, of course, considering the game wide implication of such a bonus in relation to the balance of the current game system, other weapons systems and the general demand for the ever elusive "realism". Could, at least, further my understanding of your point of view. Cheers M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 'It reads so well. You should be a novelist. A stilted novelist.' Lewis Another personal attack from that brilliant mind of Lewis. Will my self-confidence survive? Will I continue on to write political thrillers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 15, 2000 Author Share Posted April 15, 2000 Username quote: I was actually expecting alot more of the CM gang here to jump my sh*t (I am obviously playing the "bad-guy" here..duh) but now I feel perhaps there really is interest in how a thouroughly obnoxious brat can perhaps win in an debate against a BTS "expert". ********************************************* Username it appears very evident to me that this is your intention in alot of posts you make,yet I am at a loss as to why? You seem to have a wealth of knowledge in the area of WW2, yet you usurp it's credibility by the demeanor of it's presentation. I personally feel, that you would have people far more interested in what you had to say, if you didn't appear to be trying so hard to piss them off Again here you challenge Steves credibility by putting the word expert, subtly in quotation marks THe more you do stuff like that, the only damage you do is to yourself IMHO ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 16, 2000 Share Posted April 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: It might clarify things if you would give a suggestion as to how this difference that you are trying to show should be implemented in the game. M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> M If I knew how things worked perhaps I could! Seriously, you ask a valid question. I think I gave my opinions above, it would be up to BTS to decide. I dont know if having armor gives infantry a morale boost, if being without AT weapons brings it down, etc. The workings of the mechanics of the game are a mystery to me. Thanks for adding an intelligent post to this discussion. Lewis PS I did post in the other thread a "revolutionary" suggestion regarding menu options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts