MuzzleFlash Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Hi everyone, I just registered on this board, but I am following ToW history since the Battlefield Command days. First I must say I am very pleased to see the game in such competent hands. Now I read most of the threads here but I could not find a clear answer to a few questions. Sorry if I overlooked a previous answer. 1) Is the weight of the tanks accounted for in bridge crossing ? For instance, Tiger tanks would often have problems finding bridges that would support their weight. Is it simulated in ToW ? That would lead to some interesting tactical choices. 2) Is the mechanical reliability simulated ? Again, Tiger tanks had many reliability problems, particularly when driving on their own power for long distances. So, can we see tanks break down ? Are there towing vehicles in the game ? (Bergepanther, etc.) 3) I understand that the impacts are precisely localized. So, if a shell hit the munitions, does the tank blow apart (turret flying, etc.) ? Also, do tanks react differently to fire damage ? For instance, some tanks (Sherman, early Panther come to mind) had a tendancy to easily catch fire. Is this behavior simulated in the game ? 4) A question about hardware support. Are common 16:10 resolutions correctly supported for widescreen monitors ? (I think about 1680 x 1050 for 20/21 inches LCDs, and 1920 x 1200 for 24 inches LCDs). When I say correctly supported, I mean with a correct FOV : you see more on the left and right than with a 4:3 monitor, but the image is not stretched. Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Originally posted by MuzzleFlash: 1) Is the weight of the tanks accounted for in bridge crossing ? For instance, Tiger tanks would often have problems finding bridges that would support their weight. Is it simulated in ToW ? That would lead to some interesting tactical choices. bridges in tactical battles are overrated IMO. most of the stuff you would encounter would be creeks that you'ld ford. muddy, swampy terrain is a much bigger issue there, tho its not a question of total weight but ground pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuzzleFlash Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 Swampy terrain of course is a bigger issue, and I know that tanks can be bogged down in ToW, so no problem. However I would not say that bridges problems are really overrated. When you read 'Sledgehammers : Strength and flaws of tiger tanks battalions in WWII' (very good book btw), you certainly get the impression that bridge crossing was a big problem sometimes, notably in Russia and during the Ardennes offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 There was an AAR recently where a bridge was one of the objectives. Albeit, the setting was the French campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hpt. Lisse Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 ...and the ratio you're looking for is 16:9. Not sure, though I'd be surprised if wide screen resolutions were not supported by TOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuzzleFlash Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 Ahem, sorry no the ratio I am looking for is precisely 16:10. The 16:9 ratio is for HDTV (1280 x 720, 1920 x 1080) here I am talking about monitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hpt. Lisse Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Yep, right, soz mate, I was just looking at some plasmas, etc. I sit corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuzzleFlash Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 Sorry to bump this shamelessly but I would really appreciate some answers from the dev team. As far as I know these questions have not been asked or answered before, or I would already have gotten clear answers, or be pointed to a relevant thread by all the knowledgeable people here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuzzleFlash Posted September 8, 2006 Author Share Posted September 8, 2006 Ha, I see from other posts that the developers are back, so I would appreciate to have a bit more information about the questions I asked in the first post. Thanks in advance, looking forward to ToW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw IV Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 There are monitors with 16:9 16:10 and 15:9 and 4:3 Normal apect ratio's. An example of 16:9 resolution is 1600 x 900 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 or 160:90. I hope the game doesnt use a 160x90 resolution. I would really appreciate some answers from the dev team regarding the rumor that the beta demo will have a resoltuion of 160x90 or 320x180 for dual core processors. :mad: [ September 08, 2006, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastian Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Still no info on widescreen support? I really would like to know, how the GUI looks on a format other than 4:3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyorwhat Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Did Shermans and Panthers really burn easier, or was it just that they had more exposed ammo storage that was more likely to be hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Originally posted by luckyorwhat: Did Shermans and Panthers really burn easier, or was it just that they had more exposed ammo storage that was more likely to be hit? Aren't they the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitori Kyo Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 indeed they are Michael Dorosh ..... how is a bridge in a tactical battle overated M Hofbauer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyorwhat Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Well they're different in that I'd read many people blaming the gasoline engines of the Shermans for their flammability, some going as far as to suggest the Germans in Africa used Diesels. When in reality both sides used gasoline as you well know. But aiui the myth had begun because people saw so many burned-out wrecks that they assumed it had to be the engine. But in reality it was simply that Shermans were more likely to turn a hit into a catastrophic hit simply because of their vulnerable ammo stowage. That's not to say that was what was wrong with the early Panther, I don't know about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iplaygames2 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Early Shermans (tommy cookers) had a very vulnerable magazine. That's why they blew up so easily. Well, that and the fact that their armor was garbage compared to their German counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reichenberg Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Originally posted by luckyorwhat: That's not to say that was what was wrong with the early Panther, I don't know about that. The early Panther Ausf. D had mainly mechanical problems with the gearbox and - for the burning issue - with cooling the engine. The Panther Ausf. D was build to have a waterproof engine compartment for amphibious operations. This lead to a poor cooling system and overheating engines. The Panther Ausf. A had no waterproof engine compartment any more and additional coolant lines. Therefore the overheating of the engine was no major problem any more. There were quite a few more improvements from Ausf. D to Ausf. A (gearbox and the most obvious one: the bow machine gun). Uwe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 As regards weight, is it modelled in terms of acceleration? As noted before, in videos seen so far, tanks seem to burst forward without regard to momentum. Of course, I have no idea how one of these tanks really looked when accelerating, so maybe they really did move like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyorwhat Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I don't know much, but about early Shermans it's really the opposite. The first gear was so low that you could go up a very steep muddy hill, at a slow crawl, but if you tried to shift into second the tank would stall because it was going so slow. So getting them moving was always interesting. And for both Shermans and Stuarts I don't think they had any brakes, you just had to let friction and compression stop you, eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Interesting! Is this the same for all sherman variants, or was it ever fixed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyorwhat Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Actually thinking about it more, it was just the Stuarts I read about not having brakes, the Shermans might have. But it was definately the Shermans that had too great a disparity between 1st and 2nd gears. Plus the way the controls were arranged they had to drive with their knees often, or grow a third hand:) "CUTTHROATS" by Robert C. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts