WillLight Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Hey Bil, Send me a copy of CMBN and I will duel you instead of James 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillLight Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 James' point (I think) is a playing style that considers casualties as a prism for the players tactical ability. To me that's the purest essence of wargaming. But sometimes I like to play... ummm... a little looser style, I JUST Gotta say it, "Man I'm in you base, killing your Dudes!" Surely you mean "All your VL are belong to us!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Obviously you should first define "realistic". It seems different people have different opinions on what realistic is. What is clear is that the point scoring is different from a scenario. In a scenario there is a background and a surrounding world. The outcome of the scenario can either be reflected on the real world outcome (if historical) or on the outcome the scenario writer expected. In a quick battle there are only objectives. There is no background - so it is anyones guess if preserving your forces is more, equal, or less important then getting the victory location. Maybe taking the victory location in this QB won the Germans the war.... would the loss of a few Panzers matter then? Maybe it was irellevant in the larger war efforts - and it looses the Germans the war because they lack the tanks elsewhere... As it is there is an arbitairy value to preserving your force, and an arbitrary value for the victory locations. You can not like the balance, but whatever the balance is, you can never state is isnt "realistic" without knowing the issue at stake in a wider view (which is of course impossible, because there simply isnt a wider reality). I still think realism is irrelevant, realism is to do with how the vehicles function, how accurate compared to the real world the penetration system is, how fast a vehicle can travel etc, whereas "authenticity" is more about things like how accurate a scenario is, not so much the tanks themselves but how many, coming from where, the paint jobs etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 And your problem is what, exactly? I refer you to my previous post. No problem. Just kidding. Relax. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Been meaning to ask , the title of this thread: "A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission " What does "not your fathers combat mission" mean to imply ? ... doesn't make much sense to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Been meaning to ask , the title of this thread: "A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission " What does "not your fathers combat mission" mean to imply ? ... doesn't make much sense to me. Damn good question Scottie. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been brought up before... Anyway, this is a reference to the fact that CMBN, though related to the CMx1 series is really a whole new kettle of fish... it plays differently, it resolves armor hits in a much more realistic manner, you have to play it in a much more realistic manner than you did the CMx1 series in order to be successful. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMG Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 An American car company had an ad that stated that their new car was not like the image of the brand. Not your fathers car implied that you should take another look at the brand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Damn good question Scottie. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been brought up before... Anyway, this is a reference to the fact that CMBN, though related to the CMx1 series is really a whole new kettle of fish... it plays differently, it resolves armor hits in a much more realistic manner, you have to play it in a much more realistic manner than you did the CMx1 series in order to be successful. Bil An American car company had an ad that stated that their new car was not like the image of the brand. Not your fathers car implied that you should take another look at the brand. ah i see. 1133 posts later its good to finally understand what i have been reading 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangun Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Damn good question Scottie. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been brought up before... Anyway, this is a reference to the fact that CMBN, though related to the CMx1 series is really a whole new kettle of fish... it plays differently, it resolves armor hits in a much more realistic manner, you have to play it in a much more realistic manner than you did the CMx1 series in order to be successful. Bil I thought that what it was all about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 ah i see. 1133 posts later its good to finally understand what i have been reading I thought it was bloody obvious. That's why I never said anything about it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergerbitz Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 20 quatloos to the one who names the make of the automobile in the (deftly hinted at) commercial! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Oldsmobile. :eek: Good riddance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergerbitz Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Indeed! See the link for the commercial and gratuitous use of (erf) Joan Collins shoulder pads: (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6gxuk_william-shatner-daughter-for-oldsmo_shortfilms). ...er...before you get your 20 quatloos...do you have change for a 50 quatloo bill? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I thought it was bloody obvious. That's why I never said anything about it. Michael i believe you there , i mean its not like you to miss an opportunity to post a reply 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Indeed! See the link for the commercial and gratuitous use of (erf) Joan Collins shoulder pads: (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6gxuk_william-shatner-daughter-for-oldsmo_shortfilms). ...er...before you get your 20 quatloos...do you have change for a 50 quatloo bill? Sorry, nothing less than a 100 on me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 i believe you there , i mean its not like you to miss an opportunity to post a reply Look who's talking...er, posting. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Widely regarded in the auto industry as one of the least successful ad campaigns in history. The Oldsmobile brand was killed not long thereafter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Some of their last models were the best they ever made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Some of their last models were the best they ever made. Which actually supports the thesis that it was marketing missteps which killed the brand, not a poor quality product. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 It was indeed a poor quality product that killed the brand, maybe not the product they were making when the brand died, but a long long line of lemons. And not just in the "beer can in the door" years. My dad, who worked in the business in the 1990s, used to call it "the death of a thousand MBAs" -- each one trying to win promotion by shaving a tenth of a cent off a part through "value engineering" and "strategic sourcing". Which makes even luxury US brands seem "cheap" compared to their Japanese and Euro designed competitors, even if their reliability has improved since the dark years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJMaybe Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 re. the Hull down positioning of the tanks... how do you manouver the tanks into that position? Do you just have to estimate where they must stop so they can see over the brow of the hill? Or do you have to shuffle them back and forward a bit til they are right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 re. the Hull down positioning of the tanks... how do you manouver the tanks into that position? Do you just have to estimate where they must stop so they can see over the brow of the hill? Or do you have to shuffle them back and forward a bit til they are right? My method (universal AFAIK) is to give a movement order up the slope, click on the end waypoint to activate it, issue a target command (it acts as LOS tool) and scan the target areas. The game tells you what you can see and what your hull relationship is to that spot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted April 18, 2011 Author Share Posted April 18, 2011 sfhand has the correct procedure. I also, somewhere in this thread I think, speak about the procedure in a little more depth. I am going to post a how to get a perfect hull down position thread after the game is released (along with one or two other tidbits that might be useful)... hopefully we'll get a tactics forum for these types of posts. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 ...hopefully we'll get a tactics forum for these types of posts. That would be welcome. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 I'm utterly confused. Dead vehicles do NOT block LOF only when the target is another vehicle. This is a necessary abstraction to get around a rather big, nasty TacAI problem. Early in CM:SF's history you could safely park behind a wreck and an enemy vehicle on the other side could just pump round after round into the wreck and (probably) not cause any damage. Yet we do allow vehicles to fire through friendly vehicles, which meant that LOF was not "two way" in this circumstance. Ok, so this suggests that when a dead vehicle is between a friendly vehicle and an enemy vehicle they will have LoS and LoF to each other as long as the dead vehicle is not smoking. That's been long since changed so that LOF is blocked in both directions. LOS, on the other hand, is only blocked if the dead vehicle is spewing smoke. That's a new addition to CM:BN. Steve This says the exact opposite; that the dead vehicle will block LoF both ways (but not LoS absent smoke). Could somebody clarify? Also, I'm guessing that friendly non-dead vehicles do not block LoS or LoF but if someone could confirm that I'd appreciate it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.