Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Organizations and Equipment / Re: The Case for Canadian Super Hornets
« Last post by Windigo on Today at 10:31:33 PM »
thats what you get for being Americas hat.

any chance you guys are building a series of naval icebreakers? We'll need some sooner than later.

Yeah, but later you won't need them because- no ice.

If that happens it's going to be a crazy world.
2
Computer Wargaming / Re: Steam Summer Sale 2018...
« Last post by MC on Today at 10:07:42 PM »
While browsing the sale I took a look at Steam's suggestions for other games I might be interested in. I found the following..................



WORLD WAR II GAMES Due to your recent playtime in other World War II games

Hidden & Dangerous 2: Courage Under Fire
-67% $9.99  $3.29

Putt-PuttŪ Joins the Parade
-60% $6.99  $2.79



Anybody play Putt-PuttŪ? I hate to blindly pick something up without somebody's take on it. Gus?  :-"
3
Computer Wargaming / Re: Combat Mission status
« Last post by Bardolph on Today at 09:36:44 PM »
Quote
A King Tiger was just as capable of hitting a target at 4km as an Abrams. What's changed is the effectiveness and flexibility of engagement at longer ranges, making a 4km shot from an Abrams far more likely to hit a target at 4km than a King Tiger.

Do what?
4
GrogHeads Feedback / Re: New Visuals
« Last post by bayonetbrant on Today at 09:27:09 PM »
I thought it was a browser issue for a moment. You should let us conservatives slowly get used to changes Brant ;).

so it's been a few months, and now there's a handful of new thread icons to play with :D
5
Computer Wargaming / Re: NAVAL ACTION calling for modern BB experts.
« Last post by MengJiao on Today at 09:18:41 PM »
co-incidentally I tried this again last night with a mate and the UI and map look great although are not finished still from the linux interface look of a lot of things still.
Enjoyed the game immensly as I had not played for a while. Considering the ship DLC just so that I do not have to grind so much.

  Well, the Hercules is a fine ship:

6
Okay, doing the whole series is just lazy. ;)



"Wow, that's a little gross to imagine!" "Not if you're into that kind of stuff." "Well, I threw up a little in my mouth, so..."


Classic catchup:



7
Coincidentally, the History Channel's blacksmith competition show "Forged in Fire" will feature a Glaive-Guisearm challenge on the next episode! (June 26th.)
8
It's a five-pointed throwing star thing, a little larger than an average grown man's hand, that can be telepathically controlled by magic after its claws pop out.

The claws resemble the claws of a goose's arm.

Thus the name.

 >:D


(It's a special type of pike with a broad blade instead of a spear at the end, but the blade has a hook on it, too. There are various designs. It isn't as long as a typical pike, more like normal spear length. This question also vexed me, back since the days of the Blue Book or possibly the Red Basic Rules. But there were pictures back then, too. I think the Swiss Vatican guards use them.)
9
Computer Wargaming / Re: Combat Mission status
« Last post by Michael Dorosh on Today at 08:59:31 PM »
Looks like Steve has discussed this at BFC:

Note about map size and engagement ranges. The notion that massive maps are a prerequisite for modern combat is false. Engagement ranges have changed very little since WW2. A King Tiger was just as capable of hitting a target at 4km as an Abrams. What's changed is the effectiveness and flexibility of engagement at longer ranges, making a 4km shot from an Abrams far more likely to hit a target at 4km than a King Tiger. But check out modern AARs from real warfare and you're going to be hard pressed to find 4km engagements and even those aren't going to be all that fun to simulate (i.e. tank sniping at long range is BORING). The desire for larger maps is fine, just don't confuse opinion with fact when it comes to their necessity.


Allied studies showed that German tank and anti-tank units in NW Europe generally opened fire at ranges of I think 500 to 700 metres. I suspect due to the terrain and LOS limitations but also AIUI to assist in accurate gunnery, and most likely to prevent Allied units from simply going to ground and calling down artillery and air on them.
10
Computer Wargaming / Re: Combat Mission status
« Last post by Michael Dorosh on Today at 08:54:21 PM »
Let's face it...  In CM you are dropped in right in range of most of the weapons on the board.  There is almost no planning.  SB lets you do some recon, form a plan, and maneuver.  You don't have to use a 4x4 map in SB.  In fact, you can use a large map and restrict it to a smaller area.  But you have the option and the game can handle it if you want to do it.  I have seen SB scenarios where you only control one part of the entire larger blue force and the AI handles flanks.  The AI can be scripted by a designer with an immense amount of options to react to things happening around the map.

It took me a long time to change how I built scenarios from CM to SB.  I was so used to having units start in range and the firefights starting within minutes.  In SB, you have the freedom to not do that.  I can't count the number of CM scenarios I have played where either starting forces or reinforcements enter the board in battle or even in the middle of an enemy formation.

I'd say blame the scenario designers rather than the game. For World War II weapons, 4km isn't battle range. I think 1km would be pushing it, certainly in western Europe. (Desert and Russian steppe are exceptions, and neither theatre has been covered yet.) You may have a point for CMSF2, but that might just speak more to the fact the engine is less suited for modern warfare than its bread and butter.

The point of CM was never to have a large recon and operations planning element - it's really the wrong scale for that, especially given the limitations of the C2 links. It's designed to let you fight a battalion. Most battalions had extremely limited recon capabilities (a British battalion in Normandy had a single platoon of scouts and snipers).

Sounds like the criticism is that CM isn't more like TacOps. I'd suggest to get that experience...you play TacOps. :-)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10