This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Analpirat
1
« on: February 20, 2011, 05:12:51 PM »
Don't be so condescending, most other suggestions aren't really original or constructive either, the main difference is they have more words...
2
« on: February 20, 2011, 05:09:36 PM »
Original soviet testing is reported to have shown that the IS2 gun could penetrate the panther through and through from 1500m. After all, that was the whole purpose of the tank.
The same gun was able to knock out Israeli M48s some decades later, so I'd say that's a safe bet.
The IS-2's purpose wasn't to kill Panthers, it's a breakthrough tank, used for assaulting fortified positions. It just carried a mighty punch, but the gun was far from perfect for an AT role. What do you mean with "through and through"? Front Hull and exit at the back? Because what I have read is (courtesy of tanknet): "BR-471B and distance 1400 meters:
Panzer-IV Ausf H: shot went through hull frontal and rear armour.
Panzer-V Panther: impact in front hull penetrated causing a 150×230mm and a crack in the welding. Impact in front tower caused a 180х240 hole and displaced turret by 500mm. Side shot in the turret caused a 130х130 mm hole and penetrated the other side.
Panzer-VI Tiger: 122mm proyectile hit same spot where a 85mm had previously been fired. The round detached rear armour after going through the inside of the tank. Turret was hit in the roof (80° inclination) leaving a 330mm path. When front turret hit a piece of armour was detached (580×130mm) and displaced turret by 540mm.
Ferdinand: First plate in full front armour was penetrated (120×150mm penetration) but round bounced on second plate. In the turret the impact did not penetrate, creating a 100mm depth hole.
Tiger-II front hull armour was penetrated from 600 meters. "So the Panther was penetrated in the turret side with a "through and through" penetration from 1400m, which isn't an outstanding feat considering the weak side armour. Contrasting this with the IS-2 vulnerability: "Front (cast) hull components can be penetrated by 88mm Tiger's AP shell from 1000-1200m, 75mm Panther's AP shell from 900-1000m and 75mm T-IV shell from 300-400m. Penetration is usually accompanied by armor spalling and cracking of armor and weld seams. Due to reduced resistance in the area of front idler wheel this area is even vulnerable to 28/20mm ATR projectile.
Side sloped (cast) armor can be penetrated by Tiger from 1200-1500m, T-IV from 600-700m and 20mm gun of Ju-87 - from 75-100m."Note that (IIRC) the test carried out on German armor weren't exaclty scientific as some of the tanks had suffered prior penetration and the latter source is from combat reports, not from actual testing.
3
« on: February 20, 2011, 12:27:23 PM »
Realism doesn't count worth a damn for balance. If you think you have an argument to make then you should make it comparing the prices of the units, the time they hit the field and their respective roles. If you then can explain why the IS-2 should wtfpwn Panthers then do so.
ATM it stands like this: Cost and deployment time are somewhat comparable, Panther is a dedicated AT tank, IS 2 can do both AT and AI work. Therefore it's justifiable that the IS 2 is a tad weaker vs a pure AT tank.
4
« on: February 20, 2011, 12:21:53 PM »
That's bullshit, the Ho 229 proved to be very maneuverable and stable on the few flights it had. Comparing it with modern fighter jet designs is also very naive. They are designed to be unstable to improve their maneuverability and they can because we now have the computer and engine power to level that out. That's simply bias you're displaying (Paciat) and that when you're decrying it in others...
But for the record, I'm not saying the Ho 229 was the be all and end all of WW2 jets as there's no data to justify that. What can be said however is that it was a groundbreaking and revolutionary design, regardless of whether or not it was actually a workable solution. And the V1 and 2, whether you like it or not were also huge leaps in their respective fields and the V2 especially proved to be a priceless source of information for the allies. But if you're saying they were a strategic blunder, then yes you're right. They are great inventions, but for winning or fighting a war they were useless and the resources used in producing them could have better been used elsewhere.
5
« on: February 19, 2011, 11:05:48 AM »
Let me guess, the conscripts were capping while the pioneers were shooting at them,didn't they? Or they were in red cover and the pios in green or whatever.
Anyhow, it just seems you're being severely outplayed (Multiple panthers hen you have 1 T34) and thusly t is hard to take your suggestions for face value.
One thing: The numbers under the unit pictures, they mean nothing. Literally nothing. So there's no balance problem there.
You really need to get a grip of the game first, play the tutorials, watch some replays, play some 1vs 1 automatch and you'll see your problems are not what they seem to be.
6
« on: February 19, 2011, 10:47:31 AM »
Well G43 and FG42 are already available for the PE. I haven't seen anything on them for the Ostheer, but at least for the FG42 I'd say it is highly unlikely that the OH will have access to it given it's obscurity and afaik it was also used mainly on the Western Front by Airborne troops who didn't play a great part in the fighting on the Eastern Front.
A lot of people agreed that Ostheer should use more MP40(volks version).
I didn't say they shouldn't, did I? Wehrmacht snipers use a scoped G43. Might be possible for OH snipers too aswell, although I'd prefer to see a scoped KAR98 or possibly even a stolen Nagant.
Why on earth would a German sniper use a captured mosin-nagant? The germans captured abundancies of Mosin-Nagants, yet the snipers continued to use the K98k. I'm not gonna whack out ye olde realism stick, but a German sniper using a Mosin would just feel wierdly out of place, like rangers using Stgw 44's. (Though Allied forces often used captured StGw 44)
7
« on: February 17, 2011, 05:56:15 PM »
It's such a good thing we stopped spamming about tellermines and now started spamming about some even more useless shit.
8
« on: February 17, 2011, 10:57:25 AM »
Okay, thats definitely better, though what I meant was that the strategic sectors should be in strategic positions, meaning that if the enemy seized them he'd cut of your resources. Strategic sectors are often very snaky and long and form a barrier between high resource points and your other territory. Now in your map, ideally they'd permit the opponent to cut of the +10fuel points though I don't see an easy way to do this. What I whipped up in 5mins in paint is this proposition on how to form the strategic sectors and how to move some of the points so the enemy has better access to them. But I'm by no means experienced in these things or any good at balancing so you'd might want to check with GodlikeDennis or any of the Devs. Feel free to disregard it anyhow.
9
« on: February 17, 2011, 10:43:06 AM »
Actually, the lower trigger weight of Teller Mines was 100kg... so just over 15st. I'm sure a well equipped soldier could cross that line no problem.
Perhaps that's why the trigger weight was increased in later versions. OTOH, what are the chances you're standing on the trigger plate with your full weight? Most likely you'd walk over it, putting only 1 foot on it for a short time. Maybe that wasn't enough to trigger it.
10
« on: February 16, 2011, 06:56:46 PM »
Still, if you take a look at some of the AAA maps you'll notice that fuel is always less prevalent than ammo(And an abundance of Fuel will always favor the Axis). Btw, looking at your sector layout I noticed that there isn't much in the way of strategic sectors, especially as cutoff points. The one in the middle doesn't really fulfill that purpose.
11
« on: February 16, 2011, 06:51:39 PM »
any ideas on how to have a quick(>90mins) game.
Assuming you mean <90mins, then yes: Don't play Annihilate, don't play high resources, don't play chokepoint maps. Even 1000pts VP Control shouldn't last that long, but 500pts, which is the standard CoH is balanced to, won't last you longer than 45min with 90% probability. Play 1vs1 Automatch and you're most likely done in 25min tops.
12
« on: February 11, 2011, 05:38:06 PM »
There's no such thing as well guarded 3-4 AT guns when playing vs AI. The AI is completely random and if it could it would capture points with ATGs. Tbh it sounds like you just need to diversify your playstyle and not expect a head on tank charge to succeed against everything (Ppl tend to assume that since tanks are tanks and that they come late and expensive they autowin against everything on their own). If you let the enemy amass such a wide array of units in one location (assuming what you said is true) then either he's left his flanks exposed or you got outplayed really hard and can't win anyways.
13
« on: February 11, 2011, 01:39:23 PM »
Tico and I we having a rather educated conversation on socialism that was finished but the powers that be would rather have us reiterate the last 10 pages of "coz hitl0r was teh b00n,lulz" for the sake of being on-topic.
Back to the topic: I allege that Germany lost the War on the Eastern Front because they did not kill enough mans and their sandbags couldn't stop the russians going other ways.
14
« on: February 10, 2011, 11:40:26 AM »
Maybe you should just learn how to play first, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way like most people do. Beating an easy CPU is really easy and if you can't do it with the soviets chances are you can't do it with any of the other factions either. So I guess you still have certain difficulties understanding the mechanics of the game which could be solved by doing some reading in the GR.org "Tip of the Week" and assorted strat forums.
15
« on: February 09, 2011, 07:26:52 PM »
I somehow get the impression you're always trying to rebut posts even when there's no point to make...
Anyhow, feel free to vote with your wallet and enjoy Bug-free mainstream experiences like Fallout:New Vegas or CoD:Black Ops or Flashpoint:Dragon Rising or the numerous other military simulators that compare to ArmA. Oh, there aren't any? Well in that case ArmA seems to perform quite well given that there aren't any competitors and that it isn't an AAA title. Needless to say that the patches have ironed out the vast majority of bugs but you surely know that.
|
Show Posts
