What the problem with CCMT weapons, a consumer debate..
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Modern Tactics
#61:  Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:10 pm
    —
schrecken wrote:
S3T are looking at a further patch for CCMT.


Finally…. Thank you.
But I will not smile until I have seen the patch, and tested it..
#62:  Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:43 pm
    —
squadleader_id wrote:
Umm...CCM was produced by Simtek Wink

I'm talking about CCM 3.1.
#63:  Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:52 am
    —
how can we send youl this list, start a new post or email? i always had a problem with the infantry AT weapons capability of the US, i used some 6 rounds on a meseum piece T55 at 450M,it still shot me to hell...because the rounds hit the front, not top as designed.
#64:  Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:29 am
    —
Serious Tack, its more easy to send a list of the weapon data THAT DON’T NEED serious attention. This is not a "adjust" or “tweaking” that is needed it’s a massive total remake of basically all weapon data.
If the patch are to be made it shall be done properly.
#65:  Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:14 pm
    —
ANZAC_Tack wrote:
how can we send youl this list, start a new post or email? i always had a problem with the infantry AT weapons capability of the US, i used some 6 rounds on a meseum piece T55 at 450M,it still shot me to hell...because the rounds hit the front, not top as designed.

My mod has tripled penetration for Javelin and Predator to replace top-attack.

CCMT engine isn't really suitable for simulating modern warfare - it doesn't simulate guided missiles, AA weapons, etc.
#66:  Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:34 pm
    —
excellent idea! make the penertation simulate top attack. i was truely bumbfounded lastyear i was told modern at weapons fly up and hit top of tank! reminds me of british project of the 80's when they tried to make 81mm morter rounds tank finders, smart as it has 25mm on average on top not 100mm+
#67:  Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 am
    —
I would argue that PB penetration should be quite low to simulate direct fire and then as the range goes beyond that increase the penetration to simulate the top attack.
#68:  Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:26 am
    —
I would argue that PB range must be very high to simulate the accuracy of said missile.
#69:  Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:32 am
    —
Accuracy does not correlate with penetration
#70:  Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:46 am
    —
both good arguments, keep penetration low untill the missile rises up,i dont know, 150M? then *4 penetration after that range. brilliant.
#71:  Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:42 am
    —
Therion,

CC engine simulates "top attack" pretty good w/o such perversions u make or other suggest here.
#72:  Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:51 am
    —
By making it indirect?
Whouldn't it, like, allow to fire them without LOS?

schrecken wrote:
Accuracy does not correlate with penetration

Doesn't, like, accuracy drop to 5/8 of the base value when range is close and to 3/5 on medium?
It's a fire and forget ATGM, not a big bazooka.
#73:  Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:00 pm
    —
Hey, At Stalky, do you know that "Accurate and realistic modern equipment modeling" and
"Accurately depicting modern tactical warfare and it’s challenge" are some of the main selling points of CCMT Very Happy ?
Will there be a patch that implements various types of guided missiles, different kinds of armour, AA weapons, top-attack guided missiles and other things neccessary for an accurate modern equipment modelling or are these just empty promises?
#74:  Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:16 pm
    —
Therion wrote:
1) Hey, At Stalky, do you know that "Accurate and realistic modern equipment modeling" and
"Accurately depicting modern tactical warfare and it’s challenge" are some of the main selling points of CCMT Very Happy ?
2) Will there be a patch that implements various types of guided missiles, different kinds of armour, AA weapons, top-attack guided missiles and other things neccessary for an accurate modern equipment modelling or are these just empty promises?


1) Wow Very Happy non could have guessed that.

2) Yeh, I wonder to,
#75:  Author: Therion,  PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:59 am
    —
It makes me wonder. Are there any laws that forbid intentionally deceiving customers?
#76:  Author: stormrider_sp,  PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:30 pm
    —
schrecken wrote:
Quote:
Are you Serious? Get to work man!


Please send money, it greases the the gears of industry.

or like everyone else, volunteer your time and and much can be achieved.


I just sent for a broken game. Why dont you FUCK YOURSELF! Do your job motherfucker.
#77:  Author: stormrider_sp,  PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:34 pm
    —
schrecken wrote:
I don't get it stalky.

You are not being made to shut up.. your concerns are being noted.

No one is contradicting your posts... except when you go off the rails and start talking about things you know nothing about.

No one has asked you to stop criticising the game...please continue, some of your posts make sense when you stick to factual arguments instead of heading off into flights of fancy.

You cannot ask for any more, surely?

When questions are asked I give honest answers eg 30mm cannon cannot defeat an Abrams etc.

It's you, stalky, doing the badmouthing, read your own posts.

Neural eclipse

The game plays very well as is... there may be a few anomilies within the data but these , generally, aren't born out in game play.

If you played the game you would see that.


No, the problem is clearly YOU!
#78:  Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:37 pm
    —
Welcome stormrider_sp

Nice to see you

Very interesting and thought provoking comments..I'll look into your suggestions today as you are obviously skilled and experienced in such matters.

Maybe you have some screen shots we can look at, I know most posters here would be interested.

see you on the battlefield
cheers
#79:  Author: QM, Location: Australia PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:22 am
    —
schrecken wrote:
Welcome stormrider_sp

Nice to see you

Very interesting and thought provoking comments..I'll look into your suggestions today as you are obviously skilled and experienced in such matters.

Maybe you have some screen shots we can look at, I know most posters here would be interested.

see you on the battlefield
cheers


Laughing
#80:  Author: Stwa,  PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:04 am
    —
Idea

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Modern Tactics


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  :| |:
Page 4 of 5