Not very often. You never really provide evidence, and when you do, you don't consider the whole picture.
maybe that's because most of my opponents doesn't site their sources to disprove my statements?
I normally reply with sources against sourced critics .
Quote:
The Isigny tests you DID cite is a classic example. You look at the data and see that 1/2 the 17pdr APDS rounds didn't hit the target area so you make the blanket assumption that only 1/2 of all APDS ammo type/batches, when fired under any circumstances, could only hit a tank 1/2 the time at any range. What you fail to see is that most of the APDS actually hit the tank in the tests, even if they did not hit the specific target area.
WOW!
That really suprised me as I thought that link I sent to you would force you start thinking and you will make some efforts finding other reports from Normandy shootins....guess I was wrong...so here you are:
at 400 yds - APC hit 90.5%, APDS hit 56.6%
at 600 yds - APC hit 73.0%, APDS hit 34.2%
6-pdr APDS failed to penetrate Panther glacis even at 200 yds .
and yes, they couldn't hit Panther side with APDS to find out the penetration range .
Quote:
Furthermore, do you believe that British gunners were so stupid when their lives were on the line that they didn't account for the errant flight of sabot ammo?
funny logic, well I don't know if it was a stupidness to have gunners have a chance to hit and penetrate a heavy tank at 400 yds. Prolly better chance to hit (with high chance) and not penetrate at 400 yds?
following your logic the US and RA tankers were so stupid having no 76mm ammo reliably penetrating Panther front at 400 yds.
Quote:
Do you read books or just look for tidbits of data on the internet that support your specific interpretation of history?
nice one
Quote:
I would urge you to have a more open mind and take in a broader spectrum of sources. You do have accurate information at times, but your dogmatism prevents you from having good peripheral vision.
another good one, guess that's why GtC is more similar to TRSM/BfC than GJS in terms of data .
By the way, Steve says that we should ask Cathartes for gun inaccuracy, since it is a data related thing. (Check the thread at the Matrix forums.)
But according to Cathartes it is a hard-coded issue... So what happens now?
that's wrong they can't hit at 100m with 100% accuracy
Dima....why are you dumbing down the bren and the sten? we have been complaining about the poor performance of the bren since cc5.
remember ...playability
mate, they were just made wrong, in TRSM/BFC BRENs are good killers .
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:32 am Post subject: Re: Historical realism mod :)
Quote:
Cathartes, you call out Dima for following a rigid interpretation of the "facts" (and I agree, it is rigid), but do you don't think you are the same way? You seem to be just as unmovable (albeit less confrontational) in your point of views. I appreciate that both of you want to recreate reality, but come on. It's Close Combat. Your editing Excel cells. This game comes no where close to being a hardcore simulator.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:26 am Post subject: Re: Historical realism mod :)
Hi Dima,
Another suggestion I would make here is:
-Remove the zeroing time (20 seconds iirc) for mortar smoke rounds and increase the number of smoke rounds mortar teams carry.
I don't know if it would be historical or not. However, currently using smoke while attacking and retreating is a pain in the ass and can not be pulled off reliably as it was done in CC5. This is somewhat detrimental to the tactical gameplay so it would be great if we could bring back the mortar smoke to its former glory!
Hi Dima,
Another suggestion I would make here is:
-Remove the zeroing time (20 seconds iirc) for mortar smoke rounds and increase the number of smoke rounds mortar teams carry.
I don't know if it would be historical or not. However, currently using smoke while attacking and retreating is a pain in the ass and can not be pulled off reliably as it was done in CC5. This is somewhat detrimental to the tactical gameplay so it would be great if we could bring back the mortar smoke to its former glory!
zeroing time is hard-coded.
number of both smoke and HE shells will be increased.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Historical realism mod :)
30+ mortar bombs to kill a crew of one Flak38...another one survived 60+ rounds although some of crew was killed - i think that's a way to go
will tune up performance of 80mm mortar during play test.
Tanks kill each other as intended - PzIV kill Shermans at >200m distance, Flies and M10-17pdr kill PzIV at any distance
One shot one kill could be seen often.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Historical realism mod :)
~300m night firefight between 2 Panther G and 2 Tigers against loads of Shermans and M10-17pdr resulted in 2 KO Panthers (by 17pdrs) and around 13-14 KO allied tanks
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: Historical realism mod :)
Great job Dima! However, I wonder how realistic the current night-time spotting / LoS reduction is. I think units would in reality have a much harder time when trying to spot anything further than 100 meters without any illumination. Currently you can spot and shoot tanks accurately as you have also illustrated here in much further distances.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: Historical realism mod :)
Quote:
However, I wonder how realistic the current night-time spotting / LoS reduction is. I think units would in reality have a much harder time when trying to spot anything further than 100 meters without any illumination. Currently you can spot and shoot tanks accurately as you have also illustrated here in much further distances.
yes, I agree with you about night distances.
but I doubt I can do anything about it as that's most likely hard coded.
ps I have a PVS-14 night vision goggles - that really helps to see up to 300m even during star/moonless nights
Cathartes, you call out Dima for following a rigid interpretation of the "facts" (and I agree, it is rigid), but do you don't think you are the same way? You seem to be just as unmovable (albeit less confrontational) in your point of views. I appreciate that both of you want to recreate reality, but come on. It's Close Combat. Your editing Excel cells. This game comes no where close to being a hardcore simulator.
ever tried TRSM or BFC? was it unplayable?
I haven't, but like I said in that post, at the very least, your mod will feature some changes we all want to see. If people disagree with your data changes, they can always open Excel and edit the cells themselves.
So is GwTc harder to mod than say CC5 or other CC games dima?
IMO it's easier to mod GTC as it tracks all your mistakes made in data and reports them on launch.
but there are some differences in comparison to CC5/TLD that need to be taken into account .
overall for now I believe that GTC is more solid game than CC5 or TLD.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
.
.jpg)
