The way I understand it....

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: andym

I cant wait for these 2 additionsit will open up so many theater of war,im looking forward to the NATO v WP stuff when it arrives.I have tried to find a good european Cold war game,Flashpoint germany came close but for some reason i didnt realy get to grips with the game system,it was a lovely looking game but shame i couldnt take to it.

You might want to look into Steel Panthers II:Main Battle Tank. It's an update to the Gary Grigsby game. Very nicely done and it's a FREE download.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Camo_Works ... _page.html

[Achsah]

ORIGINAL: barker

Andy, In the old talonsoft game there was a set of designers that did just that up to korea 1953 europe and included the chinese. This little mod was called Hot War, Craig Foster, Glenn Saunders and others created that. This was in 2001. It was cool because the Whermact fight besides the Brits and US against the Eastern Block. Great Fun. Matter of fact if you have the old talonsoft game you can get the update.

I think your original gripe had some merit. I am an old player from ef 1.06 days. I am one that also thinks the old game is still good. But i also know that efforts to improve the game come with the right spirit from jason and and others and also have watched him slave over it for eons for no other reason then passionate love for the title. I don't really intend this as a scolding so much as to bring you on board with the current effort if possible. *cheers* and many victories to you

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Pasha

ORIGINAL: barker

Andy, In the old talonsoft game there was a set of designers that did just that up to korea 1953 europe and included the chinese. This little mod was called Hot War, Craig Foster, Glenn Saunders and others created that. This was in 2001. It was cool because the Whermact fight besides the Brits and US against the Eastern Block. Great Fun. Matter of fact if you have the old talonsoft game you can get the update.

I think your original gripe had some merit. I am an old player from ef 1.06 days. I am one that also thinks the old game is still good. But i also know that efforts to improve the game come with the right spirit from jason and and others and also have watched him slave over it for eons for no other reason then passionate love for the title. I don't really intend this as a scolding so much as to bring you on board with the current effort if possible. *cheers* and many victories to you

I am also an "old player" of EF/WF/RS. I don't think anyone is holding a grudge against Jason for the efforts he is making. I was a bit shocked by the comment of one person on another thread that said that the main direction of the Campaign Series is "online play" and that user vs AI gameplay has been set as a low priority. If this is true, and I won't believe it until I hear it from Matrix or Jason, then I can stop visiting these forums and doing any patch updates. All my games in the Campaign Series are OFFLINE games vs the computer. I think that was the original design and spirit of the game. The "improvements" to the game I have seen so far are questionable at best. I enjoy seeing new units being introduced But the recent boosting of artillery capabilities has sent me and many others scrambling to dig up old patches to revert back to previous versions of the game. And some patches have been so disastrous that they have required immediate patch releases to correct the problems they created (1.03 to 1.04). If you remember the old Talonsoft, the patches were few and far between, but when they came out they did correct problems that existed. They weren't just OOB tweaks, but were actually needed gameplay resolutions. I hope that if and when Matrix/Jason corrects the last gameplay bug in the game (the back-and-forth-and-back-and forth movement of some vehicles), they release it as a seperate patch independant of all the other previous patches and useable under any version of the game. Once I get that fix, I won't be needing any more patches. [:)]

I wonder who the "genius" is that figured out that invisible anti-tank guns would be a cool and realistic addition to the game? I can tell you right now...any anti-tank weapon that is powerful enough to take out a tank, is not going to remain hidden once it fires. Is this another PBEM mod that was incorporated in the game? [8|]

[Borst50]

I remember reading that thread myself....and it had been admitted to me that DCG's have been a lower priority for past updates, but they are not being ignored. The fact that the OOB's are constantly being updated, and there are palns in the works for new DCG's tells me that we weill see DCG's playing a more important part in the game as a whole. All in all...it works for me quite well....as all I play are DCG's.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Borst50

I remember reading that thread myself....and it had been admitted to me that DCG's have been a lower priority for past updates, but they are not being ignored. The fact that the OOB's are constantly being updated, and there are palns in the works for new DCG's tells me that we weill see DCG's playing a more important part in the game as a whole. All in all...it works for me quite well....as all I play are DCG's.

Borst: I sure hope you are right!!! I think there is a large group of us that still play the DCG and have a lot of fun doing it. I don't mind if DCG's are a low priority. As long as any changes that are made don't negatively affect what is already there. I've been [playing with version 1.01 the past few days and other than a weird bug where, instead of the Iron Cross Second Class, it says I am awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for a victorious battle as a Waffen SS Major (makes me wonder how the Allies would react to that!!!) it's a lot of fun. I wonder is there was a later patch that corrected that?
Anyway, it's good to see that there are more of us that are dedicated DCG players. I think we might even be a "silent majority" [:D]

Dep

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Deputy
any anti-tank weapon that is powerful enough to take out a tank, is not going to remain hidden once it fires. Is this another PBEM mod that was incorporated in the game? [8|]

I wouldn't be so sure. In case of a well planned ambush such a gun could fire a few times even before getting pinned.

Speaking of single player priority - why do we have a single save for LCGs? Is it something bad that one would like to play two LCGs simultaneously?

[Borst50]

yes, I remember reading a thread about the CMOH glitch....and i do believe it was fixed in 1.03....but the downside to that is, you have to have the update to have the fix....unless you ask Jason, or whomever did the fix to send you a file....like Mraa did with the WF medals fix for 1.02b.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: Deputy
any anti-tank weapon that is powerful enough to take out a tank, is not going to remain hidden once it fires. Is this another PBEM mod that was incorporated in the game? [8|]

I wouldn't be so sure. In case of a well planned ambush such a gun could fire a few times even before getting pinned.

Speaking of single player priority - why do we have a single save for LCGs? Is it something bad that one would like to play two LCGs simultaneously?

I can't think of any rapid fire anti-tank guns in WW2. And that Soviet anti-tank rifle is all but useless against any normal tank. Maybe effective against some lightly armored cars or trucks. It was actually obsolete by the start of the war.

Good question on the single save option. [&:]

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: Deputy
any anti-tank weapon that is powerful enough to take out a tank, is not going to remain hidden once it fires. Is this another PBEM mod that was incorporated in the game? [8|]

I wouldn't be so sure. In case of a well planned ambush such a gun could fire a few times even before getting pinned.

Speaking of single player priority - why do we have a single save for LCGs? Is it something bad that one would like to play two LCGs simultaneously?

I can't think of any rapid fire anti-tank guns in WW2. And that Soviet anti-tank rifle is all but useless against any normal tank. Maybe effective against some lightly armored cars or trucks. It was actually obsolete by the start of the war.

Good question on the single save option. [&:]

It's not the case of rapid fire, rather a well placed and hidden gun, and the enemy not expecting an assault. With the first hit all you see is a destroyed vehicle, since you start looking for the gun afterwards there is no easy way to tell where it is located.

[sfinlay]

Just a thought, but it might be worth remembering that each turn represents 6 minutes of real time and rather than individual Tanks/anti-tank guns , each graphic might be simulating alot more of each, firing over a 6 minute period.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Borsook



It's not the case of rapid fire, rather a well placed and hidden gun, and the enemy not expecting an assault. With the first hit all you see is a destroyed vehicle, since you start looking for the gun afterwards there is no easy way to tell where it is located.

Unfortunately, this doesn't hold true. I could maybe believe it if the gun was on the other side of a mountain or elevation where it couldn't be seen. But then, it would be an artillery piece and firing blind. Anti-tank guns have to SEE the enemy in order to hit it. And they have to be within a certain range to hit it effectively. Namely as close as safely possible. Anti-tank guns in WW2 were not small devices unless you had a Panzerfaust or bazooka. And then you would have to be very close for it to work. 50MM anti-tank guns are not small and are not easily manuvered. Hence the need for trucks to tow them into place. The only anti-tank guns that could be hidden and manuvered easily are the ineffective Soviet anti-tank rifles or something similar. And they are all but useless against anything but trucks and lightly armored vehicles. Remember also that there is more than just the visible aspect of an anti-tank gun. When it fires, there is a lot of smoke and gunflash. A tank observer standing in the top hatch of the turret (which was and is SOP for tanks that are moving and not under fire) is going to spot that hidden gun the second it fires. And anti-tank guns that can be hidden and easily moved, as I mentioned above, are not going to be very successful at causing major damage to a tank. I tried 1.03, and while moving my tanks through an open field with no cover I had 4 tanks knocked out by "hidden" anti-tank guns in that field that in the real world should have been visible after their first shot. Sorry, that just isn't realistic. I can see them being camflaged and not visible until they shoot, but not remaining invisible after they have fired. That's why I am still using version 1.02b. [:)]

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

ORIGINAL: Borsook



It's not the case of rapid fire, rather a well placed and hidden gun, and the enemy not expecting an assault. With the first hit all you see is a destroyed vehicle, since you start looking for the gun afterwards there is no easy way to tell where it is located.

Unfortunately, this doesn't hold true. I could maybe believe it if the gun was on the other side of a mountain or elevation where it couldn't be seen. But then, it would be an artillery piece and firing blind. Anti-tank guns have to SEE the enemy in order to hit it. And they have to be within a certain range to hit it effectively. Namely as close as safely possible. Anti-tank guns in WW2 were not small devices unless you had a Panzerfaust or bazooka. And then you would have to be very close for it to work. 50MM anti-tank guns are not small and are not easily manuvered. Hence the need for trucks to tow them into place. The only anti-tank guns that could be hidden and manuvered easily are the ineffective Soviet anti-tank rifles or something similar. And they are all but useless against anything but trucks and lightly armored vehicles. Remember also that there is more than just the visible aspect of an anti-tank gun. When it fires, there is a lot of smoke and gunflash. A tank observer standing in the top hatch of the turret (which was and is SOP for tanks that are moving and not under fire) is going to spot that hidden gun the second it fires. And anti-tank guns that can be hidden and easily moved, as I mentioned above, are not going to be very successful at causing major damage to a tank. I tried 1.03, and while moving my tanks through an open field with no cover I had 4 tanks knocked out by "hidden" anti-tank guns in that field that in the real world should have been visible after their first shot. Sorry, that just isn't realistic. I can see them being camflaged and not visible until they shoot, but not remaining invisible after they have fired. That's why I am still using version 1.02b. [:)]

That's German 50 mm anti tank gun. 37 mm guns were even smaller. Both were perfectly movable by the crew at a short distance. Low profile made it even easier to hide, esp as when preparing an ambush they were often 'pre aimed' at a given spot, and fired at a signal of an observer, with the actual crew not seeing the target. Also I cannot agree with the "a lot of smoke", this is not true, although I guess "a lot" is subjective. Of course the observer on the top of the tank should be able to locate it, provided he was looking in the right direction, not to mention other factors like artillery fire, enemy air force activity that can lower the visibility or make open hatch a bad choice. Anyway I am not saying that antitank gun should stay unspotted after destroying its first target, only that it is possible.

PS. As for a small anti-tank gun being able to destroy a tank at a distance, well, that depends on what period do you mean, e.g. Panzer I would go down without much effort after a 37 mm hit (that's why Polish cavalry was so successful in the role of anti tank unit in 1939 (Like in the Bzura Battle).

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Borsook



That's German 50 mm anti tank gun. 37 mm guns were even smaller. Both were perfectly movable by the crew at a short distance. Low profile made it even easier to hide, esp as when preparing an ambush they were often 'pre aimed' at a given spot, and fired at a signal of an observer, with the actual crew not seeing the target. Also I cannot agree with the "a lot of smoke", this is not true, although I guess "a lot" is subjective. Of course the observer on the top of the tank should be able to locate it, provided he was looking in the right direction, not to mention other factors like artillery fire, enemy air force activity that can lower the visibility or make open hatch a bad choice. Anyway I am not saying that antitank gun should stay unspotted after destroying its first target, only that it is possible.

PS. As for a small anti-tank gun being able to destroy a tank at a distance, well, that depends on what period do you mean, e.g. Panzer I would go down without much effort after a 37 mm hit (that's why Polish cavalry was so successful in the role of anti tank unit in 1939 (Like in the Bzura Battle).

I wonder what the effectiveness was against tanks when "pre aimed' at a given spot". I would bet not very effective. The campaign I was in was 1944-45. The bad guys were Soviets. And they were located in open terrain. My tanks were not attacked until the anti-tank guns opened fire. And it was MULTIPLE anti-tank guns and ALL remained invisible. No distractions at all. And with the height of WW2 tanks, which were VERY tall compared to modern tanks, Tiger and Panther tank observers would have no trouble spotting a gun that size BEFORE it fired. And observers don't just look in ONE direction. They are required to observe a 360 degree field of view. I know, because I was an observer from the loader hatch. You jump up on the seat frame and you pivot completely around over and over again. It's called situational awareness [;)]

The ONLY way I can see an anti-tank gun being unspotted would maybe be if it was located in a forest and it was pouring rain and fog and visibility was very short to start with.. But again, sound, flash and smoke should give it away once it fires.

[borsook79]

The effectiveness of "pre aming" was good (given a good synchronization) i.e. a hit being achieved. Anyway in your particular example it indeed should not happen (though I still claim things like that did happen in more defensive circumstances), that said I've never seen (in the game that is) an AT gun remain hidden in the open terrain after destroying something, did this occur more than once?

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

The effectiveness of "pre aming" was good (given a good synchronization) i.e. a hit being achieved. Anyway in your particular example it indeed should not happen (though I still claim things like that did happen in more defensive circumstances), that said I've never seen (in the game that is) an AT gun remain hidden in the open terrain after destroying something, did this occur more than once?

Once was all it took for me to uninstall the game and re-install version 1.02b. I have the 1.04 beta on my laptop and I'm testing it out now. So far the only silliness is artillery destroying tanks. So far it has only happened to the US tanks. Only way I am able to prevent it on the German tanks is to destroy all the spotters.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

ORIGINAL: Borsook

The effectiveness of "pre aming" was good (given a good synchronization) i.e. a hit being achieved. Anyway in your particular example it indeed should not happen (though I still claim things like that did happen in more defensive circumstances), that said I've never seen (in the game that is) an AT gun remain hidden in the open terrain after destroying something, did this occur more than once?

Once was all it took for me to uninstall the game and re-install version 1.02b. I have the 1.04 beta on my laptop and I'm testing it out now. So far the only silliness is artillery destroying tanks. So far it has only happened to the US tanks. Only way I am able to prevent it on the German tanks is to destroy all the spotters.

If it happened only once - maybe it was a bug or just some quirk? Actually I remember a photo of a Tiger destroyed by a artillery shell I've no idea how well the new artillery model works, but increasing effectiveness is a welcomed change for me. Half of the time I felt that plotting art fire is a waste of time, as 90% of time there was no effect... realistic or not, I feel it was bad for the gameplay.

[Deputy]

Unfortunately it's no bug or one time event. Anti-tank artillery is now the ONLY thing that any vehicle has to worry about. Tank vs tank or tank vs infantry combat is nothing compared to indirect fire artillery vs tanks.