Sudden-Strike-Maps

LT albrecht hat geschrieben: A list of the vehicles I would like added (please post those you would like added if you agree, if not don't):
1) Horse + cart (like the ones in LRM, PWM etc)
...
3) Tractor (able to tow a plough/light ATG or AA - 20mm AA or 37mm AT)
4) Bulldozer
...
6) Fishing boat (holds a few men and has stronger armour than the rubber boat)
...
8. More cars.

These are great ideas!! Maybe the Bulldozer could clear mines and barbed wire. Should definately be bullet proof at the front because of the blade.

The tractor would also be cool.

And cars. Like proper old volkswagen beetles hooning around the battlefield

As for horses...I don't really mind the horses even though they look wierd when they pivot on the spot and stuff. But there is already quite a bit of stuff that looks ridiculous like the "stand up" heavy MGs and the 2man MG crews when they run...you just get used to it.

And even though they look wierd, its their function that is more imporatant and adds that real warfare ww2 feel . And horsedrawn transport really was symbolic of that era. I think I heard over 80 or 90% of german transport was horsedrawn and the same for russia until they got their half a million trucks from America. The horses look good dead too when they're strewn all over the battlefield

Cheers,
Matt

About the bulldozer: Why should it be protected so much? Weren't they usually used after a battle had ended to clean up stuff, not directly in the fights? I mean, we're not in the Gaza strip here Did they have bullet proof glas or not?

This is a bulldozer we're talking about! Imagine truck chassis with BIG Sheet of steel on the front!!! if bulldozer blades can rip up AT obstacles (which they can) then I think that blade would have to be tough!

Typical APC armour= 13mm; proof against infantry fire up to 7.92mm AP, Bulldozer blade= thicker to provide tensile strength and angled to give leverage; my estimate is about 20-30mm of sheet steel; about equal to the APC (sheet steel being softer than hardened steel).

Lamafarmer hat geschrieben:About the bulldozer: Why should it be protected so much?

cos they've got a big kick arse steel blade at the front that any moron would raise up in front of cab. Haven't you seen The A-Team? They wouldn't have protection from any other angle

"I pity the Fool who drives towards a machinegun in a bulldozer with the blade down!"

My point exactly (but with less facts and shorter )

You could have a Paratrooper mission where you have to seize civillian vehicles to breach your enemy's defences (You land in a town, nick a bulldozer and have to ram it through some barbed wire to storm the enemy base - and blow up a whole load of stuff for good measure!)

The A-team... that show was classy; I have mostly just heard/read about it but I watched some of it (including the opening) on youtube.

Civilian vehicles....wadya reckon bout this :

LT albrecht hat geschrieben:This is a bulldozer we're talking about! Imagine truck chassis with BIG Sheet of steel on the front!!! if bulldozer blades can rip up AT obstacles (which they can) then I think that blade would have to be tough!

Typical APC armour= 13mm; proof against infantry fire up to 7.92mm AP, Bulldozer blade= thicker to provide tensile strength and angled to give leverage; my estimate is about 20-30mm of sheet steel; about equal to the APC (sheet steel being softer than hardened steel).

Uh sure, but I am mainly talking about the cabin here. Plus you ignore the part if they were directly in action or not

@Matttheoz

...As for horses...I don't really mind the horses even though they look wierd when they pivot on the spot and stuff. But there is already quite a bit of stuff that looks ridiculous like the "stand up" heavy MGs and the 2man MG crews when they run...you just get used to it.

And even though they look wierd, its their function that is more imporatant and adds that real warfare ww2 feel . And horsedrawn transport really was symbolic of that era.

It's not because exist already of things (objects, units, parameters, etc..) ridiculous in RWM (range shoot, prototyps never fighting, not horses and not a lot some others things present in the WW2 reality... It's normal in video game not perfect, same all video games not perfect and with a SS2 "motor" limited for horses with car), that it's necessary to add some !

I prefer not see suplementary things not finalized and/or very limited in their appearances than of ridiculous things reducing the realistic immersion, already far from being perfect.
You want feels (and more) realistic immersion or what ? please reflect and remain serious

more ridiculous + more ridiculous + more ridiculous = mod ridiculous... and not real warfare WW2 feels and bye immersion feels, and hello news HS2

same in HS2, they did not dare to do it, need I say more?

For Real Warfare WW2 feel hat geschrieben: I prefer not see suplementary things not finalized and/or very limited in their appearances than of ridiculous things reducing the realistic immersion, already far from being perfect.

You want feels (and more) realistic immersion or what ? please reflect and remain serious

Ok...I've taken your advice, have taken a good hard look at myself, reflected at length and in depth, discussed the matter exhaustively with Tibetan monks and consulted the Almighty and am doing my best to remain serious

Do you like cars? I mean Kübelwagens and jeeps? What about Motorcycles? Or trucks? Because unless you're blind you will have noticed that they are also ridiculous the way they pivot on the spot in SS2.

Go outside to your car and get in it. Now start it and attempt to do a 360 degree revolution without moving forwards or backwards and get back to me when you have completed this manouvre. (Take some lunch and a drink cos you might be a while...as far as I know even the A-Team van has trouble with this manouvre)

You will have also noticed that the wheels on trucks and the tracks on tanks don't move. Yup...completely static. And they seem to float above the ground when they move - not as much as in some games, but still nonetheless. Should they be taken out or no new ones be added because of this? No. Exactly. Because we are talking about a game here and because the function of these units outweighs the graphic drawbacks imparted by the engine and the tactical realism offered by their presence is greater than the graphic realism offered by their absence.

That, Matttheoz is the point I made to him earlier (minus the cars on the spot thing; it is possible to do it in a car but you need a good car, a flat piece if tarmac and to be seriously good at driving). He thinks that just because they look the tiniest bit unrealistic they should be removed. If we were all like real warfare ww2 feel this'd be one boring place to be... he has some good ideas but he doesn't drop the unpopular ons and keep the popular ones, instead I think he works in reverse or something; if you oppose his idea he keeps arguing for it if you don't he forgets about it!

I have consulted my own god and followed the true way to peace in our time, eternal happines, Free cable tv, blah blah blah... This told me a few things:
1) Pasta is tasty
2) If he wants to belive crap that's fine with me, just don't let him fosce it on the rest of us!
3) Put all the stuff I suggested in!
4) The A-team rules
Anglo-Australian co-operation is a truly great thing! May it continue forever , as mr churchill said:
"Let us go forward together"

Oh... and who the **** voted no?!?! Someone out there clicked no or it wouldn't say "1 no (9%)"

neutral civilians would be good, more realism

@Matttheoz

...Do you like cars? I mean Kübelwagens and jeeps? What about Motorcycles? Or trucks? Because unless you're blind you will have noticed that they are also ridiculous the way they pivot on the spot in SS2...

sure you read only your text. Pls, re-read me, it is not suffisant ?

It's not because exist already of things (objects, units, parameters, etc..) ridiculous in RWM (range shoot, prototyps never fighting, not horses and not a lot some others things present in the WW2 reality... It's normal in video game not perfect, same all video games not perfect and with a SS2 "motor" limited for horses with car), that it's necessary to add some !

I prefer not see suplementary things not finalized and/or very limited in their appearances than of ridiculous things reducing the realistic immersion, already far from being perfect.

...No. Exactly. Because we are talking about a game here and because the function of these units outweighs the graphic drawbacks imparted by

the engine and the tactical realism offered by their presence is greater than the graphic realism offered by their absence.

strange like reflexion ? as if until now, we were not to do whihout the fixed horses in RWM ?

I do completely not agree, and there is the tolerable (because of the limits of the engine of SS2… for example) and the intolerable
(aditionnal bad graphism... and very useless). The rigid horses are for me intolerable for a immerssion realistic mod...
and especially with the excuse of more than realism, point of view different, accept it

if you have still good ideas like those there…

Langemarck hat geschrieben:neutral civilians would be good, more realism

They're not suited for multiplayer games in terms of neutral control.

@For Real Warfare....

Huh?@!

For Real Warfare WW2 feel hat geschrieben:sure you read only your text. Pls, re-read me, it is not suffisant ?

Erm...thanks...but...to be honest...reading you once is painful enough.

How did you go with the car anyway

Let me get this straight...the guy that calls himself "For Real Warfare ww2 Feel" wants all armies from ww2 to be fully motorized driving around in halftracks and trucks?

For someone who keeps crapping on about realism you sure have some strange ideas about whats realistic and what isn't.

"real" meanig real enough if you've had a couple of spliffs of whatever he's on... (nah, just jokin' but you do have verrry weird ideas)

A fully motorised army probably will never exist as there will always be an organic (non-mechanised) unit, i.e. SAS infiltration teams on foot etc.

if you really were for realism you'd support these additions...