|
Soup Inspector posted:This makes me want to try it out for this alone. I was kind of hesitant to do so because I heard of how unrelentingly punishing it could be sometimes (he says, having played both ArmA II and ArmA III). The game has.....not aged well. It's a game about crawling through fields while speak and spells try to kill you from beyond your field of vision. I loved it when I was a nerdy teenager with too much free time but these days even Arma is too much for me. e: I'd apologize for contributing to all these video game derails but nobody seems to mind. best thread
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:The game has.....not aged well. It's a game about crawling through fields while speak and spells try to kill you from beyond your field of vision. I unironically really want this. Bonus points if it can be incorporated into Kung Fury 2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Single Player Prologue Tutorial: Nationalist Chinese against the Japanese in the mid to late thirties. I had the same idea except you play as some radical commie kid who gets a top secret, eyes-only, tell-no-one-ever mission to blow up a Japanese rail line
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:30
|
|
It isn't a world war game if they keep setting them in Normandy dammit.HEY GAIL posted:drunk officers are fine Well, as long as their booze collection isn't like half the baggage train. That rarely ends well.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Operation Flashpoint is an incredibly unpleasant game to play, about shooting blindly at dark specks in the distance while hoping they don't pick you specifically to shoot back at. You can spend literally hours just getting somewhere, and then die in one shot to some opportunistic fire from some enemy you couldn't see. This probably makes it the most realistic war game that will ever be made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Operation Flashpoint is an incredibly unpleasant game to play, about shooting blindly at dark specks in the distance while hoping they don't pick you specifically to shoot back at. You can spend literally hours just getting somewhere, and then die in one shot to some opportunistic fire from some enemy you couldn't see. This probably makes it the most realistic war game that will ever be made. I remember someone made a Normandy mod (back before this was played out, which I swear was a real time) and I tried it literally 10 times and never made it off the boat. The game is a powerful lesson in "how real is too real"
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I feel like I'm breaking the flow a lot, but how long do "live" combat vehicles tend to last in frontline divisions before getting blown up or damaged badly enough they went back to factories? I'm primarily thinking WW2 but I'd be curious about other places and times, too, especially vietnam.Plan Z posted:You killed "Richter" in one of the Polish tanker missions, who they called the "Black Baron" so basically a legally safe Wittman. I think he drives a Tiger 2. VC had concentration camps? I must be blanking on that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I'll make a WW2 game that has every theatre in it and all front and all major battles An Alaska one would be neat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I feel like I'm breaking the flow a lot, but how long do "live" combat vehicles tend to last in frontline divisions before getting blown up or damaged badly enough they went back to factories? I'm primarily thinking WW2 but I'd be curious about other places and times, too, especially vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:An Alaska one would be neat. That's what the tutorial level should be! Invade the Aleutians, watch some people die due to friendly fire, 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:That's what the tutorial level should be! Take off from a carrier for a bomb raid against dutch harbor, get lost, crash into a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:From that one lecture on American/Soviet/German tanks, Jonathan Parshall noted that Soviet tanks lasted less than six months from production to destruction, and 14 hours if they got into combat. I suppose the obvious follow-up is, is that typical (of the eastern front or WW2 in general)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
An idea for a WW2 game I had that I posted in a TFR thread was setting you up as an under supplied Soviet soldier in the winter of 1942. Your unit gets blown up by artillery or something, leaving you the only survivor. Starting without anything more than the clothes and load-bearing gear on your back, you need to scrounge for weapons, ammo, food, and water while avoiding hypothermia and German patrols to try and get back to your unit. Basically turn the war into a survival horror game where even a single enemy soldier is likely to be lethal and you can just barely carry enough in your inventory to stay alive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Operation Flashpoint had a really great 'final mission' where it's years after the war and you are touring the battlefields you fought across with some other veterans. Which game is this one? I also really want to play this horrific game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Pripyat Partisan would make a pretty horrifying survival FPS. But I'm still waiting for my Genghis Khan game. https://youtu.be/l1_bp8YKUPU
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:56
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
chitoryu12 posted:An idea for a WW2 game I had that I posted in a TFR thread was setting you up as an under supplied Soviet soldier in the winter of 1942. Your unit gets blown up by artillery or something, leaving you the only survivor. Starting without anything more than the clothes and load-bearing gear on your back, you need to scrounge for weapons, ammo, food, and water while avoiding hypothermia and German patrols to try and get back to your unit. Basically turn the war into a survival horror game where even a single enemy soldier is likely to be lethal and you can just barely carry enough in your inventory to stay alive. We need more of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:From that one lecture on American/Soviet/German tanks, Jonathan Parshall noted that Soviet tanks lasted less than six months from production to destruction, and 14 hours if they got into combat. 14 hours, a summer day's worth of combat? How did the Red Army carry out any kind of breakthrough operation if its tanks lasted for such a short time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:We need more of this. (2) with only a few tweaks, that'd make an excellent 17th century game as well
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:14 hours, a summer day's worth of combat? How did the Red Army carry out any kind of breakthrough operation if its tanks lasted for such a short time? Well presumably not everyone and thing is a tank, and not all combat lasts a day, and not all units are fighting constantly, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
A photography game as an espionage agent might be cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:14 hours, a summer day's worth of combat? How did the Red Army carry out any kind of breakthrough operation if its tanks lasted for such a short time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:14 hours, a summer day's worth of combat? How did the Red Army carry out any kind of breakthrough operation if its tanks lasted for such a short time? To be fair, it's an average, and if I remember the lecture correctly, it comes from a Soviet assessment from '41-42 or thereabouts. That part of the lecture is basically all about how the Soviets decided to focus on streamlining production to produce tanks as quickly and as cheaply as possible, with a lessened focus on reliability and quality since the average tank wouldn't last long enough in combat for it to matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Which game is this one? I also really want to play this horrific game. It's on Steam these days as ArmA: Cold War Assault because Bohemia Interactive doesn't own the Operation: Flashpoint name anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
This goes completely against any documents of the People's Commissariat of Tank Production. Yes, quantity was important, but Malyshev spent the entirety of his first stint as People's Commissar fighting to boost quality and reliability. Tank designs were changed not just to speed up production, but to improve them. Instead of cranking out endless hordes of primitive T-60s, there was a whole range of upgrades planned for the vehicle, as well as the T-45 and T-70 tanks that stem from it. The T-34S and T-43 were attempts to solve problems with the T-34, and definitely didn't make production any easier. Then there was the hexagonal turret, commander's cupola, applique armour, and a whole ton of minor revisions to the T-34 design. In fact, Malyshev was removed from his post in 1942 specifically because he wasn't putting out enough tanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Its almost like a tank can be judged on many factors and can be improved upon over time, especially if your country is recuperating lost ground, has stable supply lines, and isn't running short of well-trained manpower!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:She was like the personification of the Japanese saying "it can't be helped", which coincidentally she used to tell us all the time. Is that expression "shikata ga nai"? I don't speak Japanese, so I must have learned it from a book or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This goes completely against any documents of the People's Commissariat of Tank Production. Yes, quantity was important, but Malyshev spent the entirety of his first stint as People's Commissar fighting to boost quality and reliability. Tank designs were changed not just to speed up production, but to improve them. Instead of cranking out endless hordes of primitive T-60s, there was a whole range of upgrades planned for the vehicle, as well as the T-45 and T-70 tanks that stem from it. The T-34S and T-43 were attempts to solve problems with the T-34, and definitely didn't make production any easier. Then there was the hexagonal turret, commander's cupola, applique armour, and a whole ton of minor revisions to the T-34 design. In fact, Malyshev was removed from his post in 1942 specifically because he wasn't putting out enough tanks. You should probably watch the video yourself (The comments on Soviet production methods begin at ~35 minutes in, and the specific segment we're discussing is at 38 minutes in), but Parshall's point isn't that the Soviets went "Let's build as many lovely tanks as we can", it's "Let's take a good, hard look at the cost of each vehicle and do what we can to drive costs down without compromising combat performance." So yeah, they were numerous projects to upgrade the tank's combat performance, but there were also numerous design revisions to reduce the overall number of parts and the amount of labor it took to build each tank. And in some cases, that meant using lesser-quality parts or allowing looser tolerances when the impact on quality or reliability wouldn't have had any meaningful impact on the tank's expected service life. Unfortunately he doesn't mention his sources for the specific 14 hour number, but you could probably try to contact him and ask about it. Dude's a pretty solid historian (He's one of the co-authors of Shattered Sword), and I'm sure he'd be happy to share notes if he still has them lying around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:An idea for a WW2 game I had that I posted in a TFR thread was setting you up as an under supplied Soviet soldier in the winter of 1942. Your unit gets blown up by artillery or something, leaving you the only survivor. Starting without anything more than the clothes and load-bearing gear on your back, you need to scrounge for weapons, ammo, food, and water while avoiding hypothermia and German patrols to try and get back to your unit. Basically turn the war into a survival horror game where even a single enemy soldier is likely to be lethal and you can just barely carry enough in your inventory to stay alive. NG+ is being sent back out on a penal battalion without a weapon because they think you're a spy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:Is that expression "shikata ga nai"? I don't speak Japanese, so I must have learned it from a book or something. Yes. Also common among Japanese Americans of the same period, for perhaps obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This goes completely against any documents of the People's Commissariat of Tank Production. Yes, quantity was important, but Malyshev spent the entirety of his first stint as People's Commissar fighting to boost quality and reliability. Tank designs were changed not just to speed up production, but to improve them. Instead of cranking out endless hordes of primitive T-60s, there was a whole range of upgrades planned for the vehicle, as well as the T-45 and T-70 tanks that stem from it. The T-34S and T-43 were attempts to solve problems with the T-34, and definitely didn't make production any easier. Then there was the hexagonal turret, commander's cupola, applique armour, and a whole ton of minor revisions to the T-34 design. In fact, Malyshev was removed from his post in 1942 specifically because he wasn't putting out enough tanks. A very similar claim is made in Walter S. Dunn Jr.'s "Stalin's Keys to Victory": https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Keys-Victory-Stackpole-Military/dp/0811734234  Also, if you don't want to watch the video, here's basically the talk in print: http://www.historynet.com/profiles-cold-steel-making-tanks.htm ulmont fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Pripyat Partisan would make a pretty horrifying survival FPS. Each time you achieve a victory, a nearby village full of your friends and family, gets reprisalled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Hm, interesting, does he have a citation for that number? 2007 was late enough that a significant number of archive sources would have been available. Parshall gives 1500 km as the service life of a T-34 in 1942, which I don't recall seeing anywhere, but I do remember seeing a similar figure for the lifespan of 1500 km from track links, so it must be about right. I don't have any data on the lifespan of a Sherman in 1942, but trials of the M4A2(76)W in 1944 caused failures starting at 1339 km. The lifespan of these tanks at the front lines in 1945 is identical: 2000-2500 km. This data seems to go against the claim that Soviet tanks were made with poor quality materials and a target service life that was half as long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:(1) it would be ill if the soldier in that game were a woman You're a night witch and you had to ditch your Po-2 on the way back to the airfield instead of your unit being destroyed. You start with a sidearm, a compass, and a map. Nazi observers had your plane spotted before you went down and you know they're on the way (sirens/dogs/pissed German being hollered ) and you sprint for the treeline. Now you need to navigate back to your airfield.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Hm, interesting, does he have a citation for that number? 2007 was late enough that a significant number of archive sources would have been available. I think what he was angling toward was not that they were made with bad materials but that they loosened tolerances to lower cost and boost production massively so they could fight back after Barbarossa. Why design a precision fit engine that will last you 5k km when the tank will have become a combat loss within 1500? Okay, so why are these road wheels good for 2300 km when again it'll be brewed up within 1500? So on and so forth down the line. Gaskets don't need to be aligned well, bolts don't need to be ratcheted down quite as evenly, your bearings don't need to be quite as perfectly round, etc. Basically yeah your tank is shaking itself apart during combat but statistically it will be perfectly functional until lost to enemy fire. But not much longer than that, since the nice bearings and very straight rods and finely milled pistons are lost all the same, except they cost more and took longer to make, which means your factory misses quota.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Isn't building tank components to fail at about the same time standard policy for all modern armies? I always assumes the Soviets were ahead of the curve in that regards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Hm, interesting, does he have a citation for that number? I found that through trying to search for the 14 hours number, and Dunn does not appear to have a full bibliography in that work, so unfortunately no. FAUXTON posted:I think what he was angling toward was not that they were made with bad materials but that they loosened tolerances to lower cost and boost production massively so they could fight back after Barbarossa. Why design a precision fit engine that will last you 5k km when the tank will have become a combat loss within 1500? Okay, so why are these road wheels good for 2300 km when again it'll be brewed up within 1500? So on and so forth down the line. This is definitely the idea. Whatever the weakest link is that leads you to 1500km / 6 months / 14 hours etc., stop there and don't bother building anything else any better than that, just build more or cheaper instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:You're a night witch and you had to ditch your Po-2 on the way back to the airfield instead of your unit being destroyed. You start with a sidearm, a compass, and a map. Nazi observers had your plane spotted before you went down and you know they're on the way (sirens/dogs/pissed German being hollered ) and you sprint for the treeline. Now you need to navigate back to your airfield.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think what he was angling toward was not that they were made with bad materials but that they loosened tolerances to lower cost and boost production massively so they could fight back after Barbarossa. Why design a precision fit engine that will last you 5k km when the tank will have become a combat loss within 1500? Okay, so why are these road wheels good for 2300 km when again it'll be brewed up within 1500? So on and so forth down the line. Gaskets don't need to be aligned well, bolts don't need to be ratcheted down quite as evenly, your bearings don't need to be quite as perfectly round, etc. Basically yeah your tank is shaking itself apart during combat but statistically it will be perfectly functional until lost to enemy fire. But not much longer than that, since the nice bearings and very straight rods and finely milled pistons are lost all the same, except they cost more and took longer to make, which means your factory misses quota. Yeah, I get the idea, but his summary table (48 minutes in) straight up says that Soviet tanks used low quality components, while American tanks used high quality components. Dunn writes that a Soviet tank is built for 6 months of service, whereas an American tank is built for a year of service. Actual hard data shows that the tanks, when used in the same place, the same time, and by the same people, last for a comparable, if not identical, period of time. There isn't a drastic difference like Dunn's numbers and Parshall's assessments suggest there is. HEY GAIL posted:we should do this but someone else needs to do the programming and (??things???), this thread is just the ideas guy Sounds like a plot for a roguelike, there's probably ready-made engines you could implement that in with minimal effort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Yeah, I get the idea, but his summary table (48 minutes in) straight up says that Soviet tanks used low quality components, while American tanks used high quality components. Dunn writes that a Soviet tank is built for 6 months of service, whereas an American tank is built for a year of service. Actual hard data shows that the tanks, when used in the same place, the same time, and by the same people, last for a comparable, if not identical, period of time. There isn't a drastic difference like Dunn's numbers and Parshall's assessments suggest there is. Maybe the Soviet R&D regime used a far harsher endurance testing regimen?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Yeah, I get the idea, but his summary table (48 minutes in) straight up says that Soviet tanks used low quality components, while American tanks used high quality components. Dunn writes that a Soviet tank is built for 6 months of service, whereas an American tank is built for a year of service. Actual hard data shows that the tanks, when used in the same place, the same time, and by the same people, last for a comparable, if not identical, period of time. There isn't a drastic difference like Dunn's numbers and Parshall's assessments suggest there is. ...because of (1) the weakest link remains the weakest link and/or (2) the tanks get their asses shot off whether they have 500km left or 3000km left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:18
|
|