Capt. Pixel
Posts: 1219
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE=Buzzard45]...Different weapons have distinctive sounds which make it more likely that a unit being fired apon could ID it. The 75L70 of the Panther would sound the same as the same gun on a Jagpanther but I'm not sure that a 75L43 would have the same shell-whistle when firing. Someone please correct me on this.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Incidentally, there is no way, TIKO, to rename individual weapons on a unit. Once it fires, a savvy opponent will have a really good idea what's shooting at him.
[QUOTE=Buzzard45]...Different infantry types have different uniforms and different organic equipment, making IDing a FJ unit from a Volk-grenedier unit not all that unlikely. However, who is to say which squad is the HQ squad. That being said, the AO squad IS likely to look different in all armies during that time period...[/QUOTE]
I think, at least on the infantry issue, that the RL conditions would make anybody in the wrong-shaped helmet a target. Once you've driven your enemy into the mud, behind logs, etc. your ability to ID their insignia is reduced. And, at the point that you're exchanging fire, what rank or service branch your shooting at becomes of lesser concern. This kind of specific information would more likely come to light during mop-up. "Wow, Jeb! We greased an SS squad"
There are, of course, many conditions where visibility is good, people have binoculars and enough experience to determine the magnitude of the threat, and that information can be communicated to some authority that can act upon it.
As for equipment, there are definitely distinctive profiles presented by different vehicles. But, as stated earlier, many features are not readily discernable just by looking. The T34 maintains it's external profile until up-gunning to the 85mm. Yet there are a number of non-visible improvements in the series. {eg. Fire Control, Armor} The same is true for the US, GE and UK vehicles. (In the case of the UK, there were so many different styles, the Germans probably couldn't keep up anyway. "WTF is that tank??" :D )
For a short period, the Allies were reporting, after their first appearance, that every enemy tank that crested the rise was a Tiger. The Germans also believed during that period, that the Tiger was invulnerable. They were ultimately both proven wrong. ;)
The convention of descriptive naming of units is more an aid to the player using them. But I feel that it gives the enemy more information that he should really be entitled to.
It [I]is[/I] nice that this game has so much flexibility so as to allow one to modify features, such as these, to suit individual perspectives. :cool:
_____________________________
"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson
|
Printable Version
- 
) myself to this very interesting place. It was not easy (many tries and errors 
), but here I am. Greets to you all.
At topic: IMHO the game-rulez are the only limitation. Why not use any feature, the game allows? "Shermans" and "Kingtigers" are in fact no well-balanced units, but there are enough tactical possibilities to deal with superior armor etc. Any tactic has its counterpart. Also minefields can be cleared...even in meeting engagements.
Btw: I will not rename any units, because this would give the opponent an advantage (f***, I have forgotten, that it was no tiger... 
).
IMHO, you cannot call it cheating to use any legal game-feature. It is more fun for me to handle the unexpected... 
And right-clicking indeed solves some mystery...
Greets
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread