Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/07/2020 in Posts

  1. 8 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    9. One Engine - CMx3 game performance improvments, graphics improvements, ray tracing, intermediate distance bitmaps additional editor features, dynamic operational campaigns additional gameplay features, coop, LoS tool, visible aircraft
  2. 8 points
    You'll have to excuse the double post here, but I feel compelled to share this. I think some of the misconception about what is happening in the game is coming from the fact that the TacAI always aims for center mass. The real world is not like World of Tanks or War Thunder, where shot placement on specific 2in by 2in spots on a tank has been developed into some kind of gamer science. In reality, all gunnery (small arms, AT, tank, autocannon, missile, etc) is based on the principle of always aiming for center mass. This is as true today as it was back in 1944/42/insert warfare date here. The modern training doctrine, ie standard gunnery in an Abrams tank, it to ALWAYS laze a target at center mass, and then immediately fire. This is called 'lase and blaze' by gunners. There are many reasons to do it this way, but the most important two are 1) if you do not lase the center mass of the target, you can get a bad laser return, which gives you an incorrect range to target, meaning your shot will miss. And 2) because even in an M1A2 SEP Abrams tank, which has a gunner and tank commander sight that is 1080p resolution with a x50 zoom, it is still hard to pick out individual parts on a tank in combat conditions. To illustrate this, here is a video of an actual Abrams on a training range. You can see the thermal sights they are using, the targets and everything. The gunner does not look for a specific part of the target to shoot at, he fires center mass after a quick and successful lase: (Btw the comments on this video are pretty hilarious) This second video shows an actual battle position (BP) engagement on a training range. Note that the tank pulls up into the firing position, scans for and engages targets (fires twice) and then reverses. All in the span of 20 seconds. This is irregardless of return fire in a real life combat situation. Tanks train to constantly reverse out of and advance into firing positions to reduce the chance of them being shot at at all: In summary: tanks always fire at center mass. Even in good hulldown, tanks still reverse out of line of sight to prevent themselves being shot at at all, and to greatly reduce the chances of them being ranged in on/hit if they are engaged. Edit: Ninja'd again, by @Saint_Fuller who makes an excellent point which my post helps to illustrate as well.
  3. 7 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    1. Blitzkrieg: 1939-40 WWII Early war Poland France (also Finland)
  4. 7 points
    After Action Report UK Armoured Assault This is one of George MC's excellent scenarios, originally made for SF1. Summary A battlegroup of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards in their Challengers, supported by mech infantry and engineers, with arty and air support, attack Syrian positions. Challenger on overwatch AAR: Firstly, one of the nice touches is you have recon in position when the game starts. It is a minor gripe of mine that you often go into battles blind, and have to expose a few hapless soldiers to incoming, to find out where the enemy is: Reconnaisance by Taking Fire. I don't like it or think it is realistic. It's a fairly big battlefield. I decided on a quite conservative plan, given that I seemed to have plenty of time (2 game hours) to achieve the objectives. Basically I was going to hide in the deployment zone and take the first enemy position which is in a dip then move forward and see what revealed itself. I pushed some Challys into overwatch. Two were promptly hit by ATGMs – both survived, one with its 120mm knocked out, the other with its commander dead. I pulled back immediately and dialled in my artillery and the Harriers that were on station. I spent 20 minutes pounding enemy positions with 81mm, 155 mm and one of the Harriers (keeping the other in reserve, which proved to be a wise move). So I destroyed all of the AT threats I could find. A recent portrait of Syrian ATGM team No. 2 Digression – We are fighting with the Jocks here, and the infantry brigaded with the RSDG maybe should be the Black Watch, so we have two units that fought together at Waterloo. Not having Scottish accents irked me (it's some form of orcish, I believe 🤣) I couldn't get HQS sound mod and George MC's and Mord's Cuss mod* to work together – they seem incompatible, so I wasn't entirely happy, as it didn't seem right to have legendary Scottish units speaking rather plummy English. (*further investigation by @George MC , it seems that the Cuss mod won't work with SF2. I might be wrong about the Black Watch – George checked when he wrote the scenario and the Orbat should be correct for the right time in an imaginary war.) (Politics Alert! British rankers traditionally come from the poorest parts of the country – Wales, Scotland, the North/Midlands of England, Cockneys (East End of London), and Ireland. It is probably nitpicking, but it would be good to hear more of these sort of authentic voices in BF games. /Rant over.) The first advance My forces moved forward. The infantry took the first dug-in position directly to the front, backed up by Challys and Warriors. I sent forces to the right to take a good position for the Javelin team. I didn't bother flanking to the left. After I'd bounded forward I consolidated then moved on to the next set of objectives, using light bombardments of 155mm to mash anything that seemed to be well hardened. I was taking hardly any casualties. Identified enemy tanks didn't last long, either hit by the Harrier or Challenger gunfire. One of the Static Tanks was still functioning, having been under an intense artillery barrage, and been struck by 2 x 155mm rounds and a 66mm to the back of the turret. I didn't find that believable, even if the crew had survived, I think they would have abandoned the tank. /End Rant 2. Infantry and armour advancing in close co-ordination, having taken the central farm. Out of shot to the right, the engineers are about to flank OBJ Elgin Infantry and armour move forward and consolidate on the next enemy positions I'd moved forward on OBJ Elgin and Keith. My leftmost troops were closing in on OBJ North Queensferry from both front and flank. One of the nice things about this scenario is you can use the terrain to move infantry forward under cover. SPOILER COMING BELOW PICTURE A Challenger advances, the commander is an ancestor of James T. Kirk. Enemy armour reinforcements arrived. My Challengers in overwatch and the second Harrier dispatched them without any losses. One Chally took a 125mm hit to the added lower hull front armour pack, and survived. So that is 2 ATGMs and a 125 KE round that failed to penetrate. Pushed the enemy out of North Queensferry, a mainly infantry assault, supported by Warriors. (CM WEIRDNESS – BUT IS A SPOILER) Bizarrely, when the game ended I found that there was a static tank in the middle of one of my positions that I had overlooked. In RL I can't see how this could have happened, given that one of my observer teams was in an adjacent house and my footsloggers and armour were all around. As I prepared for the assault on the final objective, South Queensferry, I saw that my forward infantry were tired, so I mustered the engineers as a 2nd assault wave, bussed them into FV432s and drove them at high speed to the E of North Queensferry. The muster area was within metres of the static tank. I guess the high speed move must have not given it time to spot, because they must have crossed its gunsights.... The Final Assault on South Queensferry I sent my infantry and armour forward under a smokescreen over one of the bridges. I had miscalculated (again!) as there were a few enemy infantry in the vicinity of the N/S Queensferry Bridge. I thought they were suppressed/destroyed/surrendered, and I had sent a Warrior to finish them off, but I gave it Hunt orders and it stayed where it was. A brief firefight took 2 of my 3 man scout team down. The Syrians were neutralised, but it felt an unnecessary loss. Some of my engineers were speeding to the other bridge to cross and flank. I was laying down immense amounts of small arms and MG fire on all known enemy positions. The final assault on South Queensferry - armour, infantry and engineers attacking under covering fire. The Challenger has run out of ammo and is parked in a safeish position. Time was running out. I was – typically – less careful about moving forward and took some more casualties, which were unnecessary. Most of the enemy troops were forced to abandon their positions and as they crossed the open streets, were gunned down in a deadly crossfire, from smallarms and vehicle MGs, and Chaingun/50 cal from Challengers a long way off. Another digression – I've become inordinately fond of the L94A1 Chain Gun and often use it in preference to other weapons. It saves the too few, and valuable, HESH or HE rounds for when you really need them. Results Screen I achieved a total victory: 30 British casualties to 410 Syrian, knocked out all but two tanks for the loss of none. I lost a few Warriors and 432s. Nevertheless some of my lads should not have copped it. I'm arranging to court martial myself. Oh wait, I'm a general. That will never happen. Queenie's going to pin another medal on me. Amusing moment of the game: Road Traffic Accident – one of my 432s rearended a Warrior on the bridge, entirely due to my inept vehicle handling. You can see it in the image above. Classic. I hope I don't get a ticket. Music I think appropriate music really heightens the enjoyment of a video game. Usually I find the in-game music track palls, however good it is. So I turn it off and have YouTube open in my browser. So I can do a quick search and find something that is atmospheric and feels right for the moment, then save it as a playlist. I have game music on my computer, like the Doom era soundtrack of pumping metal, which can work, but YouTube is more convenient and you can just search again and use something different if it doesn't feel right. For example, for fantasy games, Lord of the Rings soundtrack works brilliantly, but feels completely wrong if I am playing Shogun 2. There's lots of westernised Japanese samurai movie and anime soundtracks which really juice that game up. For this CM scenario I was playing various heroic tracks, and I also interspersed this with Scottish martial bagpipe music. My boys love it! I have also been known to play Ride of the Valkyries when the attack helos go in... Conclusion I enjoyed this game a lot. However the British side has a considerable advantage, in technology, military competence and arty/air support. (SPOILER) The armoured counterattack could be deadly if the T72s ganged up on the Challys – which are already zoned in by Syrian troops. But the AI can't do that, and just drove around aimlessly, getting shot. I could have improved with better fire discipline: I wasted a lot of rounds that I should have saved for later, running out of ammo at the last stages of the game. I thought Challenger 2s had 52 rounds but the game only has 48. Could really do with those four shells. In longer games, keeping track of ammo is very important. I blasted away with the 81 mm when more careful use would have kept some in reserve. Use more “Target Briefly” rather than using T and hitting a target with area fire for the full minute. I've been doing TB for 30 or 45 seconds so I don't shoot up something ( and forget about it) for several turns, and run short of MG ammo in a Chally (which I did!). Finally, if there's anybody who's good with sound, perhaps contact GeorgeMC and Mord to upgrade the Cuss Mod. It might be something simple like needing reformatting? It's a mod I would like to see operational again. I could listen to it fine in my media player so there's nothing damaged.
  5. 7 points
    Tank gunners aim center mass because that is the only practical option. Aiming for specific parts of the tank is some gamey **** straight out of some arcade tank "sim" game like War Thunder, where distances are compressed hilariously and engagement ranges are consequently stupidly short. This is a modern thermal gunsight. That object at 0:12 that gets shot at? That's a T-55, skylined, in the open, on a hill, under 12x magnification. Good luck finding let alone hitting comparatively tiny "weak spots" when the reticle is the same size as the entire damn target, with your WW2 daylight optics and fire control methods amounting to "estimate the range and then adjust by observing fall of shot".
  6. 7 points
    Lucky_Strike

    Tank Gun Damage

    Here are some original statistics from Lukas Friedli's excellent volumes Repairing the Panzers (my bold): Volume 1 pp190-191 a section on Losses of s.Pz.Abt 503 makes for interesting reading. A 10 October 1943 report for the period 5 July 1943 - 21 September 1943 showed 18 total losses of Tiger I, with 240 Tigers in and out of the Werkstatt (ie recovered or broken down vehicles). Damages/Repairs listed included: 142 technical failures (engine burn outs etc); 227 damages due to shelling (incl 35 turret damages, 19 caused by mines and 2 friendly fire by a StuG, the rest hull damages); 52 weapons damages (6 turret jammed due to PaK hits, 3 turret jammed due to HE hits, 10 KwK 36 inoperative due to PaK hits, 2 mantlets inoperative due to 7.62cm PaK hits, 1 commander's cupola newly adjusted, 12 commander's cupola exchanged, 4 optics inoperative due to shelling, 5 optics inoperative due to normal use, 7 ball mounts due to PaK hits, 2 by friendly fire from a StuG). If anything this example shows that damage to the main gun by the enemy was more common than, for example, damage to the optics and mantlet, in this report almost 20% of damages to weapons are to the main gun itself. And what was that StuG up to!! Another report, this time in Volume 2 pp60-61, from s.Pz.Abt 506 on 1 January 1944 covering repairs carried out from 20 September 1943 - 31 December 1943 shows Weapon damage: (where the turret needed to be lifted for 40 Tigers in total) 6 gun barrel replaced caused by enemy, 3 mantlet replaced caused by enemy, 2 turret replaced caused by enemy, 1 muzzle brake replaced caused by enemy, 6 elevating gear repairs caused by technical issues, 3 traverse gear repairs caused by technical issues, 12 cupola repairs caused by enemy, 3 visor repairs caused by enemy, 2 visor repairs caused by technical issues, 7 ammo racks replaced caused by technical issues, 6 ammo racks replaced caused by enemy, 12 hydraulic drive fluid renewals caused by technical issues, 5 hydraulic drive control repairs caused by technical issues, 9 MG mounts repairs caused by enemy, 4 hatch lid repairs caused by enemy, 4 firing mechanisms replaced caused by technical issues, 2 recoil brake repairs caused by technical issues, 27 turret traverse mechanism repairs and checks caused by technical issues. An experience report by the commander of the same unit dated 30 September 1943 for action over seven days and nights from 20 - 26 September stated that: "6 Tigers were lost from direct hits" (unrecoverable) and "8 guns and 4 gun mantlets were damaged by hits, 3 of them heavily" whilst other damage included "the intercom system failed on17 Tigers due to vibration caused by shelling" (I assume from their own main gun!). Again these examples show that main gun damage was quite common and enough to at least require a visit to the Werkstatt. The PanzerWrecks series of books does feature a few images of damage to main weapons which appear to have occurred from frontal hits ie chunks taken out of muzzle brakes and glancing blows along barrels. Great source for all you damage nerds out there. LS
  7. 6 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    7. "Fulda Gap": 1970-90 Europe WWIII
  8. 6 points
    This test is flawed. If you leave your tank either out in the open or in a hulldown position after it has been spotted to just keep getting shot at, of course it is eventually going to take damage/be destroyed. And the turret being more vulnerable than the hull is a product of real life. BFC did not make the hull armor on the panther thicker than the turret, the actual Germans did. In the modern titles tanks tend to have turret armor that is better than the hull, because that is how most modern battle tanks are designed. No one, and I mean no one, in a competent military is taught to stay in one place after the shooting has started, regardless of return fire. BP engagements are mobile. Tanks will come up to the hulldown position, fire a round or two, and then reverse back into cover. Rinse and repeat. Tank fighting positions are specifically designed for this. They have a built in platform to allow the tanks to reverse into cover. This principle is so fundamental that they teach engineers who drive the bulldozers who dig the fighting positions how to do this during the intro course. If you could put an M1A2 Abrams in a hulldown position and let any WWII AT vehicle fire at it indefinitely, it would likely kill the Abrams. Law of averages wins in the end. Hell, there are real world examples of this principle too. Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were dug in but did not move at all, nor were their fighting positions designed to allow them to move. They were supposed to stay in place, and they died very quickly, despite being in hulldown positions, because they just sat there. There are plenty of AARs on this forum, some even by myself, that show hulldown being effective. But I won't belabor this post with anecdotal evidence. Point is, it doesn't matter what tank/vehicle/asset you have. If you leave it in place and expect it to survive everything thrown at it, you're going to have a bad day. @Pete Wenman's test concurs what I and others I play CM with/against see all the time in game. I guess the moral of the story is, if you perceive hulldown to be bad, then stay in the open. Edit: Ninja'd by @Rinaldi
  9. 6 points
    The point of hull down is that it forms a battle position. Its only one part of the formula of breaking an enemy targeting solution. The other one is time. Why should we take anything away from a 'test' that doesn't mimic a battlefield condition where a competent player repositions a tank in BP frequently? I also enjoy the casual ignoring of @Pete Wenman's results. It's okay Pete, the reasonable people see you.
  10. 6 points
    Because I'm bored, I've played around with this. My set up Two Panthers firing under AI control Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top. Range just over 1500m I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results. Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target, AP Shells fired to destroy target Try OG HD 1 3 6 2 5 9 3 3 14 4 2 6 5 4 8 So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks. That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground. Works for me, but you mileage may vary P
  11. 5 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    3. Afrika Korps: 1940-43 WWII North Africa Operation Torch, American North Africa Invasion Libya, Egypt, and Tunis 1942-43
  12. 5 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    2. Barbarossa: 1941-43 WWII Eastern Front Can Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin data be used as sort of an upgrade? Invasion of Yugoslavia Operation Typhoon Case Blue Blau to Stalingrad Warsaw to Moscow (also Finland)
  13. 5 points
    Freyberg

    Battlefront Poll

    I'm still buzzing over CMRV. I would never have named Indian, South African and Free French forces as additions I would love to see, but I've been enjoying them immensely since the game came out. What would I like BF to do next? Surprise me - I'm certain to love it Edit: Also, I know as a community we've been over this ground time and time again, but -- we know BF is a small company, they work for months and years bringing out these amazing, detailed, realistic historical simulations, recently we've had SF2 and RV, which were both fantastic and took huge amounts of work, but almost as soon as a release comes out, members of the community start griping that it isn't enough and that they've been waiting too long for some other detailed and amazing theatre. I just wish there were a bit more positivity in the community - we're all grown ups, aren't we? We realise that hard work is actually hard work...?
  14. 5 points
    RobZ

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue. If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along. The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull. @Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there. For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass. I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
  15. 5 points
    Not much I think I can add on top of the last few posts. We know that CM aims for centre mass and we know that's both realistic and infinitely easier to code than using a thousand variables to calculate exactly where the gunner should aim. We know that for some German tanks, presenting a hull-down target means the centre of mass is shifted from the effective armour of the hull front plate up to the less effective armour of the turret mantlet and the vulnerable muzzle/gun barrel. I think the question has gotten to be: how does the player manage that? In one corner we have "expect to get hit, get into the open so centre mass is the better protected hull front"; and in the other corner we have "don't risk getting hit at all, play pop-up from a hull-down position". There's an argument for both, but I know which point of view I would rather my opponent held. Two things I'd add would be: Testing is good, but unless it includes ingame behaviour then it's of limited use (and if you fight from a static exposed position with the pause command overriding the (reasonably sensible) TacAI then I'd love to play you). Ideally what we would need are examples from actual games under ingame conditions when players are trying to win. And finally: no one complains about this happening to Shermans. There are elements of this discussion that feel a lot like "Invincible Panzer Syndrome" vs reality. Heavy armour doesn't exclude any tank from basic tactical principles- it's insurance against the worst case possibility.
  16. 5 points
    c3k

    Invisible tank destroyed

    Not that it helps, but there is a spotted icon for the tank you label as "invisible". So, if you've selected the Panther, that front tank is KNOWN to the Panther, it just doesn't have enough information to solidly ID it. (CMBO had generic tanks that would be used for this type of thing: you'd see a blocky tank instead of a missing tank with an icon.) As well, the way LOS works with foliage is a bit spotty. There's some fuzzy LOS to take into account breezes and openings. So, with foliage, what you see (on your screen) is NOT what you get (with LOS calculations). It is frustrating, but like many aspects of any game, without that simplification there would be too much of a burden to let the game be playable. Not excusing it, just explaining it. A final note: LOS uses spotting cycles. At certain intervals (with some random elements and with weight given to optics, field of view, experience, suppression, etc.), and ONLY at that moment, does a unit check for LOS. An interval of 8-15 seconds "feels" about right from my experience with the game. Meaning, if that Panther waited longer, it may eventually get a solid LOS to the tank marked with the spotting icon. (All the above is based on "Iron" difficulty. It is the only level I use. It allows the player to know what each selected unit sees and knows about. I find Iron is much more conducive to good Situational Awareness than the other difficulty levels.)
  17. 5 points
    37mm

    RT Unofficial Screenshot Thread

    Getting ready for 'Fire & Rubble'...
  18. 5 points
    sttp

    Battlefront Poll

    The CMx2 engine is thirteen years old, and it shows. So I say let's drop the demands for new theaters and new features and instead urge and allow them to focus on an entirely new game engine, CMx3.
  19. 4 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    5. Arab-Israeli Wars: 1948–49, 56, 67, 73, 82, and 2006 Israeli War of Independence, 1948-49 Suez Crisis, 1956 Six Day War, 1967 Yom Kippur War, 1973 Lebanon Wars, 1982 & 2006
  20. 4 points
    If anyone of the brilliant modders has anytime to help me out, it would be much appreciated. I'm building a campaign Rollbahn D. I've six battles designed and tested atm. The plan is to take it thru at least to Targnon, maybe thru to the 24th. Leaving Lanzerath -Fallshirmjagers Minen the Gap -Spitze / Losheim Breakthrough -Bucholz/Honsfeld -Fallshrimjager+ Bull-in-gen China Shop -Spitze+ Butchers of Baugnez -Thirimont/Baugnez/Ligneuville -Spitze+ Stormin Stavelot One of my issues is around RoadSigns, would love to have accurate signs for roads / restaurants / hotels / Stavelot Cinema for added realism. If anyone with the tech ability could spare the time?
  21. 4 points
    Really the big trick Battlefront is missing is that these games are packed with detail but essentially none of it is explained. If the game explained why something happened or changed it'd go a long way to improving player interaction because right now you practically need your own military library to get much depth out of the series. And while I'm okay spending $80 for Bloody Streets most people aren't so the fact that the game is detailed doesn't really matter. There are a ton of little factors but to engage it in the broadest terms the farther back you go in time the less deadly being spotted is. Essentially combat is a SEE -> SHOOT -> KILL loop but the efficiency of that loop changes. Black Sea to Shock Force sees a reduction in that efficiency. Shock Force to the WW2 games sees a reduction. '44/'45 to '41/'42 sees a reduction. To put it in the simplest in 1941 fighting is quaint. You've got nearly all bolt-actions, the scary 37mm gun, what is a shaped charge? jump ahead to '45 and its MORE DAKKA. More automatics, more semi-autos, more shaped charges, larger caliber guns , etc....
  22. 4 points
    Looks suspiciously like Bob Newhart.
  23. 4 points
    Ithikial_AU

    is this the hedgrow bug v4????

    More details about the the fix and my personal experiences playing with the TacAI changes in an urban battle can be found in my post last month over in the Fire and Rubble DAR thread. (25th of June) Just in case there are any people here that aren't as interested in the Ost front and may not have seen it. But yes, +1 to Cpt. Miller's post. It's looking good people.
  24. 4 points
    RobZ

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    Test results Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid. 20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune. Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks The map. Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them). Panthers perspective. Results: Panther in hull down position: 4/20 times success; 20% win rate failures: 12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed. Panther on open ground: 11/20 times success; 55% win rate 1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed failures: 4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount. 1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios: The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.
  25. 4 points
    If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull. So yes the game is not perfect. But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards, playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter. In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game. So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why. Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes. But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is. If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations.
  26. 3 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    11. New Modules more battlepacks for existing titles New Countries for Barbarossa (Bulgaria Hungary Romania Yugoslavia Partisans). Additional modules for Red Thunder Additional modules for CMSF2: Modern Day Syria, Turkey, Iraq CMBS Marines (from both sides) Commonwealth forces and expansion into VE Day for Final Blitzkrieg
  27. 3 points
    Probus

    Battlefront Poll Updated

    10. Enhanced Modding Support add units equipment functionality ingame OOB editor
  28. 3 points
    @semmes One of the problems we run into when playing these games is the tendency to over commit to a battle and suffer far too many losses than a unit would typically take before withdrawing. However, there were certain situations during the war where units were decimated to levels similar to CM levels and it is interesting to take a look at those battles and compare. Every fall my small town of 2000 people hangs pictures off the light posts of the men and women from our community who served in the Canadian Army and have now passed on. I took my kids for a walk and while looking at their faces, saw one young man who was killed in action on July 21st, 1944. I decided to research him and see what unit he was in and where he died. His unit was the Essex Scottish, and the battle he died in was the Battle of Verrieres Ridge, just outside of Caen. I did a little further digging and found the war diary for his unit. On the day he was killed, the Essex Scottish and the South Saskatchewan Regiment both attempted an attack over the same ground, failed and then were counterattacked. The South Saskatchewan Regiment went in first and the Essex backed them up. The Essex's ended up bearing the brunt of the counterattack and suffered severe losses. In 1944, a typical Canadian Regiment was comprised of 36 officers and 809 other ranks, with the rifle companies having 5 officers and 122 other ranks. It was standard practice in the Canadian army to have several officers left out of battle in case the regiment suffered severe losses, they could be rebuilt quickly with an experienced core. So for simplicity sake, taking out those officers, any previous casualties, and the men not at the actual tip of the spear, lets assume both Battalions had 25 officers and 700 other ranks in active combat on July 21st. According to the Essex Scottish war diary, on July 22, there were 14 officers and 287 other ranks not present for roll call. Of those losses, 3 officers were KIA, 8 WIA with 3 MIA. The other ranks suffered 17 KIA, 140 WIA and 130 MIA. The South Saskatchewan war diary does not break up their losses as neatly, 13 officers and 209 other ranks were not present for their roll call on July 22. What this shows is that in hard, brutal fighting, the kind of fighting CM tries to simulate, losses of roughly 50%+ for officers and 30%+ for the other ranks was very much real. If we can make the assumption the NCO's would suffer a similar loss rate as the Officers do, it shouldn't be a stretch to say the losses you are seeing in game represent losses suffered in real life.
  29. 3 points
    Lethaface

    Fire and Rubble Update

    Your not asking for a release date, but at the same time you are talking about the unreliability of release dates. I think Elvis just spoke his mind for a bit. You seem a little agitated. Chill out, it's only a computer game.
  30. 3 points
    Holdit

    Battlefront Poll

    There's a difference, though, between the engine and the data - or maybe there isn't with CM, but in theory at least, giving someone the ability to add data e.g. weight, speed, calibre, ,muzzle velocity, rate of fire for a given vehicle, gun or small arm isn't the same as letting them muck about with how the engine crunches that data. That, of course, should be BF's and BF's alone to mess with. In addition, BF could act as gatekeeper for new additions, the data for much of which is already known, so they could do things like make sure nobody is trying to sneak a 90mm gun onto a Matilda.
  31. 3 points
    MikeyD

    Battlefront Poll

    CM philosophy is more 'historical tactical sim' than 'game' and a lot of effort goes into getting the physics, ballistics, force structure and equipment availability right. Opening up game data to be monkeyed with defeats the whole purpose. If CM were ever to produce that 'Space Lobsters' fantasy game they've joke about opening up game data wouldn't be an issue. Whose going to argue about the proper rate of fire of a Martian space blaster?
  32. 3 points
    Erwin

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    Completely different challenges with weaker German armor having to use new tactics to deal with the (on paper) stronger and better French and Russian armor. We currently have many different WW2 versions of CM2 but they are all late war and all feature essentially the same equipment (and usually similar tactics). I don't know if you played CM1, but those of us who did, greatly enjoyed being able to play early war scenarios where new equipment was still being tested where one hit did not always mean a kill.
  33. 3 points
    Lucky_Strike

    Tank Gun Damage

    No problem, very interesting threads. Yes, here's a few examples from Schneider's Tigers in Combat III which I have at hand. One taking off the muzzle brake, a penetration along the length, and a glancing blow into the the shroud. The last is the result of firing a damaged gun! Yikes! I guess the take away is that the game can't really depict what the damage actually might look like. Do not attempt this at home kids!
  34. 3 points
    With 30 odd minutes on the clock it looks like Elvis is making his move. Update soon. It's kind of lucky the fighting was ramping up again, the pixeltruppen were starting to contemplate the war...
  35. 3 points
    I think Saint_Fuller’s post shows a major problem in this thread, which is certain people just refusing to give due consideration to @Bulletpoint and @RobZ’s arguments. The strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the game results in bad counter arguments that don’t address actual points made.
  36. 3 points
    Heirloom_Tomato

    British Campaign?

    I am still working on this and the updated missions are being play tested. I have a few missions left to update but progress is being made. I will admit this campaign is taking a backseat to my gardening work, I have a large family and with all the fun from Corona, I want to make sure I can keep them all fed.
  37. 3 points
    RobZ

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    You might be able to accept that the game has flaws, but some others here can't. Some people seem to defend the game to their grave and that you should just play differently or just "not get hit" in a war game. As you also point out that you want to end up on the enemy flank, that's fair cus that's the best case scenario. But not every game, plan or every unit composition is perfect so you will have scenarios where you can't do what you ideally want to, and this is where the game mechanics can play a huge part in the result.
  38. 3 points
    Aragorn2002

    Fire and Rubble Update

    I'm sure the community would appreciate an update on the current status of Fire and Rubble. Can we expect a release in the autumn?
  39. 3 points
    The bug has been patched and fix. The patches are being tested now to ensure nothing else is broken. As one of the original people who pointed out the 4.0 HE bug (anyone remember the video?) I know that it can be frustrating waiting for a patch. But, I also know that the bug is 100% fixed, having played the patch that addresses the issues. The bug is squashed, and the patch is coming.
  40. 2 points
    Hello, everybody, I am new here, and study sins 10 years WWII in my birthplace, Asten - Meijel. Specially the German counterattack on 27 Oct. 1944. Meijel. I saw , Heinrich505 hase made ( created ) the story, of the three days battle...... I am surprised, that he as an American, is so well informed , about the situation, of the battle area, where I am grown up. I am now 77. I want to ask weather Heinrich505 wants to work with me together, to work out the REAL battle in detail ? For his games ? I worked out, American after action reports, from Most of the American and German tanks, I found the crew and their actions . Thanks of the letters and drawings of Sam Sharp. And Horst Troger. ( German.) Also Charles Barry inf. 48AIB and more. I wait for answer. Regards, Gerard Jeuken from Holland.
  41. 2 points
    Combatintman

    The CM2 FAQ Thread

    People were just trying to help ... Assumptions are always dangerous which is possibly why you are confused but surprisingly you now want to make two without censure.
  42. 2 points
    Erwin

    Battlefront Poll

    +1 Game software development is very hard - especially the AI part. In addition, while it is wonderful that BF have a govt contract earning them well-deserved extra cash, my experience with the govt is that there are always time-consuming "mission creep/extra requirements" that the govt often expect you to do (often for no extra money). That raises a concern that BF CM2 development for the commercial market (ie us) may be slowed even more. Another issue is that if the govt work is lucrative it will be very hard to not have that become the primary work of BF, regardless of what their stated intentions may be. Been there, done that. Money is very tempting.
  43. 2 points
    The working link is on page 3 since he couldn't edit the OP later on. It's here
  44. 2 points
    com-intern

    Battlefront Poll

    I dunno. Most players are playing CM single player. So I don't see the harm - who cares if you mode in lobsters. Really though I would love to see the AI and animations opened up to modding as we could see real gains there in the quality of the sim. The animation mod gives you a taste of the improvements we could see.
  45. 2 points
    Bulletpoint

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    If I played real-time mode, that's what I would do. But I play in turn based mode, so I have to find a balance between the chance to spot and hit the enemy tank and my own tank's survivability. For Shermans, that means hull down - for Panthers, it means hull up. At least that's my take on it.
  46. 2 points
    Given QB and scenario design you are often straight-jacketed into certain positions. Yes in reality you might have more room to maneuver and more time but there have been more than a few scenarios where the alternate positions are a stones throw away from the current position. I think that would be obvious. Shermans rarely if ever have hull superiority whereas there are regularly situations where the German player will have access to tanks that can shrug off rounds. @RobZ winrate test should make it obvious why you might want to do that. ~~~~~~~ Principally from a player perspective none of this is a MUST. However, it is something to be aware of when playing the game. Its a tool you can use to your advantage. Does that mean you drive your tanks around in the open constantly? No. What sort of idiot would do that? But you should be aware of the stats and be aware that it can be advantageous to fight from the open. ~~~~~~~~ Warthunder does have maps where you engage targets 2.000+ meters with WW2 era vehicles and none of the arcade hit displays. But principally you are talking about the arcade mode and the smaller maps. On the larger maps in the more realism oriented modes what I see more often than specific "gamer science shots" is players bracketing targets for a hit. HITTING and then repeatedly firing wherever they initially hit. Depending on the situation that often means that you have repeated hits off the center of mass because that happens to be where the first round landed. ~~~~~~~ Overall though I don't get why some of y'all are talking as if folks want some uber pinpoint shooting on the part of the gunners?
  47. 2 points
    RobZ

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    This is exactly my point dude. The game should FIX it, not rely on its players to not "cheese" the game mechanics. You just admitted that this is an issue than can be cheesed and is "gamey" which is the exact reason I'm making this post at all. The game has to fix it, not the people playing it.
  48. 2 points
    Bulletpoint

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    Good explanation. Also, the tank sights might not be perfectly calibrated, so even if you did manage to line up the sight at exact centre mass, you might still be a bit off. I think this would also depend on the distance to the target.
  49. 2 points
    Bulletpoint

    Issues with tank targeting accuracy

    Just for the record, I'm fine with the game not being perfect. I'm just trying to help it improve. When I report bugs and discuss various issues, it is not an insult or attack on the developers or anyone on this forum. I'm happy to be proven wrong - when I am in fact wrong - but it needs to be based on actual arguments, not just assuming I don't know how to play the game.
  50. 2 points
    Thomm

    Battlefront Poll

    Not following this thread lately. Did 'Fulda Gap' win already? Best regards Thomm
×
×
  • Create New...