Claymore

Question: Regarding the standoff problems that may/may not exist with the Ka52M + LMUR. Does Brimstone have an anti-helicopter capability? Ground launched it would seem to have the range and it's "wack anything in this area" millimeter radar FAF targeting mode might be of some use. As a prerequisite, you'd need the intel to identify an Alligator at bearing/distance, but the optics provided on the Brads (and others) might do that.

Not quite sure what to say about this.....

I've been trying to get into the Tanknet forums for the last 2 weeks but unfortunately they appear down. A login screen appears and all my attempts to login go for naught. Anyone know what's going on? I know it's a bit of a cross-post from the General Topics Forum but I've received no replies there. I wanted to get some ask some questions at TankNet about the ETO. Cheers MRD

46 or so views and nobody's got an answer....Beuller....Beuller...

I've been trying to get into the Tanknet forums for the last week but unfortunately they appear down. A login screen appears and all my attempts to login go for naught. Anyone know what's going on?

The first thing I'd like to do is thank Battlefront for their effort at bringing us this new game. According to Battlefront, and it looks true, every bullet and shell is tracked exactly through space to its eventual destination. That destination is no longer the CMx1 abstracted group of troopers but an exact representation of every soldier, nut, and sprocket. This exact modelling was the predominant reason the the CMx2 build was carried out. I'm enjoying the game, and isn't that the test for a successful game? At least at the beginning, before the niggling details move from distractions to frustrations. That's the big thing to avoid. Frustration. I think it is arguable that games (or any product really) who fail do so because of they caused some kind of frustration. In its most extreme, the worst case would be a non functioning product which would cause the most frustration of all. Very good products can however be extremely frustrating and that's what CMx2 has been for me. Very good and very frustrating. I'd be curious to know from Battlefront what was more successful? CMx1 or CMSF? At least from my observations from long distance, CMx1 had a much more enthusiastic following than CMSF. At this point in my gameplay I believe that Battlefront can be rightly proud that they have created an immersive environment for grogs. The current CMx2 CMBN engine applied to the WWII time-frame where the weapons platforms were much less lethal and one-shot kills were not the rule looks like an excellent beginning. I enjoy tracking individuals through the battlescape (ha! tube-guy!) which gives an almost roleplaying experience in some cases. We did that in CMx1 after all when we examined each unit at the end of combat to see who scored the most kills. In fact, the CMBN pre-release chatter requested that Battlefront include the same information CMx1 presented (kills, hit locations). The only place I don't see kill information presented right now is for off-board artillery (or am I wrong). I hope that some of the criticisms that will follow can be addressed in patches, but I believe that most will be impossible to address and will rely upon yet another engine re-write. Unfortunately I think that the ultimate CMBN build, when reached, will still contain a higher level of frustration with the mechanics than I would wish. I hope that Battlefront proves me wrong. I guess most of my disappointment comes from the inability of the player to use the CMx2 as its rules implicitly are devised. Remember, since the projectile tracking is a completely faithful model of the real world environment it is axiomatic that unit position and facing are also needed to be precisely defined. That last point is the crux of the entire CMx2 raison d'etre. An engine that's entire premise for existence is built on modelling a projectile's exact trajectory information. Unfortunately though, the player cannot position his pieces in anything that resembles a similar level of precision. For armour v armour battles this is not entirely unsatisfactory. After all some level of imprecision is expected when commanding a vehicle to "go over there and stop". So for vehicle vs. vehicle battles the CMx2 engine works quite well and its limitations seem to be acceptable. I imagine that any quirky behaviour can likely be tempered in patches. Now however insert troopers into the battlescape. Whether you consider infantry vs infantry or infantry vs armour, the inability to locate units is an extremely frustrating element of gameplay. After all the reality of infantry warfare was that units were positioned to take best advantage of precise fields of fire. However, it is impossible to locate crew service weapons in anything approaching realism or even acceptable. For example, it is nigh impossible to "keyhole" units (AT guns, HMGs, etc...). You drop a ATG on an action square and the CMx2 engine defines exactly where it's going to be within that 8x8 square. A lot of very important things can happen in an 8x8 square. If you're at one side, maybe that opening in the bocage is within LOS, while if you're where the CMx2 engine forces you, you cannot. CMx1 with all of its abstractions had much better placement abilities. In the Bocage scenario I've been completely frustrated by being unable to place my MGs and AT guns properly. I can't emplace just over the reverse slope of a crest or at a particular break in the bocage during the setup phase. I'm frustrated in the extreme. Frustrated almost to the point of not wanting to play with infantry at all. Can we "nudge" the positions in the EDITOR? Can we nudge them in the SETUP? I don't know since the EDITOR doesn't include UNITS for experimenting with placements. So that's my first impressions after playing the DEMO. Maybe these same sentiments about the engine's limitations have been voiced earlier during CMSF. If so, how did Battlefront respond? I realize that shrinking the action square dimensions will balloon the required processor cycles, but hopefully something can be done to ameliorate the situation. Cheers all.

The first thing I'd like to do is thank Battlefront for their effort at bringing us this new game. According to Battlefront, and it looks true, every bullet and shell is tracked exactly through space to its eventual destination. That destination is no longer the CMx1 abstracted group of troopers but an exact representation of every soldier, nut, and sprocket. This exact modelling was the predominant reason the the CMx2 build was carried out. I'm enjoying the game, and isn't that the test for a successful game? At least at the beginning, before the niggling details move from distractions to frustrations. That's the big thing to avoid. Frustration. I think it is arguable that games (or any product really) who fail do so because of they caused some kind of frustration. In its most extreme, the worst case would be a non functioning product which would cause the most frustration of all. Very good products can however be extremely frustrating and that's what CMx2 has been for me. Very good and very frustrating. I'd be curious to know from Battlefront what was more successful? CMx1 or CMSF? At least from my observations from long distance, CMx1 had a much more enthusiastic following than CMSF. At this point in my gameplay I believe that Battlefront can be rightly proud that they have created an immersive environment for grogs. The current CMx2 CMBN engine applied to the WWII time-frame where the weapons platforms were much less lethal and one-shot kills were not the rule looks like an excellent beginning. I enjoy tracking individuals through the battlescape (ha! tube-guy!) which gives an almost roleplaying experience in some cases. We did that in CMx1 after all when we examined each unit at the end of combat to see who scored the most kills. In fact, the CMBN pre-release chatter requested that Battlefront include the same information CMx1 presented (kills, hit locations). The only place I don't see kill information presented right now is for off-board artillery (or am I wrong). I hope that some of the criticisms that will follow can be addressed in patches, but I believe that most will be impossible to address and will rely upon yet another engine re-write. Unfortunately I think that the ultimate CMBN build, when reached, will still contain a higher level of frustration with the mechanics than I would wish. I hope that Battlefront proves me wrong. I guess most of my disappointment comes from the inability of the player to use the CMx2 as its rules implicitly are devised. Remember, since the projectile tracking is a completely faithful model of the real world environment it is axiomatic that unit position and facing are also needed to be precisely defined. That last point is the crux of the entire CMx2 raison d'etre. An engine that's entire premise for existence is built on modelling a projectile's exact trajectory information. Unfortunately though, the player cannot position his pieces in anything that resembles a similar level of precision. For armour v armour battles this is not entirely unsatisfactory. After all some level of imprecision is expected when commanding a vehicle to "go over there and stop". So for vehicle vs. vehicle battles the CMx2 engine works quite well and its limitations seem to be acceptable. I imagine that any quirky behaviour can likely be tempered in patches. Now however insert troopers into the battlescape. Whether you consider infantry vs infantry or infantry vs armour, the inability to locate units is an extremely frustrating element of gameplay. After all the reality of infantry warfare was that units were positioned to take best advantage of precise fields of fire. However, it is impossible to locate crew service weapons in anything approaching realism or even acceptable. For example, it is nigh impossible to "keyhole" units (AT guns, HMGs, etc...). You drop a ATG on an action square and the CMx2 engine defines exactly where it's going to be within that 8x8 square. A lot of very important things can happen in an 8x8 square. If you're at one side, maybe that opening in the bocage is within LOS, while if you're where the CMx2 engine forces you, you cannot. CMx1 with all of its abstractions had much better placement abilities. In the Bocage scenario I've been completely frustrated by being unable to place my MGs and AT guns properly. I can't emplace just over the reverse slope of a crest or at a particular break in the bocage during the setup phase. I'm frustrated in the extreme. Frustrated almost to the point of not wanting to play with infantry at all. Can we "nudge" the positions in the EDITOR? Can we nudge them in the SETUP? I don't know since the EDITOR doesn't include UNITS for experimenting with placements. So that's my first impressions after playing the DEMO. Maybe these same sentiments about the engine's limitations have been voiced earlier during CMSF. If so, how did Battlefront respond? I realize that shrinking the action square dimensions will balloon the required processor cycles, but hopefully something can be done to ameliorate the situation. Cheers all.

Ok. But how do I get an arbitrary angle facing on the trench (again thinking of trench setups in CMx1). I note that in the Bocage tutorial there are trenches at what looks like 45 deg angles over on the far right. Shouldn't I be able to orient a trench at any desired arbitrary angle?

Just a quick question:How do I change the facing of trenches during the setup phase? (Bocage Tutuorial) I can move them with the (N) command, but no rotation (a la the old (O) command from CMx1)

How do I change the facing of trenches during the setup phase? I can move them with the (N) command, but no rotation (a la the old (O) command from CMx1)

ObersturmHamsterführer Rosenfeld was also in the game Unfortunately no Puma's in CMBN Sidenote: These images took some real effort. First I had to dig out my old laptop (c. 1999 Gateway Solo) and jimmy up a new power supply. After finally getting the old girl to boot up Win98 in lovely 800x600 goodness, she just refused to see any type of mouse or pointer. Finally after solving all those issues the screenshots had to be taken via an external camera. Cheers MRD

Do we use tanks? Well let me tell ya fella this ain't no hamster wheel I'm sitting on! This is 30 tons of Sturmbannhamsterfuher kick'n goodness Cheers MRD

Bump...before it slides into the nether reaches of 4th page oblivion

An anecdote... On to Victory: The Canadian Liberation of the Netherlands “Acting Sergeant Ardagh Cadieu was killed when he accidentally tripped a wire connected to a booby-trapped Panzerfaust" Cheers MRD

The directed portion of the blast is the collapsing wavefront that "squeezes" the liner material into a hypersonic jet. The off-axis explosion is no different to a nearby observer than if a cylindrical charge was detonated.

Thanks for the reply Steve. I am not demanding anything, just starting a conversation. How about my questions regarding blast damages and grenades?

Although entirely against historical records, I must admit that I played almost all my CMBO games using the Hamstertruppen mods. There's no feeling like watching my crack hordes driving my enemies before me. This aches for a screenshot....I'll go searching and be right back....

Cheers lads. I think I definitely qualify as a lurker...maybe I'll even get the "stalker" merit badge since I've lusted for a CMx1 re-write for so long. Posting history: Last CMx1 post, Oct/2004 Posted maybe twice in 2007 after CMSF came out. It just didn't have any hook for me. Now with the imminent arrival of CMBN I've been doing my best to reawaken the Deep Old Ones from their slumber. Unfortunately in those long years between CMx1 and CMBN the place seems to have been taken over by a bunch of light weights. Cheers MRD

Bil, You did a great job with the AARsl. No worries. Mucho gratias. "Stuttering turret" referred to Peregrin's earlier comment regarding CMx1 dynamics. Since we have not seen CMx2 I can't speak to what happens with the new engine but it's very heartening to hear that in your game there was no "stuttering turret" observed. I believe I have a reference somewhere around that stated that the "average" engagement distance in ETO was about 750 yards (tank v tank / tank v gun) and a little less for the Normandy campaign. At these ranges the necessity for the firing tank or gun to have some kind of memory is I think a valid argument. If you look at some engagements (e.g. Goodwood) then an array of guns/tanks required some number of initial rounds to "find the range" and then had consumption rates at nearly 1 round/hit on any targets in the nearby vicinity. Can you give any insight if the "chance to hit" clock was being reset whenever a gun loses LOS to a target, however momentarily that might be? Cheers MRD

A few anecdotes... More Than Courage: Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rhineland, Ardennes-Alsace “The German Panzerfaust was a tremendously more potent weapon than the U.S. bazooka and consequently had become almost a standard item of issue in the regiment. Men were regularly trained in its use, with the result it had become a valued assault weapon.” History of the 517th Regimental Parachute Combat Team “The 325th jumped off that morning all right and as they moved forward we saw many of them carrying the German Panzerfaust” All American, All the Way: A combat history of the 82nd Airborne “While receiving replacements and being re-equipped and reorganized the division concentrated on training in combined tank-infantry tactics and the use of the German Panzerfaust” The Battalion: the dramatic story of the 2nd Ranger Battalion “ On July 19th the 15th Cavalry Reconnaissance Group relieved the Rangers and battalion training was resumed. Lt. Page was demonstrating to the troops how to load and fire a German shoulder-fired recoilless rocket launcher called a Panzerfaust, when the weapon exploded in Page’s hands, killing him instantly.” D-Day: The Invasion of Normandy “Colonel James Gavin, commander of the 505th Parachute Infantry, compared the two weapons while in Sicily in 1943: As for the 82nd Airborne Division it did not get adequate anti-tank weapons until it began to capture the first German Panzerfausts. By the fall of 1944 we had truckloads of them.” United States Vs. German Equipment Edwin Reeg, Platoon Leader “The weapon is accurate and easy to fire and the effect is excellent against the front armor of both Mark Vs and the Panther self-propelled gun….only one dud occurred in forty-five rounds fired” “an effective and simple weapon to operate….we habitually carry them on vehicles” Nudge Blue: A Rifleman’s Chronicle of WWII “several weeks previously, the 9th Division had a special school that lasted a few hours for non-coms from each company on the use of the German Panzerfaust” “The object of the orientation course was to make it possible for American troops to utilize Panzerfausts that had been left behind. I enjoyed firing them and was very eager to take advantage of the opportunity whenever they were available.” All the Way to Berlin: A Paratrooper at War in Europe “Shortly after the Waal River crossing, the 504th captured a truckload of German panzerfausts….We issued a limited number …” Steeds of Steel: A History of American Mechanized Cavalry in World War II Medal of Honor Citation for Lt. Dan Lee “He killed five of the enemy with rifle fire…..Fired on by an armored car he took cover behind the German half-track and there found a panzerfaust with which to neutralize this threat” Cheers MRD

No argument here, as long as that was BFC's original intent in excluding the use of expedient weaponry. Both the Eihandgranate and Stielhandgranate had provision for the installation of zero-delay fuses. The grenade, thus equipped, could either be left on the battlefield as a unwelcome easter egg or used in a field-expedient booby trap (e.g. trip wire). I have not seen in any of the literature the provision for Fausts being so equipped. Booby trapped using other methods (e.g. trip wire) but not as an integral part of the Faust structure. Cheers MRD

Is your comment based on beta CMBN testing or from CMSF? I have not heard of any anecdotal, official, or rumor based stories of American soldiers using RPGs in any conflict they've been used in (Vietnam or later). There is however evidence (see OP) regarding the allies using Fausts in WWII.

You fell for my evil trap MikeyD:p I finally got a response and it was about the eye candy comments which I thought were clearly labeled with the sarcasm tag. What a beta test can say (if not covered by confidentiality clauses which would be very odd) is: 1. are the blast effects on personnel are anywhere near what I calculated? 2. the original questions regarding grenades 3. the original questions regarding the allies using discarded Fausts Cheers MRD

I think that the lethality and accuracy of CMSF weapons platforms masks the issue more completely. The "stuttering turret" syndrome you described earlier is one of the warning signs. When I read through the CMx2 AARs I can see many times when multiple hits are scored without the target being killed. Unfortunately the screen captures don't give you the dynamics and nobody from BFC has yet replied. :cool: Question: Have any of the beta play testers seen this effect?

Seems like I'm going for a record on these boards. My threads are consistently getting the lowest response to viewing ratio. Just a little calculation to get people thinking. In the case of the Panzerfaust 30, the 0.8 kg (TNT:RDX @ 50:50) will yield a dynamic overpressure response: Distance Dynamic Pressure (feet) (kg/cm2) 1.0 ---------- 442 2.0 ---------- 128 2.4 ---------- 85 2.8 ---------- 52 3.2 ---------- 33 3.6 ---------- 22 4.0 ---------- 15 5.0 ---------- 6.7 6.0 ---------- 3.3 8.0 ---------- 1.1 10 ---------- 0.4 12 ---------- 0.2 14 ---------- 0.1 (this is from various sources but all are rooted in Sadovsky's formulas for blast pressures, shock velocities, temperature, duration etc...) This is for a charge exploded at the surface without any nearby walls or structures. If the unfortunate human is near (<3 feet) a wall or within a confined space (e.g. room) then the overpressures are magnified dramatically. I'll save that for another post, so let's just consider the easiest case first. Damage is a function of both dynamic pressure and duration, but as a first approximation blast injuries follow: delta P > 26 kg/cm2. Instant death, full body disintegration. delta P > 8 kg/cm2. Instant death, violent projection of body, disintegration of body parts. delta P > 5 kg/cm2. Fatal injuries with 99% chance of lethal outcome. delta P > 3.8 kg/cm2. 75% chance of fatality. Major limb and torso injuries. delta P > 2.5 kg/cm2. 10% risk of fatality. Major limb injuries. delta P > 2.1 kg/cm2. Non-fatal injuries. delta P > 1.6 kg/cm2. Disruption of neural system / loss of consciousness. delta P > 1.1 kg/cm2. Rupture of tympanic membranes for average human. delta P > 0.35 kg/cm2. Minimal distance of possible rupture of tympanic membranes Where 1 kg/cm2 ~ 1 atm = 14.7 psi (various sources e.g. Technical Progress Report, DASA-2113) Due to the very thin metal wall surrounding the Panzerfaust 30 explosive charge and its extreme brisance, we can safely relegate the danger of fragments to a second order effect. This assumption is grounded in reality as many weapons systems which try to enhance fragmentation use explosive charges with very low detonation velocity. (E.g. US Mk2 which switched from flake TNT to black powder) Although the US Mk48 75mm HE shell also has about the same quantity of explosives, the shell fragments are non negligible. Something left to a future analysis. So what does this all mean... Without any argument, prevarication, or dissembling, if you are standing or kneeling within 7 feet of a Panzerfaust when it detonates your mortal being will become a fine red mist or a casualty completely out of combat. How does this compare to the CMx2 engine's results? As I mentioned above, the lethality of a blast when within a building is even greater. This should be something that the CMx2 engine should handle as well. If the unfortunate human is crouched behind a wall or in a foxhole, the diffraction effects of the blast wave are still calculable but I would imagine this would be beyond the CMx2 engine's capabilities. What will be interesting is the "fudge factor" that the CMx2 engine does apply in these cases. Finally, since the only threads that seem to get attention are those in the "eye candy" category, I believe that there are completely unacceptable errors: :mad: the Faust conical head is incorrectly modeled :mad:, is the wrong color scheme :mad:, is missing the graphical text :mad:, and the sighting guide is 1cm too long. Oh where have all the grogs from CMBO gone? Cheers MRD