Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Content Count

    8,394
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B


  1. 2 hours ago, AlanSA said:

    What would rational behind that be? Or is it simply an engine limitation.

    I have to be careful because of the NDA. But essentially it's that units in real combat during WW2 did not provide a continuous play-by-play on the position and status of every single enemy unit they can see to every friendly unit they are in contact with. If they can actually see an enemy the enemy can at least potentially see them back, so getting on the radio to tell Lt. Scrub "you know that Panther that was parked next to the barn? It drove 120 meters to the southwest, stopped and killed 3 of my men. Thought you'd like to know" would usually not be a priority.

    If course that doesn't mean that sort of information was never shared in the heat of battle. A dismounted squad of Soviet tank riders that was just in LOS of a German tank is certainly going to tell the T-34 crew all about it when they mount back up. But the game doesn't do that. Personally I think the current model is too conservative to be of much use but that's just me.


  2. This is actually not a bug. Units with information about a particular enemy unit will share that information with friendly units in C2 that have no information about that particular enemy unit, but once that happens the receiving unit will have to rely on it's own eyeballs to update position information as there is no continuous tracking and updating of position information via C2.


  3. 15 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    Interesting, thanks. I still think it's odd that they overcomplicated it though. There must be some reason for why they couldn't just take the existing mantlet and add 4-5 cm to it. It was cast, so they could just make a new mold.

    I'm no tank expert or engineer, so probably my lack of understanding will make more knowledgeable people roll their eyes :) 

    The Germans were loath to add any weight to the turret since it was already heavier than the traverse mechanism was designed to handle.

    From a post-war French report:

    "The turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more than 20 degrees."


  4. 3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    why didn't they increase the turret front armour to match the glacis?

    They tried to.

    https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-panzer-panther-ausf-f/

    TL;DR: After a year of development the first redesign got rejected. The second redesign was accepted and set to go into production in early 1945 as the Panther F, but it was too late.


  5. 21 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

    Wow !..that's is Very High % Hit-Chance...Maybe, BF is using Russian RPG-7 as it's standard Hit-Chance, and forgot to dumb it down a bit for WWII 😞  

    In 1976 the US Army estimated the first shot hit probability for a Soviet RPG-7.

    RPG.jpg.1c3ac7197dd00abaf9c20d4b13ab727f.jpg

    Panzerschrecks and Bazookas were fairly accurate weapons. The US Ordinance manual lists the dispersion for the M6A3 Bazooka rocket as 6 mils, which comes out to about 1.6 meters at 300 yards (274 meters), so accuracy was dependent on the operator. Real world combat accuracy is anyone's guess, but the in-game results don't strike me as unbelievable.


  6. Well after testing this it looks like there is a fair degree of randomness. I actually thought it may be a bug since I kept getting extreme cold if I saved the map in the editor and then went straight into the QB menu, but always got cool temps otherwise. Then I got a few cool temps after saving in the editor which blew my theory up. I never did get "cold", which is odd. At this point I can't tell if there is a bug or if it's just randomness. I'd have to generate a much larger number of QBs to be statistically significant.


  7. The no targeting rule would be problematic in a non-infantry only battle since the various Target commands double as weapon selection commands. The TacAI tends to shoot HE at everything.

    2 hours ago, IanL said:

    Only if we can some how not talk about people's dumb ass rules for force selection in QBs - I only allow 25% of this type of force except if they have only wheels and then you can go as high as 33%. Oh and only some regular troops the rest green. Except for snipers, they can be veteran. But no tanks unless its a blue moon next Tuesday. Save me from the insanity of your broken little minds.

    Well, why don't you tell us how you really think? 😄 I take it you have not played many QBs with completely unrestricted purchasing, particularly of the large or huge variety. If you did you would soon join the ranks of the broken-minded. The common refrain that the best OOB is a balanced OOB is not true in CM world, at least not in QBs where efficiency is paramount. Generally speaking, the way to achieve the most cost effective force is to purchase the smallest amount of infantry you can get away with then spend everything else on the best tanks available while completely ignoring artillery. There are a number of game mechanics that encourage this that I won't get into.

    In the CM1 games there is a QB setting called Balanced that places limits on each unit type. It was the most popular QB type, at least in the ladders/clubs I was in. Placing limits on armor in particular is a fairly simple way to approximate the Balanced setting in CM2 QBs. It also has the virtue of being verifiable so it can be used with opponents you aren't sure can be trusted.


  8. 2 hours ago, domfluff said:

    "* FIXED:  MG42 LMG is 258% more lethal than the Bren LMG and the B.A.R."

    Curious what that actually means.

    Giving a precise percentage sounds like it's referring to something like (more) excessive fire rate or extra ammunition.

    It's the literal title of the bug report I submitted to BFC. Charles apparently cut and pasted it when making the patch notes to save time. The number is just a comparison of how many dudes each weapon could kill in 60 seconds in the particular test scenario I ran.


  9. 1) Friendly vehicles never block LOS/LOF for other friendly vehicles.

    2) Operable enemy vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from friendly vehicles.

    3) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles do not block LOS/LOF for friendly or enemy vehicles.

    4) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from any unit as long as the targeted unit is not a vehicle (ie: tank shooting at infantry or infantry shooting at infantry)

    5) Smoking vehicles block LOS and LOF.

    6) "Vehicles" means tanks, SP guns, and AT/Anti-personnel guns.


  10. 8 hours ago, ikalugin said:

    Out of the European majors and please correct me if I am wrong, UK has 1 MRD equivalent, France and Germany have 2 each (strangely enough Poland is the more capable partner there) which creates a concern for their ability to rapidly deploy a force above a division into such an area as Ukraine in a quickly paced crisis.

    Something to keep in mind is that total force size and deployable forces are quite different due to logistics and readiness levels. For example, the British army is roughly:

    "...two tank brigades, two mechanized brigades, six infantry brigades, a parachute brigade and 15 helicopter and drone squadrons, each with around 15 aircraft... the two tank brigades would share just 148 tanks."

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/british-army-planning-upgrade-just-148-its-227-challenger-2-tanks-53587

    But in a real war in eastern Europe would be limited to about a brigade.

    British Army Conclusions

    • The British Army can provide an armored task force within 30 days and would require 30 and 90 days to scale up to a full armored brigade.
    • Britain should be able to sustain at least one armored brigade indefinitely, although there are lingering doubts associated with the undermanned nature of the Adaptive Force, which will be called upon to provide units to relieve the units of the Reactive Force.

    French Army Conclusions

    • France can probably field one medium or heavy battalion task force within a week. Generating the equivalent of a full armored brigade probably would take several weeks to a month.
    • The toll of France's ongoing operations — especially Operation Sentinelle — on French Army readiness introduces a significant degree of uncertainty regarding France's capacity to sustain a brigade and that brigade's proficiency. This uncertainty will linger until France finds a way to lighten the load currently carried by its ground forces, particularly in the army's homeland security role, while also growing the overall size of the force.

    German Army Conclusions

    • The German Army most likely would require a week or more to mobilize an armored battalion; a full brigade probably would take a month.
    • Because the Germans will have to strip other units of equipment to provide for an armored brigade, they will have a hard time fielding a larger force or engaging in other operations until equipment shortages are addressed.

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1629.html

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...