Vanir Ausf B

Steve has said the maps in CM2 will be "bigger" than CM1. He did not elaborate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: When playing CM, do players adher to historical proportions of Fireflies per troop, such as one Firefly for every three 75mm Sherman up to a certain date<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If we're talking QBs or DYO here, the truth is that Shermans themselves are a rare sight, in my expirience. This is because they have serious problems with the ubiquitous (in CM games) Hetzer and JPz IV/70. Also, most models of Sherman are overpriced for their effectiveness (the + armor and wet models jack up the price, but add very little to survivability). IMO Shermans are only a cost effective QB purchase when you are playing Short 75 rules, in which case they are very worthwhile (the cheap, basic models, that is). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do players also attempt to maneuver tanks as a troop, keeping them together for tactical purposes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The better players will at times. Most do not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Thusfar this discussion has been a fairly mature one of differing perspectives. If you want to characterise it as something other than that then feel free to do so. Just don't expect anyone to give one iota of attention to anything of worth you might happen to secret in there admidst all the snarling and growling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although I stand behind every word I wrote, I admit my tone could have been more... diplomatic. I'm usually better at suppressing my annoyance. The weather must be changing or something.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Some of us aren't grown up enough to discuss this sort of thing without trying to drag national agendas into the matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. So please drop the agenda. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you deny that the objectives of first "Cash and Carry" and then "Lend-Lease" were to provide the UK and other nations, such as China, with the means to conduct the war on the behalf of the US, until the US had sorted out its isolationist feelings?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes I do. For all intents and purposes isolationism went out the window on Dec. 7 1941. There was no sorting out to do after that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you deny that the US military wanted to immediately start mounting cross-channel invasions and were only dissuaded with considerable difficulty by the British?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More contradictions. If the US was so gung-ho from the start that pretty much shoots down the whole "US wanted others to fight for them" theory. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US politicians were concerned about casualties and preferred, to supply the other Allied nations to do the fighting. The US military, on the otherhand, wanted to come to grips as quickly as they could with the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have never read anything that would support this. Even if it were true then the military obviously won out. The US supplied the bulk of Allied ground troops in the Pacific and in Europe post D-Day. You did know that, didn't you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, you cannot deny that it was the willingness of the USSR to fight the Germans and to keep on fighting, right to the Fuhrer Bunker that actually won the war, can you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I can not, and did not attempt to. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sounds to me that you'd much rather downplay the blood and flesh which was sacrificed and try and compare the building of a tank or a ship or an aeroplane to that. Why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then you need to read more closely. I said no such thing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find your notion that it wasn't laughable in return. American society hadn't engaged in a major war for nearly 100 years. Its effort in WWI had arrived too little and too late.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Completely false. Not even really worthy of response. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It may have tipped the balance strategically but on the actual battlefield its efforts were overshadowed by those of the French and the UK/Commonwealth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but we're talkning WW2 not WW1. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Must be just so wonderful to have an intellect so superior to the rest of us, Vanir.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Never claimed any such thing. And who is "us"? Do you have multiple personalities? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reality, Vanir, it appears to me that you are over-sensitive to what is in reality nothing more than mild criticism based upon the views present in many history books, such as Overy, Keegan and others. If I have it so wrong, then I'd suggest you should start telling them they have it wrong as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds to me like you're the one who should be telling them they have it wrong. You're the one critisising Keegan, not me. [ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: I don't know nearly as much about British Grand Strategy so I don't know to what extent the nipping at the heels and sniping at the edges ideals were burned into the British armed forces. Were they a result of WWI? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In large part, yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg: If it were not for the U/C in WW2, we in the civilized world would be goose stepping and saluting the swastika & the rising sun. What a horrible & dismal thought.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, no, not really. Without the "U/C" the US would still have defeated Japan. That would not have changed. Germany is more difficult to predict. It is doubtfull that there would have been a D-Day or anything similar. The US would more likely have pursued a policy of containment, contesting North Africa and the Middle East while writing off Europe. In the end there would have been a negociated peace with Germany giving up France and Britian but allowed to keep most of the rest. Either that or Germany would have been nuked until it glowed.

Ah, another "my country did more than your country" WW2 thread. If I had a nickle for every one... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: While the US supplied the means to achieve victory, it did not supply the men nor sacrifice them as willingly to achieve that victory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Later: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Apart from the different objectives, there were also the different approaches to war - the American one of bull at a gate, go for the throat, attack the centre of mass method while the British preferred to preserve their forces as much as possible, husband their resources and peck around the edges until their enemy was weakened and it was then possible to destroy him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Self contadiction. So which is it? Was the US less willing to sacrifice men, or was it the Brits who were more worried about casualties? I think it is generally understood to be the latter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would suggest that indeed, the B/C/E contribution to the victory over the Axis was the second most important after that of the Soviet Union's, on the battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Personal bias speaking there. You correctly note the Soviet Union's role, but ignore the US's major materiel contribution to that nation's war effort. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The first reflects perhaps naivete and the knowledge that there were large reserves of equipment and manpower to draw upon while the second reflects the reverse - more understanding of the nature of war and knowledge that equipment and more importantly manpower were limited.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More bias. I find your notion that the US was somehow naive as to the nature of war laughable. But then again, bashing anything and everything having to do with the US military seems to be a hobby horse of yours, so it's all rather predictable. People with axes to grind cannot be expected to express objective opinions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carter: I've heard that hashish has been used since the time of the ancient middle-eastern "assassins" group. This may not be true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, they smoked it the night before the mission as a reminder of the pleasures they will enjoy in the soon-to-be-entered afterlife. They didn't actually go on the mission stoned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Crash-Neptune: This reminds me of another question. What does the L mean as in 8.8cm L/56 or 7.5cm L/70. I'm guessing its length of gun barrel in calbers, I've heard that before, but I'm not sure. Also, how long is a caliber?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're on the right track. To find the length of the barrel, multiply the L number by the bore size. So the 88L56 is 8.8cm x 56 = 4.93m long. For German tanks this would include the breech, but not any muzzle brake. [ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

From page 59 of the CM manual: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Internally, Combat Mission tracks the weight, velocity, and size of explosive charge of all the different shell types from all the different guns in the game individually.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright, folks. This is weird, but I have now been able to get the target command to display an increase in FP for units under the command of a + combat HQ. I have no idea why is wouldn't work before as I have tried on several occasions. But it is working now, at least in the particular test I set up. The answer is that each + adds 10% to the FP. This is for regular troops, I haven't tried any others. [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Also, there is a definitive bias against non-turreted tanks and AT vehicles. Low silhouette does not count when the terrain tile size designed to suit the turreted tanks (?) prevents effective hull down positioning by the player. The Allies are not much affected by this because their inventory is predominantly turreted vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The exact opposite is true. Turretless vehicles are more effective in CM than in real life because they can all rotate in place, partially negating the penalty of having no turret. Also, the German TDs with highly sloped frontal armor (Hetzer and JPz IV/70, mainly) are underpriced for their effectiveness. To me, this seems to "culminate the undelying tech-spec and TacAI currents" which would seem to point towards pro-German bias [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

On Tiger tank optics, more from Ford: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Tiger was fitted with an articulated binocular turret gunsight (Turmzielfernrohr - TZF), its twin objectives fixed parallel to the main gun tube. The TZF 9b, in use up until April 1944, had a fixed 2.5x magnification, while the TZF 9c in use thereafter offered either 2.5x or 5x magnification. Apart from that they were essentially similar. Each tube of the sight had a different illuminated rectical pattern. The left tube carried the graticules of aiming point marks - a central triangle with three subsidiary points to each side, which allowed both for leading a moving target and to assist with estimated range. The right tube had the aiming point marks but also range scales, arranged in arcs to right and left, for the main gun and the coaxial maching gun respectively, the former graduating out to 4000m, the latter to 1200m. ... Optical coincidence range finders were issued to Tiger tanks, but could only be used externally, located in a bracket attached to the commander's cuppola in later tanks but hand-held in the earliest models. Essentially, they were low-power binoculars with a narrow field of view, arranged so that the ray path to each eyepiece was derived from objectives 1m or more apart - the TZR 1 unit ussued to Tiger tanks from quite early in 1943 had a base measurement of 1.4m. The range to the target was read off a scale, as the angle between the two objectives lenses was adjusted until the images at the eyepiece coincided.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, since where talking about Tigers in general, and their kill ratios, I'll post this snippet I came across in The Tiger Tank by Roger Ford. This is speaking of the Kharkov opertion: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Between 7 and 20 March, the Grossdeutschland Panzer Division accounted for 250 T-34s, 16 T-60/T-70s and three KV-1s, at a total cost of one PzKpfw III, 12 PzKpfw IVs and one PzKpfw VI. The brunt of the fighting was borne by the PzKpfw IVs, as the losses for that tank indicate, but such a loss was understandable since in terms of numbers, those tanks made up some 70 percent of the entire force. They accounted for 188 of all the Soviet tanks destroyed, while the Tigers got 30.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's unknown how those numbers were arrived at. Ford puts total Tiger write-offs at Kursk at 13. 133 was the number of Tigers present on July 5, but 19 more arrived during the battle. [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ...but has anyone ever found out if additional protection is afforded by placing units deeper into cover?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, and yes it does. It is not a dramatic difference. For example, troops on the edge of woods may have 14% percent exposure, and 20m in they would have 12%. Those may not be the exact numbers, but going from memory its close to that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: There was a thread on this recently. I tried to find it but without success. But basically the poster ran some tests to try to reveal what the actual consequences were for the +1 and +2 bonuses. According to his tests (and there was some question as to how conclusive they were), a +1 bonus has the same effect as increasing firepower by 15%. A +2 bonus had the same effect as increasing it by ~50%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The thread in question is here. In it you will find a second test run that showed no discernable difference between a +2 bonus unit and a no-bonus unit. But the sample size was too small in both tests to be conclusive. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Someone else replied that he thought a +1 bonus was equivalent to raising the squad to the next experience level and a +2 to raising it two levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As best as I can tell, this is not so. Higher experience infantry squads have a higher FP rating that can be seen when targeting enemy units. There is no differnce in FP for units under the command of a HQ with + combat bonus (at least, if there is it is hidden), even though the manual specifically states that there is. A + combat bonus has the following effects: any AT gun or AT team (Bazooka, ect.) will have a higher to hit chance; on-board mortars using the HQ unit as a spotter will have a tighter shell fall pattern. If there is any effect upon infantry FP, it does not show up in the targeting info, and no one has conclusively proven the existance of a hidden modifier. It is possible (gulp) that there is a bug causing this. [ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Interesting. Vet troops receive a FP bonus that can be seen with the target or LOS command. Troops under the command of a hq with a combat bonus do not. It has been suggested that the combat bonus causes troops to fire more frequently, but some quick tests I have done do not support that. So, I really don't know what it does exactly or how it does it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You do have a case that rare vehicles are used in CMBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS has never been shy to admit that they do include some things mainly for their "coolness" factor. CM2 may have IS-3s for that reason. Jagdtigers and Jumbos were very rare, but if BTS had left them out they would have had a small revolt on their hands. Like Jadgtigers, Bren tripods were a rare sight on ETO battlefields. Unlike Jagdtigers, Bren tripods are not very cool. Admitedly, this is entirely subjective, but I think it's telling that CM was out for over a year before someone took exception to the absense of Bren tripods. So, knowing they couldn't put every last military object present in the ETO in CM, they chose the Jadgtiger over the Bren tripod. I don't have a problem with this, but I know some of the hardcore grogs scoff at the coolness factor. They would be perfectly happy with CM if it were a 2-D game with CGA color just as long as the shatter gap for US 76mm APBC vs. Tiger front mantlet is properly modeled. But they are the minority and BTS has families to feed too, so the Jadgtiger is in and the Bren tripod is not. Them's the breaks. I personally would not object if the Bren tripod were in CM. But I don't consider it's absense to be any great tragedy. [ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Hof, IMHO this is unfair of you. That Brian chooses to focus on the Commonwealth could be interpreted that he is only commenting on that which he knows, rather than just rambling on about everything under the sun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brian has stated that he will not play CM as the Americans. Therefore, I think it more likely that he simply does not care if they are "short changed" in any way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: As to the absence of the M16, thats a problem for the American proponents. I'll let you wage that battle yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That "battle" was waged long ago, and I really have no interest in going through it again. It's really quite pointless as BTS isn't going to be adding any units to CMBO anyway. Besides which I am not an American proponent or a proponent of any other nationality. I think of it as a problem for whoever owns the game. But then, I will gladly play any nationality in CM as I have no real world issues or agendas with regard to any of the nationalities represented. I guess I'm weird like that. The only reason I brought it up was to make the point that every nationality had plenty of stuff left out for various reasons, so there is no justification for singling out the Brits as being unusually picked on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael Dorosh: The Crocodile (of which only 50 were built) is readily available for purchase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> EDIT: Dorosh led me astray. It's all his fault, I swear! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Spook: So where did Babra head off to, Vanir?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Moved back to Israel from what I hear. Went to live on one of those Jewish farm comunities (Kibbuts? or something like that). [ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: I gotta tell you, though, the pictorial evidence pursuit here in the CM forum was pretty intense at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I remember. Babra is gone now, but maybe Brian can put his rare pic finding abilities to work for a different cause... [...If we could turn him, he would make a powerful ally. Yes. Yes... ] :cool:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: We've seen considerable time and effort expended by BTS to model rare, exotic and unusual weapons for the other combatants but it appears the Commonwealth has to be short-changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Short changed in the rare and exotic department, eh? Interesting. Tell you what. Open up CM and go the the British armor purchase screen and you will find what may be the most rare and exotic weapon in the game. As you are a military historian I'm sure you'll spot it right away. I'll be far more sympathetic to calls for rarely used stuff to be put in after all the common stuff is put in. The absence of Bren tripods pales in comparison to the absence of the M16.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: This is exactly right. BTS is looking at rarity in a similar fashion to ASL (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). But if all your vehicles are rated say 1-6, and the game decides that for this mission you only get to buy vehicles of rarity 1 through 3, that is all you get.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Alas, 'tis not so. I argued with Steve in favor of such a system, but BTS is doing someting different. Availability will not be effected by rarity in CM2; point cost will be. So if Tigers are available in Nov. '42 they will always show up in the purchase screen, but they may cost 2000 pts each.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I think the fall off in how often they shoot was intended to simulate individuals getting less of a chance to stick their heads up and return fire. Thus higher suppression represents more and more people in the units says, "screw this" and ducking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, yeah. It's all part of the abstraction. But in practice it just means they fire volleys less often.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Amidst_Void: All surviving members are NOT firing all of their weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, yes they are. When the squad in CM shoots, everyone in the squad shoots. It's actually not unlike volleys being fired. A suppressed squad will fire less frequently, but every weapon still fires when it does. Although I haven't tested it, I think Shatter is correct that the sounds are not entirely random. You tend to hear the SMG sound at 50m, but not at 200m. Just keep in mind that all weapons are being fired regardless of which sound is heard.