Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunny_ Bunny: I did not realize it was a matter of availability. I was thinking of pure hitting power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At one time there was a bug in CM that caused tungsten to be way too effective against highly sloped armor. It was fixed. Keep in mind that CM2 will have improved modeling of armor and AT gunnery. Modeling of optics is planned and new info contained in Rexford & Co.'s book should improve penetration accuracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moyle: Now I wasn't in WWII either, but I'm almost positive that zook teams were considered soldiers first and bazookas next. So they would have rifles...I've also read plenty of novels and source books to support it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct. In reality bazooka teams were simply guys in the squad who carried the zook and ammo. In CM they are seperated out as a seperate unit for game engine purposes. Looks like there will be changes in CM2...

IIRC the .50 cal. will penetrate 25mm of armor at 0 degrees at 0m. So, it would have to be very close to the Hetzer to take it out. Same for the PSW from the front.

I have no idea why this would be gamey. Half squads are meant to be used at scouts. In fact, that is the only reason BTS allowed them in the game.

Eh, ok. I'm not sure what that specifically has to do with German offensive armor operations in the ETO, but it's an interesting quote...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: Bah that is nothing. Just wait until you lose a Panther to a Daimler AC at 250 meters in a frontal shot. Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume it was a weak point penetration.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: I was not referring to maneuverability or faster turrets (again, where the Panther turret speed is open to dispute), but to simply shootouts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the clarification, but I don't see how you can exclude those factors. Even if you do exclude them, the fact remains that it is easier to flank in a knife fight than in a long range duel. Flanking is important for Allies, rarely so for Germans. I agree that Panther turret speed is open to debate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To make it clear: put the Nashorn into an environment for which it was designed, make a scenario with 1km++ of visibilty, and you will see that the Nashorn still sucks. That's what I was referring to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll take your word for it. 1 km+ engagements are so rare in CM its almost a moot point. I think it is generally accepted that the CM gunnery model begins to degrade as you go much past 1 km, but it rarely matters. It sounds like BTS is going to address this in CM2 (optics modeling, ect.) where it will matter. [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Ya know, one other thing just occured to me. In RL the Germans had the advantage of being on the defense most of the time in the ETO, so their armor could operate from ambush. In CM they are just as likely to be on the attack as the defense. Now, my general impression is that in the few RL opperations where the Germans attacked with armor (in the ETO) they did not perform very impressively at all, and allied armor was able to hold its own. Food for thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: What the gentleman was probably asking for with his "no penetrations on a KT" was a reference to a Königstiger being taken out from the front as a regular hit, such as they occur in CM, *not* weak spot hits, *not* post-battle tests involving Panzerfausts, and *not* some Russians using a KT as a hard target on the firing range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If round hit a MG port it could certainly go through. At least I can't think of a reason it wouldn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, *personally*, I have come to peace with CM's portrayal of the tank batles, but indeed a strange doubt back in the subconscious depths of the brain remains as to the abysmal performance of german armor when compared to what we had learned pre-CM from WWII literature and battle reports. I know I can't put a finger onto it. All I know is that I prefer american tanks most of the time over german ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Certainly the short ranges are a big part of it. That emphisizes the Allied tank's faster turrets. I can think of a few other things: 1. German use of smokeless powder not modeled. 2. Shatter gap effect vs. Tiger I mantlet undermodeled. 3. Allied tungsten availability to high(?) Don't know for sure on this one. No one has been able to prove it. 4. Panther armor quality too low. Of course, in a few ways German armor is also overmodeled. 1. KT armor quality too high (should be lower than Panther in any case). 2. Ability of all turretless vehicles to rotate in place makes them more effective at close ranges than they should be. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To put it into simple words, in CM the Nashorn sucks, it sucks bad, and it sucks so bad one wonders why these things were ever built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They weren't built with Western Europe in mind. They were built to be used on the Eastern Front. They are a fish out of water in the CM knife fights. I suspect they will be more usefull in CM2.

I've often wondered what the effect of a circular map would be.

Try shorting the search words to one word only (gamey) or searching in thread titles only. The search engine usually chokes on more than one word unless it is just searching titles, and sometimes even then. Also, sometimes it will choke and then you try the exact same search again the next day and it goes through. EDIT: I just tried searching for "gamey" in thread title only. Came up with 78 threads :eek: [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: Another thing, don't forget to cancel targeting ambush markers when you relocate troops, as -upon arriving in their new location- they will rotate to their ambush marker and hold fire, regardless of any new situation that develop (yet again somewhat depending on experience).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Also, there is a rare bug in CM where units that have ust had their ambush marker target canceled will continue to act as if they were still in ambush, i.e. they will not fire on enemy troops running around in front of them. I have only had this happen to me once, but have heard others have the same expirience. Now, I always give my units an area fire order and then cancel it, instead of just hitting the "x" key, to make sure they are out of their trance. [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Kruger: I read earlier you can drive in reverse to avoid getting bogged down so I will not drive in reverse as a means of advancing my vehicles solely for advancement... ie. I'll drive in reverse if I think the enemy is now behind me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This bug was fixed in 1.1. As Mark IV pointed out, you now can bog in reverse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: in deep or normal mud or damp conditions: drive inreverse to prevent bogging(gamey AND bug exploit!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This bug was fixed in the 1.1 patch.

Here's another little FOW trick. If you are the second player to plot your moves in a PBEM or hotseat game, you can usually tell if the first player has given "withdraw" command orders to some of his squads because they will be in the standing up animation instead of the kneeling animation that they were in at the end of the last movie (assuming they were not moving). This does not work with units that are suppressed (pinned, ect) since they do not stand up right away when given a withdraw command.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: That would indicate that the firepower is in fact not affected by HQs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then it must be rate of fire. Otherwise it is broken :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: The second effect seems like that should be an attribute of Verteran/Crack/Elite squads rather as well as HQ stealth units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, according to the manual both experience and HQ bonus are factored in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: What I would like to know from BTS is, what exactly is the Stealth Bonus?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to the manuel, it has 2 effects. First, it makes units less likely to be seen while moving using the Sneak command. Secondly, it makes hiding units less likely to unhide and open fire on enemy units that are more than 100m away. I haven't tested any of these myself. [ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

By chance, Slate posted an answer to this very question today. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Defense Department announced that the code name for the domestic mission to protect this country in response to Tuesday's terrorist attack is Operation Noble Eagle. How does the military choose its code words? In general, the first step is that a computer database of appropriately military sounding words spits out possible combinations, with each geographic command given rights to certain letters of the alphabet. The command overseeing the operation chooses candidates--after checking through a registry of previously used names--and sends it to the Joint Staff for review and approval. (The director of operations of the Joint Staff, Lt. General Gregory S. Newbold, has a name worthy of a military operation.) It wasn't a brilliant algorithm that came up with the code word Desert Storm for the invasion of Iraq--that was deliberately chosen. Winston Churchill, who personally vetted many of the British military code words, ordered that they should be neither overly boastful, nor frivolous. No mother, he wrote, should have to say "that her son was killed in an operation called 'Bunnybug.' "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Okay Guys, Ill lock this one up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ran out of padlocks, it seems. Ask Madmatt for some Lend-Lease. He always seems to have plenty

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha: I agree with Peter Svensson in that many cases some sense of enemy positions and emplacement types would be known before battle. The only time this might not be are during meeting engagements, breakthroughs, or recon in force. Also, city fighting might be added as well. But, along an established front with entrenchments, enemy positions would be known, including things like MG nests, bunkers, etc. That was the whole point of tactical intelligence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This exact idea was debated at some length a month or 2 ago, so I'll repeat what I said there. At the beginning of the game the players already have quite a lot of intel. They know the general size of the opposing force, its general position, and a 100% accurate terrain map. IMO, the small unit tactical intel such as the exact position of enemy units is something the player should have to do for himself. He shouldn't get it for free. Being on the defence is very hard already in CM. Showing some of the defender's units at the beginning of the game, at no cost to the attacker, would make it that much more difficult. It doesn't hurt the attacker as much, as he has to show his units first anyway.

From a non-historical, 100% gameplay perspective, I would be very much against allowing players to see the map before purchasing in QBs. Being able to customize your force to the specific terrain features on the map would take min/max to a whole new level. Personally, I hope CM2 has a random terrain feature for QBs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: As I stated earlier, my inclination is to regard the BTS forum identities of Beazely & Howard as legitimate, though I might be proven wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I've been assuming all along that it was just an inside "Aussie" joke. I'd be flabbergasted if an actual head of state were posting to the CM forum under his real name (or under any name). I suppose it is possible, but it seems highly unlikely to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: They can now fire under HQ LOS. Would it be too unrealistic to have the onboard mortars fire using the FO's as spotters ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would have no problem with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: Surely not a "cheat".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Call it what you will. That's why I put it in quotes. On the WW2 battlefield all units were not in constant continuous contact with each other. In CM they are for the most part. So units are prevented from firing out of LOS to (somewhat) limit people from taking advantage of that. I'm not telling you this is entirely realistic, I'm telling you why it was done.