Vanir Ausf B

<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.

To add to Michael and Germanboy's comment's, the basic reason units like MGs and such are not allowed to fire beyond LOS is the absolute spotting model used in CM, where if one unit spots an enemy unit all other units know where it is. Allowing units to fire "blind" into areas outside LOS (through smoke screens for example) in the game would allow you to "cheat" at it because other friendly units (who do have LOS to the area) could spot the enemy units for the firing friendly units. I hope that made sense. It is an imperfect compromise for a limitation in the game necessitated by limited CPU power.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kim Beazley MP Ma: Maybe so but they included a lot of stuff which according to my sources was a lot rarer than the funnies - the Puppchen for example. The Jumbo Sherman for another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right, but like I said, rarity wasn't the only factor in deciding what went in and what was left out. Some rare units went in simply because they use the same basic model as more common units (Jumbo, Puma, ect.) so were easy to implement. The one omission BTS has recieved the most grief about is the US M16 "Meatchopper", a fairly common vehicle. [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

In addition to Germanboy's points, there is also the fact that BTS simply did not have time to include every vehicle in the ETO. Plus, bridging vehicles and the like would have required special coding to work properly. [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hansfritz: yes thanks,I know you can use HQ's but dont you find it anoying if another leader unit without line of sight comes close to your morters and they switch "team" to them. wouldent it be better to be able to lock on to a leader(HQ)until further orders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes it would. I hope they put something like this into CMBB.

For some reason MEs do seem to have fewer flags than attack/defend QBs of the same size. I agree this is not good. One other thing that could make MEs better is to increase the distance between the forces at the start of the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: But the FO has the rank of Lt why should he need anther HQ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because being the same rank as the HQ unit doesn't make him an HQ unit. Actually, I think they get a lesser delay bonus for free. A reg. HQ unit with no command bonuses has a 20 sec. delay while a reg. FO is only 13 sec, IIRC. EDIT: Nope they are both 20 seconds. [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Oh, ok, I see what you mean. I dunno. I think its because the orders come from the player, rather than the higher HQs.

Eh, I don't think rank has anything to do with command delay. A battalion HQ has the same delay as a platoon HQ.

Heh, I had to read that a few times to figure it out, but I think I understand now. Independent units (FOs, zooks ect.) do not suffer a delay penelty for not being in C&C of a HQ. However, if they are in C&C of an HQ with a command bonus they will get the benefit. Make sense?

I strongly suspect they are simply too busy and don't have time. Steve gave the general impression that they didn't really start work on CM2 in any major way until the last CMBO patch was released in February. That means they set a schedule for themselves to do the whole east front 1941-45 in 10 months. That's a lot of work in very little time. [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: I trust that the greater "Gods" of CM will allow for this in CM2. But will it happen ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rather doubtfull as there will be no BritCom forces in CM2 (its an East Front game). CM3... who knows.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: By the end of<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Somebody go check on Slappy. Something appears to have happened to him mid-post. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges: But it's important to keep in mind that the only thing that these stats mean (assuming that they are meaningful) is that the point values for units might need to be tweaked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very good point. It doesn't necessarily mean the German units perform better than they should, but rather that they are too cheap for their performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: For example - could it simply be that "better" players (i.e. more experienced wargamers, grogs, current military personnel etc.) tend to pick other forces than US for their games more often than - pardon the expression - newbies? Just a thought...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not impossible. Yet, I can't think of any reason why this would be so. In fact, I would think more newbies would go for the Germans because of the "cool cats".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Notice how the absolute screamer, 87 lbs per man for the gun and MG ammo alone, just plain disappears in Vanir's recap of the 6000 round brainstorm. If he finds a total written anywhere that might mean more shots, he believes it instantly, without bothering one brain cell whether his idea about what the number means is physically impossible or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jason sure loves his strawmen. Although irrelevant, I can't help but stop to think which is the more reliable authority on German WW2 SOP: The Handbook of German Military Forces or JasonC. On the surface it seems no contest, but JasonC dismisses it. Not surprising. Pak40 correctly predicted he would do so as it does not fit his preconceived notions. But what surprises is his given reason: that it is impossible to carry 87 lbs of ammo and weapons, plus other gear. What a laugher. Never mind the numerous examples given here of soldiers carrying more than that for considerable distances. Anyone who thinks it is impossible to carry even 100+ lbs at a rather sluggish rate for a hundred meters or so has obviously spent too much time in front of their computer typing bombast on internet forums while their muscles atrophy. I've done it while working for a gas pipeline company and while hunting (elk quarters weigh a lot). I'm sure most people here have as well. As I said, irrelevant to my point, but good for a chuckle. Now, to wrap up this FP thing. Jason says the cumulative FP is flawed because it weights FP and ammo equally (note how his argument has subtly gone from "the MG42 gets its higher FP for free!" to "ok, it pays for it, just doesn't pay enough"). He is correct as far as that goes. What he ignores is that the formula used to calculate the purchase cost of the MGs clearly does weight FP higher than ammo. The 8% bonus cumulative FP the Vickers gets over the MG42 proves it. Therefore, it becomes an argument of degree rather than concept. FP is already weighed more heavily, it’s just a matter of whether that is heavy enough or if it should be slid a bit further. In any case, I don't see that any needed adjustment is anything more than minor, and I have no interest in arguing that level of minutiae. My main reason for jumping into this was to counter Jason's remark that the MG42 gets its higher FP for free. Now that that is done there are no issues here that interest me too much. I'm also a bit tired of having words put into my mouth and having the words I did say twisted into unrecognizable forms at every turn. It make civil discussion all but impossible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: So, of the finished games I have won so far I have won 100%. Of these wins 50% was adcheived as Allied (As British as it happens ), 50% as Germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tero, the 2 games you have played are way to small a sample size to mean anything. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First off the stats are made of a sample of 26-29 players which is not statistically representative as such so any conclusions are as valid as any conclusions I make based on my games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You need to seriously check your math. Its 85 players, not 26-29. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second: it seems that the top players are sweeping the floor with the rookies (DUH ! ). More importantly there is no correlations between the losses as the difference stands universally at ~8% no matter which side the rookies play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which side the rookies play! Being a bit selective there... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me the numbers are not lobsided at all. All they tell me experienced/skilled players win while the inexperienced/unskilled lose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's part of what it tells you... but not the important part. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The fact that people seem to win while playing as Germans is irrelevant and does not reflect the game engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Irrelevant!? You can't be serious. Even an 8% difference (overall its higher than that) is large enough to be statisticaly significant with a sample size that large. An how can you say it doesn't reflect the game engine? How can it not reflect the game engine? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It does however reflect the preferences of the high ranking players.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And why do they have those preferences? The answer is obvious. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But does that make the allegations about biases inside the game invalid ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As far as any specific issue (gyros, ect.) goes, not really. But as for a systematic pattern of bias, consistently in favor of the Allies and against the Germans (the kind you claim exists in the game), I'd say it shoots a big gaping hole in it. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. If BTS gave the home team an edge (as you claim), they did a piss poor job of it because the US is getting its ass kicked in competitive play. BTW, I noticed you only commented on the total Allied/German numbers, and not the British/US breakdown... [ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Vanir appeals to unnamed authority and wants the HMG-42 to have 6000 rounds instead of whatever he thinks it has now. This makes me wonder if I am the only one involved in this discussion that can add,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not only can you not add, you can't read either. First of all, I never said I wanted the HMG-42 to have 6000 rounds. Those were words you put in my mouth (an annoying habit there). I merely stated it as a point of fact. Secondly, its not a matter of what I think they have now, but what BTS says they have now (should have been obvious). Thirdly, the "unnamed authority" is the Handbook of German Military Forces, which Pak40 pointed out in one of his posts (what did I say about reading?). Now to your...um, "adding": <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Match their fp per unit time, and match the cumulative fp too. Keep adding teams until you have "caught up" in both categories. Note how much it costs in points to do so. You will have to spend more CM points than the German company does to get that level of MG firepower. 5 Vickers will not do it - they have only 78% of the firepower per unit time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In order to match the raw FP per shot of 4 MG 42 HMGs you need 6.4 Vickers. You have now spent 112 pts on MG 42s and 141 pts on Vickers. Looks bad for the Vickers until you realize its a bogus exercise presented to win an arguement rather than as an honest comparison. Cumulative FP is the only way to compare the two as it factors in both FP per shot and ammo units (the 2 issues "discussed" in this thread). So against 4 MG 42s it takes a whopping 4.7 Vickers to acheive the same cumulative FP. And how many points have we spent? 112 on the MG42s and 103 on the Vickers. Now look at that. You get the same cumulative FP with the Vickers while spending 8% fewer points. Now which one is the better deal? The MG42 is only if you compare raw FP per shot to the exclusion of all other factors. So why would anyone do that...? [ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Tero, your posts are getting almost as long as JasonCs. But at least he doesn't talk about the same thing all the time. If you can tear yourself away from telling us about how BTS shafted the Germans for the 10,000th time, go check out this post (if you haven't already). If the numbers are that lopsided with BTS rooting for the home team, I'd hate to see what they'd be like if they were "fair"... [ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steven Seagal: Thanks alot guys, my college career is ruined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suppose you could give acting a second chance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: I wonder if the Reds ever paid theirs back?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, no.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: Intersting to find out the financial adjustments for Lend-Lease one day (was the equipment returned at "cost" or was there a bit of a "sellers" market oppotunity taken by the UK to make a "profit" ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good question. I would think it would be at whatever they paid for it (plus shipping and handling?). Especially if it was on credit (just subtract it from the bill). [ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: 4000 rounds of 7.92mm plus the gun means 63 lbs per man in the team for the ammo and MG alone, without their personal gear or their personal weapons. Which is above the limit quoted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One small item about the 4000 rd number: in the thread from which I pulled those BTS quotes there was some guy who quoted a sourse that stated a MG-42 HMG unit would actually have over 6000 rounds according to German SOP. Maybe I'll go pull that up later. About the 55 lb figure. I haven't bothered to go through the math to confirm your numbers and you may well be correct that BTS was off (I'll let others argue that if they wish). But even if it does come to 63 lbs, this would not be an impossible load to lug a hundered yards or so at a slow pace. Note the BTS comment that the German ammo boxes could be carried 2 per hand, so a sturdy fellow could carry 4 boxes plus bandoliers. A hefty load, but quite doable for most men for a hundered meters or so. As someone else pointed out, if it were a road march most of that stuff would be carried in a wagon or truck. The point being, I don't see anything here that breaks with physical reality. Having said all that, my only real beef with your position is that you claim the HMG is getting something (FP or ammo) for "free". I take this to mean "not reflected in the purchase price". I just don't see it. At 28 pts the MG-42 HMG is the most expensive MG unit in the game. Regardless of whether the 95 ammo figure is correct, it seems obvious to me that it is fully figured into the price (as is the FP). So, if the ammo were to be lowered, the unit price would go down accordingly. Now, you could argue that from a pure min/max perspective the MG42 is still a better buy than the Vickers/M1917 because the extra 35/30 ammo they get beyond 95 is very unlikely to be used during a typical CM game (non-operation). There is some merit to this, but in a recent PBEM I had several MG42 HMGs shoot all 95 ammo, so it can be done. Also, when MG units lose crew men to casualties, they lose ammo units as well if they move, so the larger ammo of the Allied MGs can be an advantage there. I guess I just don't see any significant problem here. Perhaps BTS should make ammo units above a certain number count very little or nothing towards the unit price; for all units, not just MGs (assuming they don't do this already, I don't know). Beyond that, I don't see anything crying out for change. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Specterx, I have lobbied long and hard for just what you ask for. BTS has never stated if it will happen or not in CM2. They did say that maps will be "bigger", but left it vague beyond that. We'll just have to wait and see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "Steve or Charles, AFAIK, have never said that the weight limit per soldier is X amount" Of course they did. They said 55 lbs (25 kg), and somebody already quoted it, right in this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 55 lb figure is for ammo only. Here is the exact quote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CM we figure the MG42 ammo total based on the assumption that the ammo bearers are carrying 55 pounds (25 kilos) of MG42 ammo each in addition to their extra gear. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Errr, I would. I've managed to lose a JgPz IV lang & a StuH 42(late) to rifle grenades in the last few games I've played. They're certainly not useless by any means.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then what are you doing driving your tanks so close to US infantry? In a year of playing CM I've yet to lose a single vehicle to rifle grenades or panzerfaust. You just have to be carefull to always use an infantry screen. Its a moot point thought. Rifle grenades can and did take out German tanks on occasion. They seem to be modeled pretty well in CM.