Jump to content

LemuelG

Members
  • Posts

    327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LemuelG

  1. And given those numbers I'd be more than happy to have a Sten on-hand for any firefight up to and above 200m - 68% chance of a hit when firing a four-round burst at 200 yards (180m), with reliable killing power. Good odds - it's notable that the spread for an automatic-burst is (approx.) 50% greater than single-shots, but the chances of hitting the target increase even more. If the performances of the Thompson and MP40 are anything like that they are just fine.
  2. TRP? I'm sure you checked, but let's cover all the bases
  3. I find it hard to believe to believe these 'effective range' figures... let's get this straight - what do we mean by effective range with these weapons? Are we talking effectiveness on point-targets (max-range a shooter can hit a human torso-sized target 50% of the time), area-targets (max-range a shooter can hit a vehicle-sized target 50% of the time), or simply the maximum range at which a bullet loses the kinetic energy to kill? Would you be comfortable standing rigid while someone blasts away at you from 100m with a Thompson? I'd duck, personally.
  4. A picture would have been perfect to describe the setup, though I don't want any spoilers for my scenario (this is from testing the US AI plans) - but that HMG had only just displaced to that position and set up - there is another MG nest just past the Ami in that video and those foxholes are supposed to provide the featured crew with a position to protect it's mates' southern flank and that small patch of woods behind them (I've even designed cleared lanes-of-fire into it); unfortunately in this case it was too slow to save it's sister-crew (one of whom can be seen surrendering in the video). The Ami being shot at were regulars, a mix of normal/high motivation, hard to say which in this case. The crew stayed for two and a half turns (having killed maybe 8 guys? Certainly halting any advance for the time being), then displaced again to a position further back without incident (supporting MGs can be seen firing at the woods in the video, but without the same effect-on-target).
  5. I made a little s.MG42 video. Not of a test, but in-the-wild; this happened while I was playing, and I thought of this thread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2s1A4sShsU It's like something out of SPR
  6. * load some guys into the jeep and issue an 'acquire' order (is that it? key 'G' in alternate hotkeys), a list of ammo/weapons will display and you can choose what you want your guys to take. Use the same technique to get ammo from vehicles too. * move them back into the same action-square and leave them for a few moments and they'll rejoin on their own. * no (edit) too slow
  7. Unless the enemy has TRPs and there aren't any spotting rounds. Now what?
  8. I did some more experiments, to get a feel for what is happening. The results are interesting. I ran all my tests again, but this time set all Germans on 'hide' with short arcs - with bocage that was enough to stop them being spotted at all during the ten minutes; with foxholes-only, they were still spotted after a few seconds, survivability improves slightly - about 10% of troops on average survive the ten minutes. What was I expecting from foxholes+hide? Well, better concealment than not hiding for a start, this didn't happen - even without elevation on the Germans the Ami spotted them without delay; also, I would expect a guy hiding/lying in the bottom of his hole to be next-to-invulnerable to small-arms fire, this also did not happen - most guys died in their holes, with their noses in the dirt - a sad display. What good is a foxhole that does not do the things it is supposed to do? i.e. be a simple hole-in-the-ground big enough for a trooper to hide his body in? I put this not-unexpected disappointment behind me and ran another round of tests - this time I replaced the para company with a FO and gave him various mortars and howitzers. First I bombarded the German line with 105s - settings: linear, 4 guns, 'medium', 'maximum' - that is 140 105mm shells fired over approx. 9 minutes. Then I went through again and did the same tests with a short and violent mortar-stonk, 2x81mm, linear, 'heavy', 'maximum'; this is usually over within 2 minutes. (note: guns firing from behind the Ami side of the map, so into the bocage) Bocage is about as useful at deflecting these shells as nothing at all - with/without bocage (no-holes) they lose 50-55 men and surrender between minutes 5 and 7 reliably. The mortar-stonk does not cause the Germans to surrender - they sustain 35-45 casualties, again with/without bocage, it seems to matter not, at least for the final result. Holes perform much better, with/without bocage again makes no notable difference; the howitzer barrage takes about the same numbers of lives, but importantly the casualties come much slower - the hole-guys have an even chance of holding until the barrage is over - when they do surrender it is not until either minute 9 or ten (sometimes when the barrage has already finished!). I'm going to say that holes offer about 66% better protection vs howitzers. Holes perform even better again against the stonk - casualties range from 13 to 19, and are mostly 13-14; in the most favourable cases it is a reduction of casualties by over 300%! Conclusion-time: Bocage offers next-to-no protection against arty. Holes offer NO concealment at all. Holes will not completely protect guys cowering/hiding from small-arms fire. Holes give good protection against all forms of indirect fire. What would I have liked to see? Holes concealing troops until they expose themselves (if the enemy has elevation on you, tough - but that isn't the case in my tests). Holes rendering hiding/cowering troops invulnerable to small-arms (again, only if not fired from elevation, these things are holes and should be modelled as such).
  9. Reminds me of an anecdote from the second battle of Cassino, some Kiwis heard an engine roar to life in a building next-door to their position (probably charging batteries for radio) - turns out there was a Panzer IV totally walled-in there, being used as an observation post, the crew had a tunnel that went under the street and came out in a nearby bunker.
  10. I think it would be unfortunate if, considering the wildy unrealistic nature (y'all know - the fact they're above ground) of our foxholes, and our inability to place and orient them precisely, any bonuses are not applied to the whole tile. It's fine if those bonuses apply only to the first X number of troops in the tile and the others get left in the cold. I (and others I'm sure) am finding this a very frustrating aspect of the game. I would appreciate some clarification from above.
  11. No, unless it's not possible to actually do anything while paused, but I don't think that's the point; there is a case to be made for biological breaks. Then again, RL commanders don't get to put everything on hold when they poo.
  12. Because it's 100% incapable of pro-active behaviour. If it isn't planned to move it wont move, until you shoot it or something, then it will just withdraw.
  13. If that is the case, then one of two things is happening: an unfortunate bug is causing infantry to not take advantage of cover available to them, even when they are specifically placed inside the holes; or the UnitAI is telling you that the foxholes are utterly useless and that they feel safer lying outside the holes under that nearby bush. What exactly is going on with foxholes? Is there a straight description anywhere of how they're supposed to work?
  14. I'm not sure what you mean; when I place+face the defenders they are usually in holes, then as you watch they will start crawling around arranging themselves as they please, this happened in the forest forts before I gave them hedges as well. I am not uncomfortable with that, I presume foxhole protection is 100% abstracted to the tile in which they are placed.
  15. I'm actually messing around with this at the moment, but nothing much helps - once spotted they are still hideous and obvious (by their nature as CMBN foxholes ); putting them in heavily wooded areas helps delay spotting, but that is true for everything. If anything this might encourage me not to abuse this trick too much.
  16. I wouldn't be so concerned about exposing by belly as by approaching dangerous enemies with all my weapons pointing at the moon.
  17. It really didn't take long for me to be convinced of the efficacy of holed-bocage, I had been tearing my hair out at how hopeless it was setting up a solid defence for The Hun. Once he had his holes things got thrilling, don't run out of mortar ammo, be wary of being too aggressive. Yes, they can look very obvious once spotted - it's ugly (being CMBN foxholes, after all), but not entirely unrealistic - worked earth can be very obvious unless time is taken to remove the spoil and camouflage the position. A purchasable (like other forts) camouflage-tile is something I am looking forward too. Someone mentioned the guys not specifically using the holes - this is true, they will not always jump into a hole, sometimes preferring to ensconce themselves in between, or wherever pleases them. This is something that happens if the hedge is there or not, how it affects events is not known by me. I suspect there is an abstract protection applied to the whole tile containing the holes and this bonus is conferred to troops in that tile whether they're in a hole or not, otherwise their antics (crawling out of holes you place them in) might be a bit misguided.
  18. Holes, hedge, infantry - in that order, you are correct in that half the holes are on the 'wrong' side of the hedge, the soldiers need to be placed on the correct side (they will definately only gather on one side of the hedge, despite holes on both sides), given facing-orders etc. And you are right to point out my oversight of not having a holes-only baseline test; but in my defence, I consider foxholes on their own to be about as useful a fighting-position as a soggy cardboard box, and not a patch on a decent line of bocage. Let's see... I used my holes/no-mortar template and erased the German hedge. Let the fun begin: I felt like calling this after half a turn - it took about 5 seconds for the Ami to spot Germans and open fire, after a couple of turns the Germans are completely broken - and this time there's no hedge to protect the numerous and cowardly routers - after 7 minutes German resistance ceases completely. ALL DEAD, German pixeltroops do not personally endorse CMBN foxholes. I wont waste my time running another
  19. Terrific work, worth it just for the rail sleepers alone. I'd like those for all rail-tiles - hint, hint
  20. Pretty much anything is possible, I think. Renault with Czech 47mm gun.
  21. Gluttons for punishment may like to visit the place I found that photo: http://www.normandy-1944.com/LaFiere02.html The guy there talks about it a bit. The gun looks an awful lot like a Pak40 to me, but the cradle is unusually large. The captured Russian 76.2mm guns had the same muzzle-brake, I'm not so familiar with them though.
  22. Sure, it's a different chassis. I downloaded the picture and zoomed-in, it looks like the trench-skid that looks like it's on the SP actually belongs to the tank (R35) next to it, closest the foreground. It could just as well be a Marder IIIH, definately not an M, detail is lacking.
  23. No. For my purposes it is irrelevant - I set a baseline without foxholes, then add foxholes into the mix and observe any changes in outcome. I set up a test which roughly reflects the conditions in a scenario I'm making, for my own purposes. I invite you to set up something similair yourself - I am curious of course, just limited with time. Well, I'd expect the side with 2:1 advantage to win - all other things being equal. A big factor is the amount of time guys spend cowering/not firing their weapons, this is usually the downfall of the outnumbered soldier. Can't wait to see how a para company with 50% more firepower will fare I did run the tests I made through 'till the bitter end, just a few times, and without mortars. 17 - no-mortar/no-holes/no-limit; firing stops completely by 24 minutes, both sides have ammo still, but Germans take so many casualties and so many run away the yanks run out of targets. US - (5/0) German - (38/10). Slaughter. 18 - no-mortar/no-holes/no-limit; very much the same results as test 17. US - (10/0) German - (32/13) Spider-holes installed for the Germans. 19 - no-mortar/no-limit/holes; this one runs about 28 minutes until firing stops, the Germans still have some HMG ammo after the Americans are reduced to nothing but grenades and can't return fire. Germans clear winners - no-one flees, and Germany out-scores the US by 19-10. Everyone flat out of ammo. 20 - no-mortar/no-limit/holes; a shorter battle at 25 minutes, but similair results, both sides are rock-solid, but the Germans edge it 18-13. Again ammo is depleted before battle is decided. Without the foxholed bocage the Germans routinely fail, with them they hold rock-steady.
×
×
  • Create New...