Jump to content

Bozowans

Members
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Bozowans last won the day on January 25

Bozowans had the most liked content!

About Bozowans

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

758 profile views
  1. This reminds me of something I read in a Soviet tank rider's war memoir. I think the book was just called "Tank Rider" or something. But anyway, he was describing repeated failed attempts at capturing a German-occupied hill. The Germans were dug-in up there with barbed wire and trenches and so on. Soviet infantry were repeatedly ordered to take the hill, but as they climbed up there they would fail to get through the wire or whatever and then get shot up by machine guns and then come running back down again in disarray. Eventually a platoon of T-34s were brought up, and they were ordered to repeat the attack with the T-34s in support. Well, as the tanks drove off from their start line toward the German hill, before even taking any fire, all of the crews decided to bail out of their still-moving tanks at the same time and then run away. So there were a bunch of empty T-34s driving toward the German positions. The tanks got destroyed. That made me laugh out loud when I read it. I'm sure players would not react very well if that happened to them in the game. In the same book, the author described some of the soldiers playing games by running across the street in front of a German tank, trying to bait the gunner into shooting at them. The German gunner would never lead his targets right and he would always miss. There was no tactical reason to do it at all, but the soldiers were bored and had fun by running back and forth across the street trying to make him shoot. How do you make a wargame when people act like that during real wars? Sometimes I think that you even get too much control over your units. I kinda miss the days of CMx1, where you had those long command delays, especially with Soviet early war tanks with no radios, where it might take more than a minute just to get them to start moving.
  2. That's interesting if you were unloading on them at very close range and still had that much trouble. I usually have pretty decent luck firing MG34s/42s at buildings. It's like the high rate of fire and sheer number of bullets hitting the building makes it more likely that at least some of them will penetrate. Maybe I had forgotten just how tough they made some of the buildings in CMBN though lol It's been a while since I've played CMBN. Would be fun to try that scenario myself and see if I can pull it off. That's the one campaign in that game that I haven't tried yet.
  3. How far away were you when you first started shooting? Firing at heavy buildings at very long range doesn't do much sometimes. It might not even suppress them that much. Like RockinHarry posted, the closer you get, the more likely shots are to penetrate. And how far away was the enemy when they shot up your own guys inside the same building? My guess is that might have been why you had so much trouble approaching the buildings, and then your own guys got wasted instantly the moment you got inside. You might have been trying to shoot at them from long range ineffectively, and then once your squad finally made it inside the building, they got hit by counter-fire at very close range. I haven't played that scenario though so I don't know. Maybe I'll have to try it. In my own experience, the best way to deal with buildings if you don't have heavy weapons or tanks is to just get in close as quickly as you can and shoot them up as much possible with as many men as possible. Use smoke, suppress them as much as you can during the approach or whatever, but you don't really have to storm the building itself. You can even halt in open ground in front of the building as long as you outnumber them heavily and have fire superiority. The idea is that the moment an enemy soldier pops up at the window to take a shot, you have 30 guys or whatever right outside the building that will all instantly return fire. If your guys are all just 50 meters outside the building, the enemy will probably be dead within seconds. The enemy might open up on one of your squads and cause a casualty or two, but you should have two more squads right there next to them that should take them down. Sometimes that alone will be enough to clear a building.
  4. Those gigantic Russian radios have always been in the game though. I remember watching my guys lug those huge things around in the default Russian campaign.
  5. It does make sense that a PPSh could be called a burp gun because of the high rate of fire. It can shoot 900-1000 rounds per minute. The old PPSh sound effects from CMBB even sounds like a 'brrrrrp brrrrrrp'. That article mentions soldiers in Korea calling them burp guns. The term certainly does go back to WW2 though. Looking into it a little bit further, it seems there was even a firefight called the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" during Operation Varsity in WW2, where a bunch of glider pilots fended off a German attack. It's kinda hard to find detailed information about it, but I found an article (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/21/the-birdmen-of-varsity/) that again repeats the claim that burp guns were MP-40s. It said, "In nearby farmhouses, enemy soldiers relentlessly fired their MP-40 submachine guns—nicknamed 'burp guns' for their rapid rate of fire." It went on to say that the battle was named the "Battle of Burp Gun Corner" by a journalist from Stars and Stripes. This still makes no sense though. Could MP-40s really have been such a dominant part of that fight that the battle would be named after them? Why not MG-42s? Something seems fishy. The MG-42 can vary from 900-1500 rounds per minute, so it's not that much different from the PPSh. The MG-34 gets 800-900 per minute, so also not that different. It should have a brrrrrrrrrp sound. The MP-40 only fires 500 rounds per minute, so it should be more like a pop-pop-pop-pop sound. Also, the officers carrying MP-40s would likely not have been firing them very much. They would be busy communicating, directing their men and observing the fight. It doesn't make sense that there would be all these relentless volleys of MP-40 fire that drowns out everything else. When I Googled MP-40s, the first video result was this: There is a guy halfway through the video who praises the MP-40 for its SLOW rate of fire. He said it was a good SMG because it's simple and fires slow enough that it's easily controllable and doesn't need a mechanism to toggle between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. It only fires fully-automatic, yet slow enough that you can still squeeze off aimed single shots if you want. That doesn't really sound like a rapid-firing burp gun to me. I'm gonna go ahead and make the bold assumption that every one of these sources about WW2 burp guns are wrong. Burp guns were really MG-42s (and 34s), but when Korea came along, the slang shifted to mean the PPSh, because it made a similar sound. Perhaps this meaning continued into Vietnam, and the term must have been used to refer to other SMGs that looked similar to the PPSh as well. The Vietnamese were known to use MP-40s mixed with PPSh-41s and whatever other SMGs they could get their hands on. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the PPSh-41, there is a photo of a captured NVA MP-40 alongside a PPS-43 and a K-50M, the Vietnamese variant of the Chinese variant of the PPSh-41. So all of these weapons would have been lumped together by the Americans until "burp gun" just meant "generic SMG that isn't ours". Then the WW2 burp gun somehow got retconned into meaning the MP-40. Maybe decades after WW2, someone was reading accounts from WW2 soldiers talking about burp guns, and they thought, "Burp gun? That's like one of those SMGs right? Must have been an MP-40 then." And then that got repeated over and over and over again ever since. Then once people started thinking burp guns meant MP-40s, they would read the original accounts from the war and think that MP-40s were much more important than they really were, since why else would the soldiers talk about these "burp guns" all the time right?
  6. This reminds me of the US Army slang where they would refer to "burp guns" among the Germans, but I was always very confused about what weapon is actually meant by that. One of my old WW2 books (I forget which one, I think about the Normandy campaign) mentioned American soldiers talking about burp guns, but then the footnote said it referred to an MP-40. The footnote said something along the lines of soldiers calling them burp guns because the Germans "relied heavily on automatic fire from MP-40 machine pistols, which had a very high rate of fire and had a distinctive rapid 'brrrrrrrrp' sound." Yet that sounds more like an MG42 to me. The MP-40 doesn't even fire that fast. As we all know here, machine guns were the primary weapons in German squads and that's probably what soldiers on the ground would have been hearing the most. Yet the book made no mention of MG42s, although the soldiers kept talking about "burp guns" all the time. That made no sense to me so I thought the book might have been wrong about that. Why would MP-40s be so important to talk about all the time but not MG42s? Upon searching Google for "burp gun" however, I find results that are almost entirely about the Soviet PPSh41. I see headlines like "Firing the Iconic PPSh41 'Burp Gun!'" This made me even more confused. On the second page of Google results I found a site (https://ww2db.com/weapon.php?q=8) which repeats the MP-40 as burp gun thing. So which one is it? The whole thing gives me a headache. Some of the Google results suggest "burp gun" just being a generic term for an SMG. It kinda makes me think that during the actual war, none of the soldiers on the ground would have had any idea of what was going on around them, and every enemy automatic weapon was a burp gun regardless of what it was, just as how every tank was a Tiger or whatever.
  7. So here is an example of the problem I was talking about on the Stavelot map. The problem affects these two white buildings highlighted here, just off the town square: Here is a close-up. As you can see I have men stacked up right in front of the doors. Neither the front nor the rear doors are functional for these buildings, and it seems the only way in is to go through the inside of the adjacent buildings. Also, this is not the only building type affected by this bug. Some of the really narrow buildings on this exact same block are also affected by this, but for now I'll just point out these. Here are the movement orders I have given. I had two separate teams try to enter the buildings side by side at the same time to illustrate the problem. When I hit the big red button, both teams ignored the doors and then started running off to the right: They circled around the corner, made a U-turn, and then entered the adjacent building at the end of the block. Naturally, this meant that they ran right into the bullets of the Americans across the street. So as you can see, it can be a bit of a game-breaking bug when it ends up like that, especially when playing a long campaign where every casualty you take matters. Luckily I save the game at the beginning of every turn anyway just in case something like this happens. I have multiple other examples and screenshots of this happening to other buildings on this same map as well.
  8. I've been running into this same issue in the Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign in CMFB. In Stavelot there are some very dense areas with narrow streets around the town square where I had this issue. There are obvious doorway textures on the front of some of the buildings, yet these doors apparently don't exist because my squads will ignore them, and instead run around the block to the other side or perhaps go into a building a few doors down and then make their way through from there. The buildings affected are in a big row like what Warts 'n' all described, so maybe these are those same Dutch buildings. I remember running into this issue in CMBN as well, but it's been a very long time and I couldn't tell you what type of building or what mission it was in.
  9. Now part two: As all that gunfire was going on with the two American half-tracks, two more half-tracks were coming up the road behind them, making four in total. Right when the first firefight was ending, the two new half-tracks opened fire down the road. They didn't even see the Stummel right in front of them, but were instead shooting off to the right side of the road where they saw muzzle flashes from the firefight (where my shot-up HQ teams were). Some of my forward troops had already turned around from infiltrating the city and were rushing back to the sound of shooting behind them. They were about to lay a devastating ambush along the road. Now that the Americans were shooting, my troops along the road suddenly realized what was right in front of them and then opened fire. Seemingly every man in this entire squad threw a grenade, and then a panzerfaust was launched: These guys have no idea what's coming: See if you can count how many grenades are in this picture! The half-tracks go boom. Both remaining half-tracks are completely destroyed with all hands lost inside. After such a shocking few minutes, everything fell quiet for a while. My troops went on without their commander back to their original mission of infiltrating the city, and were eventually victorious.
  10. Here's one of the more crazy close-range firefights I've ever seen in these games. This post might have spoilers for the Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign for anyone that cares. I was the Waffen SS attacking into Stavelot in the early morning hours, with the skies overcast and visibility almost at zero. You could walk right up to enemies and not see them even at point blank range. As the battle began and my forward platoons were fanning out toward the city, my company HQ and most of the company's half-tracks were kept back a bit. I thought they were all safe back there, silly me! Before long, I could hear American vehicles moving down the road out of the city and directly at my positions. I wasn't expecting them to counterattack or just brazenly drive straight out at me so I didn't know what to do at first. The vehicles drove right past my forward troops and none of them saw anything, although I could see the sound contacts coming closer and closer. An American half-track packed full of troops suddenly veered off the road, turned right, crossed right in front of a Stummel just meters away, then drove straight at my two HQ teams hidden behind a line of bushes, one of them being the company HQ: The half-track smashed down the fence between the two HQ teams and then kept going, and the GIs in the back got up and opened fire into the backs of my HQ teams, causing two casualties straight away: One of the HQ teams spun around and returned fire: Seconds later, another American half-track appeared out of nowhere, following behind the first: Like a firing squad, the men in the half-track all turned in unison and mercilessly gunned down the entire HQ team. A rifle grenade exploded in the middle of them. My company commander was killed instantly, and at this point my jaw had pretty much hit the floor. One of the first casualties in the battle was my company commander, and he was calling in a bunch of artillery at the time so I had no way to cancel. This was probably the least likely thing I had ever expected to happen - my company commander gunned down in a drive-by shooting at point blank range right at the beginning of the battle. I would soon get my revenge however. The American half-tracks had drove right into the midst of a column of German half-tracks strung out along the road. They turned and started shooting: The US half-tracks both halted and the men started bailing out under heavy fire: A short but intense firefight ensued, with the Americans shooting and tossing grenades in every direction while under a murderous crossfire. The American dismounts were cut down to the last man, although both of their half-tracks managed to escape and drive off into the darkness. Only the drivers survived. I lost a half-track gunner or two but nothing else. Stay tuned for part two!
  11. I don't think they get unlimited artillery. But they do get quite a lot of it in some of those missions. I played through the Russian campaign and some of the missions seemed like mostly just giant artillery battles back and forth, with the infantry's only role being scouts to find the enemy, absorb enemy artillery, call in my own artillery, and then eventually advance to occupy ground already completely pulverized by artillery and/or heavy HE fire from vehicles. So much of the artillery is really high caliber too. In the later missions I remember destroying entire city blocks it seemed like. The AI might be able to use drones to call in artillery too but I'm not 100% certain. They certainly do get roving air support that can find and target your units anywhere on the map. They might also be seeing your men from super far away with the advanced optics they get. Throughout the campaign I learned pretty quickly to spread everyone out as far as I possibly can. I would split all squads, keep them outside of their vehicles, spread them way out and keep them hidden inside buildings as much as possible. You can also bait the AI into wasting artillery by having infantry run out into the open, stay there for a moment, then run away back to safety again. It won't take them long to start calling in rounds at where they last saw your infantry.
  12. If you ask on this forum you are gonna get some pretty biased answers. Like a lot of grognard-style wargames, the CM games can be clunky and buggy at times, and they can be very difficult to get into. They are also challenging, slow-paced and extremely time consuming to play. I can easily spend an hour just issuing orders for a single turn, and one scenario might have dozens of turns. You have to micromanage every one of your units right down to analyzing all of their lines of sight and lines of fire, and sometimes you get a huge number of them. Some scenarios are small and easy to play, but some of them are enormous and daunting. At the beginning of a scenario, I can spend ages coming up with detailed plans and moves for every individual unit, and then once the scenario starts, I can spend even longer slowly having my units sneak around and scout ahead and get into their positions without ever seeing an enemy. With some of the larger scenarios, I can play them for hours without ever seeing any action or a single shot fired. Some people might find that kind of gameplay very boring, but the games do have an absurd amount of detail, depth, historical accuracy and so on. Once you get into them, you can play them for years, and there really aren't any other games like them out there. They are probably still up there with some of my favorite games of all time, and I still come back to them every now and then years later. So whether these games are worth the steep price really depends on what type of game you're looking for. Like some others have said, download the demos. Unlike a lot of games these days, the demos for the CM games are very good and give you hours content for free. Every one of the CM games has a demo and I would suggest downloading all of them. I would suggest watching videos of it too. There are some really great video AARs out there that show off the game.
  13. Funny, I went to the Strand just a few weeks ago when I went to NYC for the first time. Yeah it's definitely worth checking out. It's a great place and very big. Multiple floors along with a whole floor for rare books. I could spend a whole day in there. I loaded up on books even though it made my luggage much heavier for the trip back. I found one book there for less than $10 when the only copy I could find online was a $40 one on Amazon.
  14. So you're saying that the terrain tiles behave like the CMx1 engine does? Where the underlying terrain tile gives a flat bonus to whoever is in it? So if you are in a "heavy forest" tile, even with no actual trees placed on the tile in the map editor, you get a cover bonus anyway? And by hit calculation, do you mean units are more inaccurate when firing at enemies in a bush tile than in a grass tile for example? What about shell holes or foxholes? They don't seem to provide much cover unless the occupants are cowering at the bottom of them. I could of course be wrong since I don't know how the game was made, but it always seemed to me that the underlying terrain tile (whether a wheat field or bushes or rocks or whatever) might give your guys concealment, but not any more actual protection from bullets than open ground does. One example of an actual cover bonus I can think of was added in the 4.0 upgrade, where they added the infantry peeking around corners behavior. IIRC they said in the patch notes that the guys posted at the corners get a cover bonus, since there is no animation for peeking or leaning around the corner. I've noticed in the game that units become much more inaccurate when shooting at guys posted at corners. It still surprises me though how much punishment squads in open ground can take. In the most recent scenario I played, a Syrian special forces squad got caught and pinned in place in flat, open pavement at about 500m. Even though the terrain was flat as a pool table, I had several machine guns, a sniper, and some Strykers firing at them for several minutes before they took a casualty. It always seemed to me that movement and distance are the biggest factors in determining casualties. Accuracy always seems to improve when firing at targets running around upright, but the moment the targets drop to the ground and stop moving, accuracy falls off a cliff even when they are out in the open.
  15. I don't quite understand what your point is here. Are you saying that CM is only supposed to simulate highly disciplined armies that don't "hip and hop" through the streets or what? Why does CM have options to simulate poorly motivated conscript units then? Shock Force has uncon fighters that are supposed to represent untrained neighborhood militias defending their homes and whatnot, which are exactly the guys that would be hipping and hopping around. Not to mention the poor conscripts in the Syrian Army. What if you wanted to make a Red vs Red scenario where both sides are undisciplined? Now I've never been in a firefight, but it seems strange to claim that being agile and running around a lot is not indicative of firefights "in any way". Staying in one place for too long seems like a bad idea in modern warfare. You want to step out of cover, fire that RPG, then get out fast before the enemy knows what happened. Modern warfare in most of the world seems to be dominated by constant, relatively low-intensity skirmishing and sniping between small, mobile infantry units. In CM though, it's very difficult to do the kind of hit-and-run attacks that you see all the time IRL. There's no way to fire an RPG and then make a run for it. At least not if you're playing WEGO. You have to wait until the turn is over to tell them to move, and by then they will probably be dead. I don't understand what this means either. Can you elaborate a bit? How exactly does it calculate microterrain? From what I can tell, the game engine only gives a "cover bonus" to units that are directly behind hard cover like trees or buildings. The underlying terrain tile (whether it's rocky, bushes, open, etc) does not seem to have any effect at all, which is what I was referring to before. So rocky terrain doesn't give your troops more of a bonus than open terrain does. Am I wrong about that?
×
×
  • Create New...