Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Hapless last won the day on June 26

Hapless had the most liked content!


About Hapless

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,014 profile views
  1. Not much I think I can add on top of the last few posts. We know that CM aims for centre mass and we know that's both realistic and infinitely easier to code than using a thousand variables to calculate exactly where the gunner should aim. We know that for some German tanks, presenting a hull-down target means the centre of mass is shifted from the effective armour of the hull front plate up to the less effective armour of the turret mantlet and the vulnerable muzzle/gun barrel. I think the question has gotten to be: how does the player manage that? In one corner we have "expect to get hit, get into the open so centre mass is the better protected hull front"; and in the other corner we have "don't risk getting hit at all, play pop-up from a hull-down position". There's an argument for both, but I know which point of view I would rather my opponent held. Two things I'd add would be: Testing is good, but unless it includes ingame behaviour then it's of limited use (and if you fight from a static exposed position with the pause command overriding the (reasonably sensible) TacAI then I'd love to play you). Ideally what we would need are examples from actual games under ingame conditions when players are trying to win. And finally: no one complains about this happening to Shermans. There are elements of this discussion that feel a lot like "Invincible Panzer Syndrome" vs reality. Heavy armour doesn't exclude any tank from basic tactical principles- it's insurance against the worst case possibility.
  2. Well, in terms of point-to-point possibilities, you can always draw a line with the target command- you can do that from movement waypoints so you can pretty much draw LOS from anywhere you like. The downside that it's not 100% accurate... precisely because you're drawing simple LOS from one point to another instead of dealing with the complex actual LOS of units in CM.
  3. Also to consider: the main gun barrel is kind of a huge lever, right? Everyone who's played CM has seen tanks rocking back on their suspension when they get hit, even if it doesn't penetrate- that's the sheer kinetic energy being absorbed the mass of the tank. Think about the amount of force that will make a 55 ton Tiger I physically move, then apply that force to the chunk of precision engineering at the breech end of the main gun. Sure, the gun barrel is expected to be subject to and absorb extreme forces, but only in one direction (forwards/backwards for recoil). The system isn't designed to deal with extreme lateral movements. So even if what we see ingame is a non-penetrating, white hit-text gun barrel hit that doesn't look like it should do that much, there's probably something terrible that's happened inside the turret. That is kind of a quibble though. The question is whether it happens unrealistically frequently in Combat Mission. It probably does, but I'd argue that that's got a lot to do with players being more aggressive, less cautious and essentially untrained compared to historical tankers. Actual data on the frequency of gun damage from real games (ie. not setting things up in the editor) as opposed to anecdotes seems like a sensible way forward.
  4. What Tiger? You were just rolling down the street when suddenly there was a huge bang and the turret filled with smoke, screams, shrapnel and blood. It would be nice to have more details on the actual engagement, but I seriously doubt the surviving crew were either still inside the Pershing or in any kind of mental state to do anything by the time the second shot hit the muzzle brake. It seems unlikely that they had any idea what was going on. But we're getting a little sidetracked from the main point. It might be profitable for people to start sharing turns when they take gun damage so we can see how often it happens and what common factors there are. Because I know it barely ever happens to me, nor does it seem to happen very often when I specifically try to do it to my opponents.
  5. A ) B ) You might be clutching at straws if you're trying to suggest that the gun barrels of all tanks from all nations suffered fewer than 3 frontal hits in the entirety of WW2, whether there was anyone there with a camera to record it or not. C ) The greater point is that assuming that it never ever happened ever in WW2 does not mean that it wouldn't happen in CM, even if CM was 100% realistic (which it isn't). Battlefront can only provide the tools for the players. If players decide to reverse towards the enemy, they run the risk of getting their engine knocked out. If players let the enemy shoot at the front of their tanks, they run the risk of getting their main gun knocked out.
  6. It might just be a perspective problem. Looking at it sideways- how many times do US players run up against Tigers in Combat Mission? A lot, right? Because Tigers are cool and popular. But its shockingly unrealistic. That Pershing-Tiger engagement there is 1/3 of all the times the US Army fought Tiger Is in Western Europe. The Americans basically never fought Tiger 1s in the entire period covered by CMBN and CMFB up to the end of the war. It's a historically negligible event. But in games, of course, it happens all the time. Leaving aside the fact that we've already seen enough photos spread out around the threads to show that gun barrel damage is more common than US-Tiger engagements in the historical record, it stands to reason that any reliance on "it seems like a rare event in real life" is about as effective an argument as "my panzer's mighty armour should let me do whatever I want with it." The bottom line is that the enemy has to be shooting at you to damage your gun barrel. If you've put your tanks in a position where they're getting shot at, either accept the risk or work out where everything went wrong.
  7. It's a lot harder for your troops to desert when they can't leave their vehicles. Plus, if the troops never leave their BMPs, they'll never see all the fancy consumer products in the average European house that only the party elite seem to have back home. There was an article floating around here somewhere with words to the effect that the Soviets were historically willing to accept a tactical disadvantage to gain an operational advantage (look at some of the terrain they attacked over in Manchuria, for example).
  8. @Ithikial Regarding KG Benpark... that smoke on the intersection is blinding the enemy as well, surely? It might be worth punching some scouts across to get eyes on that park across the road. That way you've got a bit of a recce screen going and you can better judge Elvis' intentions over there. Throwing more men across that road and threatening Jaegermeister from the north could be another option- applying some pressure there might relieve the other flank some- but I don't know how sustainable it would be once the smoke clears and it becomes more difficult to reinforce them. You'd also lose a lot of flexibility because it'd be much harder to switch KG Benpark to another axis. And finally, for the truly crazy... bumrush down the road while you have the smoke. He's not going to expect you suddenly appearing in his face like that. If you can get a toehold that close to Jaegermeister you'll be forcing him to react. Obviously a roll of the dice, but fortune favours the bold, right?
  9. That's some pretty impressive hearing: being able to identify the engine noise of a distant enemy tank over the sound of your own engine. Maybe it's the same kind of ridiculous myth that keeps generating unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of German heavy armour.
  10. Well, depending on how things pan out you might not necessarily need to actually destroy the Panzers. The terrain here is so dense that they need infantry support to avoid being picked off by AT teams (which he won't know you don't have) or simple close assault. If you can clear the enemy pixeltruppen away from sidestreets on a Panzer's flank you might be able to compel him to pull it back simply by creating a threatening situation. Plus... Sturmovik has 20mm cannons right? Bet the top armour of plenty of German tanks doesn't react too well to those.
  11. I just stick a load of screenshots together... it takes a while! I have considered making some kind of database, but it's a pretty daunting, time-consuming enterprise. Even more so if done accurately and comprehensively.
  12. I feel like the ammunition types might go some way to identfying the rifles- there's German, British and Italian in there. No.3 looks like a Sten with the magazine on the bottom instead of the side.
  13. Awesome! Looking forward to my pixeltruppen counterpart's (mis)adventures. Berlin looks fantastic, if a nightmare to fight through.
  • Create New...