Jump to content

General Liederkranz

Members
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

General Liederkranz last won the day on September 11

General Liederkranz had the most liked content!

About General Liederkranz

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. General Liederkranz

    StG 44 in the upcoming CMRT module

    I *think* this is the only official BFC explanation of why there are so many SVTs in CMRT.
  2. They can weight-wise, but in games they don't (I think it's 75 rounds per carbine vs. 104 per Garand), I assume because those who carry carbines aren't expected to use it much. I know in the game I see SMG rounds bouncing off buildings more than rifle rounds do, so I assume that would apply to carbines as well?
  3. General Liederkranz

    Range info

    1) For small arms, it's in the manual. For lighter vehicular ordnance and guns (up to maybe 40mm), and for heavy weapons, it'll be listed in the UI, just under the silhouette of the vehicle/weapon. Anything heavier than that, I think they don't tell you because the assumption is it can reach anywhere on an ordinary map. But there is a little bit of flex in these values; bazookas and Panzerschrecks, for example, can fire beyond their listed ranges in some cases, especially if they're uphill from the target. 2) those are quick commands for (respectively): Pause, Stop, and Evade. The manual discusses them briefly but not in a lot of detail. A useful thread on the Evade command:
  4. Also, US and German stragglers both suffer from less flexible command. They don't have XOs at the company level, so their leadership is fragile, and they don't have Assistant Squad Leaders, so splitting the squads weakens them more. And since they have four squads per platoon/section, they're a little clumsier if you want to keep them in C2. In general it seems to me that German straggler units suffer more--since their squads never have inherent MG42s, which is a bigger loss, whereas the Americans only lose BARs, and even then only in some squads (it seems to be randomized). And the Americans also still get radios at the platoon/section level! It seems to me the stragglers, often as not, represent not beaten-up infantry units, but all the other hodgepodge of forces that ended up fighting as infantry in the Bulge--cannon companies without their howitzers, AT companies without their ATGs, non-combat engineers, supply units, cooks, drivers, clerks, etc. Hence the high numbers of carbines (and the reduced grenade counts) -- but there were still plenty of radios and even a few BARs and Thompsons floating around. The M1917 HMGs instead of M1919 MMGs also make sense since they were more common in the rear areas, lots being issued to engineers (I have no idea why?) and to the battalion HW companies and I think HQ guards. I don't get the lack of bazookas though. Also, a full-strength straggler group is 226 men, while a US infantry company in the game is something like 160. So the straggler group seems to me more like the remnants of a battalion (and probably not an infantry battalion) rather than a company. Man-for-man, you can get a lot more firepower, and a lot more nimble C2, out of 226 Americans in other formations than you can out of the stragglers. This seems especially important for the 60mm mortars--the only way to use them for indirect fire is to keep the Group HQ back with them.
  5. I assumed that it's a matter of coding the .50 as an "AP" weapon and then coding all "AP" weapons to fire at armor, without taking into account whether they can penetrate. I know I've seen .50s fire at other armor, I think including StuGs--are you saying in your experience the only immune targets they'll attack are Panthers? Also, while it seems the answer here is that the M8 had been unbuttoned, another possibility that occurs to me is, might your infantry in the first case have been carrying 7.92mm AP (picked up from a halftrack or something)?
  6. General Liederkranz

    Tank Armor/late war metal shortage

    I believe so. Check out the vehicle descriptions in the manual, and you'll see notes about the armor quality on various tanks, particularly Panthers.
  7. I agree on this; Move seems to have decent spotting and no more vulnerability to an initial attack than Hunt. The problem is that they switch to Quick when fired upon, which can make them more vulnerable. Using short waypoints helps. I think v 4 helps make Move more viable since troops don’t form a conga line.
  8. Isn't this a lot like what Slow currently does, except for the animations? Slow is tiring of course, but I imagine this would also be. Isn't this already there for when vehicles, regardless of movement commands, encounter much more heavily armored vehicles that they can't hurt? It seems like it would require a lot of coding to make it apply to ATGs or infantry fire as well, since "whether you can hurry them" is much more complex than just an armor penetration calculation. A T-70 *can* hurt an 88 that it sees 1500m away . . . but you'd probably still want it to back up when it notices the gun. It seems like we'd need two Hunt modes--one for this, an another for when you want Hunt to mean that a King Tiger should move forward until it spots the enemy, then open fire. I would love it if (as others suggested at some point) Hunt could be a toggle rather than a command, so it would govern how soldiers in any movement command would respond to enemy contact--in Move, for example, it would make them drop down instead of switching to Quick if they take fire.
  9. General Liederkranz

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    Perhaps I was being overly snarky, but yes, @sburke is right, my point was that there's a very good reason you lose the scenario if you don't make the attack--you haven't done what you were ordered to do. In real life, there could be dire consequences for that. Since this entire discussion has been about whether the scenario is realistic, I'm not convinced "it's a video game" is a useful response. Exactly. This is becoming a circular discussion. If this is implying that I'm part of the "we," I should clarify that I had absolutely nothing to do with designing "Crossing the River," CMRT, or any CM scenario.
  10. General Liederkranz

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    "Why did I get demoted and put in a penal battalion? All I did was disobey a direct order, leaving the neighboring battalion's flank in the air and exposed to a counterattack! And then my own battalion, sitting still on the start line, took 60% casualties to a German artillery barrage. It's not fair!" The plans for Bagration weren't premised on individual battalion commanders being able to cancel attacks just because they guessed (based on what?) that the prep barrage didn't do enough damage. (In any case, if you Cease Fire immediately you'll get a Major Defeat but you can still go on to the next mission in the campaign.) Again, have you played it? This is simply not true. I don't. Atypical, maybe. If you read the earlier thread, you'll see that there are ways I think "Crossing the River" could've been more realistic. But not "intentionally dysfunctional.' Plenty of things happened in WW2 that, if you read only the doctrinal manuals, theoretically should not have happened. That doesn't mean a scenario representing such an occurrence is "intentionally dysfunctional." By that logic, we should never see US TDs in scenarios except fighting as whole battalions, stopping enemy breakthroughs. All those scenarios where TDs are infantry support? All "intentionally dysfunctional." And don't even get me started on CMFB "Lanzerath Ridge." One US I&R platoon would never face down a whole Fallschirmjager battalion on its own, let alone without artillery support; that wasn't their job in US doctrine. And the Fallschirmjagers would never simply attempt a human wave attack; that wasn't German doctrine. Certainly not during "the biggest and most meticulously planned operation the [German] Army has ever [or at least recently] conducted against an unpummeled, immobile enemy on a sector of front that hasn't moved in weeks." Yet . . . it happened, and there's a scenario on it. And that's a far, far more severe and unlikely event than anything in "Crossing the River." You seem to be echoing many of JasonC's concerns about "the typical case," and I think BletchleyGeek had a good reply to that in the same thread: No one is forcing you to play the scenario. As I noted, you can even hit "Cease Fire" and it'll still advance you to the next battle in the campaign. One last thought on prep barrages: I think it's inherently difficult to represent them in scenarios where the AI is defending because the AI can't do what a human would do: put the defending troops on Hide until the artillery lifts and/or the enemy gets close, then un-Hide them. So the next best alternative is to abstract out the bombardment, as "Crossing the River" does.
  11. General Liederkranz

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    You can see my response there. Have you played it? I found the rockets, with a 15-minute delay, plenty useful. It's entirely realistic that the mortars would be on-call to the infantry as they advance--maybe they were used earlier along with heavy artillery in the prep fire, but that's mostly over before the scenario starts (and in contrast to Apocal, I found it pretty easy to call in the mortars--there are plenty of German positions that are "Reverse Slope--No Aim Point" but that's just fine for calling indirect fire). Would the Soviets *want* to make an attack this way, with the preliminary bombardment having failed to do much damage and infantry lagging a few minutes too far behind it? Probably not. But did they do it sometimes? Surely. Things go wrong, and CM often pays particular attention to the occasions when things didn't go exactly according to doctrine.
  12. General Liederkranz

    Soviet Mortar Usage IRL

    I had never thought of this, but it makes a lot of sense that they would do it. From that document, this suggests to me that the mortar teams would rely on direct-lay fire frequently when new targets appeared once an attack was underway: "351. С захватом пехотой переднего края и проникновением ее в глубину обороны минометная рота (батарея) повзводно быстро выдвигается вперед для поражения целей, наиболее мешающих продвижению пехоты. / 351. With the capture by the infantry of the front edge and penetration of it into the depth of defense, the mortar company (battery) platoon quickly advances forward to defeat the targets most interfering with the advance of the infantry." Thanks for the thoughts everyone!
  13. General Liederkranz

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    Similar concerns about Hammer's Flank have been raised, and I think convincingly answered (including by one of the designers), in an earlier thread:
  14. General Liederkranz

    Which to Buy?

    Except when those lovely tracers are coming out of Brens and BARs one at a time. 😉 (Or from Bredas, but I barely notice the difference between the white tracers and the generic old yellow ones.) I agree on corners, it's really fun to have that in urban fights.
  15. General Liederkranz

    Tank tactics: why the regression?

    A general option to put things back in vehicles/ammo dumps would be great--not just for heavy objects like Javelins but also for when you accidentally click the wrong place so the team with only carbines from a different platoon acquires your last 250 rounds of .30 cal MG ammo . . .
×