Jump to content

General Liederkranz

Members
  • Content Count

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

General Liederkranz last won the day on September 11 2018

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. I believe that the Personnel setting is also only available for missions plotted before the game starts, or near TRPs--on the assumption that the artillery knows the exact range to TRPs, or has time to measure it before the game starts, so they can set the fuses appropriately.
  2. Related to this topic, I just witnessed an AI war crime. This guy surrendered then they threw a grenade at him anyway. (I'm not saying this is a bug; I imagine the enemy TacAI decided to fire before his own TacAI decided to surrender).
  3. This probably refers to the M4A1 mortar carrier, a predecessor to the M21, not to the M4A1 medium tank. As I recall mortar carriers weren't coded yet when CMFI and GL came out. http://americangimuseum.org/collections/restored-vehicles/m4a1-mortar-carrier-halftrack-1943/
  4. Sadly it seems this bug is still around, at least in CMFI 2.02. Playing the third scenario of the Troina campaign I observed a couple of occasions where cancelling a Target Light order causes a (US) unit to fire off one rifle grenade before they stop shooting. I wonder if the code cancels the "Light" limitation a split second before it cancels the "Fire" order? I have a saved game showing this behavior.
  5. As @Howler said this still sounds bugged to me. I did some tests with this scenario and noted that in v3.12 and v4, not only do the troops not flee forwards, they usually flee back, which makes far more sense. In 4.01 and 4.02 whenever they flee, it's always forward. So even if the issue here is that the pixeltruppen are seeing the elevation change in front of them as "better cover," that is itself new behavior in 4.01 and 4.02. The old behavior--seeking safer cover by moving back from the hedgerow--seems far more realistic to me.
  6. If you're seeing troops in buildings taking casualties from mortar shrapnel, it seems more likely that it came in through a window or door or shellhole than that it penetrated the building. I believe that probability is factored into the abstracted chance of taking casualties from a shellburst.
  7. On the flip side, the large teams allow the MG to stay in action longer. With US teams that are split, you will sometimes end up with the three-man team all wounded or dead and no way for the ammo bearers to take over the MG.
  8. Exactly, thanks @Howler. I am hopeful a fix is technically possible because of how German MG assistants behave, but I'm under no illusions that this is likely or easy or a priority.
  9. Since I think v3.12 or v4, if you have an FO adjust a fire mission it adjusts *all* the fire missions he's currently directing. I know people have posted about this before but I can't find the threads now. I'm wondering if anyone recalls how this was resolved--was it judged not to be a bug but to be intended behavior? If so, I'm having trouble figuring out what it is supposed to represent.
  10. Thanks @RockinHarry, this is great info. In addition to the points you listed, the fact that batteries firing preparatory bombardments would normally hit targets 110 to 165 yards wide is a useful guideline and suggests to me that Area fire missions should probably be much more commonly used than Point, realistically. It's also interesting that the Germans preferred to fire in whole battalion. In US accounts I also read about battalions firing much more often than batteries, yet in CM games we generally think in terms of batteries. I'm not suggesting that there should be nationality restrictions on trajectory, but that realistically there should be some restrictions. My point about the maximum elevations is that it was a real consideration that designers and officers took into account. As it is any off-map artillery can target any spot on the map. It doesn't matter how steep a hill it is, or whether the firer is an 81mm mortar or a 150mm gun. It would be more realistic if some places, behind steep hills, were immune to off-map fire. This wouldn't have to be a detailed model based on the type of guns and their assumed off-map distance and elevation; it could just be a simple rule of thumb. Not that I'm expecting it to happen, since it's a rare issue and probably not worth the trouble it would take to program. This is a good point. I think that the lack of defined building interiors plays a role too. Hiding helps but it's not enough. Somewhere I think Steve said they initially were going to have multiple action spots inside each building, so you could place a unit in the middle of the building away from all the windows. If the defender could do that, and then tell the unit to Hide, it would create a stronger need for the attacker to bring in large-caliber HE and level the building.
  11. It may be that trenches don't provide enough protection (especially since we can't get overhead cover), but I think there are two other things going on here too. First, artillery is too flexible in the WW2 games and (as others have suggested on the forum) it would be more realistic not to allow Point or Linear missions, instead requiring Area with a minimum of 50m or so. I've started doing this in single-player games and the results feel much more realistic to me. Artillery will suppress and cause casualties but it rarely annihilates. Second, in my experience it makes a huge difference if infantry in trenches Hide. The problem of course is that the AI will never do this.
  12. I think you're talking about direct fire flat trajectory shooting? My understanding is that even for INDIRECT fire there should be dead zones. Instead of distance helping, the dead zones would be even larger if the artillery is further away, since the shells would come in at a shallower angle. The sFH 18, for example, had a maximum elevation of 45 degrees, so steep hills would get in the way. The US M2A1 had a higher elevation of 63 degrees, so it could reach over obstacles better than the US army's earlier 75mm guns (18 degrees initially increased to 45 degrees later). https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison/ This is good to know, thanks! It seems like these maybe appear too often appear in scenarios as extra-heavy weapons.
  13. It’s always seemed to me that the trajectories are the same for guns, howitzers, and off-map mortars, and they look pretty steep. I think it’s up to scenario designers to omit certain assets if the terrain would make them unusable. I recall one scenario in the Troina campaign says the Germans have only mortars because you’re on the reverse slope from them. It would be nice if this were explicitly modeled, since some maps would have tactically interesting dead zones for the enemy artillery. (E.g. in CMFI “Ramparts of the Palikoi” I’m pretty sure the German 150mm sFH 18s should not be able to fire on the steam bed at the bottom of such a steep bluff.) I would assume that the different explosive content of each type of shell is modeled, including gun/howitzer differences. I certainly notice that mortar shells seem to have a big blast but less effect, which according to my understanding is right.
  14. It was recently that I played YEG, under 4.01. These are my results. At the time, I was sure the casualties I was seeing were from direct tank/TD fire and not mortars. Perhaps I was wrong but I was carefully watching.
×
×
  • Create New...