Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About semmes

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I have nothing personal against the coders and as this looks like a movie allow me to use the word "producer", probably the same "producer" who decided that when under fire, you run... You don't, you take cover, you hit the ground... they haven't invented anything else. They never invented anything else. You try to get a certain amount of bullets in a determined space with the expectation of hitting somebody there. One of those 10 guys is going to be an ex-guy, if the code doesn't say that each one of them has a 10% chance... the "producer" took the wrong decision. Anybody has seen the code? ... @IanL ? Silent enim leges inter arma. Cicero. Laws fall silent when weapons talk.
  2. The only aimed fire is with a rifle. The lock is moving forward, so any other fire is area fire. I would say the tons of evidence should come from the programmers, if they made 10.000 test and there was even the slightest hint that out of 100 casualties more than 10 were gunners they were doing it wrong. My friend, any hussar who does not die by thirty is a blackguard . Lasalle.
  3. The preliminary conclusion would be that "crack" troops are, indeed mythical creatures. This time the Germans had some "regular" troops on the front line, the AI was using a different plan but still buildings, cover... After 15' the Russians had 20 casualties, all of them SAF. The Germans 44. One by mortar fire. 28 by Su76 and 15 by small arms fire, including a few "crack" ones. Pero si mañana lo fusilamos nosotros, fusilaremos a un general que ha faltado a su honor y a su palabra. Aranguren a Goded. But if tomorrow we shoot you, we will be shooting a general who betrayed his honour and his word. Gen. Aranguren to Gen. Goded, 1936.
  4. To MikeyD I always -even in 1944- give the Germans better quality than the Russians. Maybe a test with vet v. vet with (+1/+2) better leaders or worse Russians leaders ? Good idea thanks, I never thought of "crack" as mythical creatures. To Freyberg Yes to all. Well... accurate automatic fire is a contradiction, I guess you mean accurate area-fire. "The most lethal, accurate weapon on the WWII battlefield", I never read those statistics but I read that it is pretty hard to convince any GI that the Bren is better than the BAR. You read my post so you read my 2 examples of fire/movement... but I think you're missing the point. Of course at the end some -Russians MG- will kill something but 10' of an "exception" looks beyond "exceptional". My point is that the MG42 -and the MG34 too- is providing suppressive fire and killing and the Maxim -and DT- only suppression. How good sounds bad music and bad reasons when we march against the enemy. Nietzsche.
  5. Again... sorry. I am testing one scenario -good thing because I forgot to setup an unit in the right zone- so, after 15' I used the Cease Fire to see what was going on. Two German coy. defending (AI, crack/normal, some in buildings, some in ditches, 90% in some cover), 14 LMG + 6 HMG in combat. They suffered 40 casualties, 39 by Su76 fire, ONE by small arms fire -not by MG. Four Russians coy. advancing with a lot of covering fire ("human", veteran/normal, not all the time moving, half the time under cover, providing support fire) 27 LMG + 8 HMG actually firing. 30 casualties, ALL by small arms fire. Even if 2/3 were while moving in the open -and they were not- that's a 10-to-1, 10-to-0 regarding MG. Let's say 30 MG firing for 10'... not a single one was able to kill one enemy soldier. For some reason, it seems that every time I take a closer look I find something "funny" (yes, I know... don't look). So my my question is: "Human" infantry... do they shoot blanks? I am still working in this scenario, I will be checking again. On the other hand, I was using distant LMG and close SMG covering fire to get within grenade distance ro eliminate an enemy MG; it worked. I was using mortar fire to get 3 Su76 in position to knock one PzIV out; it worked. Something like the "game" part is working all the time but the "WWII" intermittently... And yes I know -actually there is an Australian study about rounds per hit for LMG compare to SLR- a lot of covering fire, you are likely to get hit while moving... everything else. Still, 30 MG x 10' ... 0 / 30 casualties. I will obey orders. A friend of mine... during a game.
  6. A platoon got an AT round in some trees behind them... around 30 guys: 3 casualties... 1 leader, 1 gunner, 1 rifleman. Bias... obviously. Salut les Gendarmes! Beaucoup de pertes, ¿chez vous?. Verdun. Heil MP! You had many casualties?
  7. To General Jack Ripper If... or... not. If... or... not. If... or... not. or... not. Have you being aiming a lot, with a LMG, at 300m, at a few guys running from one cover to the next? I submit then. The British Government may condone an inefficiently conducted campaign, it might overlook a lost battle or two, but not under any circumstances nor for any reason would tolerate an expensive campaign. D. R. Morris.
  8. I still play this game because almost every other one is a lot, lot worse. But learning that "the colour of the toy" is what is important is a bit... disappointing. Clinton left to Parker the glory of being defeated alone. N. Orleans.
  9. Maybe you would like to quote the very first sentence too: "This proves nothing". I did -some- tests too and they show a tendency, maybe that's why I was talking about checking squads after the battle. So, we do know that they are not random? That means that somebody decided that when 10 guys are rushing 8m. from one cover to the next another guy 300m away, with a MG, is going to aim at one of them? really? Is that what we could call "gamey"? As somebody was saying "range" and "combat" are not the same... and you don't need "combat". You just need to get to a field, lay down, keep your eyes on the dirt and then raise your head... to see how clearly you are going to see a target 200m away... and while you are aiming remember nobody is aiming at you. I did not find the ensuing fighting half so pleasant as it should otherwise have been. Kincaid.
  10. This proves nothing. This is what I am playing now. I cannot load the wider view because I cannot -limit- load anything else. Down left there was an explosion, 4 wounded, 1 dead -squad leader- and this is what happened 88m. away. No sniper, no shooting... nothing else. Just wondering how many anecdotes like these do I need, even if I really hope somebody is checking squads; even if only to shut my mouth. His Majesty... chance. F. the Great. Once is chance, twice is a coincidence, three... enemy action. Nam.
  11. Thank you for all the replies, but... No snipers, for example, is one the things I said. I do understand the corporal leading, I do not understand being the only one hit by a mortar round. I do not understand the gunner being the only one hit when a machine-gun is firing at a few guys moving from one cover to another 380m. away, and again, and again and by a mortar round. I am not quite sure what concept of aiming anybody is using around, maybe pot-shot ? A guy popping his head from a window while the house is under fire... how many seconds is he going to take to aim at people 180m. away. No, not every example is like this one. Yes, the first thing I thought was that it was my impression, for that reason I was checking squads after the battle; well: it's not. Have you been looking at saved games and checking squads? Somebody said something very interesting... and it's true that how I am playing now I suffer less casualties. Still, the same selection of casualties. Yes maybe it is my impression, 20 times. Thanks. How many times have you been wounded? -Today? Nam.
  12. Yes, not "always", only 70%... and 30% for the AI. When I finish the battle I check the other side, unless the squad has 2 or 3 guys left they still have their leader and original gunner. One squad had 3 casualties: one, one, one; every single time the gunner, 2 of them by mortar fire. One platoon had 4 casualties: 3 gunners, 1 leader. To be completely honest, on the German side, the StG 44 dies too. Examples like these are happening all the time, I am actually surprise when a rifleman is hit. No snipers and it doesn't matter if it's rifle, MG or artillery fire, at the end of the battle the result is always the same. So... When are we getting the patch to make non-AI casualties actually random ? Regards. …
  13. So I tried this... And I cannot post the pictures because I cannot delete the old attachments because I cannot edit them. So... I dig actual trenches in the front-line areas where I think a player would -or could- deploy troops. One line of squares surrounded by squares 1m. higher; you cannot use Ditch lock, you would get no LOS. First I was using sand terrain for them, it looks nice but everybody can see it, so I now I use the surrounding terrain but with an objective line -0 points- that only the owner can see. It works... they can fire and most of the incoming fire goes over their heads. True, you cannot move them around like the parapets nor place them in every location you want but you are modelling the terrain so you just need to adjust the slope a little and dig enough of them.
  14. True. I thought about saying "teach" instead of teach, my fault. A few more shots -from the AI- is not like keeping an area under fire for ten minutes like a player would do. Pity... Congratulations for your groupies. We must have peace without victory. Wilson, 1917.
  15. No, the answer to my question - Are you going to repair the building's invisibility cloak around buildings ? is... No. By the way I didn't say anything about giving orders to the AI, units under AI control can decide to Area Fire instead of only Target Fire or no fire at all. It is not our duty to doubt Admiralty's wisdom. Response to a British cadet.
  • Create New...