Aquila-SmartWargames
-
Posts
384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by Aquila-SmartWargames
-
-
On 2/19/2020 at 5:26 PM, DerKommissar said:
I don't understand why SLOW is so damn exhausting. I often need to wait a couple of minutes for sappers to rest, before they can crawl another 10 meters.
Depends of course on the fitness and conditioning of the individual soldier but a low crawl - body flat on the ground, no forearm and lower leg rest - in kit is one of the most exhaustive movement methods.
Its also a quite effective body/conditioning workout.
-
Good read: "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Roberd D. Livingston.
By taking lesser known aspects into account like the projectile diameter vs true armor thickness overmatch effect it helps to understand why high emphasis on multi-aspect/flank sloped armour protection (despite its logistical, production, ergonomical, and other/tactical concerns) might not be the jack of all trades solution in WW2 as some seem to perceive it nowadays, especially in a late WW2 environment.
Never tested it but my inner gut feeling teels me that the mentioned overmatch effect is simulated in Combat Mission in a bilateral way thus either armor thickness or projectile diameter overmatch.
I heard that the authors were involved in (playing) Combat Mission aswell.
-
48 minutes ago, 37mm said:
Oh, I don't know (yet) if you eventually figure it out or not but here are the mechanics of the base camps.
To some extent, but victory point calculation indicates that I might´ve missed some aspects of the base camp mechanics.
These posts are quite helpful, especially the IMINT hint should be really handy for planning.
-
Completed playthroughs on this and TOC. One of the best times I had in CM.
Already excited for upcoming Chiraq and Alarmeinheiten.
-
Furthermore this could be a chance to (semi-)historically utilize CM´s editor ability to pitch Axis vs. Axis tanks. A situation I never have encountered before in any CM campaign or scenario.
Not long ago I finally got a checkmark on an Allies vs. Allies tank situation in a certain CMFB campaign which was quite a pleasant surprise. Really like the captured tank/Beutepanzer idea.
-
Multi-national collection of manuals:
-
Quote
A CM title that includes both Western forces and the Soviets would fantastic IMO. My hope is that the last release for CMFB will be an equipment pack introducing Soviet forces/equipment into CMFB. Call it meeting on the Elbe River or something. Then the US, Commonwealth and Soviets would all be in the same Combat Mission game. No BFC created scenarios would be needed. Just an equipment pack of already designed equipment ported over from CMRT. Scenario designers and mod creators could do all kinds of cold war, neo-colonialism stuff. Patton goes east 1945, Fulda Gap 1948, Korea, Suez Crisis, etc. Just put them in the same game.
I saw this proposal by @MOS:96B2P in another thread with a rather unrelated topic and I wanted to give it a dedicated thread before it might get buried. I really like this idea as it would enable us to play CM in a new unique way and open up alot of opportunities for scenario & campaign designers.
I would not think twice about buying this and hope that it will be indeed considered at some point.
-
On 1/12/2020 at 1:34 AM, MOS:96B2P said:
+1 A CM title that includes both Western forces and the Soviets would fantastic IMO. My hope is that the last release for CMFB will be an equipment pack introducing Soviet forces/equipment into CMFB. Call it meeting on the Elbe River or something. Then the US, Commonwealth and Soviets would all be in the same Combat Mission game. No BFC created scenarios would be needed. Just an equipment pack of already designed equipment ported over from CMRT. Scenario designers and mod creators could do all kinds of cold war, neo-colonialism stuff. Patton goes east 1945, Fulda Gap 1948, Korea, Suez Crisis, etc. Just put them in the same game.
Would be an instant buy for me.
-
-
Good information, looks quiet authentic but I don´t have enough knowledge about the source website or the topic overall to evaluate the quality. However it would be in line with the mentionings that are found in some of the literature that the ZIS-2 regular 57mm AP round would have serious trouble to knock out a Tiger head on at 500m while in contrast to this in CMRT the regular AP shell is absolute deadly at this range.
That the 57mm APCR round according to this documentation could be effective against a Tiger at <=1000m sounds reasonable. According to the attached pen table in @akd second post the round might have trouble with the Tiger´s front at 1000m but with an 90 degree angle penetration almost matching the Tiger´s front armor it could score lucky hits or degrade the armor but I personally didn´t dig that much into the capabilities of the ZIS-2 57mm APCR rounds.
In the testing video above I couldn´t figure out when the crew decides to use the regular AP and when the APCR. Against the King Tiger at 500m the AT gun crew started to use regular AP aswell and then when the tank came really close at some point they used the APCR but with the limiting testing there could be other reasons when and why the crew decides to use it.
Side note for mission designers: The lowest supply setting for the ZIS-2 seems to be the only setting that strips the gun from its APCR rounds. However it leaves it with little AP ammo aswell.
-
6 hours ago, Erwin said:
Things just do not work the same for both
For example?
-
2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:
That sounds like pretty wishful thinking. I wonder how many people would remember such advise when the heat is on.
The part about DYO-ordnance even sounds a little desperate.
Its up to you to believe that instructing soldiers is pointless as you think they will forget everything in the heat.
There was not much left for them other than wishful thinking and desperation as the war at this point was lost beyond recovering. If writing manuals for soldiers in order to continue an auto-destructive and pointless war fits your propaganda definition well then I have nothing to add.
2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:Along the lines: “We can’t give you the tools, but feel free to build some.”
To adapt despite the equipment you´re supplied with is nothing new and IMO not different for a today´s soldier. Stuff like creating DIY explosive ordnance or booby traps isn´t taught anymore that much or even forbidden today among our Western armies - at least as far my insight goes - but back then it was taught not only to Axis but to Allies soldiers aswell to a more or less extent.
2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:but then remembered, to have read similar over-optimistic non-sense even in Bundeswehr field manuals.
Again up to you to wether the content of this close anti tank assault document is nonsense or not. Two absolute contrary threads alone show that there are many different opinions about this topic.
For me the GER ZDVs are designed similar to the US FM with some differences, which would make sense as the US assisted in build-up of the GER BW but I am not a ZDV history buff. However not one of the ZDV I know of is written in this style. There is alot of unintentionally amusing and silly sections to be found in them and there are better and worse.
But hinting a comparison between Bundeswehr ZDVs and 3rd Reich Propaganda here indicates me that you no really know what you´re talking about and furthermore don´t really understand the purpose and limits of these field manuals. Every competent commander and soldier is taught and understands that not everything what you see in a tactical ZDV should be applied blindly while neglecting practicability and adaptability.
We´re in off-topic territory lets go back
-
1 hour ago, General Jack Ripper said:
Yes, but you're not expecting contact with all your units at all times. Hunt is for your lead scout, and maybe your leading squad. The complaint registered is that Hunt causes excessive fatigue. My answer to that is the player is using it too much, mostly because it's being used too much.
Turning down the fatigue effect would simply encourage it to be used even more than the too much it's being used already. Hunt exists because it's useful, just like Move, Quick, Fast, and Slow. Every UI command given to the player serves a purpose, the key to becoming skilled at this game is to learn to use the correct command at the correct time, and in the correct situation.
Now I've put on a sixty pound pack, strapped some magazines to my hip, and gone tramping across the countryside on a few occasions, and I think troops in Combat Mission tend to get fatigued quite a bit more quickly than in reality.
Same did I. I can´t speak for other players but even when HUNT would come with low/no fatigue it would not change much for my current modus operandi and I still would keep using MOVE especially for most rear movement. In fact the major thing that would change for me is stop wondering why this fatigue was slapped onto HUNT.
For me as RT player there is absolute no hassle with all that but I do understand why some might miss either a middle solution (MOVE to CONTACT) or would like to see the HUNT fatigue changed.
I also generally do not agree to trade authenticity for sake of balancing the usage of ingame movement commands but I see your points here as the devs pretty sure had something in mind when opting for this solution.
-
Because wether every soldier being able to do the close assault or not was mentioned in this thread. From the German Wehrmacht field manual comic about close assaulting tanks I´ve posted in the competition thread @MOS:96B2P linked here, these bits might be interesting:
"Das Pänzerknacken muß jeder Soldat beherrschen wie seine Knarre. Ganz gleich, welche Waffe, gleich ob Grenadier oder Feldbäcker."
Basically: every soldier needs to know how to knock out tanks no matter what branch, no matter if rifleman or baker.
"Jeder muß das Knacken können. Seid nicht stur! Drängt Euch dazu, das Zeug zu sehen und zu lernen! Schafft Nahkampfwaffen und Nahkampfmittel bei oder macht Euch selber welche! Und laßt sie nicht verrotten, wenn einmal eine Zeitlang nichts passiert. Vor allem Zünder, Zündladungen und Zündschnüre gut aufbewahren. Zu jeder Minute müßt Ihr auf Panzer gefaßt sein."
Basically: Everybody needs to learn and know about knocking out tanks. Get (anti tank) close assault ordnance and means or make sure to create your own. Maintain them even when no tank threat presents itself for a longer time. Every minute you must be ready for tanks.
-
I find it rather surprising that so many players have issues with close assaulting tanks and end up getting mowed down by the target tank.
The Wehrmacht once released some sort of field manual in this comic style known from the famous Tiger and Panther Fibel: http://pbc.gda.pl/Content/57971/Der Panzerknacker.pdf Just imagine that the mentioned AT explosive usage and close assault tactics are abstracted by generic grenade attacks.
Basically:
1) stay cool and don´t run away/around when tanks approach your positions, you might die (hide, hold fire target arc)
2) know what tank you´re engaging and keep this in mind for the approach plan (rear MG?, hull gunner?, turret traverse rate? close protection system?)
3) if possible make sure close-by infantry is surpressed or tank is otherwise isolated
4) find best concealed covered approach to come as close as possible before being threatened or let him come as close as possible to you
5) then for the final approach, be swift, aggressive, and dash towards the tank from the safest approach (usually flank, rear, and turret pointed away)
6) if possible coordinate your efforts with other tank hunter teams or elements in order to distract/overwhelm the tank or other enemy elements that might become a danger to the endeavour
7) just do it
I think the content of this comic manual translate pretty well into the game and I basically apply these principles to my tank assaults and it works well. As described in the manual the biggest threat is not the tank itself but usually the surroundings (other tanks and infantry covering it)
One thing for CM specifically to keep in mind that tank turrets are allowed to engage closer targets than historically the gun height & depression allowed to do so they can engage the infantry even when close and prone usually with the coax MG. However the tank will face a latency penalty in CM when attempting that below the historical depression range from a gut feeling of about 20 seconds and might depend on other factors. So might need to shift position. As 60 seconds are too much for turn-based players, they might need to incorporate this into the plan beforehand:
Also my Finnish campaign playthrough is full with close assaulting tanks.
-
It depends, something like MOUT might be even more faster
-
2 hours ago, Hapless said:
Sloped armour reduces internal volume, which has some serious knock on effects on things like ergonomics, ammunition count and survivability.
This
Sloped armor reduces interior space which might be needed for engine, equipment, radios, ammo, crewmen whatever. If you want to have the same internal space you need to make the tank bigger which might introduce tactical and logistical disadvantages. Taken this into account its questionable if it would be a good deal for the Sherman which no matter if sloped or not never could offer sufficient flank protection against anything that Germans might fire at it without respeccing the complete vehicle design.
Despite this depending on model and industry characteristics it might make production more complex.
-
I almost never see Air Assets in CMRT scenarios which might be tied to this not unproblematic air support system CMRT uses.
I recently played a mission with JU-87 being EN ROUTE PREPARING right from the beginning. Even after an hour there was no sight of them. So the appearance is completely randomized over the complete mission time? They could basically show up with the mission timer having one minute left?
I always had the impression that mission designers set areas for them while designing but now understand that they completely independent roam the battlefield. How in detail is the friendly fire danger? Is it tied to how enemy target rich the environment is? In a testing scenario I just placed some Opel Blitz and several German air elements and the first aircraft element that appeared after a minute or so immediately attacked the friendly Opel trucks. There were no enemy units present on the map. When air support is scheduled is it perhaps a good idea to wait and let them handle a target-rich environment to prevent that the air force pilots arrive don´t find enemy units, and thus instead start attacking friendly forces?
As concealed units under foliage might be harder to identify correctly as friendly is concealing my units from my own airforce making it worse or better
?
Besides this it would be definitely great if this system sees change or improvement in the upcoming expansion.
-
I prefer historical accuracy and rather lean towards how BF/CM is handling things. In alot of tactical wargames infantry is reduced to "nice to have them around but not really threatening or battle decisive" when tanks are present aswell. Drive them up to the inf and blast them into pieces. In CM on the other hand you need to excercise the combined arms approach and thus protect your tanks from infantry and locating infantry can be difficult depending on conditions and environment aswell.
Having enemy infantry swarming your tank was one of the worst situations a tank crew could find itself in. Some tanks came with close defense system such as dedicated mgs or firing ports but AFAIK they never prove to be an effective deterrent and even less a proper replacement for infantry support. There is a reason why some German tanks installed sohisticated solutions like the "Nahverteidigungswaffe" which tried to protect their heavy tanks from infantry attacks by launching explosives, its quiet interesting to see it in action in CM. If infantry swarming them wouldn´t be a threat to their Tigers/Kingtigers they wouldn´t bother with it.
In the beginning the effectiveness of grenades also wondered me but when someone on these forums came up with the explanation that it represents an abstraction of the various close infantry attack tactics that were used against tanks and that the generic grenade counter/throw also represents an abstraction of various dedicated or DIY AT ordnance such as dedicated/improvised mines, charges, liquids, throwables it started to make sense to me. If true putting an explanation into the manual could avoid alot of the confusion.
Interesting are also the results. I had Medium Tanks such as the T-34 knocked out after 1-2 grenade/close infantry attacks and I had T-34 that survived 12 of them and kept me constantly on the run. Something gave me the impression that there might be some hidden values running under the "grenade count" hood but on the other hand I don´t want to know in order to keep the "magic" which makes every close infantry attack exciting about what might happen.
What for me is left to debate is if effect on enemy tanks is achieved too fast, if despite mobility killing them they had the means to completely knock out heavier tanks that fast or at all, force the crew outside, and if so many infantrymen would have the knowledge, guts, and equipment to undertake such an endeavour. Pretty sure there are some of these that can be at least partially answered with "not really" but I guess some of this might be tied to 1) current engine limitations 2) limited development resources, and balancing 1) and 2) out with the other aspects of the game in order to still offer the best historical accuracy possible.
But nevertheless I still think CM has one of the - if not the - most authentic Infantry vs tanks warfare representations.
There are even ideas to go farer as somebody mentioned the idea to allow infantry to use their explosive ordnance/close infantry attack ability from buildings which I think is not that bad of an idea but might end up absolutely over the top with infantry occupied build-up areas becoming apocalyptic for tanks to drive through and on the other hand would neglect the exposure of infantry as they wouldn´t have to leave the safety of the building for that. Perhaps thats was the decision-making reason why the ability is denied from interiors.
-
25 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
+1 to the rest of your post, but this part is not my experience, I must say. I find I have to click on every single bend of the road. And I find I have to click exactly in the middle of the bend, or the vehicle will drive halfway off the road, which increases bogging risk a lot.
By the way, I started playing Mius Front recently, and in a recent battle, I put my StuGs on the left flank, and then the enemy tanks appeared on the right flank. I was able to just select my AFVs and then click to redeploy them all, using the "move by road" command. I kind of expected something to go wrong, but they all moved perfectly by road to their new destination. Such a relief.
I´ve just tested it and yes as you mention they veer off the road alot. I´ve corrected 1)
Would be great to have a "stick to roads" command added to CM one day.
-
18 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:
Personally I think the added fatigue using Hunt is intended to force the player to use it less than they otherwise would, because if it was less fatiguing than everyone would just use Hunt all the time.
As mentioned HUNT is slower than MOVE and for covering bigger distances time efficient without fatigue I definitely would keep using MOVE.
Despite this, why is it something bad if HUNT would see alot of use? If enemy contact is expected - which is most times the situation for a Combat Mission scenario from minute one - a slow advance, ready to hit the deck/engage, and a weapon alert carry is a quiet appropiate approach.
-
On 1/2/2020 at 1:26 PM, Bulletpoint said:
I think there's a fundamental problem in how the number of clicks needed to bring up troops to the front balloons as more reinforcements arrive and as the distance from the starting area to the front increases and includes more and more bends in the road. It turns into a game of "Waypoint: The Clickening".
Problem is - I simply have no idea how to solve this. I really like the concept of a "one map campaign".
I find excessive waypoint plotting and multiple battles on a huge map that require the player to constantly shift attention and camera rather exhausting too while the multiple battles aspect comes down to preference. However directing vehicle convoys over a road network is one of the most exhausting tasks I can think of when playing CM. Bad ground conditions can make it worse. It can even become more extreme when designers put mud/ditches beside roads or junctions, which is realistic but may stress the handicapped driving AI and your patience to the absolute max.
In the time I´ve developed some work reducing methods:
1) I sometimes "abstract" the plotting and only set few waypoints. Vehicles may navigate to the target in an efficient manner but will veer of the road often. Only use this if the bogging chance offroad is low. Important is to make sure that there are waypoints for key areas that will prevent the vehicle AI from taking unexpected routes or terrible terrain. With time the player gets a "feeling" for how the AI will behave when plotting this abstracted routes.
2) I often give orders to multi vehicles at once even for road travel. While this otherwise handy "waypoint spread by unit relation" feature is rather hindering when plotting road travel, Engine 4 allows you to drag the waypoints quickly into correct position. It isn´t perfect as every single unit needs to be selected but I think it can save time and work.
3) pause all vehicles when done and make sure to unpause them when there is absolute enough room between each vehicle. One of the worst thing that can happen is when vehicles bump together for too long, triggering into this bypass mode and then the vehicle babysitting is about to happen. Bogged vehicles can stop entire fleets of vehicle. Remove the waypoints from the bogged vehicle if you want them to bypass the bogged one. Not sure if pause leads to the same.
Great to see that V2 uses ground conditions with less bogging which will makes things alot easier
-
I usually avoid to bring tanks into contact with AT guns at all but currently playing a campaign that might make it inevitable to do so for my Tigers.
While a quick 76mm ZIS-3 test produced the outcome that I´ve seen from various historical accounts (penetration frontal almost impossible, side penetration on short distances possible) the ZIS-2 57mm effectiveness gives me some thoughts.
In a recent test it was able to easily penetrate Tigers frontally at 500m and destroy them with 1-4 hits while most hits causes damage ranging from armor spalling (most times 1st hit) over partial penetrations (with internal damage & casualties) to full penetration. Angling the hull with about 15-20 degree towards incoming trajectory didn´t made it any better. In easy words most Tigers were taken out rather fast and often rendered combat ineffective/"stunned" after already the first hit.
The ZIS-2 was definitely was a powerful AT gun and could basically take out any <1943 German tank from any aspect and great ranges. I saw these Soviet penetration tables at WP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2) which are somewhat consistent what the UI Penetration/Armor Mod is showing me for the ZIS-2 which indicate that it should penetrate Tigers at 500m, although there is a disclaimer on WP that the Soviet aquisition method makes this values for some reason not comparable to Western or similar tests.
While its hard to find quick information on the ZIS-2 vs Tiger situation online most statements I found rather point towards that the ZIS-2 had difficulties against Tigers.
I only did a superficial research on this and would be great if one with a greater insight into this matter could provide some info on if the ZIS-2 was indeed that deadly.
Beside this: the above results were achieved with regular AP shells. Against a similar test against a King Tiger the ZIS-2 crew was also starting with AP shells and at some point decided to use the APCR after expending dozen of AP shells.
All tests:
-
The issues were only reported for CMSF2. Core forces are still present in the linear version what is different that all missions in a row except for being in the different trees.
Just a thought-Combat Mission is so authentic and immersive we nickpick any blemish?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Aquila-SmartWargames
I see it also in this rather optimistic way. Sure there are always people that make out of proportion or rude demands but you have stuff like this in in every game forum. From what I´ve seen it appears even worse in forums of more casual games which might have something to do that a game like CM might attract more mature individuals in the first place, which additionally might be looking for the most definitive wargame representation, while understanding that the market and dev resources are different here. I personally see the bar CM has set as one of its biggest strength and selling points, absolutely not as its enemy.
About graphics, I am not a graphics fetishist but not a nostalgia grog either. I like beautiful and authentic games, I have a strong machine, and alot of recent strategy games like Steel Division 2 or other genre games like PS, HLL etc. at my disposal and still when somebody would ask me "show me the most beautiful and definitive audiovisual experience in a ground strategy game" I would show him CM2 footage. Never gets old too look at the detailed vehicles and uniforms, never gets old when a big firefight errupts and the surrounds start to go down in an absolute apocalypse of gunfire, explosions, and shouting. No other strategy game reaches even close to this and I am talking here only about the (audio)visuals. Furthermore the terrain - not in a how much diverse objects there are - but talking rather about terrain complexity: In alot of strategy games you have this rather abstracted "wood, plains, urban, high ground etc." terrain features but in CM its on another level, hard to put in words but if you ever reconnoitered terrain for whatever reason, you might understand what I mean. Better than any real strategy game, even better than in some military first person shooters.
Sure I run a heavily modded audiovisual setup together with a personal fav of Reshade profile there. Some might argue "thats not part of the game" but I don´t make this differentiation. If I can do something myself in order to improve a situation or to better met certain criteria, I do it. Personal conclusion: CM2 looks to me beautiful like any current gen strat game with some aspects like uniform, vehicle detail, and combat fidelity even being on an higher level.
This of course doesn´t mean that engine overhauls or visual improvements are not welcome. Wouldn´t say no to improved rain visuals, problematic shadows in certain situations, better backgrounds, a more attractive void (the empy space beyond the map), ballistics analysis, better briefing and campaign/core force interfaces etc etc.. But if it would be gameplay/content vs. visuals right now I would go with the first. And when CM3 eventually becomes a thing, well then we´ll see