Mark IV

I am certainly not claiming to be the keeper of BTS vision, this is an issue that they will decide to do or not to do. Right! The thread(s) on this subject have certainly raised some good questions, and BTS' awareness that at least some of us are interested in further development along these lines. I'm sure whatever they come up with, if they decide to address it, will be better than anything we are going to suggest here. It seems talked-out.

"We won't rest on our laurels, now that Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord is complete. We intend to expand the design and continue to advance the state of the art in tactical wargaming." From The Manual, Appendix D (perhaps we should assign chapter and verse numbers?) There is a fine line between seeing new possibilities and demanding pet features right now, to be sure.

Oh, yeah. PLEASE give the Sharpshooter more ammunition. I just had one run out of ammo by Turn 5 in a 30-turn scenario. He was a Veteran and did wonderful work. He spent the rest of the game enjoying the view. I know this has been discussed many times, and that I can "fix" it in the editor- but that's no help for Quick Battles, which is what I play the most. I think I've read all the threads on the subject and I'm still convinced that they should have more ammo. This is just not a realistic load, especially for the cost of those critters (and I am glad that they are expensive).

The answer was "most of them are in there". BARs and Thompsons are included in the appropriate unit's detailed info, if you press Enter with squad highlighted, just like the K98s, MP44s, MP40s, and MG42s in the German squads. A comprehensive answer would just take too long to research and type out. There are Brens and Stens and Lee-Enfields, Vickers, M1919s, M2 .50 cals., and others. Oddball stuff or sidearms are not included or are generically modeled. There are 6 national armies represented and within them are Paratroops, Gliders, Fallschirmjaeger, Gebirgsjaeger, Waffen SS, Volkssturm, and all the regulars plus French and Polish. If you have a specific request, post it, and someone will know. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 08-13-2000).]

It will solve the problem of knowing whether you are hull down vs. a reference point. Right now, you only guess, due to scaling issues and inexactitudes in the terrain modeling. Geier, back on page 3, raised the issue that is bothering me, and I haven't seen it dealt with directly yet: How can the TC designate a remote point (the HD marker) to which he does not currently have LOS? Even to designate an ambush point in the current game, the platoon leader must have LOS to the location. If the AFV is down behind a ridge, which obstructs LOS to the desired ambush point (HD marker) on the other side of the ridge, what kind of prescience is required to designate an exact point on terrain the guy hasn't seen yet? This makes the possible solution a little fuzzier. Somebody in authority and communications would need an LOS to the potential target location, to designate the HD marker for the AFV to seek.

I just ran into a Churchill VII in an armored battle with the AI. I had a few tanks of my own. The engagement with this beast began at a hair over 300m. From when I began keeping track, this THING took 48 confirmed hits from 75mm AP rounds, over 4 turns. I got two gun hits on it and Immobilized it but the MG kept working, the whole time. The cutest thing was that I knew the gun was hit, but my panzers evidently didn't- they wouldn't go near the thing, nor cross in front of it (smarter than they look, I guess). Looking at the armor thicknesses, it is a monster... is there any historical precedent for a Churchill VII taking this kind of punishment?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Are you proposing an LOS check with variable height to a remote location that you WANT to move to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am proposing a variable height LOS check from any AFV at any time (LOS from muzzle, LOS from hull). A classic compromise, in that it will probably please no one. BUT... It will tell you whether you are hull-down at the current snapshot in time with reference to a certain point. It will not automate anything- purists will be pleased. It's just more information that a real unit would have anyway. It will not really solve the problem of the TacAI understanding what a human crew readily groks, which is how to move into a protected ambush point before the bad guys get to the target location. It will solve the problem of knowing whether or not you are in hull-down, once you trial-and-error your way there (I know that's the part you don't like, I just don't see any other solution within the mechanics of the game). And the lower/higher view would be somewhat of an aid in selecting the destination point, prior to issuing the move order. I suggest it because the necessary mechanics seem to be there already. Sirocco: The AFV crew will look at it from an individual unit's point of view. The company commander says "set up an ambush on that ridge". He expects the crew to be able to do that. The crew will know that the most likely way for enemy AFVs to exit the woods opposite (or a saddle in a ridge) is to emerge on the road, or in a clearing, or in the saddle. So they will pick a spot for their AFV that is hull-down relative to the anticipated appearance of the enemy, before the enemy is there. That is why Hunt doesn't help with this. The only differences between Hunt and Move are that: 1) Hunt is a little faster (Medium speed vs. Walking speed), and 2) Hunt means the AFV will "stop when enemy target spotted and engage enemy until..." and if there's no enemy there yet, it's just a slightly faster Move command. I can't think of any other 2-step commands in the interface and it would be weird to have one for a single function. I like the ambush-marker approach, but then you have to tell the unit when to quit advancing in case a HD is never found, PLUS you have to define an LOS to a marker location you probably can't see in the first place ('cause it's over the ridge). Clunky and/or gamey.

Helluva leap from air rifle to the MP5! BTW, CO2 pistols are excellent across-the-room practice for "real" pistol shooting. Principles are the same (except recoil), and it's way cheaper and easier on the ears and furniture.

No, to all of the above. CM battles take place in 20-60 minutes and it is assumed that individuals are too busy saving their own lives, or depriving others of theirs, to share ammo or learn to operate enemy equipment. Believe me, it has been discussed a lot. "Search" for scavenging and you can find the whole dialogue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I have the explanation and am therefore the sole purveyor of truth (so what else is new).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since you are obviously either very drunk or very hungover, this would be a perfect time to send me my turn back.

The simplest solution, and the one which seems most in keeping with the spirit of the game, is the selectable POV. Toggle between the main gun's POV and the approximate driver's location, perhaps an abstracted 1-meter lower, or infantry, POV. If the gun sees the intended point, and the "driver" sees dirt, you're hull down. The TC's POV is too high, as he is well above the bore of the gun on most AFVs. He could see the target location even though the main gun could not. He is not modeled as a separate entity in the game now, anyway. What if you are buttoned? Hunt doesn't do a thing for you if there is no enemy unit in the desired location. Toggled POVs would: - allow the human to use judgement in selecting the location, without automating the process. - more closely approximate the capabilities of a human crew to do something so patently simple. - seem to take advantage of capabilities which are already in the game (and BTS has the ONLY legitimate perspective on this). So, that's my "vote".

Hotchkissen, rather. Anyway, YOU misspelled "!!!!!!!!!11!!!~!". See any of Madmatt's posts for the correct spelling.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Setup in progress<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "You may fire when you are ready, Gridley."

I own a couple, but maybe not the kind you're interested in. I have the 5mm Sheridan, which is almost a real weapon (kilt me a possum with that). And, I have a "dual power" CO2/air pump Daisy, which serves for living-room practice shooting and nuisance repellent. Neither of these are in the Feinwerkbau/Anschutz-style target class, though I do think about getting one someday. Sorry, no ICQ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Do too!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This torrent of unfounded speculation, specious arguments, questionable documentation, and thinly-veiled insults must be stopped. The issue can only be decided on the Field of Honor. [sLAP] Send me your setup. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 08-12-2000).]

I haven't found anything that needs fixing (though I like Neutral Party's list). Some tweaks: 1. The gamma changes and occasional distortion issues when switching apps are the closest things I've seen to any sort of malfunction. 2. Area Fire enhancement of some kind. I dasn't risk the ire of the board police by offering my piddling insights on "fixes" but my issues with it are articulated beautifully elsewhere (TeAch, why wasn't this on your list?). It would be neat to prioritize multiple targets, so that if one "went away" (due to explosion or my unit's movement) my unit would engage the next. Or timing, or somesuch. 3. I think SMGs are a little too effective at 100m. If I offer detailed evidence, it's badgering, but if I don't, I am making an unfounded claim. Given the choice I'll just save some bandwidth here. 4. I would like manual control over Nahverteidigungswaffen so that I can generate smoke cover at will (seriously). Recently, I have come to think that the main gun on my StuGs could be removed to permit mounting of additional Nahverteidigungswaffen so that each crewmember can participate in the defense of the vehicle. 5. AFVs should "remember" local armor threats which temporarily disappear from view, and not rotate the turret to engage minor soft targets hundreds of meters away while the enemy AFV is maneuvering for the kill.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I only play hamsters, Berli and Joe Squaw, never anyone who might win. Except for Ethan of course, but that's different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gotcher 75 mike-mikes of Purina Hamster Chow right HERE, you mutant euro-hybrid. That is, if Lord Pickett is ever able to urge his Dormice down that long, open hillside. Damn, that "commanding position" is looking better all the time, eh?

I've used it to kill my own front line. When I'm tired of them, or they have behaved badly, it is quite useful. I have yet to see it faze the enemy at all, though of course I can't see it from his point of view. Playing mostly Germans I rarely get enough to waste... profligate use of artillery is a sign of low character and weak morals.

Schutz- what a giant! I have a rare photo of him being awarded the Oak Leaves to his Hamsterkreuz at the Gerbilsschanze. Who could forget that last fateful stalk into the night, alone with his Katzenfaust, the firm set of his incisors, yellowed with battle... ein reales Nagetier. Has Ethan been released yet?

Mr. Worthing knows whereof he speaks on the subject. Mr. F. Babra is completely wrong. The holes in his argument are patently obvious, and require no further refutation. To summarize: they do NOT.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: So rather than to see the MP44 "boosted" at as inferred by BTS as a possibility, perhaps the SMG's should all come down just a notch at 100m?...Do they come from linear extrapolations, or follow a "small arms weapon curve" unique to each weapon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My thoughts exactly in the former case, and an excellent question that I have wondered about in the latter. Same question could apply to armor AP rounds (bet they follow the curve, but do small arms?). I think the MP40 might outperform the other common subs in the long-range accuracy department. There is no way any of them compare to modern designs and manufacturing techniques. I could post some more complete ballistics, etc., if anyone was interested, but maybe I'll just enjoy the game for a while. The only SMG I am personally experienced with is the Grease Gun (which has not changed substantively since WWII), and which shares some of the worst characteristics of the Sten and the Thompson, with little redeeming value. At 100m it was worthless. Note that without selective fire (the ability to fire single-shot on demand), the full-auto works against the efficacy of the weapon at 100m.

Check http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005731.html I think the comments may be helpful, if not directly comparative of Army and Navy. And hey, the tank might have burned all night, but the crew didn't...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skorzeny: Oh really? You might want to know that I would not be stupid enough ... ...Let me help you on your recap... ...I guess I will have to help you here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dude, your style needs work. Thanks for the seminar, now read the instructions. Sorry a computer game kicked your @SS repeatedly. Have a nice day.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha: the Sten ... could be fired while lying down- due to the magazine being horizontal. It was much more difficult/impractical to fire the MP44/40 while lying down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which could be modeled in the "spottability" of the unit, but not its FP. I respectfully point out that foot-pounds, or the metric equivalent (for god's sake people, catch up ) are a more accurate representation of a bullet's lethality beyond 40m or so (see, I can do metric) than muzzle velocity (or meters per millihour). Within the 40m range, all bullets are sufficiently lethal against soft targets as to be even, and other factors like RoF and maneuverability really matter a lot. Much beyond it, retained energy and sectional density start to rear their attractive heads. I happen to think 100m is a critical range because it's a range at which many infantry firefights are nearly inevitable, and at which hits are still very likely. At this range most "true" rifles even out. They will all incapacitate an enemy soldier and still have a very reasonable chance of hitting one. The heavier bullets will go through more stuff (e.g., 15mm of armor, or an 8" fir tree) and still manage to subtract one from the OPFOR OoB, but the differences between them are marginal, unless you're engaging HTs and it's go-no go, pass-fail! This is not the case with SMGs (any of 'em). They are pistol bullets. At 100m they are unlikely to place many (if any) rounds on target, and will not penetrate diddly-squat except totally unprotected human flesh, if they connect with it in the first place. The MP/STG-44 round (7.92 kurz) is a rifle bullet. It may be "intermediate" by WWII standards but is an order of magnitude more powerful (in ft/lbs), 100m downrange, than any of the pistol bullets fired by Sten, MP38/40, Thompson, etc., which are nearing the outside edge of utility at those ranges. It is not as powerful (ft/lbs) as .30-06, .303, or 7.92mm but is much closer to them, than to the pistol family of cartridges. SMG bullets cannot hit or penetrate much at 100m. No, I wouldn't want to try to catch one in my teeth, but they (the bullets, nor my teeth) are simply not designed for this task and they are not good at it. Most of the more recent and complete ballistics test one finds on the net are for law enforcement purposes, and concerned with handguns' "stopping power". Between handgun loads at 1-25m such comparisons are valid (and Fionn's point about expending the full energy of the round in vital tissues is paramount). However, rifle bullets incapacitate people at virtually any distance, within their maximum effective range, and 500m nominal is good enough for me. Stopping power is no longer a factor at 40m+, 'cause down is down. Stopping synaptic reflexes in milliseconds with underpowered handgun projectiles is no longer the primary goal at those ranges (like it is with law enforcement handgun loads). SMGs are rated a tad over-effective at 100m, in my humble opinion. A rather minor pecadillo.

OK, folks, this is the guy's FIRST post here, so please chill. Skorzeny: the 150mm is a rather large piece of hardware which is not used in CM's scale for indirect fire. It is a direct fire weapon only, IN THIS SCALE. And it stands out like a pecker on a mare as soon as it opens up, so you wanna hide that sucker till you need it, and even then make sure it has a fairly restricted FOV, 'cause what it can see, can see IT. So it's not artillery, it's a direct fire cannon at this scale, and a large and noisy one at that. It tends to draw attention to itself. See Berlichtingen's post for advice on the fact that Amis have a megajillion tons of arty in this particular scenario- the guns aren't on the board, only the spotters. Scope the Readme file with the download and you'll see what we mean. This particular scenario is damned near about Ami artillery. Your spotters are the key!