Pak40
-
Posts
2,199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Pak40
-
-
Originally posted by Olle Petersson:
Okey guys, here's my experience:
Towed 9cm recoilless ATG, 250 kg total weight for gun and carriage.
.....
Most guns in CM are heavier than this, and more ammo is brought, so perhaps it's not too slow with these aspects in mind.
However, if one could opt for man handling, with less ammo, then movement speed could increase dramatically.
Also, did the recoiless gun have to be weighted down with anything? Probably not because there's no recoil like a typical WWII AT gun.
[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-19-2001).]
-
Originally posted by British Bulldog:
Popular British joke from WWII:
The Germans fire, the British duck.
The British fire, the Germans duck
The Americans fire, EVERYONE ducks!
British drink tea, everyone fires at the British
-
Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
Has anyone head the story about the German and American patrolr running into each other on the first night in Normandy?
There was as similar occurance in The Longest Day (the movie). Only there was a chest high wall in between the two units.
-
Originally posted by KwazyDog:
Now from 20-25 meters is does indeed become harder...but the question is, is this wrong?
That's roughly 60-75 feet. It's obviously possible to throw a grenade that far, but to get it to land inside a moving vehicle under battlefield conditions is a little different.
I don't think this really needs tweaking.
-
Originally posted by CavScout:
Steve that was not my point.
My point is more along the lines of the firepower that concentrating in CM gives that would be limited in Real Life <sup>TM</sup>. There is a problem when one can attack with a mass of platoons, say three deep, and you lose none of you firepower.
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
If that represented an attack, the front 4 should only have the ability to fire effectivly on a defender. In CM the (all other things equal like terrain) entire formation 16 could bring fire on the target.
I have a couple of counter points about the diagram above:
1. Keep in mind that CM abstracts squads in several ways. One way is how it's graphically depicted on the battlefield. CM shows an entire squad dug in one foxhole. In reality that squad would be in several foxholes, with spacing between each one. So, when you stack several squads behind each other (as you did in your diagram above) it should look more staggard, like:
X X X X
_X X X X
X X X X
_X X X X
This provides better fields of fire for everyone, even if tightly packed.
2. Your XXXX example above would only really come into effect on very flat battlefields. A slight raise or dip in elevation will, for the most part, negate the loss in firepower.
An exaggerated drawing of my point below:
__E_
OOOO\
OOOOO\______2______1____
Soldier 1 is shooting over the head of soldier 2 to the target E.
However, I think your point is very valid in the following diagram:
_____M___f___f___f_____________E______
The Machingun (M) is less effective with raking fire because of friendlies (f) between him and the target (E)
[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-15-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by CavScout:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pak40:
Artillery will take care of that type of tactic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This supposes it is available and can be called down on time.
True if it is available, but most CM gamers do buy some sort of Artillery. And, yes, it will most likely be called down on time because the defender is dug in and already engaged by your attacking troops. It's not likely he's going to disengage from his fortified position. If he does disengage, then you no longer half to worry about his dense concentration of forces.
Originally posted by CavScout:That's like arguing that, for example, just because a game design prevents the Sherman from killing any German tanks that it is OK as you still have the bazooka that can.
OK, I didn't counter your point very well, but, my point is that there arn't many people that concentrate a company of men into a platoons area for the sole reason that a well placed artillery strike can tear them apart. Since I havn't come across this problem personally, I don't think it's such a big deal because it's a rare problem.
If I ever do encounter someone who stacks an entire company within 50 meters radius, then I will thank my lucky stars because my artillery will #@$! them up!
[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:
Matt,
I happen to meet another "MadMatt" over SFC forumn. "He" said he is not the same person as you.
This wont do. The other MadMatt will have to change his handle to CrazyMatt or UnstableMatt or the PC version: SanelyChallengedMatt.
-
Originally posted by CavScout:
One thing CM does do is make concentration of forces too effective. There is little reason to not concentrate your forces, and this is probably the biggest edge when on the attack. There should be a point of diminishing returns. You should not be able to put a company's worth of troops in a platton's worth of space and still have the company's firepower. Units should be blocked by friendly units in the line of fire.
Artillery will take care of that type of tactic.
Also, any defender who concentrates his forces that much is begging to be outflanked. It just goes to show that every tactic has it's own counter-tactic.
-
Mine is simple enough. I loved to use AT guns in Close Combat ABTF, people rarely suspected that 17lbr hidden in the little wood shack
Before Pak40, I used my name but finally decided it was lame, so I chose a new nickname based on my style of play.Anyone at the company level is Black X. It probably boils down to the CO wanting to be Mister Black or something like that. I don't think anyone would want to be Mr. Pink. I used to be Red One but always wanted to switch to Red Five just so I could say, "Red Five standing by." What movie?Two movies: Resevoir Dogs and Star Wars
-
Originally posted by Big Time Software:
Pak40... German law is German law. It is no more legal for us to sell a neo-Nazi game, complete with lots of illegal symbols, phrases, etc. to a German citizen IN Germany than it is for someone to sell an American citizen child pornography. In both cases the person making the purchase would be the one in trouble, not us, as it is easy to prosecute someone you can physically arrest using local police.
Steve
I see. But I wonder how the government would ever know if anyone bought a copy? I guess they would look for the package with BTS stamped on it :}
-
Steve,
I don't quite understand why you are concerned with this topic. CM is a mail order game that is sold from outside the borders of Germany. It would seem that the German government would have no control over the content of your game, correct? Germany couldn't possibly ban your product from being ordered by mail or internet, could they?
Or is this breaking some sort of international law?
-
Originally posted by Tris:
I gave my infantry squad targeting orders to shoot at the Sd kfz 7. Since when won't infantry shoot at something when sneaking? I've used that technique a lot without any problems that I've noticed.
Move command = sneaking but allows your men to shoot at whatever they want (or whatever you target), even if they are not fire upon.
Sneak command = move command but will not fire unless fired upon from a dangerous (usually close) unit.
The bottom line is that the squad did exactly what you told them to do. You simply issued the wrong command for what you intended them to do. The sneak command was useless because the truck could already see your men - there was no point in sneaking past it.
Think of it this way: The purpose of the sneak command is so that you can move without being seen. But since you were so close to the truck, it obviously saw your squad, therefore there's no point to sneak past it. The MOVE command would been better: your men still take cover while moving but they would have attacked the truck.
Re: White set up zones may be a bug. I'll have to test it out.
Re: 3 penetrations to knock out PzIV. Just because a shell punched through your armor doesn't mean that it hit something vital inside: engine, hydrolics, fuel, ammo, crew etc..
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
And why would a squad waste its ammo and time blowing one up?
Uhh, because there's at least one German in the truck and the enemy can still use it as long as it's alive. The last reason you want to lose is because you let an enemy's truck go by and then he uses it to move an AT gun into position to kill your tanks. not smart. It's common policy to destroy or capture everything of the enemy's resources, right?
-
Originally posted by Tris:
I didn't see this prior to the v1.1 patch as I pretty much stay away from Operations due to . . . the lines . . . but I went back in there last night to edit one I've been fooling with for some time and noticed the Allies have a couple of small white setup boxes in front of the expected red setup zone to begin the third battle. Is this the same problem that was fixed for v1.1? If so, it's back. If not, something seems to be broken.
Were there any units in the white setup zone? If not, the bug may be back, if so then it works fine.
-
I thought paintshop pro did do that. Check the documentation to see if it does. If not, then I know for a fact that Photoshop will do it. You might want to check out others such as MGI photo suite or Polyview.
-
Freak,
Last month, I did some tests concerning the benefits of being behind a wall. I put some german squads on defense behind a wall(in foxholes). I took the side of the americans about 100m away, some were on the ground(even with the germans) and some were on hills or on the second story of a building.
The result is that I found the walls offer good concealment and good cover from all of the americans. In fact, some of the germans remained hidden for several turns dispite the fact that I had squads targeting the area.
The original purpose of my test was to see if elevated squads had an advantage over squads that were level with the enemy. According to the exposure % displayed when targeting the Germans, the US squads on the hills and second story buildings did not have a difference.
Sure, the Germans took some casualties, but the wall seemed to offer cover and concealment almost as good as a building. Keep in mind that the Germans were in fox holes. Your situation does not have foxholes, but your enemy is over 400 meters away, which means that they are in pretty good cover. If you order them to hide, they will probably disapear from the enemy (and save some ammo by not shooting back at a 400+m target)
Hope I helped.
[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Flipper,
If what you say is true, then how come almost every game I've played has had all armor knocked out? And, no, it's not because of poor armor use.
How come I'm consistantly able to knock out various grades of armor with infantry? Usually it's infantry with satchel charges or rifle grenades that can do the most damage, and they are usually quite effective.
-
"For example, the TOE of late war German infantry, had 2 81mm mortars per company or 6 per battalion, with a battalion of 12 120mm mortars at the regimental level. That suggests a ratio of the two types of 3:2. But the production figures have a ratio between the two types of 9 to 1, in favor of the lighter 81mm, and the ammo runs favor the 81mm by 14 to 1."
Be aware that mortars were also used in other units, not just the infantry battalions. That will account for some of the high number of 81mm. Also, I'd be willing to speculate that 81mm mortars needed to be replaced more often because they were used closer to the front line which lead to more of them being captured or damaged.
-
Jason,
thanks for the info, pretty interesting stuff. I hope BTS sees your post. How did you learn all of this, were/are you in the military?
-
Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
the impact pattern will become more accurate/dense the higher the quality of your FO is (green - elite).
I don't think this is true. Several months ago I ran a test with several grades of 105mm FOs and I didn't find any correlation between accuacy and their experience. In fact the only difference was a shortened time to wait before the shells impacted.
Try the TRP for a tighter barrage. Also try onboard mortars that have a LOS to the target, these have a very tight barrage although they are lighter calliber.
[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-06-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-06-2001).]
-
Same thing as a Schrek, only it's mounted on wheels. The round is basically the same, 88mm. I'm not sure why it's got a longer range than the Schrek. maybe someone else can help
-
Originally posted by Fernando:
Please check the tests again. Usually it takes just 2-3 shots to do some damage (gun damage, crew casualty or knock out)
Yes, I know. I read the tests carefully. I still don't see what's so odd about that.
It will probably take 2-3 shots for a tank to hit another hull down tank at that range. They are both similar sizes although different shapes.
-
Originally posted by Olle Petersson:
I think that was part of the original point. If it's so easy to take out pillboxes with AP, then it must be even easier with HE!At close range HE should be more effective than AP. But in longer range the HE shell will have a greater arc than an AP shell and will probably be very hard to get a slit penetration. But, if that shell does go through the slit then it would probably kill/wound all inside. Massive concussions for all who survived.
-
Both tests you ran seem perfectly normal to me. You've proved that it takes about 5-6 shots to kill a bunker. What's so unusual about that?
The only thing unusual is the 2 bunkers killed in 3 shots.
Can Roadblocks double as Anti-Tank Ditches?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
I don't think roadblocks have any cover or concealment bonuses. Do a search, I've seen this talked about before.