Joachim
-
Posts
1,548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joachim
-
-
After this rather lengthy discussion of mounted troops on halftracks, could we focus on the use of truck-mounted troops on huge damp maps?Originally posted by Andreas:Regarding the use of APCs in real life , compared to CM, I think it is worth remembering, as Claus alluded to, that IRL there may well be far less fire assets around in the defense than there are in CM. German divisions in the east covering 20km sectors with a grand total of 12 ATGs come to mind. So not only would the attacker have far more APCs or tanks then in CM, the defender would often be a lot weaker (not everyday was Kursk).
It would be nice if we could derive a feasible method involving neither tanks nor Finnish trucks(they arrive in turn 119 with 2% probability, I can't build my plan around them).
Is it safe to use my trucks to drop my glorious troops directly onto Andreas's troops cowering in their trenches? Or is it necessary to keep them behind the last patch of cover before enemy positions?
Gruß
Joachim
-
Well the last time I checked, Italians, Rumanians and Germans spoke different languagesOriginally posted by Firefly:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
They are force type based. Italians or Romanians have other ranks than Wehrmacht.
. Your point about the SS though does suggest that special cases can be made, perhaps SS fanbois outnumber Commonwealth fanbois. </font>
-
Mike,Originally posted by Treeburst155:Yeah, I don't watch for actual spotting rounds either. They're easy to miss when lots is going on anyway.
Treeburst155 out.
during most of my games I note spotting rounds, as I usually target suspiciuous areas and readjust if the area is no threat or the flank protection with arty is unneccessary. Arty above 150mm (except the German 2 sIGs -spotter) usually have the 60 secs countdown. Arty below 105mm have a 30sec countdown. I never noticed a difference regarding spotter experience.
If I am unable to determine the correct time of the barrage, I often end with wasted spotting rounds (BTW a nice idea for scattering Gebirgsjäger plts) using responsive arty with delay in the 2-3 minutes range, so there is lots of data.
Gruß
Joachim
BTW: Computation of our current move will exceed 1 hour. Did not find appropriate time to start computation due to RL priorities. Have to check if overnight works...
-
They are force type based. Italians or Romanians have other ranks than Wehrmacht. But IIRC even SS has different ranks than Wehrmacht.Originally posted by Firefly:I doubt it's poor resarch, after all this analomy (as well as the one where battalion commanders have to be majors) was brought to BFC's attention back in the CMBO days, which is, I believe, where Michael E. remembers the 'engine limitation' explanation from. I don't have access to the CM source code, of course, but I suspect the internal tables of rank are language-based rather than nationality-based. You need someone from BFC to confirm this though.
[rant stations, rant stations, all hands man your rant stations!]
I want to have huge officer and NCO losses for the Germans in the engine. If the guy with the pistol dies, I want a correct modelling that his 2i/c takes over - with appropriate change in name and rank. Same goes for TCs of tank plts. The TC is killed by a sniper but the command structure stays intact. Great. The commander is always the last man standing in his group, but the guy with the SMG in German squads usually dies first.
Forces with pre-battle losses should reflect that the officers and NCOs are absent, too....
Which effect has a different rank at the beginning of the battle for the command structure? Less radius of command? Other leadership ratings? Will a NCO be better or worse than an officer? There is nothing you can't model with the current engine - except for the rank name. If you want the correct rank in a carefully reseeached scen - put it in the name like many scens already do.
Changes in command caused by the loss of commanders during the battle should have a much higher priority than adjusting the initial rank.
[rant mode off]
Gruß
Joachim
-
Im sorry, but have you ever played this game, or just modded it?Originally posted by Panzer76:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:
I'm sure it works this way for Assault, but has anybody noticed a change in relative force size for Probe and Attack too?
From the top of my head (so dont trust me) Probe is + 25 %, Attack is + 50 % and Assualt is + 100%. </font>
-
IIRC you can save a QB after it is over. Then you can use it to start another QB. Just start a QB, load the save as the map for the QB and "import troops = yes".Originally posted by c3k:Theike,
Thank you for your response. I have learned how to use the editor to purchase and place units, both for initial set-up and as reinforcements. I appreciate you making sure that I understand how to do that.
I thought it was possible to SAVE the units at the end of a battle, and then use them to start another battle. (Their ammo could not be replenished. That's my dim remembrance of that issue.) Can this be done? If so, how?
Ken
Saves from QBs only work for QBs. End-Saves from scens do not work. But you can turn a scen into a QB by just starting a QB and loading the map importing the troops with it.
That are the mechanisms. Maybe you need to experiment a bit.
Gruß
Joachim
-
IIRC any unmanned fortifications qualitfy. So add TRPs to your list.Originally posted by Treeburst155:So, which items in the "fortifications" category are NOT part of the bug? Is the problem limited to only wire, mines and road blocks? This would make sense.
Treeburst155 out.
Gruß
Joachim
-
From what I read here, do we haveOriginally posted by Panzer76:Perhaps the problem presents itself when the dust / smoke blocks los to the spotting round?
Spotting round has fallen => strike will hit target as intended (what would surprise me, as I'd guess more to "observed spotting round has fallen =>...)
or is it only
No spotter round => no correct targetting (except on TRPs)
If at least the latter holds, we have an indicator to cancel the strike if it is due in the first 29 seconds of a turn (as the spotting round fell 30 secs earlier).
Gruß
Joachim
-
Just uploaded a big scenario to The Proving Grounds.
A fictional exploit of an Axis breakthru is met by Allied reinforcements. An initial Axis attack has to consolidate its positions before Allied reinforcements arrive. The Allied player has to hold his positions to turn the tide of battle once his reinforcements arrive.
70+ turns
The huge map and regimental sized task forces will test your computers limits. My 1.6GHz 256 MB took 2 hours to process some turns (the small blue indicator might hang for a few minutes). Lots of units across open ground equals lots of CPU time to calculate LOS.
The scrolling on the map was smooth, however.
This is the price I had to pay to get a "very realistic looking" desert map where you are able to maneuver your forces.
Comments welcome. Playtesters wanted.
Comments from TB155 and intro below.
Gruß
Joachim
-------------------------------------------------
Comment from Treeburst 155 upon receiving the scenario to playtest in PBEM:
"Wow! Now THIS is a scenario. I loved the briefing, and the map
is very realistic looking. It looks as though you did a lot of work with the elevations, rather than just generate some "gentle slopes". It must have taken you quite a while to do that on a huge map like this. I don't think I've ever seen more realistic looking terrain."
----Scenario text----------------------------
Dezember 1942
Fictitional Axis Exploit. An Axis attack is met by Allied reinforcements.
Map: Huge (3.6km * 3.52km)
Forces: Huge, regiment-sized
The open map and the amount of forces might result in up to 2 hours to compute a move. (1.6 GHz, 256MB)
File size might be an issue in PBEM.
Best played as 2-player.
Due to force structure, the AI can not handle the Axis forces. Read: Definitely not playable as Allies vs AI.
Due to force structure, the AI will not be able to use some Allied forces. A bonus (+1 exp) for the Allied AI might correct this. Better use +2 exp or +1 exp and +25% forces. Read: Axis vs AI not recommended, but it might work.
Situational overview:
While the Allied forces prepared a major attack, Axis forces broke thru a weakly defended area further west and are now attacking a vital hill in the Allied rear. The hill is important for several reasons:
The hill is the dominant terrain feature overlooking the surrounding terrain.
The surrounding terrain restricts trucks to roads and thus the crossroads beneath the hill is a choke point for allied supply lines.
The village at the base has the biggest water supply in the area. Taking it will ease Axis water supply and thus free trucks for other tasks.
The main problem for the Axis player is to bring in his forces before Allied reinforcements show up and shift the force ratio. Flank security towards the east is a must.
The Allied player needs to buy time with his initial forces and deny the Axis the high ground. Infantry probably can't hold the rather bald hill, but infantry holding the village will prevent German trucks towing guns onto the hill and gather valuable intelligence on the Axis deployment.
[ March 22, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
Pretty easy - if there are only a few VLs, then casualties are what matters. I fear the main problem is that those players that understand the game mechanics are either a league of their own - ie they only play themselves in a non-ladder environment where the "social element" in the mail or testing scenarios is more important than the result. Only a few good desginers cater to this group. This group values casualties over ground seized and thus VLs are less important.Originally posted by Treeburst155:I don't think designers understand the relationship between VL points and casualty points, and how this relationship affects the score.
If you look at several of Cory Runyan's scen at the kessel, you will note that in several scenarios he uses bonus points or has only a few VLs to make casualties the top priority.
The other group is what I call "mainstream": Small QBs with picked forces. Small QBs mean important VLs. Almost any loss is justified to take or hold a VL. And your theory is not important anymore.
A current scen I am doing tries another approach. There are lots of VLs. The axis attacker needs to press his advance but still conserve his forces to meet the counterattack. Time and casualties count.Joachim,
Once again I meet you in a thread. Not only do we like the same types of scenarios, we both have an appreciation for how the scoring system works. We really should do some PBEM sometime. One of us picks the scenario AND edits the VL values and the time limit appropriately (because these things are almost always screwed up), the other picks his side. I'm always ready for a nice, giant PBEM. So what if it takes a year to play.
Treeburst155 out.
For the Allied defender, ground, time and casualties are important as if his initial forces hold out long enough the Axis will not be able to deploy to meet the reinforcements.
Plus the general setting stresses the importance of the ground. The axis attacker needs to buy time in the operational scale. The allied defender must prevent parts of his (off map) forces getting cut off.
15 big VLs are met by regimental sized KGs. 70+ turns on 3.6x3.52 km of desert sand. Time to compute turns: up to 2 hours.
You asked for it, you get it...
Gruß
Joachim
-
CMBB v1.03: I had a Pak 3,7cm on a hill firing at a MG in scattered trees. Guess it was 4 levels higher at 300m distance. No crater, but a treeburst! Looked twice but it remained a treeburst.Originally posted by Panzer76:So, I was reading my "Berlin" book by Beaver, good read! (Pretty nasty those ruskies also, eh?)
Anyho, it seems firing in the treetops by direct fiire was something that happend quite alot, at least in late war by the sovs, and I can understand that it would be a pretty smart thing to do. We all love/hate the treeburst from arty in CM, but it would be nice if we had the choice of firing into the trees by DF guns also.
Waiting for CMX2...
The only problem is you can't target trees....
2-story buildings are a perfect target to get airbursts, especially if the gun has only LOS to the upper floor.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Theory: Trucks are safe 3km beyond the front line, for (armored) halftracks that distance is only 800m. Both are the shuttle service to start positions - which are usually way beyond CM maps. There is some thread somewhere search for "hotrodders" or sumfink.Originally posted by Sanok:In the four months that I've been playing human opponents instead of the AI, I've learned a lot about tactics when playing the attacker. I've learned how to scout and probe, and how to use heavy weapons and AFVs. One thing I haven't learned, is what to do when I have infantry in halftracks or trucks and I'm advancing on an objective and I know the enemy is there somewhere. This is more common when playing a scenario than when playing a QB.
What are the best tactics? Should I just dismount the troops and advance on foot? How close do I bring them to the objective if I leave them mounted? You know you're going to get pasted by something if you just drive right up to the flag.
Any advice out there?
If you absolutely have to use halftracks, move fast and try to remain hidden. Try to dash from cover to cover.
It may pay off to drop a plt of grunts immediately on the enemy. But it might as well cost you the full plt. It is a gamble. If you do it, try to disembark in cover (trees) or concealed from long range fire upon panicked troops
For fire support - keyholing.
In a current CMBB PBEM game, I have to advance across 800m of no mans land. Little LOS from my startup zones to the enemy positions. Several guns got pushed forward (at 22m/turn...). After careful scouting of approach lanes without LOS to possible enemy positions I now move trucks forward to speed up things (there are less than 100 turns left now, so I'm a bit in a hurry
). If they cross potential LOS of the enemy, they do it on roads and only for a few meters. HTs might risk a bit more, but I would not risk valuable freight.In the desert, trucks can advance behind the dust trail of several tanks. Make sure they stay in the open or brush. Stones slow them down. If it works for trucks, HTs will do, too. Remember that you need a hiding place at the end of their tour or dust clouds to cover their way back.
Gruß
Joachim
[ March 12, 2004, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
Well, obviously you aren't an idiot. If you were, you could you use the colours. Idiots like me can use them.Originally posted by DaveR:<snip>
Not if you are colour blind like me. Thankfully I have a good knowledge base to work on and don't need the colours
With the colour code you drop all complexity and reduce it so it is as easy as SP. Any idiot can use that colours. (Not every idiot may understand my phrasing, however
)Gruß
Joachim
Sorry if I hit a mine there or hurt anyone. Usually you only recognize the value of your abilities once they are lacking.
Gruß
Joachim
-
It is a convenient approximation and it might work. Anything more complex will probably be just as bad, so I can live with that.Originally posted by JasonC:Given both factors, linear adds are a reasonable approximation.
Don't think we need to discuss the morale effects. Those are pretty obvious.
Gruß
Joachim
-
CM isn't using ratings, but the actual real-world data like thickness, slope etc (as good as can be researched at least) and a full-blown 3D ballistics engine. That's quite a bit more than "just like" Steel Panthers.Originally posted by Moon:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Steel Panthers had armor ratings just like CM.
beady, unfortunately due to the complexity of the matter and the sheer amount of units included in CM, we've dropped the idea of including something like this in CM very early on. Even a most basic guideline of half a page per unit would have meant a game manual of 1000 pages or so...
Plus there are WAY better guides out there already than anything we could come up with. Basically your best "Idot's Guide to CM" will be any "Guide to WW2 Vehicles and Weapons" book you can find in your local bookstore.
Martin </font>
-
Better optics are only modelled regardin spotting abilities. Hit prob is not affected by optics. :mad:Originally posted by istari:Just finished playing "SP - What Might Have Been", a scenario where the 29th Motorized tries to stop the Soviet breakthrough at Operation Uranus.
Fog left visibility only 750m, but I was equipped with 7 of the new Panzer IVG. I assumed from my reading that if I could engage the T-34s at max range, the optics and accuracy advantage of the 75L/43 would pay off.
To my surprise, I was trading less than 1:1 at 750m - the T-34s were hitting almost every time after 1-2 shots. I was very unpleasantly surprised at the accuracy of the T-34 at this range.
So...
Does anyone have any historical or CMBB data on the effective range of the T-34s 76L/42? I know in the cold war, NATO tankers were taught never to engage T-72s or T-80s at less than 1500m. Is there a similar range at which the T-34 gains this kind of deadly accuracy?
(I've done a search of the forums, but couldn't find this answer- thanks).
Istari
Both tanks can kill each other at long ranges as the PzIV turret is pretty weak.
Playing "Tank warning" currently and I am desparately trying not to get killed at 1200m... If you face unfavorable odds, it is impossible. Local odds are in my favor so I have a kill ratio of 45:8 (including 4 gun damaged tanks)
-
It's a road in scattered trees. The fire is probably abstracted like inf squads - the graphic represents a small fire somewhere in the tile.Originally posted by Panzerfest:There were no emeny infantry nearby, the tank had been knocked out for at least 5 turns before i noticed the fire. I was doubly surprised because i had never seen a road tile burn while playing CMAK, let alone a frozen one!
Gruß
Joachim
-
Steel Panthers had armor ratings just like CM. The bigger the armor, the better.Originally posted by beady:Is there such a thing? I don't have much luck with columns and rows of numbers; what I need is a plain-text explanation, such as "Use this tank to support your infantry," or "This is a good anti-tank weapon if you're within xxx yards." I think the original Steel Panthers took this kind of approach, and I found it a lot easier to combine my weapons systems effectively.
The bigger the blast value (usually the most important factor is the barrel diameter) and the more MGs plus MG ammo, the better the effect vs infantry. If the tank has "C"anister ammo, it has devastating short range (<200m) effects vs infantry.
A tank is good vs armor if it has good penetration ratings. These ratings are colored. Blue = great, dark green = good, light green = ok, yellow = weak, red = weakest.
The armor uses the same color code. Click a vehicle. In the panel you can see several colored bars around the vehicle. If it has a turret, there are three bars to the front, three to the rear, one above and two below. front = frontal armor for turret, upper hull and lower hull. Rear... guess what... above=turret side, below = upper and lower hull.
Gruß
Joachim
-
I'd say the effect of more bullets should be a lower effect per bullet.Originally posted by Sanok:Jason, your post makes sense, but I disagree with the modelling. Redwolf, you made an interesting point, too.
If three squads are firing, each at firepower 100, there should be an exponential affect. That's a *lot* of incoming bullets. I think the cummulative affect would make it more devastating than taking each squad individually at 100.
Reason 1:
If ten shooters target ten targets, it is likely that several shooters target a single man. If that men is hit, it does not matter how much of the others hit him.
So I'd expect less killed by 3 squads shooting at one squad than by 3 squads shooting at 3 different squads. The easiest example is if you take a hit prob of 100%. Every shooter hits its target. Case one sees 5.5 kills on average. Case 2 sees 15.5 kills.
A more convenient example is 3 shooters shooting on 3 targets or shooting at one target... each with a hit prob of 100%. Case 1 sees one target hit three times = 1 causalty. Case 3 sees an average of 2 kills.
Decreasing the hit prob will decrease that effect, but it will always be there to some extent.
Reason 2:
Imagine a squad in a trench. It gets a little incoming. They shoot back - ie they are heads up. Now it gets an awful lot of incoming. They will cease firing and take cover, presenting no target.
Which case sees more casualties?
BTW: I assume that the shooters do not coordinate "I hit that one, you hit the next one etc." - this is a battle. So shots/hit probs are independently distributed.
Gruß
Joachim
-
??? I thought bunkers give kill points... I had a river crossing once where I reached 40% victory level before I even set a foot on the bridges. I just killed any bunker on the other side that opened up. Used 20mm so I don't expect lots of crew casualties.Originally posted by redwolf:Yes, killing bunkers is useless victory-point wise since they count as killed to start from. I would assume you can capture the crew for some extra points, though.
This is no big issue since CM bunkers and pillboxes are useless, unrealistic and overpriced anyway, IMHO.
But at least you have a decent workaround for trenches, TRPs, mines and barbed wire.
IIRC only wire, mines and road blocks etc. are buggy. Dead stuff that is dead in the end. Intact bunkers are intact.
Example:
Axis 1000 pts (kills+VL) + 100 pts (bonus)
Allies 1000 pts + 100 pts from fortifications bug
Draw. Ok.
Axis 500 pts (kills+VL) + 500 pts (bonus)
Allies 2500 pts (kills + VL) + 500 pts (from fortifications bug)
3:1, 75%:25% Major victory...
but it should read
Axis 500 pts (kills+VL)
Allies 2500 pts (kills + VL)
83%:17% Total victory!
Am I wrong here?
But it does work for allied fortifications!
... just can't resist:
Guess who wrote
"Give the Germans a points bonus to correct the points for "dead" fortifications bug." on Chir river scenario thread and when...
Gruß
Joachim
[ March 10, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
Even with the HC ammo the guns are not very impressive. HC won't hit if more than 200m away from a gun. That's what I wanted the TRPs for - to ensure first round hits at 200m if the tanks get too close. Having 3 guns with an effective range of 200m vs T34 will not make them very potent. Not if you compare it with having 2 Pak40. If there was no 105mm spotter, I'd be much happier with setting the TRPs. IMHO the gullies should be TRPd for the mortars and the Pak/IG should have some, too. The 105mm FO should have none.
An alternative might be too have the mortars cover 2 of 3 gullies and one TRP for the third. But this still leaves the ATGs. Bonus HQs might help to achieve the overall effect.
What I want to achieve is an effect on gameplay: The Soviet player must consider a threat to his tanks, the German player has at least a chance to hurt them... if they enter certain small areas. Feeling helpless and unable to do something for several turns might result in disappointed players: A current PBEM at btn level leaves the Soviet player with probably little reserves, and little chance to react. He is not very happy with it... not with 96 turns left... but he will still fight it out! BTW: Applying some info re company advance, advancing across the open etc from the forum on btn level... from some obscure author from Chicago... with lots of time, it might work... if there is no nasty surprise.
Made a samll QB with 4 big flags set on the same line. All units moved toward the center without spotting any Germans. Tanks assembled on roads (random map...). Was very pleased with the AI behavior - except that I'd prefer less bunching up of the infantry. 80% headed thru the lone patch of trees...
Gruß
Joachim
[ March 10, 2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
Trenches are the thing to have on open maps... foxholes are still 44% exposure in the open. No place to stay when lots ot T34 are around - especially when they bunch up.Originally posted by jtcm:Thanks for the suggestions. I'd already tried a "Chir QB"--
take one weakened, Unfit, 90% complement, 70% ammo Security Battn.
+ 2 37mm ATGs
+Tank Hunters
Put in open Dec 1942, South, light damage map.
Add Soviet forces, according to taste (last time I tried, a Co T34s, a Co infy)
-- I lose every time. No 11th Panzer to save the day ! Or perhaps they're operating further inside the lines...
Just considering another idea to avoid AI bunching up: Exchanging 2 of the 3 different setup zones as reinforcements (AI scen only!)
-
Not gonna start another thread on this... Do a search for recent PzIV/Pz IV or Pz-IV threads.Originally posted by Colonel Warden:Thanks for your help. One question, why and how does CM penalize the PzIVs for being hull down. Just curious.
The basics are:
a) A hull down tank is harder to hit
The probability to hit the turret of a hull down tank increases, as there is less hull to hit. outweighs a) in the CM model and thus the overall probability to hit the turret of a hull down PzIV increases. If a gun can't penetrate the 80mm frontal hull, but the 50mm frontal turret, its chance to kill the PzIv is higher.
Gruß
Joachim
-
FTs are slow, fragile and have a short range.
The trick ist to let the FT draw fire and thus relieve your other units. Of course you gotta make sure it survives as long as possible while your other units whack the enemy busy killing your FT.
If the enemy has to decide: Do I kill the FT and get punished by those others or do I shoot at the others and risk the FT getting close, your FT is worth something.
Remember "all is quiet on the western front"? The FT is the thing that makes the 3 Germans shudder. One targets the FT. A rifleman with the FT kills the shooter. The remaining two Germans retreat.
Scorer point for the rifle, assist point to the FT.
Gruß
Joachim
[ March 09, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
). If they cross potential LOS of the enemy, they do it on roads and only for a few meters. HTs might risk a bit more, but I would not risk valuable freight.
The probability to hit the turret of a hull down tank increases, as there is less hull to hit.
Lucky Shot...
in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks
Posted
Gruß
Joachim
[ March 30, 2004, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]