Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Lewis - I'm sure BTS would love to change the "spotting" code in CMBB, but according to Steve this is going to require far too much in the way of code changes. It can only be realistically done with the engine rewrite. I guess that there is only so much that they can tweak with the current engine without messing up a lot of the TacAI's engagement routines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My real concern is the IDing than the spotting. I apreciate the global spotting is firmly ingrained in the CMBO and CM2 designs. But that doesnt mean it cant be improved. I will try to put together a post Sunday where I outline a proposal of a better way that hopefully fits into the coding. Lewis

did you drop willey peter or just old smokey?

Havent followed the thread but its a function of how progressive EF play will be from CMBO play. If it has the same pitfalls then an occasional normandy battle might come to mind. Lewis

Actually the smoke from the US units was closer to "civil-war" firefights. US units had this problem even in Korea! http://rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30calhv.htm

seems petrol-electric was very rare in the bulge.

Maybe BTS should break new ground and release alot what you ask for pre-release.

I still dont know what quake is by the way. I can apreciate the fawning and the drooling but am a bit perplexed by the lack of concern towards spotting and shot placement. Its to be expected I guess. I will open a thread towards a final plea towards "spotting" and other issues related to it but expect little response from BTS. It will be a challenge of my abilities to rationalize what I think can be done in the "end game" mindset that I think BTS has adopted. All for the best I am sure. Lewis

Lewis, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It won't work. Toning it down more risks unrealistic behavior on a 1:1 relationship level, which is even worse than unrealistic strategic level info. There is simply no way to get Relative type behavior out of an Absolute system. We have done the best we can do with it. Putting in things like delays for armored vehicles and such. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spotting in CMBO has always been non-linear since the first day the code was added. A unit has a MUCH greater chance of spotting something up close than it does far away. Spotting is also dependent on unit type, unit state (i.e. pinned), weather, and terrain as well as distance. Steve

Since I am actually a "Super Star" , I may not qualify for this. But I am easily lured by Money and Alchohol. Lewis

Lewis: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are vehicles in CM2 going to have generic percentage placement of hits against them or vehicle specific percetage-to-area? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Same modeling as with CM1. Until we rewrite the game engine, which will do far more than just this, we can't do much to change the basic way the modeling works. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Against oddly shaped vehicles like the 152 this would be important. As I said, the vehicle seems vulnerable in areas. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No more so than with current vehicles IMHO. We have the "lucky shot" thing in CM1 now and that will apply to CM2 as well. However, we are going to code up something that allows underclassed AT weapons, in given situations, to have a better chance of hitting a vulnerable spot such as the tracks. This was about all the 37mm AT gun was good for vs. Soviet armor Its high rate of fire and accuracy enabled it to still cause problems until early 1942 if the situation was right.

Are vehicles in CM2 going to have generic percentage placement of hits against them or vehicle specific percetage-to-area? Against oddly shaped vehicles like the 152 this would be important. As I said, the vehicle seems vulnerable in areas. Lewis

Was the M1917 in production before the war started? I have seen pics of these water cooled weapons in every theater and in Korea. The only bad thing about them was the weight. If the air cooled version over-heated the barrel, then it was SOL since there wasnt a quick way to change barrels. It should be interesting to see how the Maxims perform in CM2. Lewis

Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting. This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube. Its an abstraction that takes into account this fundamental game flaw. Spotting (and IDing) should be toned down also for units that are in cover/ small in size/etc so they arent spotted by everyone at once. Perhaps this can be an option with settings. I find the way it is now that it gives the attacker (since he usually out numbers the defender) a great advantage. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: It is difficult to believe that such a mundane matter could give birth to a 5 pages thread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe that Steve's remark about the Elephants abilities and the SU's atributes started this. Also, I think that CM2 fever is starting. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Any time a German tank encountered 1 of these things chances are it was part of a break-through force with anotehr 19 from the regiment lurking about somewhere and hordes of T-34's swarming about covered in SMG infantry and/or IS-2's in overwatch. !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say you are wrong. The su-85, su-100, su-122, and these bigger types all lacked MGs and would not be in the breakthrough force but rather the overwatch second echelon. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Lorrin Bird here. Book also compares British, U.S., German and Russian HE rounds for percentage of total weight as HE filler and makes all sorts of speculative and semi-substantiated guesstimates on what is better than what. And presents a detailed and totally challengeable analysis of HE ricochet fire characteristics, where 75mm HE reigns supreme (in my mind, at any rate). More? Yes, lots more. Hard data, soft projectiles and armor, and all within a 200 page masterpiece. Enough reading for a lifetime (if you're a firefly). Always wanted to be a sideshow barker. How'd I do?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sucker born every minute Mr Bird. Hard data, soft speculations, piercing guesses, bouncing calculations, filler and more!! Is it just me or does Lorrin come off as someone that thinks you know what he is talking about? Just how much? You forgot the price.. Lewis

These Su's dont have hull MGs and AA mgs are about useless against close infantry; would they be any better off than Elephants trying to breakthrough? With an even slower rate of fire, I would guess that these monsters would avoid infantry like the plague (maybe they could roll a grenade down the barrel). They also had a restricted weapon depression of a few degrees. With such a high set weapon, it would have been possible to only hit infantry that were beyond panzerfaust range. A final note is that the gun really is vulnrerable. The armored box under the gun protecting its recoil etc, would not give much protection. Again, the barrel is huge and stands a good chance of catching rounds and even being targetted. Lewis PS Its hard enough discussing rates of fire but does anyone know of any reliable info on range finding and/or optical quality of russian guns/tanks? Since these behomeths are really stand off destroyers; how good were they at ranging and sights?

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons4_01.html Heres a good comparision. I would have opted for the 100mm myself. I cant believe the 152mm could have as high a velocity as the website claims. Something like 650m/s? Lewis

I have been designing a scenario using a hedgerow. In playtesting, infantry under fire seem to want to run through the bocage to seek cover beyond it in scattered trees. This is always towards the source of enemy fire and leads to the cover-seeking infantry being slaughtered in the hedgerow. They look like robots stuck in glue frantically trying to get to some percieved cover. Shouldnt hedgerows be the cover that they seek? That is, run to the edge of the hedgerow and get cover there? I think I have seen infantry also do this through wire. Again they just get tangled in the wire and get slaughtered. Running towards the enemy is usually only performed by very well trained troops that have been ambushed at very close range. Believe me. It isnt a natural thing to do. A natural thing to do is to get the hell down. Its what people are trained to do and comes naturally if the urge to run crazily to the rear doesnt win out. Running into enemy territory is rather rare. I hope BTS can address this behaviour in some form. In cases where the troops run towards the enemy but dont get caught in wire, etc, they gain an equally unrealistic advantage. It will certainly bring teh infantry game closer to reality. Lewis

This courtesy of our good friends at the ru site.. The vehicle may have been the biggest baddest rusky stuggy but its armor may not have been up to the challenge of medium ranges. Slow rate of fire, low ammo load, big target, etc. I dont think its the uber-monster some think it is. Better than a Brummbar for sure though. Lewis

I have read accounts of germans doing such things as tying strings to tripod HMGs and then pulling the string/trigger to make the enemy think fire is coming from a flank when no one is there. Seems hoaky. The germans would also fire tracer laden bursts about head high. This would pin down guys or at least make them do the doubled-over rush. Meanwhile a non-tracer MG is putting a firelane across the field around shin high.

I wonder if gun hits on these vehicles should be a more common event. The 152 barrel is just a huge target. BTW whats that tube attached to the side of the vehicle? Not the extra fuel tank in the back but the one next to the fighting compartment? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: What exactly is electric firing any ways? Is it using a motor to trip the firing pin, or actually running current through the powder?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The latter. Instead of a firing pin hitting a cap a current is run through as you think. It has the advantage of instant firing when the trigger is yanked. It might even have hang-fire advantages in that hangs are less likely or can be cleared with another current surge by firing again. Lewis

Just an update: It now ends up that he IS sweaty on the baldest/fattiest of parts. The flaccid parts, of course, are still in their origional sickly translucent greenish-oily near gangrene state. His yellowishly-greying stringy hair is as frizzled and flake riddled as last reported. Since his finger nails have fallen off, the open sores in his scalp have finally scabbed over and covered 1/3rd of his scalp. They (the scabs) actually appear to model the earths surface land surface area (cause the rest of his face/neck is a macabre blue). His minimum wage care-takers have adopted the affectionate name "Hey! globey head" to call him to dinner. A pleasant surprise is that the Discovery channel is filming the eco-system that is nested in his naval area. Seems the lint-monsters arent such a hallucination afterall. Huh. Good for you Mr PENG! An army of idiots cant be let down so you keep up the bandwidth-eating culture of post happy near-adults. Lewis

I hate to break up this scintillating exchange but while researching Elephant info for the other thread I came across: "The Tiger Tank" Ford Claims Tigers fired electrically ignited ammo (as I have read) and that Army FLAK battalions changed their firing mechanisms to share the same ammo as the Tigers. This means that the typical shielded 88 Flaks in the armys dual-use had batteries, generators, etc issues. So this also means that Luftwaffe 88mm L56 FLAK had seperate ammo than TigerI and Wermacht FLAK? I would guess that most home-guard 88 battalions only had stock piles of 88 "yellas" with time fuzes. But even army Flak batteries had to fire AA so..? Anyway, this brings up an intrigung thought: Could a Tiger I get a hold of AA time fuzed ammo from a Army FLAK battalion? This would certainly be nice to fire above the heads of infantry, gun crews and open topped vehicles..Depends on the "height" resolution also. Also: I found an interior shot of a Tiger I with at least 3 different colored shells (black, green, yellow). Lewis