Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NightGaunt: 2. If you aren't satisfied with MGs how they are, TO FRIGGIN BAD. Learn how to use them in their current setting and deal with it. BTS has said they will work on it. LEAVE THE TOPIC ALONE SO THEY CAN. Maybe bts will have the time to fix them in the future if they don't have to explain every little thing they were forced to extrapolate because of xxxxxx. THIS WHOLE GAME IS BASED ON EXTRAPOLATIONS AND LIMITATIONS>>>GUESS WHAT, I LOVE MGs HOW THEY ARE, THEY KICK ASS WHEN I USE THEM, so they don't have grazing fire, big deal, if you set up your defense right, that makes no difference in THIS GAME. In cm2 that will be very important, and GUESS WHAT THEY WILL FIX IT FOR CM2 DAMN BUNCH OF WHINY BABIES<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While you may view people here that share thier real world experience and ideas as "whiny babies", I view your post as a somewhat "hysterical teenie (female sort)". It is replete with contradictions such as "I like the way things are" and "It will be fixed". So it suits you broken and it will more than suit you when it is "fixed"? I like alot of the ideas that BTS is kicking around. But it looks like its tough titty as far as CMBO MG effectiveness. In my opinion, the MMG and even the HMG are not worth the points spent on them. The only situation where they are of any value is when they outrange a defender that cant move and cant respond with equal firepower. Their real world main attribute, holding ground against infantry attack, isnt modeled. Thats the only issue thats left for me. Is BTS going to do anything else with CMBO besides sell it? Lewis

Its a Nuclear Era vehicle. The hull is designed to withstand the huge wind blast from an atomic warhead. Instead of flipping over, it will just drag along with the air. Maybe even get some flying saucer lift too.

Are you proposing a CM fix or a CM2 redesign? Personally, I think its a bit much for a fix. And like aka, I dont think it addresses the reality issues. I think the best quick fix is just to increase the engagement rate as a function of distance. Targets far away?, fire short bursts, targets get near, go for broke. This would allow at least some meaningful bursts at the onrushing mob. I would also like the MG to quickly switch targets once a target has "gone to ground". I have seen tracking problems also where I run a squad PAST the MG and the MG TURNS AROUND facing his back to 6 other squads that are rushing in. I think a defined covered arc could handle this.

"I think you are really short changing the firepower of a US Platoon. Semi-auto rifles times 30 (roughly) is a serious amount of firepower at certain ranges. Then throw in 3 BARs (or 6 for Pattern 45) and a half dozenSMGs and/or carbines. At close range they also have rifle grenades and/or frag grenades. That is 40 different origins of fire, 40 different men able to be up and firing, HE capabilities, etc. Not to mention that all of this fire is at least semi auto, aimed fire. At ranges of 100m or less there are at least 6 or more full auto weapons. Of course, range and conditions are important here. Four MMGs at 500m beat out the rifle platoon, a little less so at 250m. But at 100m and less the rifle platoon becomes more effective. I see that as being very realistic." I think you missed the point. I am not saying that I felt the US platoon mauling a german coy sized unit was modeled incorrectly. I ran it 3 times and it was as follows: 1 Germ 55 cas with 17KIA and 29 OK US 34 cas with 8 KIA and 6 captured German total victory 2 Germ 64 cas with 16 KIA and 20 OK US 33 cas with 8 KIA and 7 OK Draw 3 Germ 81 cas with 25 KIA and 3 cap US 11 cas with 3 KIA and 29 OK US Total victory As you can see, the germans pay by running into the 3 US squads and its 1 HQ. These 4 shooters maul the germans and the results are not guaranteed to be a win or a loss. Very chancy for the germans considering it costs to find out. I think its modeled very well as far as small arms and a 1/3 sized defending force stopping an infantry attacking force that is running in the open. But take 4 MMG or 4 HMG (Steve theres M1917's in the game right?) and the outcome was distinctly over running the MGs with half the casualties for the germans (compared to going against the US platoon) AND ALWAYS A WIN!!! I dont feel that the smallarms are overmodeled but the MGs are undermodeled and thats what this thread is about. Theres plenty of real world scenarios where MGs alone have to stop an assaulting force. Whats unrealistic is that CM allows the force to just run on in. US marines had to do it many times and the russians liked it when they were behind schedule. The fact that the game allows such desperate measures to be routine is bad enough but the abuser is not punished for it IMO. The fact that the other MG crew members firepower isnt modeled doesnt help and I am at a loss as to why you feel that is something that supports your conclusions of peoples tests. It doesnt take but two guys to fire the US MGs, the other three are cargo carriers and thier firepower can be abstracted into the short range FP of the MGs. Take my words anyway you like but please dont consider them an expression of worry. Steve are you from Brooklyn? HEEEYYYY, DON'WURREEABOWDITTTT!!!! Lewis [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

"We do not have .30cal M1917s in the game. All US MMG units use the air cooled M1919A4 on heavy tripod. The only substantial difference between this and the M1917 water cooled version was the weight. It was also less common by this point for CM's timeframe and location." I believe you do. The US units are called M1917 and the graphic looks like a water cooled weapon to me. Heres agood website..http://rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30calhv.htm It has the maintenance manual and a story about the water cooled even being used in Korea. It was used by US troops in Europe also. Its rate of fire can be near continuous under dire needs and I remember reading how they could fire non stop in the jungle/island fighting in the east. These were modified by some units to fire at higher rates and the author claimed that they were steadier at this rate. They lightened the bolts I think. Well. I guess somebody should MOD this MG then. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Lewis, I thought each casualty count was per turn. So that would be 2, 11, 20 = 33. However, now that I look at it I can see it is also possible JPS meant 2, 9, 9 = 20. Obviously that affects the casualty % stuff, but I would still argue that 30% is not a good exchange. There are far less costly ways to eliminate MGs or avoid them. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was what he meant and it really makes your observations, conclusions, math, etc wrong. I have done multiple tests (We are doing tests to ascertain weapons effectiveness here) where 3 platoons of germans (I pick the ones with low smgs or no assault rifles) are run into a foxhole line held by: 1. US platoon or 2. 4 MMG US are in foxholes. The germans come running in as close together as I can get them at the start. Its all on flat terrain and the germans come running from 400 meters. I find the US platoon has a much greater chance of mauling the germans than the MGs. The MMGs just do not have the stopping power. I even did two tests with the 4 x US 1917 30 cal and had similar results that I find unbelievable. These are the water cooled version on a heavy tripod? 4 MMG have much more defensive stopping power than a US platoon armed with mostly rifles. Thats the value of MGs. They defend against infantry assaults in the open. A US platoon is very good at taking ground (unlike the MGs) and can split squads and fire off grenades etc but in real life, when on the defensive; my money is on the MGs to hold the ground. Some of your points about "viable" results are startling. In fact, the test I ran where the germans ran into the US platoon and won was a total victory reported by your game. The germans had nearly 2/3rds losses. In reality, the attacking force would have waivered and gone to ground. Are the game results viable? Running: I like the fact that you are looking over commands, etc but for CMBO it would be nice if two fixes could be put in: RUNNING speed limited RUNNING moving firepower decreased FATIGUE having debilitating effects such that these states are avoided. I cant imagine these quick fixes destroying the very interwoven fabric of the universe but rather nicely abstracting out this "balls out" rush tactic that is abused. So, I look forward to CM2 and I hope that you can see the value of people contributing here on the board. I wont comment on your tone but will suggest the following: Get as many opinions and as much info about anything you are designing for someone. I hope that your test people have been expanded/diversified from the origional group. Do testing from the ground up and make sure basic principles hold. Its not a good idea to start testing by using combined arms scenarios. WWII was built on WWI and the events there are not that far removed from CM2. Relax Steve. Your games a success. Lewis [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: JPS wrote: 60% casualties is "viable"? I personally don't think so. Plus, when would you ever see a game where the defender only had MGs in play? If there had been even a squad or two of US infantry in front of those MGs I doubt the Germans would have "won" the scenario. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "US: 6xMMG, all reg, 30 men, 108 pts Heer: 2xVG SMG plat, all reg, random leaders, 56 men, 186 pts Placement and initial orders: MMGs at regular intervals in the treeline. No orders (i.e. ready to fire under TacAI). SMG platoons get a single run order over the 300m open area (squads have some 20-30m between each other). Turn 1: SMG platoons advance 150m. MMGs fire a lot. 2 casualties (lucky?). Turn 2: SMG platoons reach the treeline after crossing 300m in the open. Total of 11 casualties. Most squads are tired. Turns 3-6: SMG platoons clear enemy resistance. Total of 20 casualties. All US troops (30 men) are lost/captured." Its 20 out of 56 or did I miss something? Is the Total a RUNNING total? I

"Setup another test per the screenshot above except now Two VG SMG Companys(1 Green & 1 Regular - Total 190 troops) assault over ~210m of open ground to the US positions, consisting of a Rifle 44 Platoon(40 troops), Regular, and 4 x 1919MMGs w/HQs, Regulars. HQs are random, though I adjusted the German HQ Command bonus so all troops got off the line together. Ran it 10 times for two minutes each, the results are : "German casualties"; number of GE squads/HQs that were at the objective in *good order* at the end of two minutes, ie not Panic, Broken or Routed, wasn't concerned about number of men in the unit, just their 'state'; then "US casualties", status.null" I am at a loss as to why you are using a second coy that is green? If anything, we are exploring the lethality of MGs and the troops should be brazenly exposing themselves. At least keep all troops the same. I work with "scientists", so dont feel bad. They do alot worse. How are you "assaulting" the position? Are you giving a RUN order into the flags? How long is the test? Are you targetting or letting the TACAI do its thing? Who has the most kills at the end? Luckily Steve isnt here or he would gushingly agree that your tests are verification of his MG modeling. Lewis

If I recall, those pics showed that shells that explode at shallow angles (direct fire) have better spread than shells fired at higher angles (indirect fire and low velocity weapons). How about reposting those? Or maybe that gorilla pic?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: I'll add as a note here (if it hasn't already been said) that in Ron's test, despite the casualties, the taking cover/pinned rate was very low. Take into consideration the things Lewis said, and it appears even worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that units that are RUNNING should also be downgraded during the turn into MOVERS and then SNEAKS as well as just HALTED. The speed gets scrubbed off in addition to pinning and other results. What really happens is that squads move forward in rushes. When they attract firepower that gets too close, they will go to ground. Another squad will then get up and take its turn. Ideally, theres covering fire to help suppress this firepower. But in tests against the volks, I find it difficult to believe that troops could just run into a foxhole line, without covering fire, and not get creamed. I just played out another test and the US platoon took as many casualties as the germans! The remaining US guys surreneded. This needs some attention if the russians are to be modeled in realistic numerical advantage. Lewis

This is the old resurrected Username. Theres also *Username* after one of the crashes. But I am thinking of changing to "The Username formerly known as *Username*"...or maybe "Suddenly Username"..

Not only that, but the US squads are 12 man and the volks are 8 (9?). You are running a 100 man force into a 60 man force. Try a US platoon and two MGs against that volks coy. I just did it from 350 meters away and the US squads were dug in against completely flat open terrain. The germans didnt stop running till they were within 50 meters (my rule but some went into the US foxholes on their own accord!) and captured half the US guys. No way in real life. From 200 meters on down the MGs would take the germans apart at the legs. From 100 meters on down the BARs and M1s and Tommy guns would stack them up. We were taught in the military to sight about knee high. The legs are in the stream of bullets the longest amount of time and will catch the most rounds. Lewis

A VG coy has 13 targets? thats counting the hqs? You are firing 8 firers at 13 targets and proving what? Try something like 8 firers taking on 26 targets (two companies sounds about right). Thats a 3:1 ratio and the minimum I would expect to have a chance in your experiment. More than likely they will get through in the game. In real life; the double cross fire of two MGs on each flank would stop them cold. If there were fire lanes then it wouldnt matter if it was 250 meters or 100 meters. The final protective FP of the MGs would knock down most of the foolhardy force. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: My point was that UNLESS you were part of an organized ASSAULT (where everyone knows what to do and hopefully will do it), you WILL react as I have described to a full auto 30 cal MG blast. It probably has to be experienced but its like someone cracking a bullwhip 10 times a second or so over your head. It is literally a startling experience and most people just get bent knees in a hurry. Now, this was an ambush scenario in training. The bullets were at least 10 feet over our heads and coming over a berm. We all got against the berm and they sprayed the berm itself. The bullets that went over the berm were just a few feet over our heads and the disturbance in the air as they crack past is physically felt. The bullets that hit the other side of the berm could be felt and the shower of dirt was really annoying. Believe me, we were pinned and in combat, there would be very little chance of me sticking my head up over that berm. A funny effect is the CRACK_CRACK_CRACK-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop. The cracks are the supersonic sound of the bullet splitting the air about you. The pops are the delayed report from the guns firing. It doesnt take much imagination to think about one of those bullets putting its energy into you. This was a MG firing (M60) from at least 250 yards away. Now, will 9 guys firing at that same range with bolt action rifles have that same effect? No way. An MG that has the range puts the hurt on quick with its instant feedback from tracer. A constantly reloading uncoordinated rifle team will not have the same effect. It takes a pretty good shot to hit a target at 250 yards with open sights. A MG is more forgiving in that you just adjust the hose effect. I guess you have to really fire alot of weapons to know. People here might not believe it, but I have fired bursts from M60s and every tracer round showed a skip effect (and I can imagine many of the ball rounds also did). In my opinion, it is best to fire low in most circumstances. But even if you are high theres this 'nailing down' effect. As far as a squad of M1 garands putting down a fire lane; thats ridiculous. It boggles my mind that people come up with stuff like that. How can this distribution be anything like a constant stream from an auto weapon? If anything, everyone will probably exhaust a clip at about the same time and there will be an ominous lull in firing. So bullets dont whizz. They crack from high velocity weapons. The full auto 10 hertz cracking is something else. You either know what I am talking about or you dont. I would guess that crack and elite (and deaf) units might get used to this and respond quickly to its effects. But other units wont. And part of my point is that units just have so much coordination and recovery in the face of all weapons that bum rushing MGs as they present themselves becomes unrealistic. The fact that firelanes cant cut down these rushes from a supporting flank makes it worse. I really wish that BTS investigate 'Orders Limitations. This is when units that are pinned/alerted/out-of-command/etc, CANT be given RUN orders TOWARDS known enemy positions. Lets stop the abuse of running. I like the idea of an ASSAULT command needed to get your troops within a radius of an enemy unit. I have said it before; its good that there arent any hexes but BTS threw out the baby with the bath water. Hexes nicely model the 'space' that enemy units command. Anyway, its good to see BTS contribute to threads again (even if steve is kind of cranky) and I hope that CM2 is going to find the right quiescent point in abstractions that squelch gaminess and 'the toy soldier' syndrome. Lewis

I havent read through this whole thread so ignore me if this has been mentioned. Or just ignore me if you like.. But I think that CERTAIN MGs should have a command option like the following: FPF: Unit draws a line across terrain and set down a marker. Any enemy unit that crosses that line is fired on by MG at full rate. Enemy unit (if not crawling) is susceptible to 100% exposure but if behind smoke is 50% (but not out of LOS as is the case now). Its basically a long thin ambush marker. FPF unit is automatically put in hide mode. The line only effects units that are at the same level/slope. If the line crosses a depressed terrain area, that area is not susceptible. Only water-cooled and quick change barrel, tripod mounted weapons can use this option. I.e. MG42 tripod HMG, Vickers, Maxim, etc. Flak guns, Vehicle MGs , etc are not eligible. Unit continues firing at full rate for 15 seconds even if target unit is wiped out. Any new targets trip this again. There is no delay between tripping the line and firing. I know this would take alot of coding but the eastern front at times was like WWI. I think that Steve should reflect on what alot of the vets here have posted. I have had 30 cal MG fired over my head and unless you were part of an organized assault, you get low quick. I also think the problem is that players can abuse the command system so that every MG can be bum rushed as soon as it is found. In reality, it takes alot of coordination to effect the typical game turn in CM. Lewis

OK I will ask you something politely. Please tell me what exactly I divulged that ruined peoples "Eyes Wide Shut" game? Thank you for your response. Lewis

Did you read the intelligence report? It mentions a 75mm ATG in a freaking bunker! It mentions german armor! I didnt say " Wow my Brumbar on turn 15 really whooped tush!" I didnt say "The 75mm ATG has ALOT of HVAP". You are just chronic weasals and I am sick of this self-rightous complaining. I have played by email and it took almost 5 weeks. Do you really expect everyone here (including new people who have no idea?) to hold off discussing the new scenario? Sorry it aint holding up. Nice try. Lewis

Heres easy words too!!!!!!!!!!!. Anything, including words regarding the new AI in any scenario will allow you to lip-bitch. Practically anything will set off a fidget complainer like you. So drop it. Its that simple. The Gold demo is out based on the soon to be released game. The world has to stop because of your special interests? Lots of new blood will be flooding in. Your "me-first" special interest "dinosaur" mentality is old hat. BE GONE BERLI-GIRL!!! Just control yourself. Play Blind and stop reading the forum. ...(if you dare...) Lewis

Whos VT by the way? You said you were playing him. Lewis

I never heard such weez in my life!!! You want to blind play and then just blind play and TRUST each other!!! God its everyone elses on the worlds fault but your own isnt it!!! I never read anywhere in here that blind play is a holy sacrament!! you give up something for it!! Blind play and live without viewing our discussion!!! How the hell did the world get so full of such nonsense???? People are getting completely unfathomaonable. A game comes out and I have to honor your wishes? You just stop reading posts special people OK? Control YOUR urges and stop inflicting special interests on others. UNBELIEVABLE!!! Want the trains to run on your special schedules next? I DONT LIVE IN A WORLD BUT A CRAZY ASYLUM!!! :Lewis

you are welcome berli-man. But if you are playing someone blind why are you reading a thread called CE VS THE AI AAR? Lets stop the quiffy behaviour people. Theres an obvious inflammatory stature to weasy posts like berli-mans. Can we get some sense of dignity in a world run rampant on pusses screaming "politically correct" or "I want rules but cant use my own common sense?". Berli-man. Bad show girl. Lewis

I just replayed CE as the germans on even odds and slapped the US down 90 to 10. I cant believe how much an impact the 81mm arty has in HE and smoke. Lets get this strait. I was giving general orders and not micromanaging. There is a difinite difference in this scenario since the gold demo. I used to have to finesse with the germans but anyone can run up and win. Literally run to the objective. Lewis

I think its been said before. But the PZIV was no longer a main battle tank by mid 44. You have to realize the german way of thinking. By 1944 the only offensive arm of the Heer was panzer divisions. the air force was defensive and the navy never was really offensive. They tried to put their money into tank warfare. The PzIV had a good gun but couldnt trade shots. Period. It was over. They were great against T3476 due to many reasons. In fact mixtures of MkIIIL60 and PzIVL48 racked up impressive numbers at Kursk and other Eastern front battles. But once 3 man turrets on two fronts and oppressive firepower like the allied airforce and artillery stood against the panzer force, PZIV was a has been. The precious few tigerIs and slowly developing Panther force was too late. The heavy tanks were labor intensive and everyone realized the benefit of scrounging guns, engines, tracks, ammo, training, etc. Having a three tank army and a multitude of support armor was dumb. Read "Death Traps". Its a first hand account of someone who put shermans back into the line. Its about who get the the "runners" numbers up. Germans blew up a hell of alot of panzers they could have fixed. Fixing tanks is hard when you are giving ground. PzIV production should have been diverted to PnzrJgIV and StuGIV. Bottom line. Lewis

I think the following is worthwhile: 1:clean your hardrive. I got rid of alot of crap and did a thorough defrag. 2:Got the latest drivers. I was surprised that creative was still releasing updates for my blaster banshee 16Meg. This impresses me and I will consider them for future purchase. 3:I got Direct X7.0A or whatever was latest. Microsoft website sucked. 4:Played with Video card software/resolution settings/Moniter gizmos. It helps. I think the overall benefit is great and I can consider the CM "look" more like the fields of france. Its my computer so its my responsibility to run it right. On a completely different note, I was watching the US congressional hearings on viruses and all the BS that went on. I was aghast that effing Microsnots wasnt there. I cant believe that People in Congress dont realize that PC stands for PERSONAL computer. If companies want protection they need to get their own people involved. If home owners want security then its buyer beware. Man I hate the government sometimes. Always, Lewis

anyone dowload it with 56K? Time estimate?