Juardis

This has been brought up in numerous threads in the past 6 months, but never on its own (at least not that I found in my 2 sec search of the forums). Therefore, I would like to officially use this thread to whine, cry, and moan over what I perceive as a grave injustice done to the poor saps that carry a zook, shreck, or piat. What am I talking about? Why the fact that they all seem to wear bright orange vests with neon signs overhead directing every asset in the area to target them. Oh, the unfairness and discrimination. Now then, I can see why a tank would target an AT team (duh). But what I cannot figure out is how, in a group of infantry running through the fog with smoke all around and buttoned up Jadgpanzer IVs rotated 90 degrees, how in the 7734 my AT teams can be singled out and shot at. It is the single most exasperating action I've had to deal with in CM. It's bad enough (although good that the TAC AI does this), but it's bad enough that tanks rotate their hulls toward a threat now, be it infantry or armor. That means I have to hunt in pairs now. No problem, I can adapt. But what I cannot adapt to is the fact that they are continuously spotted. Couple easily spotted AT teams with rotating hulls and you wind up with dead AT teams. I understand unbuttoned tanks can spot better than buttoned tanks. I understand that turretted vehicles had vision blocks located all around the circumference. You cannot tell me though that looking through vision blocks in the thick of battle that you can discern, with regularity, AT teams from any other infantry. In the game it's slightly easier because AT teams are only 2 member teams. But who is to say that 2 men from a squad couldn't be running across that field? Or who is to say that those 2 men you see are all that's left of a full strength squad? I gaurantee that if it were 2 grunts running that they would not draw the wrath of every tank, vehicle, MG nest, and squad within LOS. And finally, just to get all my whines in, how in teh 7734 can buttoned turretless vehicles spot anything in their flanks or rear? Do they have vision slits located all around as well? Thank for letting the whine breathe. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Napoleon1944: One thing I have noticed is that the tac AI for tanks aquires the AT teams far too easily. Even when there are many inf targets closer, the AI picks off the AT teams. When it comes down to a player losing all his tanks and only left with some AT teams, forget it. The side with the last tank standing is usually the winner in my experiences. In fact, players surrender now when they have lost their last tank, which usually turns out to be a German player. Tanks feared infantry, especially in buildings, but when they can pick out which enemy is carrying a small PIAT amongst 20 other targets, it seems to me to be unrealistic. I have discussed this aspect with many ww2 non-CM gamers and they all agree. You might as well make a mod for a bright orange PIAT so it reflects CM reality. Too bad it is hard coded <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly the point I've been trying to make the past few weeks! Exactly the point. Which is why it is very challenging to win if you have no armor. By increasing the infantry allowed and decreasing armor allowed, it actually makes it more realistic in that infantry will have a fighting chance (provided your piat team removes his bright orange vest ). Steve, on a seperate note. Are we to expect these ratios to be maintained for larger battles? I know I can test this when I get home, but I ain't home thanks

turning off FSAA also helps when the screen starts whiting out. I typically see this on very large scenarios with high res textures. This happened again the other day so I got out of the game. My son wanted to play Age of Empires so I let him and AOE would not start. There was an error with directdraw. So it got me to thinking. The whiteouts only seem to occur on the trees. The trees are 2d textures. Directdraw is the 2d subset of DirectX. Therefore, the problem occurs with the V5 and directdraw. Don't know if this helps, but that is my observation for the week. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Maybe I'm different than most people, but I don't buy a lot of armor because I suck at using it. So the change that allows me to buy a full company is a welcome one. And when I do buy armor, it is certainly not the heavies. If I want to play with the heavies, I setup a QB with AI. What I will say is this though. It is very frustrating trying to take out a tank with nothing but infantry when the TAC AI is constantly reversing them out of danger. I spend a considerable amount of time to work my infantry and zooks into close assault range without being killed, yet when I get there the enemy usually spots me (even when they're buttoned) and reverses out of danger. The argument about Hetzers being useless once the enemy armor is gone is a valid one. I like it when my opponent has Hetzers and I have infantry. However, since they're so cheap, they're like a rolling AT gun so 100 points can easily counteract a 250 point Jumbo. And since they are only 100 points +/-, they're not that big a waste if there is no armor for them to take out. I gaurantee that there will be more Hetzers with this new arrangement. To make up for the loss of infantry killers though, there will be a lot more 250/8, 250/9, 251/9 roaming the battlefields. So the allies will have to compensate for that with zooks and 50s. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Interesting Matt. I used to try to give a target command, then a move and hide or just plain hide and I was never able to do that. So I just assumed it was not possible to hide and target. Matter of fact, you still can't do it in 1.1. However, if you wait one turn after you hide to issue the target command, it can be done and that is what was new to me. If I were to test every permutation possible I'd never actually play the game . Now then, your news is a most welcome explanation. Thanks, I must go unhide one FO.

Woohoo! I'm not sure it's intentional though (i.e., it might be a bug). Here's what I did. YMMV. In one turn I snuck and hid my 105mm FO. The next turn he hadn't gotten to where he was going, but I targetted an area that was out of LOS at the moment but would be within LOS once he got there. So he got there, he hid, and he targetted. 2 minutes before death falls from unseen eyes. Yes! BTS, don't you dare go fixing this if it is a bug! You hear me? Wait. Unless you want to fix it so you can more easily hide and target

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: I've done it before, and I'll do it again. Just send me your map requests, and I'll set it up. No more 7500pt setups, please. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But Gustav, that was one hell of a setup you did for us . I'm in turn 24 of another 75 turn, 7500 point battle on a map that I created. Havermeyer bought our units for us (I'm not playing Havermeyer in this one). It is one hell of a good time. He went Hetzers and Jadgpanzers, I went mostly infantry (well, mostly now since all my tanks are dead). We have two rivers with 3 bridges across each river. The rivers seperate the maps into thirds. You must simultaneously attack and defend. And it's foggy out. To address the first question, you cannot get 4000x1200, but you probably figured that out already. We made our something like 2400m long by whatever the max width was. Havermeyer and I are playing in a map he created and his is 2800m long by whatever. Not much flanking room in that one. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Yeah, yeah. I forgot about that. Maybe like a close assault command. I like it!

I was looking for that answer myself when I posted "how firing initiative is calculated". Your example points out my frustration. The allies always seem to fire first and I was wondering why that was. In your situation, my guess is that the Sherman had a more experienced crew than your Tiger and his Sherman has a higher ROF than your Tiger so you were doubly hosed. Of course, luck had a great deal to do with it to. First shot + luck = trouble As far as sighting, perhaps that Sherman had no idea what it was firing at. If it had, it might have backed away. I had a recent confrontation where my M4 76mm took out a Jadgpanzer IV from 500m but I didn't know that until my opponent told me what it was. My M4 thought it was an "assault gun?" A few turns later, that same tank stumbles on a Hetzer. Now, if he can kill a JP IV frontally from 500m, he can certainly kill a Hetzer from 350m frontally. So what did he do? Fired smoke and reversed himself. A lot of times actions are different when the target is known. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

My opponent is loaded with Hetzers and Jadgpanzer IVs (think 10 of each and you'd be close). I was only semi-prepared for such a battle (i.e., I didn't purchase the right type of armor). Anyway, I do have lots of zooks and glider squads with plenty of inherent AT capability. The problem I'm discovering is that whenever I rush a platoon close enough to the tank hunters, the TAC AI reverses them out of my range and then proceeds to pummel my troops. I don't have a problem with that. The TAC AI correctly recognizes that my infantry is a threat and takes compensatory action. As a matter of fact, let me take this opportunity to commend Charles on this. Well done Charles. No, the problem I have is that they're buttoned up AND rotated 90 degrees from where my infantry is attacking from. Now I have no idea where the vision slits are for JPs and Hetzers, but IMO a turretless vehicle should not be able to recognize an infantry threat in its flanks when it is buttoned up and hunting for targets to its front. And certainly not in a matter of seconds. What happened was the Jadgpanzers rotated to face my infantry the moment my infantry got within LOS and reversed while firing at the same time. This all took place in a matter of one 60 sec turn. Now, I guess there is some small possibility that my opponent correctly guessed where my infantry was going and just so happened to rotate his tanks at the same time I arrived. If so, its kudos to my opponent and not the TAC AI, especially since the platoon I raced over was engaged in a firefight at the time. But if not, then maybe the TAC AI is too good at moving tanks out of trouble? If this is how it's going to be, I can try to plan for this, but damn, its already hard enough hunting tanks with infantry. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I guess you need to play me I insist on Fionn's rule of 76. Rule of 75 is fine for a change. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Does a lack of response mean no one knows how to best ensure your German tank fires first or that nothing you can do will speed up your first shot? Or does no one know?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: BTW, a quick breeze through of the 38th Recon AARs does not uncover any reports of A/Cs being damaged by blown or punctured tires. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just finished reading an article in WWII magazine about the 222nd US infantry division (Rainbow Division) and their defense of Ohlungen forest near Schwieghausen in Jan 45. The article talked about an M8 driving up a road and killing Germans while at the same time taking small arms fire from the Germans. After awhile, they either abandoned it or drove it back to friendly territory, I'm not sure which. But here's the passage. "By now the M8 was out of ammunition and one of its tires was flat. Woelfer and his little group found that the woods where the 2nd platoon had veen were now full of Germans and that there was no hope of getting through to Company E...Just before midnight, they headed back toward Neubourg to organize a detachment to reinforce the flank they had found so badly battered." While it did not specifically say that small arms fire flattened the tire, it did imply it since the M8 was on a road the whole time. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Along those same lines, how about cratered terrain tiles from previous arty barrages? As for captured tanks, in the latest issue of WWII magazine, there is a lengthy article on captured Czech tanks used in later German campaigns. Perhaps we'll see some? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I think Havermeyer's point is that German air attacks on ground forces was virtually non-existent in the ETO. Given that the Americans have no AA capability in CM, the fear of 3 fighter bombers is real, regardless of whether you have a vehicle park or not. (oops, wait, is the bofors american as well as british?). And yes, I did have 3 fighter bombers. Was that historically accurate? Probably not. But hey, it's a custom scenario. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I'd be more interested in the quantity of tungsten Allied tanks are getting issued. Tungsten should be rare in tanks & was not that much more common in TD units. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, it's been my experience in QBs with 1.1 that the allied tanks get a lot less T than before. For example, I got 6x M4A1 75mm's and 2x M41A 76mm's in my latest QB. Not one T round amongst them . In the past I'd get on average 1T round per tank. So I think perhaps the increased chance of firing T has been offset by the reduced chance of getting T in the first place. I know I wish my 75mm's had some since they're taking a beating right now. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Originally posted by Dittohead: Note the impotance of firing first. WO 291/975 Tank battle analysis. thanks for the link 1.Allied ATk guns were successful at 1090 yards (SP) and 870 yards (towed), whereas German figures were 330 yards (SP) and 300 yards (towed). wow, I didn't realize the German AT guns sucked compared to their allied counterparts 1.Of 83 actions, 58 were won by the side that fired first. Where a side was both Numerically superior and fired first, it was invariably successful. That's what I'm after. How to get my German tanks to fire first. This data shows why. Crew quality is one factor. But if I'm also limited by the ROF for each tank, then I could purposely choose the tanks with the fastest ROF. I think that ROF + crew quality determines who fires first (assuming no turret swinging and that both sight each other at the same time). I want to know if there is some way to get an AP round loaded in the breach (like perhaps targetting a tank while it is out of LOS so as to inform your tank crew that you want AP loaded). Maybe by area firing you're preloading HE into the breach? I don't know, I need some kind of edge. Maybe all the edge the axis can get is to bump up the crew quality to overcome the slower ROF? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I posted in another thread my theory on why the allied tanks always seem to fire first (assuming both sides see each other at the same time). Haven't gotten any responses in that thread so here it is in all its naked glory . I hypothesized that who fires first depends on which tank has the highest rate of fire (assuming both tanks see each other at the same time). The fundamental assumption there is that all tanks move around without any shells in the breach. So is that true? For example, say a M4A3 fires one shell/10 sec while a Pz IV fires one shell/15 sec. If both barrels are empty, the M4A3 would always fire first with the first shell leaving in approximately 10 sec. Now, when I was playing M1 Tank Platoon 2, I always drove my Abrams around with a Sabot loaded and ready to loose. Infantry was a lower priority target IMO, so I was always prepared for a surprise armor engagement. Did not the tanks in WWII have the same thoughts? Always have your AP shells loaded just in case. You can always unload and fire HE if needed can't you? (there is a thought deep in the dark recesses of my mind that says once loaded, it must be fired for WWII era tanks, so I could be wrong here). If this were SOP, then who fires first simply comes down to crew experience and who sees who first, like it should be IMO. But I'm not a tanker, I'm an engineer, so any enlightenment would be appreciated. ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 01-16-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: Well, saying the engineers should have gone first doesn't alter the fact that once the mines were spotted the vehicles should have been halted by the a/i. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. The TAC AI should halt the vehicles. If they then take fire, the TAC AI should reverse them. If the rear vehicle does not reverse, then the front vehicle will be toast, just like IRL . As far as Engineers finding AT mines, I was told they do not and can not. Only way to find an AT mine is to run over it. I have not tested this myself, so it could be wrong, but it makes sense. I mean, engineers aren't walking around with metal detectors looking for AT mines are they? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: BTW, a quick breeze through of the 38th Recon AARs does not uncover any reports of A/Cs being damaged by blown or punctured tires. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 01-16-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I learn something new every day. Thanks for posting this. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

According to the story about the Allied Mobile Artillery Section (link provided by Frenchy? in an earlier thread), they captured an 88 and fired it indirectly. The story did not differentiate it from the AT variety or the AA variety, so I'm not sure which it was, but there is confirmation that an 88 was fired indirectly. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

As far as allied tanks firing first, I have experienced the same thing. Unfortunately for me, it is rare for my allied tanks to get in a first shot kill, so they end up dying. However, when being fired upon by allied tanks I invariably die from first shot kills. Go figure. Anyway, I believe the calculation for who fires first is based on the rof. So if a Sherman can fire 6 shells in 60 secs, that's one shell every 10 sec. If a Pz IV can fire 4 shells in 60 secs, that is 1 in 15. So it takes 10 sec from sighting to firing for a Sherman vs. 15 sec from sighting to firing for a Pz IV. The Sherman gets first shot. I believe this is what is done since the game probably models no shells in the breach. If your Sherman carries AP, HE, and T, it would move around without any shells in the breach. Hence, the tank crew would have to load the appropriate shell before firing and thus the delay. IMO, if you only have one type of shell left (or one type of shell period like the AVRE), the game should note that and always ride around with that shell loaded in the breach. Once the enemy is sighted, there is a small delay to swing the gun on target then fire away without waiting for the shell to be loaded. When I played M1TP2, I always had a Sabot loaded in the breach for this very reason. Tanks are much more of a worry than infantry, so always be prepared to fire your AP shells first. Question. Once a shell was loaded in WWII era tanks, did that shell have to be fired or could it be unloaded? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Gamey?! Assaulting a copse of trees with a company of troops from all directions is gamey? That's ridiculous. As it turns out, we're on the last 8 turns, he has a platoon in the trees and the last VL is in those trees. He's guarding it. I want it. I have no choice but to assault the trees.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: In 1.1 I don't think you need to worry about crews distracting yout tanks, they will almost always be ignored unless you attempt to run over them or something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Even if they are noted as "crew?" I mean, a knocked out tank crew doesn't always show up definitely as a crew do they? At all times?

Did the requisite search on cross fire, but most of it had to do with green troops at night or tank round ricochets. What I want to know is, if you put two squads or two MG teams facing each other, then put a enemy unit right in between them, is there a possibility that bullets from one squad will miss the enemy and kill the good guys on the other side? I know projectile rounds are tracked (except mortar rounds) and I know one tank can fire through another friendly tank and one infantry squad can fire "through" another infantry squad, but what I'm not sure about is whether bullets are tracked. If one green troop can target another green troop, then I'm guessing it's abstracted such that you can only kill what you target as far as small arms fire goes. The reason I'm asking is because I'm planning an assault on a copse of trees and I plan to come from all directions. The fighting will take place with a 50 square meter area. If my guys can inadvertently kill my guys with small arms fire, then I'll stagger the attack. Otherwise, it's balls to the wall baby. ------------------ Jeff Abbott