ASL Veteran

Germanboy is correct in that this command would mostly apply to infantry assaults vs AFVs (although it could be used against enemy infantry in forested areas for example to keep them from getting out of your LOS between orders phases). The main problem is that a real squad that is close assaulting an AFV would 'see' what the AFV is doing and would react accordingly. In CM, the squad will move to where you tell them to move to, and will then remain there regardless of whether the AFV is still there or not. In CM, in order to close assault an AFV under the current 'rules' (for lack of a better term) you pretty much need to anticipate what the AFV will be doing when you are plotting the orders for your infantry. If you are off by a few meters, they will be helpless targets accomplishing nothing. I have had numerous opportunities to close assault enemy AFVs in CM, but hesitated for fear of guessing wrong as to what the opposing player would do with his AFV. If the opportunity exists though, a command would be handy. One example, I played one of the scenarios from the CD where US Paratroopers are defending a bridge against a bunch of French tanks and some Kraut infantry. I just happened to have a Paratrooper squad hiding in some trees next to the road on the causeway. Opponent has decided to drive his tanks down the causeway with no infantry support. Tank stops a mere 20 meters away from my squad. I send my squad sneaking up to the tank, but the tank (unaware of my presence) decides to back up ten meters putting my squad on the roadside in front of the tank (rather than behind it and assaulting it). I ended up getting the tank in the end, but it was a frustrating game of guess where the tank will be next? An assault command would eliminate the guesswork. I just order the squad to assault the tank and they do it. No guessing, just target and go. What if the tank drives off? I cancel the order in the next orders phase if I choose so I don't need to chase the tank to Berlin. Could I have done a coordinated platoon assault on the tank? No, the other squads from the platoon were located further up the causeway - this was a target of opportunity. Tank was close, I decided to take it out. Is the command limited to a few specific situations - maybe one or two of which may appear in a typical game? Yes, the command is very limited. Would it be desirable to have? Yes. Is it worth the coding effort? For me, yes. For others - no. Will BTS implement it? Probably not, but I don't really mind. Perhaps they can include something like that in the future. Lets have it added to the wish list and air our ideas.

Oh, well I figured that you were posting that in a vain attempt to 'prove' that the 75L24 was nearly identical to the 75L48 when it came to firing HE. So what you were really doing was posting a comparison of two identical guns in an attempt to show ... what ... that they were identical? Ah, now I completely understand the relevance of that post.

Okay, since there seems to be some conflicting information on the actual guns themselves I figured I would post some data from “The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WW2” by Ian Hogg. These are not tank guns, but various guns used by infantry - AT and IG guns. Unfortunately all the data is in pounds and inches, but I’m sure the great minds on this board can convert this to metric if necessary. 7.5cm Leichte Infanterie Geschutz 18: Barrel length: 35.43 inches Breech mechanism: Shotgun, percussion firing Projectile & Weight: HE, 13.2lbs Propelling charge: Five-part; brass-coated steel case Muzzle velocity: 690 ft per second 7.5cm Infanterie Geschutz 37: Barrel length: 70.75in with muzzle brake Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectile & Weight: HE 13.2lbs Propelling charge: Six part charge, separate loading, brass case Muzzle Velocity: 918 ft per second 7.5cm Infanterie Geschutz 42 nA: Barrel length: 70.75inches Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectile & Weight: HE, 13.2lbs Propelling charge: Six part, separate loading, brass case Muzzle velocity: 918ft per second 7.5cm Infanterie Kanone 290®: Barrel length: 49.5inches Breech mechanism: Interrupted screw, percussion firing Projectile & Weight: HE, 13.75lb Propelling charge: 18oz, fixed, brass case Muzzle velocity: 1270ft per second 7.5cm Panzerabwehrkanone 40: Barrel length: 145.75inches Breech mechanism: Horizontal sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectiles & Weight: AP 15lb; APCR 7.04lbs; HE 12.8lbs; HEAT 10.1lbs Propelling charge: Steel case, lacquered. Fixed round Muzzle velocity: AP 2600ft per second; APCR 3250 ft per second; HE 1800 ft per second 7.5cm Panzerabwehrkanone 41: Barrel length: 170inches Breech mechanism: Horizontal sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectile & Weight: APCNR 5.72lbs Propelling charge: 5.71lb, steel case, fixed round Muzzle velocity: 3700ft per second 8cm Panzerabwehrwerfer 600 (also PAW 8H63): Barrel length: 116.2inches Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, electric firing Projectile & Weight: HEAT 5.94lbs; HE 9.59lbs Propelling charge: Steel spirally wrapped case with venturi plate Muzzle velocity: HEAT 1700ft per second; HE 1375ft per second 8.8 cm PAK 43: Barrel length: 260.225inches Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, semi automatic, electric firing Projectile & Weight: AP 22.9lb; APCR 16lb; HE 20.3lb Propelling charge: Lacquered steel case, fixed round Muzzle velocity: AP 3282ft per second; APCR 3710ft per second; HE 20.3lb

Here's my secret. If I want to scout enemy positions on a bocage map, I can place a full squad right up against the bocage, use the split squad command, and have the half squad pop out on the other side of the bocage so he can quickly scout ahead without the need to actually pass through the bocage the original squad was hiding behind!

I think a 'close assault' command would be a nice addition. Something that went along the lines of maybe 'targeting' an enemy vehicle / infantry unit with the 'close assault' command and then having the unit conducting that attack attempt to stay within 10 meters of the target for the duration of the command. The command could automatically cancel if the 'target' of the close assault moved more than 30 to 40 meters from the units conducting the assault. The automatic cancellation would prevent the 'close assault' command from becoming a 'pursue all the way to Berlin' command by only allowing the command to be selected when your troops are in close proximity to the target.

I think your memory may not have it 100% correct. As I recall, troops firing down over a cliff against an adjacent hex are doubled like normal, but units firing up over a cliff to an adjacent hex have their firepower halved since they can't throw grenades up the cliff.

Ummmm Lewis, the Panzer IV originally had a low velocity 75 in it when it was first introduced. The longer 75 is a different gun than what was originally equipped on the Pz IV and I am sure that the passage you are quoting is in reference to the 'earlier' Panzer IV gun not the 'later' Panzer IV gun. The 1939 - 41 Panzer IV may have even been equipped with the 75L24 itself. I think your passage can be regarded as misleading and not placed in the correct context, unless you are not familiar with the history of the PzIV. By the way, if the weight of the HE in the shell is different, I'm not sure how they can be the same shell. Count me among the many who have no clue what your point is.

First wargame: Wooden Ships and Iron Men First computer game: Battles of Napoleon LOL, Starship troopers was fun ... I always managed to get my Special Talent turned into slag right after landing on the surface. Those nuclear mines were hell too. Luftwaffe ... German planes form one giant stack and make repeated passes over the struggling American bombers. We call it: "Luftwaffe, the game with the massive flaw"

I guess we can now surmise that the basic 75mm Sherman may have a greater chance of hitting an infantry target than an armored target? I also gather that when firing at an armored target, a 75L24 would be less accurate than a 75L70 initially, but that the increase in accuracy from bracketing would be more dramatic? Taking this to the comparison with the 88 Flak, the 88s first shot accuracy would be much higher than the 75L24 at ... say 700 meters, but after three or four bracketing shots, the 75L24 would match the 88s accuracy at that range so that the increase in accuracy between bracketing shots would be higher with the 75L24. With an infantry target, the lower the velocity the better, so that the 75L24 would have a higher initial accuracy than the 88, and that the 75L24 would remain more accurate throughout. Of course, the 88s HE round would probably be lighter and fired at a lower velocity than its AP round, so how much accuracy would be lost? This may be a good place to tie in Germanboys comment about the use of fused shells for the 88 Flak. Maybe it would be easier for the crew of the 88 Flak to fire a fused shell that would burst when arriving at the target rather than an HE shell that needs to impact the ground where the infantry were located? If the 88s HE round were of a high enough velocity it may be inaccurate because of it. Just a thought ....unfortunately, I don't believe that there is any way to test the accuracy of HE vs infantry in CM between the various guns because you don't get a 'to hit' percentage with the target line - only exposure.

I’ve been lurking on this accuracy thread, and now that we have Rexford here I want to bring up two questions that I got stuck on in the original accuracy thread. There was a lot of talk by Tom and others that seemed to lean towards the equation of high velocity = greater accuracy. This would also seem to be demonstrated with the “TigerFibel” training chart thing. However, I noticed that in Jentz’s book “Tank Battles in North Africa” the accuracy of the 75L24 is almost identical to the 88 Flak out to 1500 meters, beyond which there is no more data for the 75L24. This would seem to indicate that higher velocity does not necessarily = greater accuracy. This lead me to explore the issue a little further. I began to notice that HE shells are lighter than AP shells, but that they always travel at a lower velocity. Heavy shells at high velocity, light shells at low velocity. I would guess that the HE shells would travel at a lower velocity because they don’t need to penetrate armor .. you just need to get the shell on target. So here is the first question – IF a light shell is traveling at a lower velocity than a heavier shell, THEN does that necessarily mean that the heavier shell at the higher velocity is inherently more accurate than the lighter one at the lower velocity. To complicate matters, an APCR round is a very light shell at a super fast velocity – if velocity were a direct function of accuracy, then it would follow that an APCR round would be more accurate than either an AP round or an HE round. However, Ian Hogg in “The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WW 2” says, referring to the PAK 38s APCR round, “due to the light weight of the composit rigid shot, its ballistic coefficient (best visualized as staying power or carrying power) was poor, and at longer ranges the improvement became marginal.” He was referring to penetration in that specific quote, but it can be inferred that accuracy was reduced as well at longer ranges. Here is the second question: It seems to me that accuracy would not necessarily be strictly a function of velocity, but of the weight of the projectile as well. The ‘Ballistic Coefficient’ seems to be a rather important item towards accuracy and I was curious to know if Rexford has tackled Ballistic Coefficients at all.

Oops, double post [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 01-18-2001).]

better be careful Jeff, Steve roasted and toasted me in the 'big' accuracy thread for stating nearly the same exact same thing you just said. Of course, that was right after the big (and possibly infamous) mega flame war in the German optics thread, so maybe Steve was under a little duress at the time.

Like any site with scenarios there are going to be good ones and bad ones. Play balancing is always tough too because of varied styles of play and other factors. Many ASL scenarios are unbalanced in ASL but balanced in CM, while others are balanced in ASL and unbalanced in CM. I think this all goes to feedback and the general lack thereof. Not enough people e-mail a scenario designer or "converter" (in the case of ASL stuff) and give them some feedback. I try to convert scenarios that are interesting to my friends and I and I don't really put much thought into the conversion other than to make it as true to the original as possible. It's mostly a case of my friend handing me a scenario card and some boards and saying "This one looks interesting ... convert that one and I'll take you on" and I will agree or disagree. I only give them to the ASL site so others can try them as they wish.

I have to say that I like them all .... but I'm probably a little biased

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: I suggest the book entitled "German Automatic Weapons of WWII" by Robert Bruce. They do present-day live fire tests of many weapons with commentary; field stripping, and histories. john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would that be Robert the Bruce from Scotland? Where is Mel Gibson when you need him!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by curih: That being said, I can see your point. I don't personally like to hunt down eey last man, but if both players still have significant forces fighting over a VL (it's till in the ? state ) I'd like to be able to see who would eventually win. Taking the VL 5 minutes late is better than not taking it at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who would eventually win ... well, the person who won is the person who acheived the victory objective within the stated time limit. If the victory objective has not been taken by then, the attacker has failed. This is a game, and a game has victory conditions. War is not a game, and there are no conditions for 'victory'. A person wins at chess when you have achieved a 'check mate'. In CM you win when the victory conditions for that scenario have been met within the time provided. In war, you take hill 'x' but what does that really mean? You go out and attack hill 'y' tomorrow. Each day is just a continuation of that war that you are participating in. The war doesn't end until the enemy nation surrenders. There is no end ... or shall I say 'victory condition' to a battle where you can just wrap it up and call it a 'war' when you have taken hill 'x'. A victory condition is an artificial means of giving a gamer purpose - a reason for playing a certain scenario. The victory flags themselves are artificial means of giving a gamer 'purpose' for what he is doing. A time limit is part of the artificial equation that gives the gamer purpose. Without victory conditions, then the game would devolve into games of annihilation only. Sure, some may like games of annihilation, but I personally feel that a little variety every once in a while would be nice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kipanderson: Hi, Clearly the length of battles in operations is not a problem with most players; or there would have been more response to my post. Obviously a minority issue. There are two reasons why I still have some hope that the powers that be will take mercy on me and implement the change I have requested. The first is that common sense tells me that it requires very little work; by the standards of these things. I know everyone at BTS does long hours and already has more than enough to do but having seen the way Charles can get through coding problems it must be a relatively small job. At least hopefully it is. Secondly, there is no adverse side effect to such a change. If you change the way a certain command works, say “sneak”, there will be those that liked it the way it was and those that requested a different change. By increasing the maximum length of battles in operations you offend no one, but greatly please some. I did not request the change six months ago because I took it for granted that many others would lobby for an adjustment and it would happen anyway. I got that wrong. Still hopeful of an adjustment before CM1 is put to bed. All the best, Kip. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Personally, I think that the time lengths for operations are perfect. An operation must create a fine balance between the time needed to get the job done and the forces available. I wouldn't think of an operation strictly as 6 20 turn unrelated battles for example, but as one 120 turn battle with 6 breaks in between. The main problem is that if a battle in an Operation is lengthened to 40 or 50 turns, then that gives the attacker much more time to win the operation in one battle rather than forcing the attacker to split his time between several battles. Also, If one side or another takes super heavy casualties in the first battle, he will just get overrun in subsequent battles - and the time limit functions as a cap for casualties.

Personally, I don't mind if someone disappears on me ... I just chalk it up as a victory. Frequently, if I feel that I have victory all sewed up, I will let my opponent know that further resistance is futile and that it may be in their best interests to accept a cease fire. Conversely, if I feel that I cannot win anymore, I will let my opponent know that victory is out of grasp. However, in both cases it must be clear that further fighting will not change the outcome of the game. In the one loss that I suffered before time expired (against Kwazydog - and only cause he is a lucky slimebag ) I offered a Cease Fire and explained why, and in my other loss it was close enough to the end of the game that I just toughed it out to the end. I've had several games where I was punishing my opponent so badly that I offered him a cease fire to end his misery. I really don't get much enjoyment out of a battle once the outcome is decided, and I actually encourage an early finish in those situations. Usually they will respond with e-mails, but I seldom see a game summary screen. One of my local friends (an old ASLer) basically quit sending files to me about three battles. The last time I asked for a surrender file, and about four days later he finally sent it. In his e-mail he said that there was just something about clicking that surrender button that really didn't sit well . Anyway, just chalk it up to a victory and move on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: I nominate Los. He doesn't post too often, but when he does, they are highly informative. -- Oh, and are we going allow cesspool members into this ? [This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 12-27-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I second the motion for LOS. I have a great deal of respect for both LOS and Fionn. I haven't always agreed with Fionn's point of view, but his arguments were generally well constructed. Having said that though, I believe that everyone's contribution to this board is important, no matter how trivial or uninformed the content of the post may seem - as long as the post is on topic of course.

A wish list? A flame free zone? 1. Night combat with flare pistols, mortars that fire flares, gunflashes, and non reciprocal LOS between lighted areas and non lighted areas. 2. Fords that vehicles can pass through 3. Trenches and other types of fortifications 4. Larger buildings and steeples 5. A more comprehensive ROF model that varies with range to target and vehicle type 6. A more comprehensive accuracy model that highlights the distinctions between specific guns (more detailed than currently modeled) 7. Fortified buildings 8. Cellars 9. Cemetary and gully terrain tiles 10. CM 5: The Rising Sun Well, we can always dream can't we? Remember, flame free zone!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Sure about that? AFAIK they only have it from July. At least that is what BTS stated. Off to test. Later: sorry ASL Vet, but you are wrong. Try for yourself. Just set up a test, putting a bunch of tanks into a bocage field with no exit. In June 44 they can not move out, in July 44 they can. Ooops. Omar Bradley (unless there was another Bradley) was commander of the US ground forces, Patton was commander of 3rd Army under Bradley, and I have no clue who was CO of 3rd AD. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, my mistake - perhaps they can't be used in June. However, they probably shouldn't be able to be used in July either since the guy didn't show it to the Army brass until July 22 (according to THC). Perhaps August would be a more accurate month for usage? I am converting a lot of ASL scenarios that are set between July 11 and July 16 and the hedgerow device throws the balance off. (sigh) I suppose I am going to have to put up with Krautboy every time I post now. He is a little like a flea infestation. Just can't shake him. By the way Krautboy (aka rabid defender of the faith) I was only making a simple observation - I wouldn't demand a game change (heaven forbid) based upon something I saw on the History Channel! (Geez, what rock did this guy crawl out from under anyway?).

One thing I noticed was that they said that the Cullin Hedgerow device wasn't installed on the tanks until the end of July and in CM all American tanks have the hedgerow device from the start!

My old favorite was Battles of Napoleon for the Commodore 64. I also liked that WW2 Naval battle game for the C 64 ... forget the name, but they had one for the Atlantic, for the Pacific, and one for WW1 ships too.

Oh come on now Steve, quit being such a party pooper. We are just having a friendly discussion about horses and bicycles that's all. No one is demonstrating in the streets lighting buildings on fire demanding the inclusion of horses to CMBO. Sorry I left you out of my early flame blast Krautboy. I'll make sure I don't overlook you next time since you seem to want to attract my verbal abuse. You aren't into whips and chains are you? I've discovered a few things while reading Moby Dick the other night. It dealt with scope and scale. The scope of CM seems to be WW2 tactical combat. The targeted scale appears to be approximately battalion sized engagements and smaller. Operating under these constraints, what is relevant at this scope and scale? The items that are relevant within this scope are items that will effect combat at this scale. What is relevant at this scale then? Field kitchens are obviously not relevant because they are not combat related portions of the TO&E of a battalion. Is transport relevant? Trucks seem to be modeled so transport must have some relevance at this scale. Looking at horses and bicycles as just another form of transport makes comparing horses to field kitchens completely illogical (sorry Steve, but its just not a good comparison). A better comparison would be horses and bicycles to trucks and jeeps. Compare the relevance of one type of transport to another form of transport. If we look at that critically, we can add a sub argument of ... why are trucks included? Now for the benefit of Krautboy .... nah, he would love the abuse too much and I don't want to do anything that he would like.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: Germanboy wrote: Ever seen a picture of horses handling guns in a frontline situation? I have not. I haven't either, but I have read accounts where horses were, indeed, used in front line to tow guns. However, as far as I can now remember, in all those accounts those who had horses in combat hadn't planned for it but an enemy attack surprised the artillery or AT gun units. Few examples: - During the Finnish counter attack at Kuuterselkä 14 June 1944 Lt. Olli Aulanko's Stug run over (literally) a Soviet 76 mm battery that was in tow (by horses). - I have vague recollections that precisely the same thing happened during attact to Karhumäki in November 1941 when the only Finnish T-34 run over a 76 mm battery that was being transported for direct fire to front. - When Soviets broke through Finnish lines at Valkeasaari 10 June 1944 their tanks drove to a Finnish artillery battery that was just being evacuated. Few guns were already in tow but the drivers cut the horse harnesses and left them behind. - On the same day on the same front a MG gunner of JR 1 was evacuating his platoon's MGs with a horse-drawn cart when he noticed that the road ahead was blocked by enemy tanks. He jumped out of the cart and let the horse continue alone while he escaped through forest. The tankers didn't shoot at the horse as they saw that there were no-one in the cart. Very surprisingly, the horse and cart got back to their usual quarters intact, with the MGs. - The next one is pretty unbelievable and actually it doesn't include a combat, but it is pretty interesting and a veteran claimed in an interview that he saw it with his own eyes. During the Finnish retreat from Karelian Isthmus he witnessed that one Finnish horse-drawn cart was advancing next to a KV tank (though the tank was probably a JS-II, tank identification was not an exact science those days). The driver kept his cart so close to the tank that it couldn't shoot its gun. The observer wondered why no tanker inside popped up to shoot the driver. Apparently the tank had got separated from its infantry cover and the crew didn't want to raise their heads. Finally the tank stopped and blocked the route of the cart. At that point the driver cut the horse loose and led it to forest, passing the front of the tank and going under the gun. The observer never found out who that horse driver was and what happened to him afterwards. In all above cases the horses got to battlefield by accident. Whether that kind of occurences were frequent (and interesting) enough to be warrant inclusion in CM is debatable. However, the same could be said of trucks. - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 11-21-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, there is a scholar in the house! Yes indeed, these are the sort of situations I had in mind. Indeed, they COULD be modelled and the question is more of whether we want them to be included or not. Some people would find scenarios with horses or bicycles in them entertaining, while some would not. However, to say they are beyond the scope of the game is not an argument about facts. It is an argument about opinion.