Wilhammer

Be sure to catch the othe thread on this issue; http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/017981.html This gets wierder every time I do unarmoured.cmb. I just saw a 7/2 (I modified the scenario for all elites and Axis starts hidden) move and STAY hidden (I was Axis player). Also, I noticed something I have been blind to; you cannot button an unarmoured vehicle!

Do a search Essentially, CM models pillboxes as vehicles, so the best way to kill them is direct fire by a tank gun. Sooner or later, a round will hit the slit, and one pillbox is dead. Barring that, the best way to kill them is get behind them with infantry (preferably Engineers) and slaughter the crew when it abandons it. Also, like vehicles, bunkers do NOT block LOS, unless you manage to make them burn. Artillery is ineffective against bunkers.

More testing with unarmoured.cmb. Pardon me if this is "old hat" to some of you. Based on my interpretation of what I observed in CM; 1. Two target classifications exist a. Armoured vehicles. They are directly targeted by guns, RLs, etc. They take direct hits and they can suffer damage from HE blasts. b. Soft targets. These are NOT directly targeted. Instead, I must define two type of area fire. Area Fire one is "Terrain Area Fire", the kind we do when we wish to blow up a building. I will call this TAF. The second type is "Target Specific Area Fire", which I will call TSAF. The possible damage by either is the same, it is the tightness of the shell fall (or bullet fall) that is different. Soft targets are damaged by a firepower value that is a function of the blast value of the round and its proximity to a soft target. Before I get too far, a soft target, ST, is any unarmoured target; infantry, guns and UA vehicles. Hope I have not lost you. So, when I test this theory, I find that UAVs are NOT direct targets but they are TSAFs. The shell always misses the vehicle. Always. The damage done is from the blast. The success of the blast is from its power and proximity. The blast ALWAYS leaves a crater. The shell hits near the target, then the damage is calculated. Sometimes the blast blows up the vehicle or KOs it (has anyone seen a mobility kill vs a soft vehicle?). Most of the time, the crew fails a morale check and abandons its mount. If a AFV is fired upon, it is subject to direct fire damage. If it is hit by close proximity area fire, it can also be damaged. The crew is not going to be paniced out of the vehicle. It could abandon the vehicle, almost always as a result of 2 crew members getting KOed. On the subject of MGs, it still seems that the for UAs, the result is not against the vehicle, but against the crew. If it routes, the vehicle is abandoned. Sometimes the vehicle does take damage, but it does seem that this is akin to collateral blast damage and not any form of penetration damage. Now, I took unarmoured.cmb and gave the Germans all elite crews, and the 7/2 is a decidedly awesome weapon. The Ostwinds, having smoke dischargers and penetrable armour alwas withdrew behind smoke. The 7/2s did not withdraw, the Tac AI actually moved them to seek better target aspect. However, since they lack smoke dischargers, I cannot be sure of why they did this. Was it because they had nowhere to hide or was it because the TacAI knew they stood a very good chance of winning the battle? The result on the Ostwinds was that their survivability went up, mostly because of smoke. Because of this, the Sherman Regulars vs Ostwind Elites resulted in fairly even kill ratios. The 7/2 elites vs Sherman regulars resulted in a high proportion of 7/2 survival and the destruction of the Shermans. Clarity Note: Infantry or team equipment can be damaged by blast or gun fire. Its vulnerability to such varies. Hence, a Jeep is like tissue paper, while the 7/2 is like a metal drum. This is the meaning of Knocked Out for crew served weapons, the weapon itself was rendered useless. This also further suggest that a soft vehicle is modeled as an ATG or Gun; it is modeled as a crew served weapon. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 04-03-2001).] [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 04-03-2001).]

As I posted; Why not just give unarmoured vehicles very light armor, like 1 or 2 mm? This would be a quick fix, perhaps. This depends on the logice of ammo selection. If it was something like IF ShellPenValue is 5X TargetArmourValue THEN select GreatestAmmoLoad. In most cases, an HE round is fired. The question is, what is the penetration value of HE? As Olle posts, "A better option is to make all vehicles valid targets for direct fire." That is a better fix, but if HE does not have an inherent penetration value, AP would be used. So, does HE have a penetration value? Yes, it must have one, for how else does a mortar shell penetrate the top of a tank in CM? Olle's method and my method are not all that different. One can rightly assume that unarmoured vehicles have very thin armor. They at least have cheap sheet metal. The same can be said for ATGs, etc, what with armoured gun shields (or the lack of), but with the accuracy of direct AP fire, guns would have even shorter lives than they do now. Has anyone seen a gun get destroyed? Or a gun hit on a gun? Not me. The way a gun is knocked out is when the crew is routed away from it; it becomes de-crewed. Is the same thing happening to 7/2s? If so, an elite crewed 7/2 must be an awesome thing. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 04-03-2001).]

Me to, please. billwood@triad.rr.com

Since we have 2 threads on this, I will paste here what I wrote there, since this appears to be the "dominant" thread. I just played this out, and I am dismayed at the results. Essentially, unarmoured vehicles, guns and infantry are of the same target classification. This is borne out of the fact that the Ostwinds as targets have hit and kill chances, while the unarmoured do not. The Ostwinds, after 3 trials, were all destroyed in under 30 seconds, while at the end of the turn the 7/2s had only 2 or 3 of their number killed. Since they had better survivability, they inflicted more damage on the Shermans than the Ostwinds did, which is ridiculous. Why not just give unarmoured vehicles very light armor, like 1 or 2 mm? In practical CM terms, unarmoured vehicles are NOT classified as vehicle targets by the CM engine. Therefor, because SOFT targets like Infantry, Guns and unarmoured vehicles are subject to "spotted target tight area fire", the blast radius of the HE round is very important. You, in effect, never hit a soft target, you get firepower damage against it. The question now is how do you deal with it "game" tactically? A gun armed unarmoured vehicle can thus act like a very mobile ATG or Field Gun. So, instead of buying the immobile 50mm PAKs, buy these armed trucks.

I just played this out, and I am dismayed at the results. Essentially, unarmoured vehicles, guns and infantry are of the same target classification. This is borne out of the fact that the Ostwinds as targets have hit and kill chances, while the unarmoured do not. The Ostwinds, after 3 trials, were all destroyed in under 30 seconds, while at the end of the turn the 7/2s had only 2 or 3 of their number killed. Since they had better survivability, they inflicted more damage on the Shermans than the Ostwinds did, which is ridiculous. Why not just give unarmoured vehicles very light armor, like 1 or 2 mm? In practical CM terms, unarmoured vehicles are NOT classified as vehicle targets by the CM engine. Therefor, because SOFT targets like Infantry, Guns and unarmoured vehicles are subject to "spotted target tight area fire", the blast radius of the HE round is very important. You, in effect, never hit a soft target, you get firepower damage against it. The question now is how do you deal with it "game" tactically? A gun armed unarmoured vehicle can thus act like a very mobile ATG or Field Gun. So, instead of buying the immobile 50mm PAKs, buy these armed trucks. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 04-02-2001).]

Jeep MG taken out at 200+ meters by German Rifle 44 squad. Jeep blew up.

"It's my wife's favorite part of the game. When she hears that, she knows I'm going to emerge from the computer room and pay attention to her." I like that. Why not record a wave "Honey, I'm done playing" and use that as your exit sign? I am going to do that right now.

...when Combat Mission comes up TWICE in the job interview process. This happened today, and I gained a new friend in the process. Good news, bug testing other game company crap (all other games are buggy compared to CM) helps you qualify for a Software Testing/Quality Assurance position. ...shame that I am overqualified

I am with you Heinz. I avoid ladder play and prefer to play the historically minded players. Fancy a PBEM?

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 03-29-2001).]

The problem is that hedgerows are treated like tall walls, and do not provide any inherent protection. In reality, the hedgerow itself would provide protection. The exposure factors for bocage is exactly the same as for walls, as so reported by the recntly provided exposure tables by JuJu. As bunkers are misreprented as vehicles, so too are HRs misrepresented as tall walls.

My worst enemy in any boardgame was the Cat. Now my Cat walks across my face and even steps on my keyboard.

Well, I have fought three hedgerow dominated battles, and I have mixed feelings about the way they are modeled. That being said, this is how I see them in CM, tactically. Certainly you have noticed that running through a hedgerow is dangerous. The guys get tired real fast, they take a whole minute to traverse, and the poor blokes are very vulnerable to fire. Essentially, they are not for fighting in, but around. AMOF, I have found that situations like your corner MG in that one hedgerow work best if you are behind the HR, much like behind a wall. How have others of you dealt with them?

Hey---Abbott Thanks. Must of played Borisov dozens of times. Very fun.

I did the Squad Leader/COI/COD/GI thing, and once ASL came out, I stopped. Too much work for a game. I waited, and waited, and waited for something like CM, and then one day a buddy tells me about the pending demo. Got it, fell in love with the game I always wanted. Did a pre-order. Now I play too damn much. Oh well. Favorite converted SL scenarios; Bucholz Station Road To Wiltz I ditched my SL stuff years ago, so I ask an SL gronard this, what scenario was in COI that used all 5 boards (the 6th was called a marsh) and had a rather interesting mix of Soviet AFVs like T-26s, KVs and BTs? I still remeber my buddy cringing when my Soviet ATR hit with a dice of 3, and killed with a dice of 2 .... I think the battle was somewhere near Moscow.

I wonder if the Abandoned Rifle 44 "bug" is really a graphics card issue. 1. At the instant a unit dies, the program wants to load "abandoned (equipment)", scans the inventory of possible outcomes, determines a squad is not labeled "abandoned" and it goes away. Happens so fast, it is not normally noticeable. 2. What did it say directly after the explosion? We have a snapshot here of the instant the last man dies on a slow performing video card. Perhaps it is just a labeling flash before the result is correctly labeled. Or, it could be that I am dead wrong. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 03-29-2001).]

In versions up to 1.05, you could save a QB before you chose sides, thus getting a chance to view the map before forces were chosen. This is the only way I know of to see and check out maps before a QB setup.

I prefer the Panzer Mouse Seriously, I used a MS "red eyed" mouse, but it burned out the LED, I got a refund (it was less than a year later) and defaulted back to the simple MS wheel mouse.

I wonder if the open top has anything to do with it. I have seen my M-8 HMCs fire 75 HEAT many times and kill German AFVs in the process. My experiment was a consiuos choice to represent a possible situatiion, a misinformed American infnatry assault force with Sherman 105s encounters a German armored force. The rangs were relatively close, and I tried massing, flanking, etc. The only time a non smoke round was fired was that HE round fired enpassant; I rushed a Panther nearly head on and tried to kill it at short range using my fast turret advantage. I did manage to get the first shot, but I missed. The Panther got one shot one kill. Range was about 80 meters. Yes, eighty.

My bust. The unit known as Panther G (late) can only be differentiated from the Panther G by viewing the Unit window. So, I asked a dumb question.

I played an experimental ME QB with 5 Sherman (105)s and an infantry platoon vs a similar German force with 2 Panthers and 2 Hetzers. They never fired even one round of HEAT, just smoke. They all eventually died. The only chance for a kill was when one Sherman fired an HE round at the back end of a Panther and missed. The TacAI is still pretty weak on employment of special rounds.

First off, I use Marco's Vehicle mods, simply excellent. I am currently doing battle and I have about a half dozen Panther Gs. 2 of them sport one pattern, and the rest another. And, yes, I checked and they are all Panther Gs. No As, no G (lates). How is it possible I have 2 schemes for the same vehicle in one game?

Religion does help. BTW, Foxnews is not the source, if you bother to read the article thoroughly you will find it is from the AP (Associated Press). Foxnews is my 2nd prefered news network. As my wife says, "It is the news that makes a conservative feel good." My first is NPR.