FFE

Machineguns are too survivable. There has been countless number of times when I’ve placed a medium to large HE round squarely on a machinegun, only to watch it speed away (sarcasm re: running mgs). A machinegun team never loses its single MG. This is unlike normal infantry squads when a man goes down a weapon is lost. Another instance is when a gun or mortar is hit hard enough to force its members to abandon the weapon. One might write that the MG itself is too hard to hit. Perhaps, but this is doubtful especially if the firer is a tank within 50 meters. Also note the ability of tanks to hit trap shots out to several hundreds of meters. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll? How many 75+ mm HE rounds does it take to bust up a single MG instead of trying to kill every single member of the heavy machinegun? The MG itself could be hit, buried under rubble, or tossed a few hundred meters into the air. I know, I know, some players are upset that MGs in CM1 are modeled too ineffectively. That’s ducky. But Steve recently wrote that MGs in CM2 are going to be modeled to maximum lethality. MG lovers rejoice! However this still does not alleviate, “What about knocking out the MG itself?” question. It’s a bit unorthodox to have a tank sitting within 100 meters of an enemy MG nest pouring out medium caliber HE rounds for little to minimal effect. “Shoot at the MG, fools!”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Btw, why would the Sturmtiger be useless tactically? Obliterating buildings with a single shot could be quite useful in many circumstances.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It'll take two or three shots to annihilate a building. 1) Turn 1 of 40 Fire, Miss! But you took out your lead panzergrenedier platoon! 2) Turn 25 of 40 Fire, Miss! But you scored a direct hit on a Russian sheep farm 3km's away! 3) Turn 40 of 40 Fire, Hit! Building explodes into kindling. Congratulations Narf Narf! [ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: ... mg's crew decreases there's a corresponding tendency for the mg to be less willing to maintain a steady rate of fire. ... but a reduced crew is more likely to take cover. Ain't that the same thing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although I do not know for absolute certainty the answer to the first portion, by evaluating my observations; HMG's tend to maintain a unitary ROF. Steve pointed out HMGs reduced to a one man crew will, indeed, be adversely affected. I believe then, any HMG with two or more men will maintain a unitary ROF, unless receiving fire. All units operating with fewer than their maximum allotted crew become brittle, susceptible to worsening morale states. The worsening morale states reduce ROF (Firepower), progressively. The worse the state, the fewer 'shots' per minute the unit will risk. Culminating the first portion with the second bespeaks possibilities. If one maintains a sustained fire at a HMG, which is operating with fewer than normal men, then yes the ROF will decrease. However, there exists several tangible factors. 1) Sustained fire requires ammo and once your ammo levels become unsatisfactory, you are unable to suppress (by morale state reduction) the targeted HMG. 2) If the HMG relocates or situates itself in a manner as to reduce exposure to incoming fire and its current state is greater than a single operator, then the HMG operates near (if not fully) in its capabilities.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: This is a standard thing we do for crew served weapons, no matter what it is (i.e. AT gun, IG, HMG, whatever<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for shining light on my view. I perceive and recognize the meaning of what you wrote. The additional crew of any HMG is added redundancy for its utilization and additional ammo carrying capabilities. CM does not add a firepower rating based on the extra personnel. Since HMG's never abandon their crewed weapon, I presumed they functioned akin to infantry squads, rather than Mortars, AT guns, etc.... Which brings up another facet, why do HMG's never de-crew their weapon? Rather presumptuous, but I have witnessed an uncountable number of situations when a routed/broken HMG tries to slowly slog its way across the battlefield instead of dropping their weapon/ammo to commence running.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: As long as the spare barrel and ammo are close at hand, I see no reason at all why 2 people could not opperate a MG at full efficiency or close to it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Compare a LMG-42 to a HMG-42. The difference is 200% firepower and more range allotted to the HMG. Simply because the HMG uses a Tripod instead of a Bipod? Whittle the HMG-42 down to two men and you are left with a fully capable HMG-42; 3x the firepower and greater range than the bipod version. The underlying reason for the 200% greater firepower lies within the additional four men who are either firing rifles or assisting the sole MG-42. There is no attrition. This is wrong. The firepower figures are based on a full complement of men. We are playing with HMG firepower figures that don't shift. [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: So just exactly what are we talking about here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The firepower of any HMG is not calculated purely on the weapon alone. Two men cannot operate a HMG as efficiently as Six, especially if one casualties was carrying spare barrels, optics, or whatever else is needed. The game detracts ammo for loss of personnel if it moves. When a single man remains the unit becomes immobile. Although, a single man operates a HMG to its fullest capabilities under the current scheme, which is not-quite-right. I've often had immobilized HMG's continue to pour out lead as if every single man in the unit was standing. There are no shades of grey. HMG's are either 100% firepower effective or it's dead. It takes a near-full complement of men in order to field a HMG to its maximum capabilities. The current HMG incarnation does not adjust firepower whatsoever so long as a single man remains.

Realism aside for a moment. The firepower of any give HMG is not based purely on the weapon; all factors are brought into play, totally encompassing the spectrum. This includes additional personnel, added mobility, and redundancy. Back to realism: Stating to the effect, HMG's only need # men might be true, the game's firepower abstraction embellishes a full complement of men working in unison. Start fragmenting the unit and efficiency ought to dwindle, but it currently doesn't. At best one might be able to suppress a HMG at range, but total destruction of a HMG is not the norm. Slack off fire for a minute, the HMG generally reinitiates fire, without any negative features due to casualties. I comprehend a few other issues concerning HMGs. Those issues (running, speed, ammo, suppression capabilities, etc....), but those were beaten to death. My slant doesn't involve those issues, just current code (in-game) concepts.

The current handling of HMGs permits them maximum firepower with reduction in manpower. Instead of this allowance, HMGs ought to start losing some of their effectiveness once they suffer casualties. Break down/divide HMGs into parts, thus having their total firepower reduced when casualties are incurred. For example: MG-42 HMG; instead of 1 MG-42 listed, it would show 6 HMG Handlers with the proper ratio of 1/6th firepower per individual. The total Firepower column would sum the Handlers into an effective total.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: A wise German (for 2pts name him) once said "He who defends everything, defends nothing". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sun Wu was German? He authored, SUN-TZU: THE PRINCIPLES OF WARFARE "THE ART OF WAR" around 2,000 years ago! Chapter VI- "If he prepares to defend everywhere, everywhere will be weak." [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: I'm primarily thinking in QBs with manual troop purchase. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An interesting quandary. Axis forces: AA Guns, Hetzers, and Volksgrenediers Allied forces: Churchills, Waspes, and British airborne. Irrespectively of attack/defense/ME those are the units I have seen the far most of.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721: ... is it enough of an improvement to warrant the extra cost?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As KiwiJoe and CombinedArms point out, generally one does not need many (if any) Veterans. My rule of thumb: 1 Vet infantry platoon for attacking or holding key positions. Vehicles and guns with high ROF are good Veteran candidates; most notably light barrels 20mm-40mm. Consecutive shots become more accurate. Since high ROF weapons tend to discharge multiple rounds in a given time compared side-by-side to large weapons, the Veteran status augments first shot and consecutive round capabilities more so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther G: What is the difference between a Pak 43 and a Pak 43/41?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Pak 43 traverses much faster, x2. A Pak 43 can pivot 90 degrees in approximately 45 seconds. In the same time the Pak 43/41 will pivot a mere 45 degrees.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I regard it as one of the more serious and fundamental failings of the game as a simulation though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, Retrospectively the game was designed around very low system requirements, several years ago. This is the norm. I'd wager to guess BTS had to juggle code intensiveness versus the fun factor while maintaining the system requirements printed in the manual. You probably already reasoned this out. I do agree what this thread purports. I.e., friendly soft units ought to be considered as a small round of smoke to prevent, block, and dissuade same-side fire-through, which often occurs within the simulation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, although I don't know if the game models this or not, it should be somewhat the opposite. Incoming fire tends to be psychologically more effective if it comes from widely dispersed locales, giving the impression of being surrounded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The game does indeed model this aspect. A unit will fail morale much faster when receiving fire from its flank and rear. If the firing units are nearby, the target will generally surrender.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Originally posted by Tiger: "Would taking Moscow have won the war for the Germans? I doubt it." Correct. That is the staple myth of the apostles of mobile warfare, and so much horseradish.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here lies a pinnacle observation, for which no truth can be discerned. Pardon me as I barge into your conversation. The political impact of losing the capital of a Nation has dire exogenous ramifications. Sovereignty becomes questionable if no centralized government exists. The loss of Moscow, as viewed by global states, would indicate a Power loss. And given a referential Power reduction within the Soviet Union, states such as Turkey might be swayed (they were being lobbied) to start aggression. Finland herself might construe from the perceived Power loss an ample justification to press her attack on Leningrad. Japan would not idly sit back as the Soviet frontier was weakened. Territorial conquest of Siberia cannot be ignored. Western European Powers might have ascertained by a hypothetical loss of Moscow as a proverbial, Nail in the Coffin, thus limiting future assitance (i.e. Lend-Lease). The Realist perspective, which predominated Western Europe prior to WW2, worked against the USSR if Moscow fell to the facists. [ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: FFE, Sure, because you picked the examples that supported your side of the argument Here are two different ones:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I used the smallest denominator. Implementing Tigers and their ilk doesn't amply reward a simple comparison. Heavily armored tanks are more survivable. That is undisputable. Vehicles with Mgs start a dual role purpose, which is outside my focus. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A Nashorn is moving into position to take on some Churchills. They spot it on the move, aim, and move out of harms way without the Nashorn knowing this. An artillery barrage is called down on the location and the Nashorn is eliminated. Mobility doesn't account for anything here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sensibility is necessary. Yet given the situation, the player using artillery might not know if the Nashorn received a KO. Worse case the Nashorn might be unaffected and the threat remains. A more serious tactical view: The Nashorn location still poses a threat since the artillery effect is unknown. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Same exact situation but with a Pak43 instead of the Nashorn. It is harder to spot, even than a non moving Nashorn, so the Churchill's don't see it. They move into the killing ground and the AT gun opens up. It kills two Churchills before they even spot it. Remainders back up and get out of the death zone. Artillery is called down on the suspected position, but the AT gun is more likely to survive the bombardment than the Nashorn (all things being equal).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too many variables are encompassed. A Pak43 will shine as a nova when it fires. A Gun(?) identity might be forthcoming. Tactical situation permitting and almost assuredly the Pak43 will be encased in foliage. Given this tactical situation, a player can neutralize a specific point with smoke or mortars or direct fire nearby or many other reasonable options. A Nashorn can vacate thus posing a serious tactical advantage comparison. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another situation... the Nashorn is lying in wait, cracks off a shot and is almost immediately eliminated by a .50 cal gun that was in overwatch position. Switch in the Pak43 and that .50cal would have a much harder time doing the same thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Variables and more variables. If the Nashorn is within range of a .50cal that can KO it, then there's a reasonability the .50 cal will Pin the Pak43. Localized mortars might fire smoke. Guns(?) draw fire like a magnet. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not saying that mobility is unimportant. It is. And it is already factored in, otherwise the Pak43 would probably be even more expensive. Plus, everything else I said about balancing things between classes of units still applies. Inflating the price of vehicles has a knock on effect for the value of all other units in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm agree to the point; far too many variables exist to nail down one specific value for any given unit. Points are abstract, this I can live with. Functionality and limits placed on groupings (Support, Armor, Infantry, Fortifications, Vehicles) constrain many options as certainly as the type of battle (Combined Arms, etc...) places another invisible barrier on the field. I've enjoyed this game for a very long time and by no means wish to diminish the efforts placed into it. Before I cease this pleasant exchange of words, I would like to advocate: Vehicle/Armor A/I Survivability Code ought to reflected in the point values. Weaker vehicles tend to dislodge themselves when facing a superior. Automated survival bolsters the effectiveness of many units, such as Sd Kfz's, Nashorns, M-10s, and others. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The Nashorn and Archer are mobile, yes, but they suck as AFVs compared to things like the Jagdpanzer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My examples sighted an infantry version of a weapon vs. an equivalent armored carrier, without MG's and generally low armor values. The rationale set into place a comparison of what I construe to be an oddity. The effectiveness of these units vary based on variables within the tactical situation (i.e. Terrain, Weather, Coverage, etc...) The mobility doctrine doesn't imply a single units mobility over another, rather it's the gamut of the tactical situation. Let in-game mechanics usher my paradigm of mobility. Here's the situation: An unbuttoned Churchill VIII spots a Nashorn in clear terrain through sparse woods. As pointed out the silhouette of the Nashorn makes it as visible as a one story building. The Churchill VIII lowers its gun, takes aim, then the Nashorn becomes a Nationality Symbol. The Churchill VIII proceeds to find something else to shoot at several seconds later. One second after the Churchill VIII opens fire at some moving infantry, the STATIONARY Nashorn targets and proceeds to eradicate my Churchill VIII. Fluke? No, a worse situation occurred two turns later. The Situation: A Stuart and Churchill VII (75mm version) are hunting up a road towards the suspect Nashorn, which is under scrutiny by over 100 infantrymen. My armor column stops almost simultaneously, lowers their guns, takes aim, and the Nashorn becomes a Nationality Symbol. My armor proceed to hunt forward along the road, then, without "Seeing" the Nashorn pivot 90 degrees, the Nashorn suddenly appears and fires off a round at the Churchill VII immobilizing it. My pair of Nashorn hunters lower their guns, take aim and successfully dispatch the Nashorn, which plagued my armor from 200(!) meters behind sparse woods. Those accounts bifurcates your assentation of points vs. effectiveness. The Nashorn, which according to the point values and your description, should be less(?) survivable. Yet its in-game performances clearly displayed a superiority. Why? If the Nashorn was substituted out for an 88 AT gun, my options would have been greatly augmented. Simply put, the damn Nashorn can move and it can Hide given sufficient variables. Not only can it Hide, but it can later maneuver. One can argue that in-game mechanics of armor vs armor, the attacking armor will use AP or Hollow rounds whence a simple HE round will suffice. The survivability of an 88 ATG is minimal once detected. The culmination of variables (smoke, artillery, mortars, indirect firing via target command) will not assist the ATG in survival. Whereas the Nashorn, given a tactical terrain coverage can and will negate the aggressors options given the truth, the Nashorn can move. The mobility aspect of the Nashorn permits it greater flexibility, inclusive hunt command utilization. This propagates point value inflation, as you pointed out. But where should the inflationary point boundaries be drawn? Mobility augments point values, it shouldn't lessen them! The Archer with its vast quirkiness ought not to be more "valuable" than its counter part 17 lber if we are to use your effectiveness ideal. Yet the Archer does indeed "cost" more therefore is more "effective" than the ATG? Variables ultimately sway the points vs. effectiveness debate. Players should be assumed to use sensibility to orchestrate units to their utmost benefit. In the case of non-mobile assets, players are glued to a specific location for the duration. And given the non-mobile asset is, thus rooted in place, a target of opportunity may never present itself. Whereas a mobile asset can, given proper sensible maneuvering, might engaged the target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: You are comparing vehicles and non-vehicles. That doesn't allow conclusions for more or less mobile infantry units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The principle mobility distinction between vehicles and various infantry units is apropos. Abstractly, the point values do not reflect mobility as a viable issue. The point values of units tend to incorporate their effectiveness, with little or no weight given to extremely slow assets. The 75mm Inf Gun and 3" Mortar move at the same speed across open terrain. Yet how does CM point value reflect individual effectiveness? By assigning values to ROF and Blast rating. Although the 75mm Inf Gun HE round has a higher blast value, the ROF of the 3" is much greater thus we get the point values being 3 points apart from one another. There are many values in CM which are not reflected in the point values. For example: June 44 German rifle platoons with Faust-30's are 105 points. May 45 German Rifle platoons are 108 points, with approximately 20% more firepower at closer range and Faust-100's. Each platoon utilizes 9 men squads. They both have the same mobility, yet indicatively the measly difference of 3 point generates 20% more firepower and better AT capabilities. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: I hope that illustrates why I am not that concerned about the 3"mtr price as it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is a less talked about flaw concerning the point values of weapons and vehicles. The general point value system does little to compensate or bolster due to mobility. A mobile version of a weapon generally costs less than the non-mobile equivalent. Let met site examples to display my point. German 37mm AA 37mm FlaK- 52 (less mobile) Sd Kfz 7/2- 48 (fully mobile) German quad 20mm AA 20mm Quad Flak- 48 (less mobile) Sd Kfz 7/1- 46 (fully mobile) German 88mm 88 Pak- 114-118 Nashorn- 109 (no mgs) British 17lber 17 lber ATG- 96 points Archer- 99 points (no mgs). This is a sample to show the trend concerning little or no comparable point value is assigned to mobility. Although the point value comparison is across vehicle, support, and armor categories the overall reflectiveness generates the observation that; Mobility plays no factor whence determining the effectiveness of said unit. And this, is not in aggreement with most notable strategies. Mobility is the paramount principle in all armed conflicts. In CM mobility is attained for no-cost. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

Sure there are plenty of CM Addicts But, I don't think bandwidth is going to be problem. I can see where organization and Q&A might pose a hinderance. Nevertheless it can be orchestrated by silencing the masses and only voicing those individuals with decent questions. lol! That's the best way to do it, although some folks will disagree

Two(?) years ago, there was a chat session held at TGN. I am hoping BTS would take an hour from their collective busy schedules to have another chat session concerning CM2. The original on-line chat session/promotion kindled my interests in CM1.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: This thingie is dead meat if zooks fire on it from a decent range (50-100 m); it is dead meat if a .50 halftrack opens up; it is dead meat if infantry opens up with small arms fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 100 meters? Course they're going die. They are best used at 200+ meters, up to whatever the map can support. They're so accurate you don't need to be close.

Sd Skf 7/2's are not easy to KO if used properly. I always keep mine isolated, away from infantry 200+ meters behind my main line and always on the move. Infantry will try to use small arms fire on 7/2's, even up to 400 meters which is crazy because they have no chance of knocking out a 7/2 at that range. Keep 7/2's away from woods thus preventing an airburst KO. 7/2's carry the same ammo load out as 37mm flak. 7/2's are cheaper than 37mm Flak. The AI runs the 7/2's out of danger, too. I rarely lose my 7/2's in combat versus players. Not sure why anyone would take the 7/1 over the 7/2. The difference is but 2 points and the 37mm on the 7/2 is far superior.

Go here: CM at Gamespot Then 1/2 way down the page in the middle to the right side there's a link to "· Rate or Review This Game »" Click on it. Make sure your java is turned on!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt.Tom: ...was it common for infantry in real life to run out of ammo after 30 min?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Generally it took a lot longer for infantry to run out of ammo, unless conflict broke out unplanned. Platoons often use ammo runners to gather additional ammo or head back to the local distribution point. Unfortunately this is not represented in-game. Reading non-fiction war diaries and some memoirs generally showed/displayed infantry running "low" on ammo after several hours of combat. Ammo runners and scavengers were a standard quo, necessary in all engagements. Making sure ammo was received at the front meant winning the battle. Yet infantry can easily go through all their ammo in a few short minutes. Low Ammo is a very harsh condition. Low ammo squads will fire to defend themselves or fire at closing infantry, but they do so with a drastically reduced firepower. I ran a few tests with infantry advancing on infantry, with the defender zeroed out on ammo vs. 40+ ammo points. Advancing on low ammo infantry resulted in 50% casualties for the attacker and victory. Advancing on full ammo infantry resulted in 100% casualties (I considered routed/broken squads as full casualties). I'd really like some stop-gap or true representation concerning ammo consumption. The defender in any given game can be bled of his or her ammo by a few infantry teams running amuck the field. Unless the defender is out of LOS or hidden, a few men will and can draw out massive amounts of lead. This is not only true for defense, but for meeting engagements. Depleting your opponents' ammo levels, while maintaining a respectable distance (150+ meters) will lead to an almost assured victory. Small squads of men (1 or 2 men remaining) can sap an entire platoon's worth of ammo in short order. [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

Game mechanics concerning ammo consumption are abstract, which is understandable. Yet, there're often many situations for which ammo points are being utilized on poor targets. The quality (morale) of a unit does reflect ammo consumption, but many times I notice my units burning ammo on very poor targets. Infantry firing on targets > 100 meters tend to slow or cease their firing when their ammo levels reach 25 points. Infantry units with less than 25 ammo points will fire at moving or running targets if one presents itself. Units with > 25 ammo points blaze away at almost anything up to several hundred meters including unbuttoned armor and various targets of choice. What I propose for CM2 is a code loophole to prevent massive expenditure of ammo points. A unit with several rifles shouldn't burn their ammo at targets > 250, yet the game reflects this and drawing long range fire tends to deplete a units ammo reserve. Here're a few suggestions: 1)Infantry firing at a target > 250 meters should be excluded from ammo consumption. This does not apply to MG teams. 2)If the target only has 1 or 2 men, ammo consumption should be bypassed. A squad wouldn't waste all its manpower and resources to annihilate a few enemy men. Currently there are two ways to stop an infantry unit from firing; Hide and Total LOS blockage. I'm not proposing micro-management, just some code for sensible ammo point consumption. Since ammo points are abstract, coding abstract bypasses to reflect modern and historical usage's of ammo shouldn't be out of line.