JoePrivate
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JoePrivate
-
-
Purely my observations, but I think there is only a penalty for being buttoned in reaction/spotting, anywhere from a handful of seconds to more than a dozen. I have never seen a difference in reaction/spotting between a buttoned tank w/TC alive versus a buttoned tank w/TC dead, apart from the short period of 'shock'. I have read here that reload times are affected but again I hadn't noticed that myself in play. I guess a meticulous person could setup tests in the editor to find out one way or another, or some 'authority' can simply tell us.
-
Originally posted by Greymorn:
Thanks, Tanks. I assume you mean they also cannot limber during a battle.
Which guns can/can't? where do I find this information?
Well IIRC, the guns that can't limber during battle include all 88s, Pak and AA, and the 90mm AA. I think I found out the hard way
-
Originally posted by Leonidas:
This is pretty much the response I expected. I guess CM2 will be another brilliant simulation of what it would be like to be a WWII company/battalion commander with a really good map and complete idiots for subordinates.
BTW, none of the responses paid much attention to the big LOS problem, which is not elevation, but trees. Of course you can get down on the ground and see if LOS is blocked by elevation changes. But you can't do anything like that with trees. You can just put up the tree sprites and guess about whether the LOS is sufficiently blocked. It's worse for trees on hills, because you also have to guess whether the trees are tall enough, in addition to thick enough, to block LOS.
Another point: Shouldn't the defender in a PBEM get better LOS information than the attacker? Presumably he's had a few minutes to check these things out. Actually, in a PBEM game the defender already has an interesting kind of tool to predict LOS from any point on his side of the map. So I guess I'll keep on defending to avoid the frustration of talking to FOs standing behind trees.
There are no 'trees' in CM just areas that progressively hinder LOS. IMO, all of your *problems* are non-existent after a few games and you begin to get a feel for how CM does things. There is no 'guessing' lol. For your benefit or anyone elses, here's (approx.) how much certain terrain features degrade and/or block LOS in CM.
Scattered Trees - 52m, Winter - 130m
Woods - 26m, Winter - 65m
Tall Pines - 26m
Brush - 156m
Summer Wheat - 95m, Fall Wheat - 232m
Hope that helps...
-
Thanks Dan, I've always admired your work and have been looking forward to the JgPzIV since you first previewed it.
-
Originally posted by ADAman:
I appreciate you pointing me in that direction. The article focused on the command modifier and I didn't see anything on the combat or morale ones. Is there a similar article on those?
The Morale and Combat modifiers would be pretty hard to quantify, given all the variables involved. Suffice to say that troops commanded by an HQ with a +1/+2 Morale modifier are significantly more *steady* under fire, same goes for the Combat modifier which could be a little easier to check and compare during play. After a few games you get a feel for the difference, enough that you will begin assigning platoons/support teams with a *good* HQ specific tasks because of it.
-
"Debut of the Jadgtiger" is kind of fun as the Allied defender against the German AI attacker. Don't expect too much from it though, your biggest(only) problem will be dealing with that beast. I would recommend giving the AI a +25% advantage, that would probably increase the challenge just enough. I played with no advantage and wish I had given the AI a bonus afterwards, YMMV.
Edit: it's set in snow conditions.
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
The mystery of the increasing cost of the Hellcat(Reg)...
Aug44-104pts
Sep44-110pts
Jan45-114pts
Feb45-115pts
Of course it has to do with tungsten availability, but what about the suspicious Nov44 timeframe request from German players?
-
I know for sure that there is a date in the game after which Hellcats get more expensive because there is greater tungsten availability.
-tom w
Yeah Sep'44.
-
Lol, some people are paranoid alright. The fact it's the default setting is too benign I guess. FYI, the PF-100 isn't the default faust until Feb'45.
Edit: aka_tom_w, IIRC the US starts getting tungsten in Sep44
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Actually a handful of people have come on the board in the past describing exactly what Cos did, saying full FOW was on yet the AI still was able to target an out of the way gun. The last example I remember was from the Mortain op, no explanation was given as to why it happened. I guess the only recourse, if indeed FOW was on, would be to send the file(s) to BTS for them to have a look.
-
It's been awhile since I checked this but in CM the Pak38 has a small(very small) chance of getting tungsten, but only from Jun-Dec44, after that nothing. I use the Pak38 a lot and hardly ever see any, maybe one or two rounds for one gun is all in a battle.
-
Projected date is Fall 2001, but that would be very tentative from everything BTS has said about it.
-
No, never any problems, from your description it sounds like you are ordering the half squad too closely to its sibling at times, causing one or the other to get up and move away. The change in 1.1 was the split squads had to be within 10m of one another to rejoin not 15m as before.
-
You have to remember Fionn's 'Rules' of 75/76 were only established as a guideline for play, not as some strict formula that had to be adhered to. There's nothing stopping you or your opponent from modifying them to your liking or ignoring them altogether.
-
A 'trick' is to issue hunt and reverse orders with a pause so your tanks emerge and engage near the end of the one minute turn. That way next turn you can decide whether to stay committed or continue with the reverse order by adjusting the established waypoints.
-
Everyone's mileage will vary of course, but since you said attacking I'm assuming anti-tank work isn't the main focus. I prefer the versatility of the Tiger, it has good armour, a good gun with an excellent HE punch and lots of ammo. The problem with the Panther is the 75 has a mediocre HE blast. When you see it exchange shots with an AT gun for no effect, you will wish you had an 88, which can usually knockout an AT gun with one or two shots. StuH42s or 251/9s can supplement the Tiger for infantry work, as well a TD in overwatch to deal with enemy tanks. Anything can and will work in the end, just have to find what fits your style of play best.
-
aka_tom_w wrote:
With the new slope modifiers in the tungsten penetration code (this make penetration MORE difficult now) as a player who usually prefers the Allies, I FEAR the Panther the most.
FYI the Panthers turret armour is sloped very little, 76 HVAP(tungsten) will still penetrate it at 1000m or more. It's the high-sloped TDs that have little to fear now at range from tungsten.
-
A couple things, one, that op is supposed to be played from the German side, I can't imagine a more lopsided battle if played as the Allies
two, that looks to be the area where the Germans receive their reinforcements for the start of the second battle, I *think* the AI got so distressed at being stomped it never even bothered to deploy them Hope that helps -
Yes, the Canadian platoon/company lacks punch on its own, but they have a good selection of vehicle support such as MMG Carriers, Humbers, Wasps and MG carrying HTs to supplement their firepower. The VickersMG is just ok, nothing more. The 6pnder and 17pnder AT guns are pretty respectable, as is the 40mm Bofors. I actually prefer the 6pnder for ambushes, though they can't always penetrate the front of some German AFVs. The 3" and 4.2" mortars are excellent for indirect support. The armour is limited but the Sherman, Firefly, Croc and Sexton are all useful for their intended role. Playing them, it's simply necessary to have a complete combined arms approach for your force, with each part supporting one another.
-
Yes, I vote every week when you bring this back to the top, if you didn't then I would probably *forget*.
-
Originally posted by KiwiJoe:
Trooper: The churchill has front armour of 152mm @ 95% which = 144mm. The 74/L70 penetrates 145mm at 1000m. Considering the standard combat distance for tanks in CM is around 600-750m the churchill is dead meat agiasnt that gun.
No, I have repeatedly seen a 75L/70 bounce shots from the front of a Churchill VIII at around 500m, even seen the Panther pop smoke and retreat a few times against them.
Any of the sloped-armour TDs such as the Hetzer, JgPzIV or PzIV/70 are deadly and effective. Marders or Nashorns are cheap, good mobile AT weapons, but you better hope you get in the first or second shot! I really don't have any favourite, more a case of playing with different ones for awhile then switching to others.
-
-
Great images Rommel22, keep up the good work, just remember you can't please everybody!
-
Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:
Does anybody think the Jadgpanzer IV *should* cost less than a Pz IV, then?
The idea that is was a common late war vehicle, was to me the only possible justification of its low cost. If as you say, rariety is not a factor, then how, pray tell, does one arrive at a 124 value for the Jadgpanzer IV, regular?
It has just as big a gun. It has better armor and a lower profile. So why is it a full squad or team cheaper? "No turret". If no turret were the only difference, I could see that. But it isn't. Not even close. One is penetrated from the front by 75mm, the other regularly bounces those, and often 76mm with a bit o' incline. Is that worth *nothing* in pure CM balance terms, if that is all that is supposedly involved?
Interesting, when I look at the JgPzIV I usually compare it to the Stug family in terms of price/performance in a QB. The MkIVs are slightly cheaper(117-119) versus the JgPzIV(120). Like most people, I wouldn't hesitate in choosing the JgPzIV in most situations, it has a better gun, better armour and a lower silhouette over the MkIV. Where the MkIV has the edge is more main gun ammo(minor), more MG ammo(major) and a turret(insignificant). In gameplay the survivabilty of an AFV far outweighs most other factors and for German AFVs the lack of a turret is not a handicap at all, though that may carry some 'weight' in CM pricing. The main drawback with the JgPzIV is the low MG ammo, making it less than desireable in the infantry support role. I imagine a comment from BTS on how they factor exactly the performance cost would be the only answer. One thing is for sure, in QBs a JgPzIV is a definite bargain.
How does moving units off the map affect QB score?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Yes, that's the main reason for having all those 'ineffectives' hang around, they count towards your global morale.