JoePrivate
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JoePrivate
-
-
Commissar,
Try reading 'A Mouthful of Rocks', an eventful biography, forget the author's name, of an Englishman who joined the Foreign Legion. I think it was published about fifteen or twenty years ago, give or take.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Kelly wrote:
The Sherman tanks (all M4A3's) encountered the German medium tank in question and immediately went into reverse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Shermans probably mistook them for Tigers, maybe the MkIVs only redeeming feature!
-
I don't think Rockets in particular but artillery in general can be unbalancing in larger QBs if a lot is purchased. Artillery is effective and there is little to be done about it when playing a scenario. My opponents and I usually agree on a purchase/size limit.
-
Another useful tip is to rotate the pillbox so any fire on the slit will be at an oblique angle. You will probably no longer wonder if they are destroyed too easily again.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is such a close call that it's very rarely the case - but you found a tiny little spot where it is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. I ran a few tests last night where I had the PzIVH hunt up the slope but it never stopped to engage at the point where both it and the Sherman were hulldown. I think the only reason I stumbled across it is because that right spot is my rule of thumb location for placing AFVs hulldown. I will have to adjust that in the future
-
Fair enough KwazyDog, thanks for looking into it.
-
Actually it is the Churchill series of tanks which are slow, not the Cromwell tanks, which have a max speed of 40mph in the earlier models(both 75mm and 95mm). I like the British tanks for the most part, their ground pressure is on par with German armour, the 17pnder is an excellent AT weapon and the 95mm gun is excellent for infantry support. Survivability is problematic as sloped armour seemed to have escaped the British designers notice but that is common to the majority of Allied AFVs.
The Challenger is a good tank, able to take on Panthers and Tigers, though the high silhouette and weaker protection means you have to be more careful when engaging.
I have seen the Churchill(w/152mm front armour) shrug off Panther hits at greater than 500m. It's slow speed and weak gun(s) sort of limits that advantage however. Even when the 95mm gun has HC it isn't very effective in the AT role as the low velocity lowers the hit chance significantly.
I have never used the Archer and probably never will
For it's cost, the biggest secret in the British TO&E is the 6pnder AT gun. Regular AP can deal with PzIVs and Stugs and if armed with Tungsten it will make short work of Panthers and Tigers. Too bad there isn't any tank armed with it.
-
Another interesting observation, when I moved the PzIV a fraction further up the slope, it would correctly report the Sherman as being not hull down. A fraction further back and it would.
I guess it is because of the way CM handles the LOS and LOF routines from an AFV, yet technically, as Banshee said, it shouldn't report the Sherman as being hulldown as shown in the first images.
I see a major problem perhaps with this discovery. If a tank is 'Hunting' forward up a slope wouldn't it stop to engage when it first gets LOS to the target, resulting in the target being hulldown also as shown earlier in the first images. So maybe the solution in 1.1 isn't really a solution at all?
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 12-13-2000).]
-
Actually this issue was brought up when the Gold demo came out and people began playing VoT. IIRC there was no definitive word from BTS.
-
Ok here's a couple images.
The PzIVH can see 500m in front of the Sherman yet the Sherman is still reported as hull down? If the Sherman was on the edge of the LOS envelop of the PzIVH, in this case around 500m, then reporting it as hull down seems reasonable. Yet here the PzIV can clearly see the ground in front of the Sherman, why is it hull down also?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The LAV-III has armor sufficient to protect the passengers and crew from 14.5mm cannon shells, fragments from 155mm artillery shells, and land mines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How much armour does it have? I'm curious to get some sort of perspective to CM when the quote says the LAV-III can withstand fragments from 155mm artillery shells.
-
I did a quick check. A M4A3's hit chance against a PzIVH at 500m is 47%, when the PzIVH is hulldown then the hit chance is only reduced to 30%. At 1000m the M4A3's hit chance is 22% and 13% respectively. I agree, on the surface that seems strange but there may be other things not taken into account here.
-
From the 1.1 Readme:
A bug that incorrectly identified (or failed to identify) vehicles as hull-down when the mouse was pointing at them has been fixed.
I was playing a pbem game and noticed my HD TD(on a slope) reported it's target, a Sherman, as being HD also even though the Sherman was on flat open terrain about 900m away. Curious I loaded up the editor to check. The game still reports a target in the flat open as being HD, reciprocal to the HD firer, when clearly it shouldn't IMO. This is when the HD firer is on a slope, when the firer is behind a stone wall then it correctly reports the target's status.
It would be easier if I had a picture to describe this but a minute with the editor will do it. I'm wondering if this is correct? Or am I missing something basic here?
-
Yes the data says the turret for most Sherman models is 76mm@30'.
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/index.htm
However it appears CM only mentions the Mantlet specs under 'Turret'. Looking head on(from photos) there are large areas of the turret not covered by the mantlet, I'm not sure how CM deals with that. IIRC someone else brought a similar issue up just recently with pictures to better describe it, perhaps it was resolved there.
-
Ok that's fine
I don't know what led you to the conclusion that your request was being attacked. Your first post implied doubt whether CM implements a move to contact order. I and another simply pointed out it does.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can you name me a situation where you WOULDN'T want your moving (fast or slow) troops to stop and shoot an enemy squad 5 meters from them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every time I use those orders. If I'm expecting an unknown contact who I want to engage then I will use Sneak. It's not like the situation will get totally out of hand in the one minute of action or that every possibility must be accounted for at that instant. Anyways I was just trying to be helpful, you can save your facetious comments.
-
I understand what you are saying in your example but I think the intent of the command design was simplicity. There have been lots of requests for more specific unit orders to handle special circumstances, especially for AFVs. If you had used 'Sneak' then your squad would have stopped to engage as I said earlier, 'Move' and 'Fast' have different characteristics. If you really want to increase the speed of your squad in that one minute of action then you could insert a Fast or Move order along with the Sneak. If that's not to your liking, you can try and convince BTS of adding another order
-
From the 1.03 Readme:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Sneaking is now more sensitive to incoming fire when it decides to stop (i.e. "advance to contact")<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure you were aware of this so are you saying Sneak hasn't worked for you as stated above? From my experience Sneak has been exactly movement to contact, I haven't seen otherwise in my games.
-
AFAIK you are right Hiram, unless something has changed in 1.1 that I haven't seen yet. Squads with 'Move' will return fire but they will still try to reach their destination while with 'Sneak' they will generally move to contact then stop to return fire.
-
As Cueball said rarity isn't a factor, only unit effectiveness, gun, armor, speed, turret, ammo loadout etc. Look at your M10 example again and you will see it probably has more Tungsten later in '44, hence the higher cost.
-
Yes like others have said the formation isn't important or even relevant, what is is being mutually supporting and in C&C. If you have to cross a large open distance expecting it to be contested then I would call in artillery, mortars or area fire first on likely areas before making the move. If you are worried about announcing your intentions, don't be
Once you make your move, maintain the tempo to keep your opponent off balance. I agree, a lot of what Fionn says seems a bit extraneous, but what you'll notice in his games and in the games of other good players is they take and keep the initiative by putting pressure on their opponents continually. If your opponent is simply reacting to your moves then you are usually a little closer to victory then he is. -
I just finished playing my first game with 1.1 and saw(I think) the 'improved' TacAI's behaviour in leaving damaged buildings. I know some people wanted this but I would have liked this decision to stay in the player's hands. In my game I had a platoon in buildings, no other cover around, who were holding their own, no panic or anything, until the buildings became damaged(*). At that point they all vacated, only to get cut down in the open. One squad even tried to go back to a building just to leave it again. I realize this is only one game but from what I saw it isn't something I care for. The platoon would have been better off just staying where it was. I will have to play more to see a general trend. Anyone else care to comment?
-
That's interesting information Jeff on the dispersion of the 75M3 HE shell. Compare that to the following I obtained from this website(references incl.):
http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html
http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/german_accuracy5.html
Specifically the 75 KwK42 firing Sprgr.42HE with the definition of dispersion as:
"Dispersion tests show the percentage of projectiles that will hit a 2.5m × 2m target during controlled test firing. The pattern of dispersion is assumed to be centred exactly on the target. These results give a good theoretical comparison of guns and ammunition types, without considering the complicating effects of human error."
Dispersion accuracy -
500m - 100%
1000m - 100%
1500m - 90%
2000m - 66%
2500m - 42%
3000m - 28%
Even though the data are in different formats, it would suggest the one gun system is inherently more accurate than the other on the test range. Referring back to the earlier data in this post on the 88L/56, it seems again to suggest that. Comments?
-
I don't know, I'm kind of partial to the sound of pistol firing from an HQ, as it provides a valuable piece of intel.
ATTENTION BTS: I am STILL seeing a problem in 1.1b on the TacAI & "cover"....
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
Bump