jshandorf

Hey, all. This was first brough up in the the thread "I need PBEM help" but I thought I should create a new thread with a more informative title to see if anyone else has seen this problem. Let me snip what Fox posted "thanks ahead of time...well...here's the situation...our 30 turn game is almost over....i picked Axis..the game was Meeting Engagement with 1500 points...i wanted to set up a game with 2 sides equidistant from the town where flags were...i assumed this would give us both 1500points and set up at opposite sides of the map with flags in middle (latest v of cm used)...turns out my panther...after killin 2 halftraks, a Jackson, a m10, a mortar carrier, 30 troops (this is some tank commander hehe)...decides to count assets to the allies....so far...at least 9 full platoons of infantry, all that armour, a jumbo SHerm, mortars...2400 points approx.....wtf!!!!!...i'm pretty invincible now as all dangerous armour is gone, mabey a mortar or 2 left...but i started with nearly 1/2 the points to spend as my opponant...what gives? If it wasn't for my Patton-like military genius, i'd be toast!" I have to say that on two occasions I have had the exact same thing happen to me. Lucky they were games I was playing with close friends so we were able to detect this and start a new QB over. I personally think there is a some flaky problem with the QB drop down menus. When you select a Meeting Engagement you still have the drop down box on who the attacker is: Axis attacker or Allied Attacker. When I brought this problem up to Madmatt in the chat room a while back neither he nor anybody else could reproduce what I saw. I also couldn't do it at will. I chalked it up to "Human Error" and forgot about it until I read this post and I also saw the problem once again the other night. Has anyone else had a problem when that they select meeting engagement that one side starts out as if they are attacking and of coarse are aloted the multiplier of points from the based selected? Thanks, Jeff

AHHHH Ha! So I am NOT the only one this has happened to! I mentioned a bug like this to Madmatt before but he nor myself was able to reproduce it. In fact though I have seen this once more since then. So far I find it very difficult to reproduce this bug but I know it exists with some wierd flaking recursion parameters. I think there is a problem with the QB battle set up. When you select Meeting engagement there is still a drop down box for picking who is the attacker, axis or allies. It HAS to have something to do with this selection. I only hope Steve or Charles sees this and maybe they will look into it. There should be some easy way of putting a check in the code to make sure the points are not different for a meeting engagement. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-06-2000).]

If someone wants to cheat let them. Just play the best game you can play and have fun. In the end I feel you can always tell if someone is cheating. So far the few ooponents I have had are honest and fun players. Always willing to participate in a little trash talkin' in the e-mails. All in good fun mind you. BTW, Fionn, if you read this, send me your turn!! I am waiting for my tanks to crush your infantry! Crush..crush..crush... Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-06-2000).]

I have seen my tank engage target with only the MG at times, but usually these targets are infantry so it is not that big of a deal. Personally I feel the tank should ALWAYS engage the highest threat with the main gun no matter what it is UNTIL you tell it to NOT use the main gun. Maybe this can be changed? Not sure.... Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: Warren Peace said: BTW, I'm not a cynic, I'm a realist <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL, I have yet to find anyone who believes even me when I say that. Even my GF gives me that "look" when I say it. Jeff

You have a very bright child there! I am glad for you and your son. One thing you might want to do is introduce your son to WWII history. I reccomend getting him reading on the subject since that is probably the least shocking way to learn about war. For movies there are extensive video series about WWII. I am sure you could find them if you looked them up on the web. But take in mind something like this maybe to too much for a child so young, but you kown him best. As for playing CM. I feel as long as the child has an understanding as to what the game is representing thier is no reason as to why he shouldn't be able to play. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PvK: One of us is confused, then, and I'm pretty sure it's you. To me, it seems obvious that the troops are firing even when they're not shown to. A WW2 squad didn't generally coordinate its fire into volleys, with pauses where the whole unit wouldn't fire. It seems clear to me that each shot of small arms means the unit is firing at that point, and for some time thereafter. It's just abstracted into volumes of fire, but it's not supposed to mean the men are actually firing in volleys between pauses. PvK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I think you are confused. I think you imagine them continuing to fire after you see the tracer round on the screen, but I think I am right in saying that in the game itself, the guts, the engine, that a unit is considered to be "firing" when that little tracer rounds goes out. And it is only at that time damage is done to the target unit. Have you ever seen an infantry squad take casualties when NO tracer round hits them? I think not. Therefore the tracer round that is emmitted from that unit IS the unit firing, as far as the games engine is concerned. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Theron: The abstraction isn't wether the sniper/squad is or is not firing. It is where are all those bullets going when the unit is firing. CM has a method of figuring out the chances of a hit based on fire power, exposure, etc. It doesn't decide a hit based on each bullet fired. Therefore unless a special new small arms trajectory model is calculated the sniper's shots will be like all other units. I guess a side effect of this is that snipers can fire multiple shots. You should note that the ammo count that a sniper carries is a lot less than the potential number of rounds a real sniper could carry. Theron <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AAAArgh. When I say "model" snipers like AT teams I don't mean to model each "bullet" fired. I am talking about the params of that unit, i.e. Ammo, Ammo load, ROF, etc. I know that the bullets from the infantry and such are not modeled "exactly" in the game. Basically then it comes down to the fact that with the current modeling of infantry a sniper unit with ONE rifle can kill more then ONE man when it shoots. Doesn't anybody see how wierd this is? Therefore a sniper targeting an unbuttoned tank should be able to kill the TC AND the driver with one "shot". But we all know that can't happen in the game so why should it happen to infantry units? In a section of the code where it calculates the damage to a specific target can't there just be an IF statement that says: if (attacking_unit = "Sharpshooter") Current_Casualties += 1 else Current_Casualties += Casualties Not that I am assuming I know how they coded it but there HAS to be a way to make the sniper more realistic. Right now I feel it is TOO powerful. I am going to run a little test tonight on snipers and I will get back to you all on it. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Finally, it comes down to: why bother? What is the difference between seeing a sniper fire once and kill two people and seeing that same sniper fire twice as fast and kill two people with two shots? Jeff Heidman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes it would matter if the unit that the sniper is firing at goes from open ground to say Tall pines. The second shot would have less of a chance of hitting. I can understnad all the abstraction that is done for squads since there are multiple members, multiple weapons, multiple ROFs, etc... That is no problem. But the sniper unit is one guy. Period. Think 'bout it. Look at the AT teams. Are they using the same params (object) as the infantry units? No. Their ammo supply, type, ROF is modeled correctly. A panzerschreck team doesn't fire 2 rockets when you see one rocket go out. Why can't the sniper be modeled the same way? I guess what I am saying is that the sniper, okay don't laugh, is too powerful for the way it is modeled. Hell, I think it would be interesting to just buy a boat load of snipers and use them for the defense of an infantry assault. I think it would be an interesting test. I might try it when I get home tonight. A sniper cannot burst fire his weapon but then how can he kill two men in 1 second? It just doesn't work. But a soldier with a Semi-auto rifle can fire 3-4 rounds in 1 second and therefore it works. But snipers use bolt-actions, atleast that is how they are described in the game, and therefore it is impossible for them to kill multiple units with one shot. The whole thing about seeing the "tracer" shot from an infantry unit as an abstraction of them firing is confusing at best. So you mean to tell me that that when a squad is targeting another squad that they are firing when I don't see them firing and that the "tracer" grafix is only shown at intervals during this firing? Huh? I think that when you see a squad fire, it is firing. Period. And when it is not firing it is not firing. Period. There is no abstraction inbetween. If anything then the FP of a sniper should be lowered so that he can ONLY kill one man with each shot fired. I don't think it is unreasonable in any way. You don't use snipers to take out entire squads and if you are trying to then you are wasting your snipers. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I think there is some confusion here, mainly because of the way your question was answered in the first place. The ammo load out for any infantry (small arms) unit (including sharpshooters) is abstracted as a certain number of "shots". A single "shot" does not represent a single round. For example, a MG42 might have 50 "shots" of ammo. Certainly that represents a lot more than 50 actual rounds! So each time you see the sharpshooter fire his weapon, he might be firing one or more actual rounds, you do not really know. Ignore the remarks about 60 seconds, they are incorrect. If a sniper fires 3 "shots" in a minute (unlikely), that could represent anywhere from 3-?? actual rounds fired. So, in other words, a sharpshooter killing mroe than one person with a shot is not impossible, even if it might be unlikely. It certainly does NOT mean they got two guys with one bullet. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand that, but my point is is that a sniper unit doesn't have to be abstracted. There is one man with one type of gun, and there is only one type of ammo and one type of ammo load. Therefore why not model the unit in a way that makes this clear? They did this with the Arty spotters. Tanks are modeled in this way. Just apply the same modeling to the sharpshooter. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: Who's Kennedy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John F. Kennedy. I pray you are not an American, but if you are our public schools have failed you. You have my condolences. Jeff

I have read actual accounts from the soldiers on D-Dy and they basically said that the naval bombardment did nothing to the concrete casements the Germans poured into the cliff walls. BUT in some cases a large volume of direct hits on the casements caused the soldiers eardrums inside to burst and some of them to pass out from the concussion damage. An interesting fact is that even today you can go to Omaha beach and STILL see some of the concrete casements the Germans poured. They are STILL there.. After 50 years. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: I remember reading, not sure where now, of a British Rifleman in WWI who fired 35 shots(IIRC) into the bullseye of a target at 600yds in one minute. That was using a Lee-Enfield. It seemed so out there that it always stuck in my mind, the more knowledgeable can correct me on the particulars if I am mistaken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe he killed Kennedy? Jeff

Did the american every "winterize" camo thier armor? I don't think I have EVER seen one in any pictures. Jeff

OKay... So the shots of a sharpshooter in 60 seconds are "abstracted" while the shots of a tank in 60 seconds are not? So, you are saying that when my guys aren't shooting they could be shooting, and that the actual grafix and simulation of the "shot" is not when the shot happens? I'm confused.... Either the units fires or it doesn't fire. BTS told me in another thread that a squad of men, even though there are many members, act as a single unit. They move, shoot, panic, etc together as a whole. So, I am assuming that when my squad shoots and I seeing the grafix tracer round going out that they are, at that moment, shooting. Right? Otherwise how else could you tell if they are shooting or just sitting there. If I am right with this then a sharpshooter should act the same way. When he is shown shooting.. He is shooting. BUT he is only a single guy with a single shot weapon. Therefore he should be only able to kill one guy at a time. His ammo supply does not need to be an abstraction, since there is no other ammo to keep track of, right? He just has his one gun and his one type of ammo therefore his ammo level should be an actual representation. On the other hand... If you want to say that when you see the actual grafic of the sharpshooter shooting that he is letting loose 2 or 3 rounds at that moment than I can see your point, BUT when does a sniper ever open up on a target like that? Usually after that first shot all the targets take cover and there are no other immediate targets. Plus a bolt action rifle just can't do what you are saying. Don't give me no Harvey Oswald "3 shots in 8.7 seconds" crud. BTS, please help me here. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-05-2000).]

Hmmmm... I was just wondering if BTS has already answered this question... Why do SS troops cost more? Is it because they are better equiped? Are there squads larger in number? Also.. If anyone was some info on the SS here is a pretty good link: http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/8514/sss.html Jeff

I like the last one... Makes quite a statement, doesn't it? Jeff

Okay... I am currently playing and PBEM game where my opponents sniper shot at a half squad of mine and killed 2 men. Now I am all for the remote possibility of a sniper lining up two guys with one shot and popping them, but come on..... I feel that a sniper shold be able to only kill one man at time. It was rare, if at all, that a sniper could wax two guys with one bullet in real life. Wouldn't something like this be simple to patch in the game? Thanks, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hey gents... We just wanted to let you know that we will be looking at this issue in detail for CM2. I mean, what with Soviet tanks using polished Coke bottle bottoms for optics, there is bound to be some difference Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, Once you have something hashed out and applied to CM2, and of coarse you feel it is as close as possible to reality, can you apply it to CM? Thanks, Jeff

Also I was thinking... Wouldn't skirts almost completely defeat a shape charged round? The PanzerIV(H)'s I had come with full skirts and it still got knocked out by a side hull penetration. Doesn't the shirt almost FULLY protect the side hull? Jeff

I figured it was just bad luck on my part but I have noticed a lot of topics that are discussing the inherent accuracy differences that were present in the real life equipment and how that is (if at all) modeled in CM. From actual accounts I have read from the German gun optics thread there are several quotes from real life soldiers stating that the bazooka was vastly inferior to the panzershriek in penetration and accuracy. So much that American soldiers used, when captured, panzershrieks in place of their bazookas. I was just wondering if the same thing applies here. Thanks, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phoenix: Gripping?????????? To watch tires move? Gripping is seeing a King Tiger crest a hill that you were SURE was clear of the enemy. THAT is gripping. BTW - tracks already move. Not that I ever watch them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, I am easily entertained, okay? Jeff

Is there an actual difference in accuracy between the bazooka and the panzershriek? I ask because in one game I had a veteran Panzershriek team miss a stationary tank at 100 meters 3 times in a row, and then in the same game my opponents regular bazooka team first shot hit a fast moving PanzerIV(J) with a side shot at 154 meters. Also the team was weary from running halfway accross the board. If I recall correctly the bazooka is suppose to be vastly inferior to the panzershriek. Is this modeled correctly in CM? Thanks, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: 1. It's my understanding that the Humber scout car had a 15mm machine gun. However, as far is I can tell in the game it's armed with a generic .30 cal. Why is that? 2. Is there any way to know the FP rating of vehicle mounted MGs? I assume that, unless otherwise stated, all German MGs are MG42 or 34s. However, are they given the FP rating for the light or heavy configuration? Or something in between? How about the allied .30 cal? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a historical note: Most, if not all, German armored viehicles had MG34s mount on/in them. The MG34 was more prone to jammin' from dirt and the like so it was used in vehicles. The MG42 was an excellent and very dependable gun therefore infantry were outfitted with it in general. Jeff

Anyway, I think people know what I mean. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-01-2000).]