Col Deadmarsh
-
Posts
1,495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Col Deadmarsh
-
-
The 9mm ammo is for the infantry squad's pistols and SMGs. German machine guns and rifles are all 7.92mm.
Now that I look again, I don't know if this is correct.
While I see 152 rounds of 9mm ammo under the player window, I see >1k of 9mm ammo listed amongst the vehicle 'Ammo' screen along with the 2 other 7.92mm guns.
Even if the HT guys had 1000 rounds of SMG ammo, it wouldn't be listed along with the vehicle ammo, would it?
-
The 9mm ammo is for the infantry squad's pistols and SMGs. German machine guns and rifles are all 7.92mm.
Ah, ok. Good to know...
-
It has a steel core and is better at penetrating than the standard round. Indeed, it is "Armor Piercing."
So it is better at piercing through the thin armor on a half-track I presume vs regular MG ammo. I can't imagine it would go through anything else.
-
Colonel_Deadmarsh,
How can the 7.92mm AP ammo be a smaller caliber than the MG ammo it's carrying, when 7.92mm (7.92 x 57mm) is the same cartridge for the Kar98K, the MG-34, the MG-42 and the Gew-43? As for the AP, it was typical for AFVs to use AP for MG ammo rather than ball because of better cover penetration. The US did the same all the way down to the BAR during WW II for the same reason.
Regards,
John Kettler
I'm no expert. All I see is that it's carrying the 7.92mm caliber for the mounted MG and yet the other MGs for the unit are 9mm. I learned in school that 7.92 < 9 so that's why I made the comment.
Is this not correct?
-
What is the 7.92m AP ammo on this vehicle?
It's a smaller caliber than the MG ammo it's carrying and yet it's supposed to be used against AFVs.
Can someone please explain this? Also, what Allied vehicle armor can it puncture, if any?
-
I'm interested in knowing what size of artillery is needed to destroy a wood, stone, or steel bridge. And do you always need a direct hit?
Anyone know the answers?
-
and if you go back one more to http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/ then you can see what each document actually is.
Two of my Malware threat softwares say that safe is unsafe. Just a heads up.
Any other sites that have these same WWII docs?
-
Do you mean the arrows and icons used to show the basic plan of attack and suspected enemy locations, like the photo below:?
Or do you meant the typical NATO style military unit symbols? for example:
The latter.
-
Just found this thread today and I just want to say that I always leave my thoughts on a scenario for the designer...and frankly, it bothers me as much as the designers when I don't see others leave comments.
I'd like to be able to browse through some of these and know immediately if it's a good H2H battle or whatever it is that I'm looking for. Without comments from others, who knows what you're getting.
Even if you just write 1 sentence, it would really help both people like me and encourage the designers to keep producing more great works.
-
-
Is this a good H2H battle?
-
When I review a scenario, I always notice those military markings showing attack/defense, but I don't really know what they mean. And yes, I can kind of figure out what the author means when he uses these but I'd really like to find a site that explains all this stuff anyway.
Anyone got a link to one of these military sites?
-
Colonel_Deadmarsh,
I don't know why, but the BB is wreaking havoc on me. It just ate a detailed post when I simply hit Go Advanced to work on it more, but I will simply suggest you read the account of the Hallamshires at Normandy, starting with The First Battle and continuing until the unit is relieved. Pay careful attention to how many times the Battalion's officers cycle because of casualties.
http://www.irdp.co.uk/JohnCrook/normandy.htm
The simple truth is that leaders, whether sergeants for squads or 2nd LTs for platoons, are up and about (when their men are often down), do things which draw attention to themselves, such as shout, signal and talk on radios,and are prime sniper targets. But most of all, they take disproportionate casualties because they lead. "Follow me." is the motto of the U.S. Army, and the statue, called "Follow Me" epitomizes my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Followme.jpg
The British reckoned the life of a subaltern in the trenches during WW I as six weeks, and it was the officers who were first over the top, who led the raids and held the men together when things came unstuck. In one case, a VC winner was one of three officer casualties (2 KIA and 1 WIA) in a force of 100 men, in which half the total force became casualties. In that raid, the few officers were killed at 3-5x the rate of other ranks. This is a direct effect of the longstanding British expectations for junior officers: that they lead from the front and encourage their men by their personal bravery.
I can cite dozens of examples to show that squad and platoon leaders were preferentially targeted; this is also why U.S. rank insignia on the collar is now matte black for combat uniforms.
Regards,
John Kettler
These scenarios you speak of are believable, but have nothing to do with my in-game experience because I am not going up against snipers, nor are my leaders getting shot out in the open because they could be recognized as leaders.
Most of the time, my squad leaders have been injured when behind bocage or some other obstacle where they cannot be recognized as leaders. They are getting killed before my other men whether it's by a stray bullet that went through the obstacle or by indirect fire nearby (a HE shot to a house.)
-
It seems that in every battle, my squad leaders seem to be the first one to go.
Since this Command and Control aspect of the game is so paramount to one's success in battle, I feel that leaders should have a different 'die roll' when it comes to deciding whether they take a hit from incoming fire vs. another solider from the squad. As of right now, I think luck plays too important a role in these decisions as the die rolls seem to be even for all units.
But even if you wanted to look at it from a simulation standpoint, shouldn't it also be taken into account that leaders are one if not the most experienced soldiers out on the field and would have the best chance at keeping themselves out of harm's way? They have practical experience in battle and don't commit the same mistakes rookies do and thus should have a different die roll to protect them a little more than the average soldier they are commanding.
In the end though, this is more of a game than it is a simulation and so there should be certain things about the game that need to be preserved, like the favoring of skill over luck. After all, the more luck present, the less of a game of skill Combat Mission becomes.
-
Will it also graph the downward trajectory of my social life during my CM career?
-
I'm playing a game where my schreck was in a two story building and fired a shot at a buttoned up tank around 120m away. The round bounced off the tank, but the schreck team, which was 45-60 degrees off to the side of the tank was immediately spotted by the buttoned up tank crew and were fired upon.
Does this seem realistic? Do tank gunners have that wide of field of vision?
-
An in game chat window is the cure for that.
Unless you're playing PBEM battles like me.
-
And CMx2 games aren't really well suited for file transfers as mail attachments. Because files are much larger than in CMx1.
Most active players use Dropbox instead. And almost as many H2HH utility to automate this file copying between Dropbox and CM's Input/Output folders.
I haven't run into any problems yet with file transfers being too large, but maybe I'm just playing smaller scenarios.
What I don't like about using Dropbox is that it tends to stifle email interaction between opponents. There's much more back and forth from each opponent when you're forced to send the file through email.
-
“School of Hard Knocks”. Perhaps I will try playing it again, but it would mean having to play the campaign again to get to it. I think it would have made a better single mission rather than a campaign one. It looked to me that the map was set up to be un-winnable, and is one of the only missions I have played where I did not seize all objectives. I captured the bridge, but the lead tank hit a mine on the other side. All attempts to sweep the other side of bridge from mines just got ate up by the insane amount of artillery, and MGs the Germans get. Artillery all through out the mission like an endless supply. That along with a choke point out in the open with very little cover, and very poor visibility I chose to go no further than capturing the bridge vs. what looked like the potential of losing the whole force so early in the campaign. Overall I think the mission was over done too much in the defenders favor. The next mission “University of Hard Knocks” seemed more balanced, and I liked it much better.
What campaign is this from?
-
I just tried to save over a previous file with the same name and it said it couldn't do it. When prompted if I wanted to try again, I said "no" and was immediately kicked out of the game and taken back to the main screen.
Is this a known bug?
-
I have played CMAK and CMBB alot so finally downloaded CM normandy. Wanted to like it but... I dont know, must play more i guess but feels that something missing. Not the same feeling. You players that played cmak and cmbb alot. You like this game as much the old ones?
/erik
This is exactly how I felt when I went from CMBB to CM-Normandy.
The new camera controls alone was enough to turn me away from the game.
But even just the feel of the game was off-putting to me. I'm not sure why.
After a couple of tries, I quit for almost 2 years until I just recently gave it another chance...and I'm glad I did. This time I put in time to learn the new camera controls and to get used to the new "feel" of the game. And you're right...there is a new feel to this game. It's much more of a leap to go from CMBB to CMBN than it was to go from CMBO to CMBB.
Give it a chance to grow on you. I think you'll find the new engine, the new camera, and everything else is better once you get used to it.
-
Played Les Charne recently - highly recommended. No idea where to get it.
Coincidentally, I just found Les Charne myself in the repository. Can't comment on it yet as we just started but you can get it here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2766
We also just finished FGM Rockville which I thought was an excellent map, but I am disappointed with the limited forces the Germans are given to defend. It's supposed to be a balanced, H2H game but I would disagree. What did others think?
-
Any other reports?
-
What does one do with a map like this? Am I supposed to place it in a certain folder to make a scenario from it?
What was the moment that got you hooked on this game?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I came from Close Combat 2 back in what...'2000 or something.
Always enjoyed the real-time aspect of that game, but at the same time I found the new WEGO system of CM very intriguing. This allowed for players to take their time with turns, strategizing the perfect tactical move before sending off the turn to his opponent. This chess-like play style of the game got me hooked.
I've always looked at this game like an advanced version of chess and not a simulator like others apparently do.