Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Mr. Clark

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,032

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Mr. Clark

    Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    Rob, I usually (read ALWAYS) play Allies, and I can say from MUCH experience that I have had my poor Shermans KO'd time and time again within the first two or three turns by some sneaky, distant German tank or Gun or Armored vehicle.

    I don't think your point was that Axis are somehow being screwed in this game, but just in case it was I wanted you to know that I've often banged my head in frustration against Axis armor.

    As stated in the manual, no game could really EVER be 100% accurate to reality... because it's not reality. How can any game mirror reality, where virtually ANYTHING can happen, no matter how unlikely. However, I believe CM is definately the closest we are able to get right now.

    From what I've read (not as extensive as your reading I'm sure) it seems that tank battles were often fast and furious, as found in CM... with only a few shots fired to disable or kill the enemy tank.

    In A BLood Dimmed Tide, I recall an american tank gunner KO'ing 3 German tanks with 3 successive shots.

    In Band Of Brothers and Curahee! I remember several accounts of Allied tanks heading out to kill a Tiger, only to be destroyed one after another by that one Tiger, even though they knew exactly where he was hiding.

    I'm not sure where your frustration lies in the system, but in comparing my reading to games I've played, it seems CM comes very close to representing the kind of battles that took place. Victory could shift in a second to near defeat.

    This is NOT a flame, I'm just hoping to throw some positive words at you. I'm not even sure I understood your post correctly (I'm heavily medicated right now, damn cold!)... but I'm also a reality buff, and I'm pretty darn happy with CM. It somehow reflects not only the strict stats and formulas for battle, but also tosses in an element of chaos and random luck.

    0

    Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    I'm in agreement there Steve.

    While I now understand (I think) what some others here have been saying, I will still always attempt to find a decent hull down location for my tanks whenever possible.

    In actual gameplay settings (as you have described) I prefer the lessened chance to hit and other benefits of hull down positions, regardless of turret armor.

    Once again using the "man in invulnerable bodysuit" example...

    If the man only has two choices: hide with head sticking out, or charge enemy since only head can be hurt anyway... then it does not really matter which one he chooses.

    However, since while standing in the open, he IS still vulnerable to the random head shot... it is always going to be to his advantage to use surprise, and duck and cover, and anything else he can think of to avoid being hit (or even shot at) altogether.

    (I think for the next analogy I'll switch to a duck in a tea kettle... or perhaps a monkey in kevlar pajamas... maybe even a gerbil in a steel pipe... um... sorry, it's the cold medication)

    0

    Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    Man, this thread has turned heated.

    First off, let me say that I apologize if any of my remarks seemed "patronizing."

    Second, I want to run with the "man in an invulnerable body suit" example. I COMPLETELY agree with everything this example demonstrates. If this "soldier" hides, exposing only his head, then there will be a lessened chance to hit, but a hit will always result in a kill, and in fact, enemies will be actually AIMING for his head. However, if he stands in the open, the enemy will only be able to hurt him in the head anyway, so he may as well not worry about hiding. THIS IS ALL CORRECT! I AGREE! smile.gif

    Now, switch this example to tanks and it runs pretty much the same. Once again, I AGREE!

    Sooooooo, a man with an invulnerable body suit would not be any better off hiding behind cover with only his head (and arms so he can shoot) exposed. However, any OTHER man (who was not bodily invulnerable) would probably like to take some cover to minimize hits.

    Switch this to tanks and once again it's the same.

    Is this what you've been saying all along? Because I can agree that in one particular circumstance being hull down does not give any special benefit... both in real life, and in CM.

    Now that I've agreed so much, let me say that this is basically also the SAME point I've been making all along. I've simply refused to discuss the penetration aspects of tank armor, because Hull Down is only meant to reduce the chance to be hit.

    My argument: Hull down is always the best way to go to AVOID BEING HIT.

    If I'm correct in my understanding, then all this time no one has been saying that CM incorrectly models Hull Down (which reduces hit chance), simply that in both CM and real life, it's possible that a situation will arise where Hull Down is not a tactical advantage?

    If this is correct, then I agree. smile.gif

    I thought that people were arguing that CM was somehow modeling Hull Down wrong...

    0

    Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    Sigh...

    That's entirely your decision.

    That's not the reason I'm arguing. It's entirely up to the player if hull down is worth it or not to them.

    I can't really write any more on the subject w/o having something new to argue against.

    Basically, Hull Down should lower the chance to BE HIT. It does this. If you then get hit, it's gonna be in the turret or the upper hull. You take your chances with that just like you would in real life. CM Also simulates this.

    So WHAT EXACTLY is wrong with this system???

    What EXACTLY do you think needs to be changed about the hull down rules???

    I'm not really understanding what the argument is anymore.

    Are you arguing that Hull Down in real life was a bad idea, or that CM is somehow modeling Hull Down wrong?

    0

    Bad tracer graphics, "core" units, gameyness, and other controversies.

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    I believe Coolguy is correct, since I also remember reading accounts of paratroops seeing the "red" german tracers...

    Now then...

    What kind of a goofball list of complaints is that???

    So CM's not for you. Ok, go play Army Men or some such. But to come here complaining about all the things that people LOVE about CM is just plain...

    No wargame can ever be a 100% representation of life... however CM attempts to represent everything as realistically as it can. This is what CM is... the BEST WWII wargame ever.

    Your post basically goes against EVERYTHING that BTS stands for... if I understand the company statement correctly.

    They ARE NOT targeting the mass audience. They ARE giving wargamers what wargamers want!

    Sigh...

    0

    Ramelle-Private Ryan

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    SPOILER ALERT.......

    I had a great time with that one myself.

    When I played it, the Tiger came to an end EXACTLY like in the movie... twas even slowly turning it's turret towards my last surviving unit (HQ) as it burst into flames from the air attack.

    In the end, I somehow pulled out a minor victory with only half of my HQ unit left. (That's ALL I had left!)

    0

    Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    But Rex...

    The fact that such and such tank can only penetrate such and such's turret armor is kind of irrelevant to the HULL DOWN situation.

    Hull down is not supposed to make a HIT tank less killable, but simply lower the CHANCE to hit it, even if forcing the enemy to shoot at a more vulnerable area.

    Treeburst has confirmed my guess that tank gunners normally shoot at "center of mass", which means that a gunner shooting at a tiger in the open is going to shoot at the basic "center" of the target, increasing his chance of hitting. The same gunner firing at a hull down Tiger is going to be aiming at the upper hull/turret, because that will be all that is visible to shoot at! Thus the turret BECOMES the "center of mass"... whether the turret is more "vulnerable" or not, and at the same time is a smaller/harder target to hit.

    Now, if I understand the rest of these posts correctly, this is EXACTLY how CM goes about handling Hull Down situations.

    Not trying to be too argumentative here. I just think that you may be looking at hull down the wrong way, or at least out of context, Rex.

    I think this is a great thread/discussion. Unfortunately, I'm off to work now... and won't be able to jump in again till morning...

    0

    Please Post About Me Here

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    Jeff, Just wanted you to know that I took your post as you meant it... so not EVERYONE thought you were a total swine! wink.gif

    I've always argued on this sort of topic that it REALLY should not be an issue what gender someone is on a gaming forum.

    I remember a female on the Unreal Tournament forum who received all sorts of harrassment, along with some rather disgusting/perverted pictures posted for her "benefit", supposedly as a "joke."

    It's REALLY a shame that harrassment and discrimination is being ironed out of the workplace, only to be rampant online.

    0

    Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    I think that one of the problems here is that there are two ways of looking at this "situation."

    One is that it is better to be hit non-lethally, and the other is that it is better to not be hit at all.

    I honestly think that people are getting worked up over nothing here, now that Charles and Steve have explained it. The general purpose of being hull down is to expose less of your vehicle to the enemy, and this is accomplished in the game with a lowered chance to be hit. Obviously, if you ARE hit, it will probably be in the turret.

    Look at the Infantryman example! smile.gif

    If you were sticking your head out of a foxhole, and you got shot, it would be in the head... and thus much more likely lethal.

    However, if you are running at the enemy in the open, you could be hit in any body part, and thus the hit would have less a chance of being lethal.

    (EDIT: Yet, men still used foxholes for the cover it provided, lessening the chance of being hit)

    I've not been in the army, but I know that when in police handgun training, we were told to fire for the center of mass. (Double tap, move to next target.)

    I'm betting that in the thick of combat, most tankers simply fire quickly at enemy tanks, rather than always trying to zone in on weak spots. (This is only a "guess", as I'm not a tanker that has ever been in combat.)

    [This message has been edited by Mr. Clark (edited 12-14-2000).]

    0

    Please Post About Me Here

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    If you want to see harassment of females online, simply install AOL, sign up for the free hours, create a female "user" name, and watch the HUGE number of "instant messages" that appear from complete strangers (and losers) asking all sorts of rude and annoying things.

    NEXT, create a male "user" name, and sit for hours online, in the utter peace and lack of "instant messages."

    It's truly sickening, and one of the reasons my wife and I switched from AOL to AT&T (which does not have the intricate "user" system AOL forces on you).

    (NOTE: This post is not meant to bash AOL! Only to bash the sad morons who apparently spend all day on AOL looking at the various user info to harrass any women who are actively online.)

    0
×
×
  • Create New...