Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

ParaBellum

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,061

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ParaBellum

    CMBB: T-34 Armor Flaws?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:

    ...The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera)....

    The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).

    5700 feet per second? That's 1900 m/s. More than the high velocity 120mm of the M1A1 and the Leopard 2. I highly doubt that number.
    0

    From Russia with love...Part II

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by gunnergoz:

    OK, I bite...what exactly did you post? Is this a gray-scale screen snap of CMBB or something you ginned up yourself?

    Me already playing CMBB? Man, I would kill for that... :D

    It's a screenshot from the (excellent, btw) Stalingrad map for CMBO I downloaded somewhere. The Stookies are from Il2 Sturmovik and the splashes are hand drawn and were copied into the picture using a paint program and my limited artistic abilities...

    When trying to design a scenario on that map I remembered the above mentioned Volga crossing scene and felt a little artistic.

    0

    Minefield Lotto

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    You know that there are two sort of mines, anti-tank and anti-infantry? Anti-tank mines will not hurt infantry, only vehicles.

    But the anti-infantry mines work pretty well. A full US squad (regulars) will usually suffer 1-3 casualties when running into a minefield. And they get a moral hit, too.

    0

    How Many Points Are Crews Worth?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    AFAIK crew members are worth 6 points regular and 8 points veteran.

    So it's usually a pretty bad idea to use them as cheap scouts, simply because they aren't.

    When sending them off-map you should consider that your global morale will drop slightly. I like to move them to more or less safe places behind the frontline where they are not directly threatened.

    There they still can be of some use as sentries warning you about possible flanking moves by your opponent. And they make good guards for POWs, too.

    0

    Armor modeling

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:

    Oh you think Im one of those! Sure jump on me and thinking Im talking about German armor being invincilbe your WRONGE!! I was speaking of a 88mm not taking out a Sherman V with one shot at almost any range! Not talking about any-thing about german armor!

    I think you are taking things a bit personal! I like the game. Just wish it was real time but hey you can't have every-thing. Bring it on if you want to play against me and you will find about my tactics.

    <hr></blockquote>

    OK,then your first post was a bit misunderstanding.

    About 88mm Flak, I recently played a battle where a battery of these babies shot up a company of Shermans at long range (1500m+) and only loosing one gun. In order to get first shot kills you should try to use veteran crews, I had good experience with them.

    Especially the 88mm has a reputation of being a "wonder weapon". If used correctly it is indeed a poweful gun. But there were many instances where 88 batteries were shot up or overrun by enemy tanks.

    And if you're looking for a game, drop me an email. smile.gif

    0

    Armor modeling

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Specter:

    Any disagreement with the game gets you labeled a troll!!

    Oh Well!!<hr></blockquote>

    No comment needed here...

    Mrcitizencane, noone here gets flamed when he posts his oppinion in a reasonable manner, as you did. Well, at least most of the time not... ;)

    But it would help a lot if you could describe in more detail what you think is wrong and according to what sources.

    A certain feeling insn't a very good argument.

    BTW welcome to the board!

    0

    Armor modeling

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Well this looks a little bit like the old "what, my Tiger just get whacked by an american tank??? But they're sooo invincible! Noone should hurt my Tiger... :eek:

    Many people who played CM for the first time were surprised how vulnerable the mighty Tigers and Panthers are in this game. The point is that by 1944/45 they weren't Ubertanks anymore.

    Keep in mind that the Tiger's armour isn't sloped, which means that US 76mm will penetrate even at medium distances. And if they happen to get tungsten rounds better be careful with your Tiger... That's reality, as sad as it is.

    If you want the "invincible" feeling, put a Tiger against some vanilla Shermans with 75mm gun and have fun.

    Same for the Panther. A great tank, sure. But even a Greyhound with its 37mm gun will tear through its weak side armour. And the early models have this nasty shot trap.

    A problem for the german tanks in CM are the relative short engagement distances in CM, which are usually between 400-800m. At this distance the german armour looses some of their advantages (better guns, better armour). Put a Panther in a hull down position 1500m away from US tanks and things will be different.

    The only thing IMHO that is questionable for the US tanks is their ability to hit their targets with a very high accuracy while moving.

    So, as long as you don't provide hard data that shows that CM's modelling of german/US armour is wrong I can only recommend to improve your tactics.

    BTW if you do a search you will find zillions of posts regarding this topic which will cover every aspect of armour in CM.

    0

    Rarity Factor for Troops?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Yep, I thought about a "experience rarity factor", too. For example in 1941 most Panzer crews could be considered veteran, since in the campaigns in Poland, France and the balcans they didn't suffer heavy losses and gained much experience.

    But from 1942/43 on the combined effects of heavy losses and shorter crew training caused the overall experience level to drop.

    I've read many accounts of officers who complain that in '44 many crews obviously hand't recieved more than basic training and so showed an amazing lack of coordination on company/bataillon level.

    0

    CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

    My understanding is that BTS intends to have people use the "self-imposed" penalty method which makes no sense whatsoever. No one will want to do this!

    <hr></blockquote>

    BTS makes us do something? Never heard about that before...

    I guess it's pretty simple. You like it, use this option. You don't like it, don't use it.

    I personally like the idea of the rarity system. It will force me if I choose to use it to play with (at least some kind of) historical forces. For me, this is fun.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...