Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Diceman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    419

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Diceman

    Would you pay for a special terrain Add On - Berlin? Grain Elevator?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    What Le Tondu and Xavier said. Now I may change my mind once I get my hands on CMBB, but bringing CMBO up to CMBB standards is #1 on my willing to pay for list. More realistic building code including cellars and tougher buildings comes second. Multi turret tanks is another willing to pay for upgrade. Unique buildings just don't get very high on my play enhancement list.

    0

    New sounds for the mighty .50 cal

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by BaD JoKe:

    Hiya all!

    Were there any difference in sounds between .50 cals used in tanks and .50 cals used by infantry? :confused:

    Thanks in advance!

    BaD JoKe

    I can't think of a vehicle that mounted the .50 cal internally, so as such it would sound the same - except for the cursing. I've never fired a .50 cal that wasn't mounted on a large tracked vehicle but I have done everything but fire the .50 cal from the tripod. The tripod is designed with shoes that are supposed to dig into the dirt. Now you can dislodge the tripod from the dirt just trying to cock the damm thing, so I imagine it would come out of the dirt fairly easily while firing it, and when it does, well you could just imagine the cursing. Hmmm. Maybe that's why they only let us fire the thing mounted on a vehicle.
    0

    Will the CMBO engine be upgraded to CMBB level?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

    No that would not be nice. What is it with you guys ?!? Are you so much in love with those crappy Shermans or what ? Do a comparison on the performance of the Lend-lease Sherman and the T-34 when CM : BB's out. The results may prove a shock to you...

    [qb]

    At the risk of being groged to death a quick comparison of the T34 and Sherman:

    First: late 42/early 43 models of both.

    Armor protection: Comparable. Each vehicle has its +s and -s.

    Turret Design: Sherman with its 3 man turret.

    Crew accommodations and communications: Sherman by far.

    Gun: Comparable. You could get nitpicky but from wha I've read they're pretty close to each other. T34 gun suffers from small turret, two man crew, and generally unfriendly interior environment but that's not the fault of the gun

    Reliability: Sherman. The new 5 speed transmission that came out in '43 for the T34 was better than previous transmission, and engine reliability was improved, but the Sherman still stands out in a big way.

    Suspension and ground pressure: T34 by a wide margin.

    Speed: T34

    Radio: comparable? They both had radios at this stage of the war but I couldn't tell you how good they were.

    Now a few notes on T34/85 - Sherman 76mm HSVV comparison.

    The Sherman gun was rated better than the 85mm gun in Russian ballistic tests.

    It had to be a nightmare to work in the T34/85 turret. All that turret and gun on such a small chassis, and turret ring?

    The HVSS suspension was a big improvement for the Sherman. Couldn't tell you if ground pressure rating was as good as the T34-85.

    A couple of other snippets:

    Russian crews really liked the Sherman.

    The Sherman was at least as frustrating to the Germans in North Africa, as the T34 was in Russia durring the same time frame.

    The M4A3E8 made a very good showing of itself against the T-34/85 in Korea.

    0

    Over The Rhne At Oppenheim: playtesters needed!!!

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Here's my latest scenario for the public's enjoyment. Before I release it though, I'd like some feedback. Checkout the axis brief, and if it sounds interesting e-mail me and I'll send it to you. As a side-note, this scenario is designed as a player vs. player engagement. It is not possible for the AI to play the American side.

    Patton’s Third Army Crossed the Rhine River on the 23rd of March, 1945. The 5th Infantry Division using assault rafts was the first to cross in the early morning hours. This scenario depicts that crossing.

    You’ve just received word of a frantic message from your scout on the west side of the Rhine near Oppenheimen. He claims Patton’s entire Third Army has surrounded him and is preparing to cross the river! Obviously he’s been caught sleeping on the job. The fact that he’ll be dead or captured before daylight is little solace as you knock the sleep out of your eyes and try to gather your thoughts. What resources do I have immediately at my disposal? What do I have in the way of defenses on the east bank of the river? Your heart sinks as the answers come to mind. You only have 5 machine guns covering the entire section of the river. All remaining heavy artillery has been moved north in anticipation of Montgomery’s much telegraphed drive to cross the Rhine there. You’ve assembled your 81mm mortars into a battery, but only have enough ammunition for a few minutes barrage.

    You have one battalion of infantry in the area you can rouse together in an effort to meat the threat before the Americans can get a foothold on the east bank. The leadership is of good quality but clearly Germany is scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel. Most of your troops barely know one end of a rifle from another.

    You might also be able to call on a couple of StuGs for direct fire support but that’s it. You get on the horn and make the necessary calls. When will the Americans cross? Will my troops assemble in time? The air is thick with the oppressive weight of impending doom as you drive your kubelwagan up to the east bank to have a look at the situation yourself.

    0

    Question about hitting model for tanks in CMBB

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

    Hi Diceman

    I might humbly smile.gif suggest you have perhaps overlooked the possibility of an "upper hull hit"?

    Even hull down tanks in CMBO sometimes take a hit to the upper hull I think...

    -tom w

    I see said the blind man to his deaf daughter as he picked up his hammer and saw.

    So much for assumptions. This time I did a statistical analysis of over 400 hits at a range of 994 meters, 205 hull up, 200 hull down. At this range shot fall and range estimation would be much more critical than at the previously analyzed 547 meters. The method of analysis also relies far less on assumptions. In this case I used a statistically significant sample of over 400 hits.

    I think the below chart is rather interesting, and answers a lot of concerns including my own. For instance at this range the % chance to hit the turret hull down is only approximately 15% greater than hull up. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

    There are a couple of statistical anomalies on the chart worth mentioning. For example: hull up gun hits as a % of turret hits is 0.5% higher than the same stat for hull down. Also, there is a statistically significant difference between hull up weak spot hits and hull down weak spot hits. Although the modeled percentage may be different between the two positions, the incidence is low enough that one can assume that a sample of 405 is too low to get an accurate number. The difference in % of gun hits per turret hit can also be written off as sample error.

    At any rate the below chart should give all concerned a good approximation of hit chances

    . I also think it backs up Charles' comments on the issue.

    shermanchart2.jpg

    0

    Question about hitting model for tanks in CMBB

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    hulldown3.jpg

    ShermanChart.jpg

    The above screenshot is of a PZIV targeting two Shermans, one hull down, the other hull up.

    At 547 meters the PZIV has a 35% less chance of hitting the Sherman than if the Sherman were hull up. However, the hull down Sherman presents a 73.3% smaller target based on the numbers I calculated using a 1/76 scale diagram. The % chance of hitting the hull down target is 13.6%, which indecently equates to the % chance of hitting the turret hull up. Isn’t it nice when your math checks out?

    It is also interesting to note that the Sherman would have a 58.8% greater chance of taking a turret hit hull down than hull up. Now there is some truth to the argument that the odds of a turret hit would be increased due to it being the center of target, however I think that this would be off-set to a great degree by both the size of the target presented, and the greater difficulty in ranging the target both visually and mechanically.

    I don’t know how BFC came up with the 33% # but I think that the number is a bit high. I would suggest that the base # be much closer to the 13.6%, that is to say - the base chance of a hull down hit should be close to the % chance of a hull up turret hit, at least until the range to target is found.

    Based on these numbers, if the Sherman were a version with extra hull armor, it would be 59% more likely to survive hull up than hull down, presuming the apposing vehicle could not penetrate the supplemented hull armor. The same could be said for the PZIV. IMHO this does not agree with anecdotal evidence, nor does it agree with WWII or current armor doctrine.

    Now I don't want to start up a ruckus over this but I'm curious on how BFC handles hull down in CMBB.

    Statistically Speaking

    Diceman

    0

    Muzzle Brake

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael emrys:

    HVAP is not the same as discarding sabot. If I am not mistaken, it more closely resembles the APCR round of the Germans.

    Michael

    You are correct. The round is a tungsten cored APCR round. Unfortunately the book I was thinking of when I made the above statement went back to the library a long time ago, so I can not clear up for myself or anyone else the relationship between muzzle brakes and discarding sabot rounds. Either my memory is faulty or the author made an overly sweeping statement based on problems with a specific round/gun combination, or both. Thanks for correcting that misconception.

    Cheers

    Eric

    Edited for really bad typos.

    [ August 10, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Diceman ]

    0

    Muzzle Brake

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    One thing not mentioned, is why many guns did not have muzzle brakes. IIRC, in the case of American tank destroyers including the M10, and M18, muzzle brakes were not installed on many of these vehicles because the HVAP discarding sabot round used by these weapon systems was incompatible with muzzle brakes.

    0

    RESULTS OF THE SO CAL PREVIEW

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by John Kettler:

    Shoot and Scoot

    All hail this new command! Gone are the days of end of turn/beginning of next turn peekaboo. Now, simply show your tank or whatever (really hope by release this includes any vehicle with a weapon mount) where to go to get LOS to the target and where to backpedal to get back out of it. When the turn executes, you'll see your AFV race forward, obtain LOS, fire, and immediately reverse from sight. This can only be done once per turn but is most effective.

    Regards,

    John Kettler

    Now does the vehicle fire untill target destroyed, or does it just shoot a couple o frounds and backs off?
    0

    What is it that can make the next CM?? better than CMBB?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by SpaceHamster:

    [QB]Sounds funny smile.gif

    Could be cool as I would put it.

    Image every player taking a compady and receiving oreders from battalion commander or even better from division or army(group?) commander.

    (yés I'm megalomaniac :cool: )

    I was thinking something along these lines myself. Here's a rough sketch of how I imagine a future multiplayer Combat Mission:

    Each player takes a command position, i.e. platoon, company, battalion.

    Each player can only see what his commander on the map can see. I think this would be the ultimate in FOW.

    A commander can only control those units in command. (Either LOS or radio for armies with squad level radios such as the walkie-talkie).

    If a unit moves out of command, control reverts to the A.I. until it is brought back into command. The possibility that lost squads will march straight to a rallying point once lost would be a nice touch.

    Note: radios would be tracked. Private messages, that is to say messages not viewable by the enemy players, could only take place between commanders with functioning radios. Once a HQ looses its radio, it would not be able to communicate, up, down, or laterally across the chain of command in private mode. If a squad looses its radio, control by its HQ would be limited to LOS.

    Command above the platoon level would be a real challenge, as in real life. Coordinated attacks beyond the platoon level would be much more difficult than in current one person play, seeing as how company and battalion commanders would be only able to see what's going on by LOS, and what they could decipher by "radio messaging", and battlefield sound and smoke.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...