Vergeltungswaffe

I look forward to conning a Pz III in the Fall of '41 and trying to deal with T-34s/KV-1s. Especially with the panic factor for AFV crews and the whole "haul ass off the map" syndrome. T-26s and BT-7s will be interesting though, in an ugly sort of way.

2 days after mine. Very nice!</font>

Use it and love it. Hope like hell to have in CMBB shortly after release.

God bless your whole clan, Bill. I can just imagine holidays now as Wild Bill, patriarch, enters the dining room to the sound of the Panzerlied, with four generations of Wilders bowing low before the King!

500m to the rear and exit? Oh man, it just keeps getting better....

Very nice AAR. I especially like the ASCII map.

You can import the op into the scenario editor to check and see what the "no man's land" size is set to. Its been too long since I played this one to remember. But, I do believe that it was well in favor of the attacker. If the defender held their ground, they would still be pushed back considerably. Once upon a time (before the final 1.12 version) Op front lines had major problems. Now, the game engine draws them pretty well, its just a matter of making sure that no man's land isn't set so big that it fouls things up. Ops work best with minimal no man's land. Anyway, your flanking moves should be fruitful and not wasted.

It will be North Africa. BTS has expressed no interest in the Pacific Theater, so don't hold your breath for a CM: Pearl Harbor to Tokyo. [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Vergeltungswaffe ]</p>

http://www.combatmission.com/ Look down the page a bit to Older Mods, etc and you will see a link that takes you to over 30 CMMOS mods. Thats a good start for most of it thats out so far.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: Sure, that is terribly relevant. The Brad fires discarding sabot rounds with depleted uranium penetrators at several times the muzzle velocity. There is no comparion with WW II 12.7mm to 20mms, whatever. I'll tell you what, if penetration leads to kills 95% of the time, only when the (21 point cost) German 20mm Flak is firing discarding sabot rounds with uranium penetrators, I'll be satisfied. I'll even overlook the muzzle velocity difference, because I am so generous. Oh, that would still be never, wouldn't it?<hr></blockquote> I never disagreed that CMBO has flaws in small caliber penetration dynamics, but if you want to argue relevance, fine. Splinty can tell us how prevalent DU rounds were for Brads, but you are sorely mistaken if you think they travel at several times the muzzle velocity of a .50cal or 20mm of WWII timeframe. 25mm muzzle velocity is roughly 1345 mps, with .50cal coming in at 850 mps, and 20mm FlaK at around 950 mps. We are talking about firing the latter two at a very poorly armored M18 Hellcat versus firing the former against a somewhat tougher target, the T-55 and/or -62. Regardless of somewhat greater kinetic energy, the 25mm round must defeat a vehicle with better internal stowage and more modern crew protection. Thus, we are talking about roughly the same thing, proportionally, as Scipio's scenario. I will repeat, that I fully agree that the modelling needs work, and hopefully CMBB will have a better version. Anyway, enough about this. We will see how CMBB treats it, and your very valid points about bunker penetration.

According to some of the after action info I read from Trevor Dupuy, in Desert Storm there were several instances where the 25mm M242 Bushmaster was able to penetrate and BREW-UP T-55's from the side. So, regardless of CMBO's accuracy at modeling small caliber damage, it is certainly possible for small caliber rounds to f*** things up royally.

IIRC it was only an infantry mod, not a full out conversion. I think it might have been at The Last Defense. Look for any post from 109 Gustav. Its his site, and will have a link in his signature.

Thin skinned AFV's also often shrug off low caliber hits. But think of it this way: A .22 bullet is not very likely to penetrate all the way through your car to the passenger compartment, but if you're in a car getting hit by them and one or two do get through, are you staying in there?

After running it through a "leet speak" translation program, I make it out to be "Loser".

I agree wholeheartedly. I would rather play an operation than a scenario anyday, but there are definitely some major problems. I feel certain that most of the concerns have been addressed in CMBB. I'll bet there will be victory flags in ops, which will solve some of the biggest problems, and I also hope there will be a quick op generator.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Travis Emmitt: I found Bruneval and Combat at the scenario depot [thanks!] I still am curious about the command skorzensky scenarios... do you know where i can find them? Thanks! Trav p.s. I started playing Soldiers at War... The interface is absolutely infuriating but nevertheless I'm having a lot of fun with it (reminds me of xcom and jagged alliance). There've been some really tense Ambush-esque moments, which is always cool...<hr></blockquote> I haven't go the time to search for you, but try searching under Skorzeny, not Skorzensky.

A very realistic question, but I feel relatively certain that the game engine doesn't model deformity to ground over time. It only models terrain change such as buildings reduced to rubble, foxholes, and craters.

Before you play any operation, it is usually good to open it in the editor and change the "no man's land setting to less than 80m". Otherwise, a successful defense in place is rewarded with being pushed back.

All of the above being why it will be just as much fun and challenge to take Pzkw III's against T-34/KV-1 as it is to take M4's against Tiger I/II.

For the German, non-turreted TD's, all your reasoning is sound except the lower silhouette. That was a nice by-product, not a desired effect. Somewhat similiar to Soviet era tanks being small. Many think the autoloader and low silhouette was a tactical design, when in fact it was also a by-product of the need for strategic resources when building many thousand's of them, with the least possible materials and at the lowest possible cost. As to your question, I don't know about the first statement. Overpressure *might* have been a factor, but your 2nd and 3rd statements hit the nail on the head. US TD doctrine called for the best possible spotting and shortest possible engagement time. Open turrets were reckoned to be the way to do that, at the time. Of course, after WWII, there were no open topped AFV's produced, other than AA and Arty vehicles, so the lack of protection must have been too much for the types to continue.

Keep in mind that gun damage represents a ton of different things, not just a round hitting the barrel. It could be the gunner's sight being damaged, the elevation or traverse controls being fouled up, a breech jam, etc. I agree that sometimes, gun damage seems awfully prevalent, but I think, overall, its probably well in line.

One workaround that I used when I played a 6/44 through to 5/45 series of many, many scenarios was to put them all into many sub folders by month. Then I would rename the current one in use "Scenarios" so only those would show up. Takes a bit of time to set up, but worked rather well. When I was through, it was quick to highlight and drag em all back into the scenario folder.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Ok, I may have been misinformed, but I was under the impression that "Guderian's duck" refered to the Hetzer.<hr></blockquote> Nope, the JgPz IV. Even though all my books only show the two front steel-rimmed wheels for the L/70 models, I like having it on there. Obviously can't have it both ways. One more gorgeous ambush mod. Hurry up and post that beast!

Its the only way I play the AI. I use all the rules, and generally print out view 7 or 8 (depending on total map size) before play. As to the being able to see through the trees, if the AFV is visible, you will see it. You can move your view slightly forward to clear the sprite if you're in the middle of it.

Admit It!