CMplayer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: CMPlayer, Go read some history and you'll see that those ditches along the sides of the road aren't always what they're cracked up to be... In the Battle for the Hurtgen Forest, some of the more devious German commanders had their troops litter the ditches with small schu mines (just big enough to blow off a hand or a foot, or make a good sized hole in someone). Position a machine gun farther down the road, and wait for the advancing troops to walk through the kill zone. One burst from the MG, and everyone dives for cover. Where? You guessed it. Boom, boom, boom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's very interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with my post. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood: I've got the perfect sound file - "You're in the Army now - "You're in the Army now - "Get out of the ditch, you son of a #$%$#^ "You're in the Army now -<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One of my favourites is 'Ouch, My LEG!' shouted by a tank commander when he gets hid by a sniper. It was either a magic bullet, or maybe he was sunbathing on top of the tank. (possible since they say what you see on the screen is only an abstraction of the maths in the game engine) --Rett

JasonC recently wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Buildings go down ridiculously fast in CM. You can still fight in the rubble of course, but it does not have any elevation/second story. This makes direct fire HE way too effective against building cover. Urban fighting did produce streets of rubble, but not from light cannon, or even tank guns firing a few scores of shells. They were rubbled by air bombardment in the hundreds of tons of bombs, or artillery fire kept up over days or weeks and running in some cases over a million shells fired. If one imagines some very light shacks for which the rate of destruction in CM seems realistic (e.g. for a one story wood building perhaps), then the question becomes, where are the more serious buildings? You know, the air forces went to the trouble of making bombs of several thousand pounds for a reason - because bombs up to 250 or even 500 lbs just did not level city blocks. Up to half the weight of a large air-dropped bomb can be explosive. The TNT in a tank round is 1-2 lbs, and in light guns rounds (20mm etc) it is measured in grams. Engineers used 5-10 lb bags of TNT to blow holes in brick walls large enough for a man to fit through. The size of explosive charges that bring down the fronts - but not all - of large buildings in terrorist attacks, run into the hundreds and sometimes a few thousand pounds. A few 1-2 lb HE charges are not going to bring down a 2-4 story brick or concrete building, even if you planted them on supports, which tank fire through a wall does not do. CM seems to use a cumulative total HE charge received measure to collapse buildings. A more accurate way would add up something like the square of the blast, to make small rounds largely irrelevant and the largest ones the only ones likely to result in collapse. They should be far more robust against blast ratings under 50 or so, and somewhat more robust (especially larger and heavy building types) against even the big shells. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>undefined

really good idea, drawing arrow overlays 'n stuff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Don't forget, too, that compared to the Wirbelwind, the Ostwind has more ammo, slightly better armor, and slightly better armor penetration with its AP rounds. It costs the same as the Wirbelwind. All told, the Ostwind is an extremely effective weapon in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree it's a very good vehicle in CM, but it's not always available. I still think that the building destruction abilities of these flak vehicles are a quirky, unrealistic, gamey result of poor algorithms. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: CMPlayer: Don't forget that what you see on the screen and what the program uses internally are often quite different. If you go down to "realistic" scale, you might get a better idea of how much cover is available. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, but then also don't forget that those 3 little guys are actually 9-12 men. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: The lack of diversity in Allied squads, while historical according to TOE's does not reflect the field adaptations that were very much widespread during the War. Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> American Scrounger Squad: Weapon__________40m____100m____250m____500m 6 BAR___________204_______156_____ 90______42 6 Thompson SMG___270_______54 _____ -_____ - Total Firepower___474_____288______90____ 42 :eek: --Rett [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

If you use a 'road through forest' tile in what is otherwise open ground, you get the bizarre side effect of troops advancing along the side of the road with full forest cover, despite the fact that the strip of trees is exremely narrow. Hardly a forest. (It's actually clever as a way of representing a deep ditch, but then I'd rather see a 'road with deep ditch tile' which doesn't block LOS. Location:in ditch) I'm not complaining, but that sort of thing could get really strange if CM2 uses 5x5 tiles. Given the way troops run for cover, it's gonna be 'pack em in boys!'.

1) Shorten the time limit. Attacker more pressed for time, rushes, less accurate recon, etc. This, however could get boring so maybe BTS could... 2) Put the victory flags more deeply into the defender's zone and deepen the set-up zone for the defender. This would be an easy change to implement, and ought to reward defenders who think in depth, and can conduct a mobile defence. (to be more specific, one could start by doubling the width of the defender's set-up zone, putting probe VL's where attack VL's used to be, attack VL's where assault Vl's used to be and so on. Try it out for play balance and adjust as necessary) 3) When setting up an attack QB, the defender sees several alternate maps and gets to choose one of them. This could enhance his terrain advantage. --Rett

Stockholm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: I do it all the time, coarse I play against the AI. In real life like several guys have already pointed out- would depend on the crews involved but I would think most wouldn't go hunting infantry with pistols unless the damn officer made them. But on the other hand if said infantry were in the way, they just might have to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A funny thing about this is that as long as the crew still has its main gun, they have no qualms about capturing routed enemy units which are at quite a distance from their gun. You can hear them shouting 'hands up' and the like, and you get a prisoner. So it seems already built into the game that some guys in the gun crew take care of security issues in their immediate vicinity. But then the crew is more 'abstracted' meaning that every last man might not be at the site of the crew icon. Some might be getting ammo, taking a leak OR toting small arms weapons to capture some routed enemy soldiers nearby. So this kind of behavior is already taking place while all the guns are intact, but needs to be done 'by hand' once some of the crews are freed up by losing their main weapon. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: A few 1-2 lb HE charges are not going to bring down a 2-4 story brick or concrete building, even if you planted them on supports, which tank fire through a wall does not do. CM seems to use a cumulative total HE charge received measure to collapse buildings. A more accurate way would add up something like the square of the blast, to make small rounds largely irrelevant and the largest ones the only ones likely to result in collapse. They should be far more robust against blast ratings under 50 or so, and somewhat more robust (especially larger and heavy building types) against even the big shells. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly! Thanks for expressing this so well. I find it irksome to say the least that the simulation quality of CM is so comprimised in urban fighting by this mistaken algorithm in calculating building damage. It is too linear, and simply sums up blast values, which leads to absurd effects, like the wirbelwind being the best blockbuster vehicle in the game. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Accounts of .50's tell us that they could tear appart a small building in a couple of minutes using solid bullets just by ripping the supporting timbers to pieces. I can't see that a 20mm would do any less, and I imagine a quad 20mm would do it in about 1/4 teh time!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but the issue here isn't small buildings built of timbers, it is large stone blockhouses. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: I can't see either vehicle you mention used in it's historic role as a block-buster, except perhaps in some isolated incident. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting post. My question, for you and anyone else is, are these results a realistic performance for these vehicles? I just can't picture 20mm cannons doing that kind of structural damage to large stone apartment buildings in such a short time, not even if you take into account the 'time compression' of CMBO. thx, --Rett [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Forget about that, what about the fact that you get better armor with the Stug than the Wirble. That should equal everything out. P.S.--I'd like to request a comparison between the Wirble and the Ostwind. With a 37mm gun, and about the same points, it seems the Ostwind would always be the way to go.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ask and ye shall receive. The Ostwind was just a little bit slower than the Wirble at taking down buildings in the new test. Both flak vehicles knocked down a total of 5 buildings with their ammo. The OW reduced the sixth to **, the WW its sixth to *. I also threw in a mark IV. It reduced one building to rubble and made ** of the second. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: Based on pure speculation. FYI, ran a test. The StuH takes about 10 secs longer to destroy a building than the Wirbilwind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just ran the same test...you can see it in a new thread. regards, --Rett

(sorry if this has been discussed to death before) I've recently played a number of games defending as allied airborne, in towns, against German combined arms attacks. Typically, my opponents chose StuH's, and employed their 105mm to try bring as many buildings down as possible. This is a poor choice if looked at just from the point of view of demolition power. This test was to compare the abilities of the StuH and the Wirbelwind at demolishing large heavy buildings. The vehicles were purchased with standard ammo load and were regular quality. Two rows of heavy buildings are set up, one for the WW and one for the Stuh. The frontmost building in each line is area-fired, targetting the center of the upper-story facade. No rounds missed their targets. When a building was brought down, the next building behind it was targetted, (LOS only being possible because of the collapse of the previous building) The WW consistently brought down large heavy buildings after 2 minutes and 5 seconds. The StuH required 2 minutes and 30 seconds to do the same job. The big difference however is in the total amount of work done. The StuH's ammo was enough to demolish 2 buildings and reduce 1 to ** level. The WW reduced 4 buildings to rubble, set two on fire(one of which was already at **) and reduced a seventh to ** status. (it had to move, to get LOS to targets behind burning buildings) So the StuH, at a cost of around 78 pts, made 3 buildings inhospitable for infantry, while the WW, at about 105 pts, did the same, faster, to 7 buildings, more than twice as many, for less than half again the cost. Does this reflect how these vehicles would perform in real life? It seems backwards to me, but I have no personal experience by which to judge. thx, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mlapanzer: As for game play. It very most likely would not matter much to the outcome of the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a good point, though in a sense it could make a difference. Eliminating routed squads is a great way to reduce your opponents global moral. This can have a cascade effect across the whole battlefield. Just as, ideally every round of HE you buy should find a target (to play efficiently, and hence win) you don't want guys sitting around doing nothing the whole game. If the crews can take over basic security chores around their position, that increases your overall effectiveness. It's the little things that can add up to a win. But I guess now I am getting really too gamey. thx, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: This thread talks a bit about building destruction. Remember also that the CM depiction of a building collapse does not neccessarily mean the whole building collapsed. Could be just a wall or two came down. The end result is that the building is no longer habitable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The end result is also that the building no longer blocks LOS at the second story or above. I call that effectively collapsing the whole building. As pointed out in the thread you redirected to, there is already a *, and ** code to warn of stages of building destruction before it actually falls down and squishes the guys in it. The LOS issue is quite important if you are planning a defence where certain positions need to be shielded from long range direct-fire HE. Make sure to know in advance that his AA is more efficient than professional demolition crews at opening up vistas in city blocks composed of large stone buildings. This isn't a complaint, since there are other examples of time compression in the game. I just wonder if it is funny that a wirbelwind, because of its high rate of fire, is a more efficient building killer, in relative terms, than, say a StuH. The problem could be that building damage is simply added up, based on all the blast values that have been incurred on the building. Whereas some small blasts, should be seen as being under a threshold level which doesn't cause serious structural damage (within CM's time-frame) though it might make the living room look like hell. High rate of fire wouldn't help if you were tossing firecrackers; somewhere there ought to be a cutoff. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4 20mm cannons firing on a building could do a lot of damage in 90 seconds, in my opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is that opinion based on having fired a 20mm, or watching one being used? --Rett [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: what I will do is set up the most effective defense possible according to the terrain (NOT the flags), and If I get flanked or threatened to be enveloped I run off the map. Protect and preserve your force to fight another day. This works particularly well in operations. Sometimes people fight just for the sake of fighting, but fighting your force down to nothing in one 30-45 minute battle is something I would call ahistorical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, but the fact that you are on a QB map playing 'defend' could be taken as meaning that you have received orders to hold out for 30 (or however many it is) turns and not fall back. Maybe the cavalry is on its way or something. That said, I agree it is a shame that the maps are too shallow to allow much in the way of shoot 'n scoot, ambush and fall back tactics in QB's. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tiborhead: I suppose it could happen, and may have actually taken place, but if I was one of the survivors I'd be charging for the rear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This routed german squad was _between_ the crews' position and the rear. Also there was still an active gun (firing 'backwards', towards a friendly map edge) which needed protection in case infantry could show up from the 'front' side. The position's own supporting platoon was not presently available. The crews had nowhere to hightail it to. AND if the routed german squad were to recover it could have posed a threat to the survival of the remaining gun. So six vets packing pistols and plenty of ammo went down and did what had to be done. I'm just curious if such circumstances might add up to enough to justify the maneuver against a human player. thx, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: I don't think I have much of a problem with the way CM models the destruction of buildings. Think of how many 75mm shells it would take until your house collapsed. I'd say 5 or so shots would pretty much reduce my house to a pile of rubble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After a game I ran some tests and a WIRBELWIND could take down a large heavy building in about a minute and a half. I have no idea if this is realistic but it sounds strange. I could see it putting a lot of ugly holes in the facade, and ruining the flower boxes, but _demolishing_ a 3-story stone structure in 90 seconds? regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: So would they be walking backwards or firing over their shoulder? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They run-turn-fire, run-turn-fire. regards, --Rett

What I mean is something like this: 2 vet crews from knocked-out AT guns, with three guys left each, take their pistols and charge 100 meters to the bushes where what appears to be a routed enemy infantry squad is hiding. They then chase them around for a few turns until the enemy is eliminated. This is at the mopping-up stage of the game, and not a lot of fire is likely to be directed at the crews from the main area of fighting. Also, there was no chance of other enemy units being in the immediate proximity. Am I being a gamey SOB? It was fun as hell, and I thought of the crews as providing security for the one remaining gun. Routed squads should be close assaulted, if at all possible, before they can recover. What if all you've got are crews to do it? I'm mainly wondering two things: is it realistic, and is it 'fair' in a competitive match. thx, --Rett [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

You attack on very open ground with vet polish airborne. No off board arty or vehicles. I defend with low quality german infantry, no off boardarty or vehicles. You get 25% attacker's force bonus, but you are in a hurry: 15 turns. We are simulating your paratroopers just assembling and getting off their drop zone. You will have a chance to practice holding your platoons together, using mortar and MG support, advancing under overwatch, and other basic techniques of the game. You will be under constant fire, but you have higher quality troops and a numerical superiority. Sounds interesting? E-mail me and I'll send a setup, or we can negotiate the details further. regards, --Rett