Sgt. Beavis
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Sgt. Beavis
-
-
I like the idea of being able to use the covered arc command with the move to contact command. I'm not an expert programmer, and I haven't seen code for CM, but I don't believe it would be too difficult a change to make. Perhaps someone from BTS will stop by and comment on this, and maybe we'll see it in the upcoming patch.
I can't really think of any reason why the two commands SHOULDN'T be combined, as mentioned above.
-
I've noticed this too... The infantry units in the game will decide to cross 100 m of open ground instead of simply crawling forward a few meters to break LOS or get into the house/tree line/foxhole they were initially advancing towards.Originally posted by Switch_Back:I dont not have much problem with the infantry going to "sneak" when under fire, I have more of a problem when they are next to some viable cover so sometimes go in the opposite direction.
An example of a recent problem I had was approaching a house in "advance" almost as soon as the platoon was about to reach the stone wall outside the house, a bloody MG42 opens fire and lets rip on them, so what do they do, NO they dont crawl behind the wall where its safe, insted they decide to crawl back into OPEN country
can someone plzz sympathize lol
And I agree with those who think that "sneaking" exhausts troops too fast
Especially a big problem with HMG or light mortar teams that take fire. -
Ok, I think the death-clock is realistic....so I don't mind when my tanks continue to fire at an enemy vehicle after penetrating it once.
However... My guys seem to be mentally retarded. At a range of 150 meters, after having struck the non-moving enemy one time already, with good optics, and a veteran crew, they went on to miss 2 out of 4 successive shots. How is that possible? No one else was firing at them. The target was already locked in. They're vets with good optics, 150 m from the target.
And this wasn't a one-time happening. My guys do seem to be retarded, managing to miss a stationary target at close range that has already been zeroed in with a hit.
-
Thanks for the heads up. That's great
CM shall take over the gaming world. -
never mind
[ September 24, 2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Beavis ]
-
I was wondering if anyone had some comments regarding changes to the AI.
I have played a couple quick battles, all infantry, attacking the Soviets while playing first the Hungarians and then the Romanians.
The AI seems to hold its fire now, and waits until you are much closer, thus giving more of an ambush effect. It also seems more aggressive, and times counter attacks better. While playing as the Romanians, I assaulted a light building containing a pinned Soviet recon squad with a regular cavalry squad. I was beating up on them, but then another Soviet squad came running out of a nearby forest, counter-assaulted and killed my guys, then went on to kill my platoon leader who was just running in the building to keep my assaulting squad in command, and thusly secured the VL again.
Perhaps Steve or another BFC person could comment and give us a short list of AI improvements, if any.
-
I'm waiting too...I'm near Chicago. Arrrrghhh my patience is being seriously challenged
-
Hey guys,
Thank you very much for the info. I love this forum, so many helpful people. Sounds very positive with respect to Athlon and Asus configs.
I will probably go with WinXP then over ME.
Thanks again,
Joseph
-
Anyone have this configuration? How does it work with CMBO and CMBB? How about with games in general? I have heard that Athlons might have issues with software on occasion.
I'm about to purchase a new computer, and I'm probably going with an Athlon system (once the 2700+ is available). I've read that VIA is a good board make to use with the Athlon, but I've read that ASUS is a good manufacturer as well.
Also... this is more of a general question... If I were to get WinME, would newer games not perform as well, compared to a system using WinXP? Are the functional relationships between DirectX and the OS faster or more advanced in XP?
-
Anyone know if you can place AT guns inside buildings while defending? Or AFVs inside buildings? I seem to remember it being said a while ago that these things would be possible in CMBB.
-
Ahhhh, someone has taken up my recent crusade
For what it's worth, Fly Pusher, I agree with your sentiments. I was playing the tutorial as the Germans (just for fun, I know it's not meant to be played as the Germans) and my AT gun had 4 front turret penetrations on a T-34. A 5th hit, that took out the main gun (since it stopped firing HE after that event but continued with MG), a few more ricochets, and a fifth penetrating hit to the front turret (none of these were partial penetrations). The tank didn't even back away from my gun.
At the end of the game, I saw that the crew had one casualty as well. I'm sorry, but it is beyond belief to suggest that 2 guys in a turret, seeing 5 (!) holes successively punched through their front turret armor (I'd respectfully suggest that these hits would be noticed...full penetrations, right in front of your face), having their main gun taken out, and one of those guys getting his arm taken off by shell fragments... and they still don't leave the tank. They were only a regular crew as well.
I'd hate to see if that T-34 was crewed by an elite group of men. I'd need a tactical nuclear weapon to be dropped on the turret roof to force them to abandon it, the way the armor rules are now.
-
Also a good post... I think your last paragraph reflects some of the difficulty in getting a handle on how often and in what situation a crew would bail out of the tank. Always a different set of circumstances.Originally posted by Mike:Personally I think one of het erasons we have lots of accounts about crews staying in is because it was unusual - the "norm" doesn't get written about much.
however that said there were plenty of incentives to staying in a tank that wasn't actually burning - everyone apparently happily machine gunned enemy crews escaping KO'd vehicles, for example, and I'm sure that fate would be in their mind.
So I don't think there's a simple solution - lots of things go into the "mix", but I suspect the 2 most important ones are the crews perception of their chances inside vs their chances outside.
-
-
Interesting... I would say the physical damage from the larger round would be more, but I'm mostly concerned with the morale effect. That would remain the same. In each case, you have a hole in the turret, and you are now aware that someone is firing at you with a weapon that can defeat your armor, not to mention that you are a big fat target, the center of everyones' attention (as tanks always are). Not good for your morale state.Originally posted by Andreas:Err, I think there maybe a tiny difference between a Sherman in 1944 receiving a penetrating hit from a 75L40, and a Panzer III in 1942 receiving a penetrating hit from an ATR or a 45mm gun. The difference being that the tank crew stands a good chance to survive the next hit in the second case, but has used up all their luck for this battle in the first case, if they survived. They have to weigh the risk of staying inside against the risk of receiving a nice burst from a Maxim if they bail, and that could really ruin their day. So examples from late war are not necessarily a good guide to early war happenings.
-
Well, you keep saying that. Funnily, you are the one who has not brought any concrete example (I could give you 1(!), but I won't). Instead you tell us your unshakeable belief. Well, being the agnostic type, I go with the examples.</font>Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:
Aarrrghhh! These are isolated examples, and very rare ones. I never claimed crews NEVER fought after their tank was penetrated. It happened, but not much at all...versus the number that bailed immediately upon penetration.
-
I think the deathclock is a good feature; firing until the tank is definitely on fire or you see the crew jump out is quite realistic. I just think that crews usually shouldnt remain with the vehicle once it is penetrated.Originally posted by dizee:[QB]is this realy a whining thread about the deathclock?
lol its one of the fines new features in armored combat in cmbb, and its perfectly realistic.
QB]
-
Agreed. And let me add to the list of examples the case of a Matila I crew in the Arras counter-attack who, finding that it was disconcerting to have daylight showing through the armour where an AP round had penetrated their tank, bunged up the hole with a pair of socks and carried on.Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:
[snips]
You have an unshakable belief that marginal penetrations are that panic inducing to trained Tank crewmen, plus some vaguely referred to percentages that quite likely don’t exist. With this well researched argument you expect BTS to agree to your point of view. Good luck mate.
All the best,
John.</font>
-
Well actually I don't agree, at all. I've got well-trained British tankers waiting for the order to withdraw in spite of turret/hull penetrations and not receiving the order because the Troop commander’s tank is unseen and on fire. Finally receiving the order from the Sqn commander.Originally posted by Bastables:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:
[Definitely interesting, but far from what normally happened. It goes against human nature to remain in a vehicle that has been hit and penetrated. Sure, some crews were fanatical, angry and wanting to take a few enemies with them, or what have you.
But most normal crews would bail. I don't have a number or percentage to give you, but I'm pretty confident that you'd agree when I say it was the vast majority. Most certainly did not stay with the vehicle after getting penetrated, no matter how big or small the round was.
I’ve got anecdotes of PIVs in Normandy receiving a turret hit that penetrated blowing open the side hatches, which the crew glibly closed and then drove off. I have photos of a PIV with a hull penetration above the drives vision block with a head bandaged driver smiling at the camera. Anecdotes of IS-2 receiving a turret hit killing the loader and forcing the wounded Commander and gunner to bail while the driver calmly reverses him self out of the Tigers field of fire.
You have an unshakable belief that marginal penetrations are that panic inducing to trained Tank crewmen, plus some vaguely referred to percentages that quite likely don’t exist. With this well researched argument you expect BTS to agree to your point of view. Good luck mate.[/QB]</font>
-
Well I think vets are capable of being scared just as greens are capable of being scared. They are human beings, not robots.Originally posted by TSword:Conscript or Green may bail out, but surely not a veteran crew !
During reading of Nipe's Last Victory, the german tanks were hit quite frequently insuring somebody inside and never did the crew bail unless tank was burning and had to be abandoned, instead they drived into safety first.
The same for Assault Guns (Forget the name of author): Many times the StuG's were penetrated by 14.5 mm ATR's, the crews then tried first to drive into safety but surely didn't bail (Meaning to be slaughtered immediately..)
In Tigers for instance it was barely noticeable if one was hit by ATR's or 45 mm guns as stated by several tancrews, because noise of tank and the battlefield.
Nothing has therefore to be changed IMO (I would rather go crazy...)
Greets
Daniel
When you panic, you don't think logically. You don't weigh the pros and cons of bailing from your tank; all youre thinking about is to leave the tank. The examples you mentioned involve crews that were not panicked. A rather uncommon thing after your tank has a hole knocked in it, usually by an enemy you haven't even seen.
You don't have to take my word for it, tankers who were there in battle will say the same thing I have been saying in this thread.
They bailed when their tank was penetrated. It was very rare for a crew to remain in the tank and continue fighting. And to be honest, if they did, they'd just die. The AT gun or whatever would simply keep putting rounds through the turret until the tank blew up.
-
If they thought they were invulnerable, sure. When a round comes crashing through, it is apparent that you are not invulnerable to the unseen enemy firing at you. That will usually scare the crap out of normal people under intense stress to begin with, and they wouldn't hang around to see what happened next.Originally posted by Mike:IMO tank crews often stayed onboard if they thought they were relatively invulnerable.
Hnce the performance of various KV-1's and -2's in 1941!!
I reckon that a penetration might not actually be noticed by the crew - it might stop in a fuel tank, or the engine crank case, or stored ammo or the crew's gear, especially if it was a small round with low energy remaining after it got through all that armour.
Who's gonna go look for 14.5mm holes in the middle of battle?? "Clang" - hey - we got hit!! anyone hurt?? no?? well keep bloody shooting then........
Now I agree that some hull penetrations from the rear with, say, ATR rounds might barely hit the engine and not do anything too horrible to the tank or crew. A front turret penetration with a 37, 45, 47, or 50 mm round would be quite another matter, I believe. You'd be aware of it, and you'd be aware of the fact a weapon is capable of going through your armor. Said weapon is also going to continue firing at you until the tank blows up since they are also scared normal people not wanting to die.
I don't think many crews remained with their vehicles after a round came through the armor.
-
‘ Immediately thereafter a 52 ton tank that hadn’t previously been noticed fired at Lt Hein’s Panzer. In the exchange of fire, Lt Hein’s Panzer was hit on the turret cupola but wasn’t penetrated. Lt Hein also hit the turret of the 52-ton tank several times. It was later determined that these were clean penetrations. The crew abandoning the enemy tank were killed.’ (1996 Jentz p229).Originally posted by Bastables:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:
I think this new "feature" is a bit wrong. It doesn't matter how big the penetrating round is, in terms of morale.
If the crew sees a 14.5 mm hole in the turret or a 45 mm one, it shouldn't matter. They're not gonna think about it. "Well, it's a small round, so it's not so dangerous. it just penetrated my tank's armor, and the next rounds will be on target since the last one hit, but we'll just hang out in here like the brave soldiers we are."
Uh hell no. That just did not happen.
Maybe 1 time out of a thousand, because the crew was fanatical, they were desperate, whatever. But the other 999 times, they bailed out as fast as they could.
The Russian tank crew took several 7,5cm holes to the turret before making the decision to bail.
‘One of the two returning Tauchpanzer had a fist sized hole in the upper hull caused by an anti tank gun shell that was expediently sealed with wood splints to prevent water entering.’(1996 Jentz P202).
‘7. The fantastic combat morale of the Russian tank crews has led to having to destroy stationary tanks that had already been hit five or six times by sending in teams on foot to blow up the tanks with explosives. The Russian tank crews remained fighting in their tanks so long as their weapons could be fired.’ Experience Report by Pz-Regt 33, 31 July 42 (1996 Jentz pg243).
‘In the thick of it, my driver says, “The motor is no longer running properly, breaks not acting, transmission working only with great difficulty.”…… Just then we are hit and the radio set is smashed to bits…… From every side, the superior forces of the enemy shoot at us. “Retire.” There is a crash behind us. The motor and the Fuel tank are in the rear. The Panzer must be on fire. I turn around and look through the vision slit. It’s not burning………. We examined damage to the Panzer. My men extricate an APHE shell from the right wall by the fuel tank….. The fuel had run out without igniting.’ (1998 Jentz Pg111-112) From the Diary of LT Schrom detailing the failed assault on Toburk.
‘ENCOURAGE (SGT K.) recived a 47mm shell under the running board as it was withdrawing from the action; this severely wounded Trooper S., who died shortly after.’ (1998 Jentz pg94)</font>
-
I think this new "feature" is a bit wrong. It doesn't matter how big the penetrating round is, in terms of morale.
If the crew sees a 14.5 mm hole in the turret or a 45 mm one, it shouldn't matter. They're not gonna think about it. "Well, it's a small round, so it's not so dangerous. it just penetrated my tank's armor, and the next rounds will be on target since the last one hit, but we'll just hang out in here like the brave soldiers we are."
Uh hell no. That just did not happen.
Maybe 1 time out of a thousand, because the crew was fanatical, they were desperate, whatever. But the other 999 times, they bailed out as fast as they could.
-
I just wanted to be one of the first to post in here. Ahhhhh, I will be downloading the demo and life will be good.
Now if only Britney Spears and Ashley Judd would double team me.... things would be perfect.
[ August 31, 2002, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Beavis ]
-
Get a nice Radeon 9700 by ATI.
Expensive, but oh boy, lots of good stuff on that card. You'll be safe from any upgrading issues for at least 3 or 4 years, I bet.
Problems with HMG crew setup times and FT effectiveness
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Two Parts:
1) The HMG crews seem to have a bug related to the setup time. If you order a team to make a long move (one that isn't completed in just a turn), and issue another movement order the following turn, the HMG will stop at the end of the first waypoint for a few seconds to reflect the time delay of the newer 2nd order. During this time, the setup counter decreases. The HMG then gets up again, to implement the 2nd move order. However, the setup clock is not reset, and remains at the value just prior to the beginning of the 2nd move. I think BTS needs to look at it
2)
I have gotten FTs in a couple of defensive QBs, and the FTs miss their shots... many times, it seems. They will fire 3 or 4 times in a row, "missing" the enemy (so far this has happened against enemy infantry, not sure about vehicles). The enemy unit isn't hurt or suppressed by these misses, and keeps pumping rounds at close range into my FT, usually killing it before it does any damage. A problem, perhaps? I would think that the FT should be able to at least suppress an enemy with the first shot, or at the latest the 2nd. It's extremely short range and my team was in a foxhole, unspotted, in an ambush position. They shouldn't have trouble at least scaring the crap out of the enemy on the first or 2nd shot, not the 4th or 5th.