Sgt. Beavis

That is what I have thought about... The flaking is based up on some calculation, along with any resultant casualties. It seems that I hardly ever take crew casualties when it happens though. I do tend to use German stuff. Perhaps the vehicle interiors were larger on average, thus reducing the chance of shrapnel hitting an unfortunate crewmember. I believe that both the Tiger and Panther are larger than the Sherman. Not sure about the PzIV. Just thought of another issue, somewhat related. How often do you guys take a penetrating hit w/ casualties on a vehicle, and the crew does not bail out? I have had that happen a few times, but again not very often. Which makes sense, I'm not debating the realism Just wondering about frequency of the event.

I've played the game quite a few times, and the message of 'internal armor flaking' comes up fairly often because of non-penetrating hits. But I think I've only had crew casualties from it one time out of the many times it's happened. I'm wondering what other people have experienced regarding that. Just a bit curious today.

I believe the inital debate started with the idea that FTs should be an integral part of engineer squads...which of course they were. Someone posted some information to that effect, at least as it related to German assault/engineer squads. Unfortunately, such important information was generally ignored in the original thread. It defies common sense to say that 2 men would be sent off on their own, 50 meters away from other friendly infantry, while assaulting an enemy position. I think that they would instead be within the engineer squad itself. As it is in CM, engineers are quite pathetic while engaged in close quarters fighting, which does not strike me as being correct. Part of it stems from the fact that satchel charges seem to be less effective than they should be, but also the lack of an integral flamethrower within the squad. Yes, if FTs were added to engineer squads they should be slower. So what? I'd actually consider buying engineer squds then, since ****** they would be able to do much more effectively what they were formed and trained to do, i.e., attack strong positions. ****** They would use the FTs automatically, just as grenades are used automatically at a certain range. As for the issue of increasing FT survivability...yes, of course. That's the whole point. As the gentleman who informed us of his... Father's? Grandfathers? experience in Russia, FTs were not sent off by themselves. They were part of an assault or engineer squad. The rest of the squad was there to provide fire support, and the guy with the FT made use of it while within the squad. If the guy with the FT happens to be hit, well then the game should model the FT as being destroyed, and the engineer squad loses an important asset. Then they can toss their satchel charges The current price point of the FTs should remain the same, and the engineer squads should have a little FT icon in their information panel, kinda like a German squad has an icon for a panzerfaust.

Heh heh heh... heh heh.... I have a sticky bomb in my pants, sir. We'll teach those Sauerkrauts a lesson.

ok.... 1) How are 2 man panzerschreck and bazooka teams visible in woods from 300 meters away? Or even 150 m away? No enemy tank or infantry unit should see them unless they fire. but somehow, when i have a 2 man team crawling thru woods, 900 feet away from the nearest enemy, they're spotted and they get hammered by all available weapons. Yea right... they would be invisible at that range. A full squad of 8-12 guys in woods would be invisible at 300 m too, unless they were running around in circles firing their weapons into the air. This aspect of amazing visibility in the game desperately needs to be changed a bit. it's totally unrealistic. 2) Please tone down the superhuman platoon and company leaders. I have played many games while witnessing a platoon leader charge through machine gun and rifle fire over open ground, at short range, and somehow survive. Numerous other games see a platoon leader in a foxhole...with all the squads under his command destroyed or routed... and with the firepower of my entire platoon focused on them... and the enemy platoon leader is returning fire, inflicting casualties, and remains unsurpressed. the lack of supression is a bit...asinine. come on...it's 4 guys, armed with 2 pistols, an smg, and a rifle. They can not and should not stand up to lots of fire. 3) Nearly destroyed units should almost never fire at enemies...they should surrender or run away. Yet in the game, it is extremely common for a squad or machine gun team with 2 guys left to continue the fight. No way. The 4 corpses of your fellow machine gunners are lying around you, and you're still firing the gun? While in open ground? While...again...an entire infantry platoon is firing at you? And somehow these supermen arent surpressed at all, either. please no talk of fanaticism. I didnt say that a decimated unit should ALWAYS surrender or run away. but it should happen very often, and it doesnt in the current game. And if they are fanatics...or berserk... they dont stop bullets any more effectively. This, as much as i hate to say it... reminds me of steel panthers, world at war. an infantry squad or crew with 2 guys left would still be firing at you in that game. Um... no. They'd be busy cleaning out their pants and desperately trying to hide or surrender. The last thought on their minds would be to continue fighting. I say that a squad with 2 or 3 guys left should be rendered "combat ineffective" and unable to do anything for the remainder of the game, except to run off the map. Or die, if they happen to be caught in a crossfire or in artillery barrages. But...they should not fight anymore. Maybe...a 1% chance of them going crazy and firing their weapons at someone. That's it. Same goes for crews, machine gun teams, and mortars. 4) allow for placement of AT guns, infantry guns, and AFVs inside buildings. It was done very often during WW2, and anyone interested can look up dozens of photographs and testimonials showing this to be true. 5) the 81 mm mortar seems to be a hell of an AT weapon. near misses will fairly often immobilize or gun damage AFVs. The damage those rounds caused was based around a principle of FRAGMENTATION, not pure explosive power. Shrapnel will not immobilize a tank. nor will it shear off the gun tube. Perhaps an antenna, or a TC's head. but that's about all i can imagine. Of course a 155 mm might do some significant damage. There is a lot more HE involved in that case. but my doubts have to do with small caliber mortars. anyway... i think it's a great game overall, and i will purchase the next one. but... please make some changes with regards to some of the things above. they seem sensible to me, and would help make the game more realistic.

This has been brought up before... and I don't think we've seen a BTS response to it. Well I haven't anyway I'd like for Steve or someone else to respond to this issue. I agree that armor quality should be random. Not EVERY single Panther had armor 85% of full quality. Some were worse, some were better. Same thing should apply to early war Shermans, and every armored vehicle in the game, actually. Obviously, the period of the war in question will have an effect on the CHANCE of defective armor, but it shouldn't be an absolute, and if the computer dice say that the armor should be less than what it is rated, the amount of difference should be random. Late war German stuff should start to have more occurences of defective armor, but not all Panthers, stugs, etc. will suffer from this problem. Also...DON'T TELL THE PLAYER THAT A PARTICULAR VEHICLE HAS ARMOR OF LESSER QUALITY! It would be realistic that way, and add in a nice randomness element. Subtle, yet potentially important. Anyway, I'm done for now. Steve, Charles, MadMatt.... we need your input

Ah, thanks for the info I know I should have used the search, but it almost never moves faster than a startled sloth when I look for something

I've noticed this a bunch of times. I have a sniper in the top floor of a building. He fires once... and immediately everyone sees him. The nearest enemy troops are at least 200 meters away. There's no way that could happen. A single guy, hidden in a building...fires one time, and is immediately spotted. I'm aware of the issues concerning relative spotting, but that isn't the point. NO ONE should be able to see a sniper after he fires one time, unless the spotter happens to be very close. That's my thought, anyway.

How would 2 guys crawling around 500 m away be spotted in the first place?

I noticed this as well. Should be pretty interesting to watch. When you think about it, the Soviets overcame a lot of adversity in the first year or so of the war...

Thanks for the info guys It is appreciated.

1) How do you save a randomly generated battle, so that you can play it again, or from the other side? Is this possible in the current CM? I've tried, and it seems that it isn't possible. 2) Ok, let X be a large building, you know, the two story square shaped ones. In a town, with a configuration like this, XX or XX XX or any situation that has buildings exactly adjacent to each other, it seems impossible to have a squad move from the left most building directly into the right building. Instead, they will go outside the building on the left...move to the right, and then enter the new building instead of remaining inside. Now, I suspect this might be an attempt to simulate the lack of access directly through the buildings... ie, no doorways. However, one can run into a single building by itself from any direction, and doorways or windows arent an issue. So if the lack of a path is the issue when buildings are adjacent, then the whole mechanism for entering buildings needs to be reworked, since the lack of a path isnt an issue with single buildings. Anyway, any commentary is welcome. Thanks

once this is resolved, one of the few major simulation innaccuracies will be gone. this is an irritating problem, but perhaps for the russian front it will be better, along with MG issues. bruce robert must play a game with me, and i will teach him the meaning of armored warfare.

Ahhh. I see.... I guess I have to upload the pic then to a separate page. Thank you sir.

I did a search, but the search function didn't work the couple times I tried it. I have a screen shot from the game i'd like to share, but I'm not sure how to insert it into a post on the forum. I've tried cutting and pasting it, no luck. Help.

The idea of artillery shelters is also interesting. I believe jason pointed that out. Obviously this wouldnt apply to meeting engagements, but for defensive scenarios they would be interesting to see. In addition, the attacking forces could make use of them upon capture. It would be fun to play CM2 in a little town, and having those nasty little Russian 45mm ATGs hidden all over. Interesting early war stuff on the eastern front.

Thanks everyone for the comments and info. Any others who have opinions...join in, tell me what you think

Hi everyone. I posted one of these ideas earlier, but I think it was overlooked for the most part. I've since thought of two others. #1 At the end of a battle, the score and loss data should show up as usual. However, the player(s) should be given the option to continue the battle, and the score and loss values will not be affected as the battle continues. I dislike not being able to sometimes fight a battle to the bitter end/surrender of the enemy. Obviously, for a two player game, both people would have to agree to the continuation. #2 Allow for AT guns and tanks to occupy houses for cover. This would be a valuable aid for a defender, and was done all the time during WW2. Tanks would drive into a barn, or whatever, allowing them to remain concealed. Same goes for AT guns, and they would benefit from the protection of the surrounding building. #3 Reduce the spotting for buttoned tanks. Buttoned tanks generally seem to spot infantry/leg AT units quite well, sometimes a little too well. Spotting enemy armored units is reduced quite a bit when a tank is buttoned, but infantry spotting appears to remain the same. I enjoy playing the Wittmann scenario... Villers Bocage. I first noticed the difference in spotting behavior here. Mike would see enemy infantry all the time, at right angles to his forward facing, even while buttoned. However, he would fail to spot the 2 stuarts that were pinging away at his tank over and over while he was buttoned. This has happened a few times, and perhaps the phenomenon needs to be looked into. I will be doing a couple experiments myself out of curiosity. Anyway, there you go. I think that these three additions/changes will help improve the game a bit without much programming effort.

Way back when, around the ripe old age of 6, I was playing a game on the Commodore 64 called Battle of the Bulge. I think that was the title. I was curious if anyone remembers this. It's been a very long time, but I remember it being a fun game. You could play either the Allied or German forces, and you would set waypoints, and there was artillery, weather factors, air support, supply lines, terrain effects, etc. I wish I still had a copy. I remember going crazy sitting through 2nd grade, thinking about playing the game, and what I would try differently the next time. Ahhh, the memories. To be a kid again, and to just play games all day without responsibility

I got around to thinking that in CM2, the option should be there for a player to continue fighting after the "official" end of the scenario. No points or kills would be affected after the offical end, but one could still move their units and fight them, to the bitter end/surrender of the opposing forces. This sort of thing was possible in the old game Perfect General. Anyone remember that one? I thought it was a nice feature. Obviously, for a two player game, both people would have to agree to the continuation. I just think it would add another little something to the game, and it wouldn't require much coding to implement. Thoughts? PS Any of you old Perfect General people remember the scenario Patton Kicks Butt? I loved playing that one as both sides. As the defender, I would place mines across all the bridges. Then I'd watch the computer's forces drive back and forth the whole game. lol..pretty funny. Wargaming has come a long way thanks to BTS.

Thanks Freak, and Jason, for the info. It would be fun to sometimes make use of such an ungodly weapon. We'll have to see if BTS includes it though.

I was curious if this weapon would be included in CM2. I'm not referring to the Jagdtiger, but to an AT gun, like the 88mm ATG. I don't have any numbers available, and I'm guessing that the numbers of such 128mm ATGs were low, but perhaps they should be included. Any comments or info would be appreciated. thanks

(1/2)*M*V^2 gives you kinetic energy. ok... Jeep is about 1 ton or so. PzIV/70 is...30 tons? maybe. In the example cited, jeep is traveling at a fast pace, let's say 20mph. PzIV/70 is hunting at 5mph. jeep ke = 200 tons*mph^2. which isnt a unit. but the numbers still apply. so Jeep KE = 200 M(Jeep)*V(Jeep) = 20 PzIV/70 KE = 375 M(PzIV)*V(PzIV) = 150 the jeep would disintegrate upon impact...the crew wouldnt get a chance to bail out, they'd be in pieces. the tank crew would feel it, but the 30 tons they have surrounding them creates considerably more inertia than the jeep. Now this sort of thing didn't happen all that often, 'tis true. But tank crews did run over stuff, and i've read accounts of russian and german tanks in close range fighting resorting to ramming. Whether or not that's true, I'm not sure. the catastrophic effects of vehicles hitting each other should be modeled though, and i do believe that tanks or other AFVs should be able to run down infantry in the open, or mortars, field pieces, etc. since it probably happened from time to time. Now a few of you have mentioned that while on road marches the AI will ensure that tanks run into each other... well, that should be improved if the game is to calculate effects of collisions so that you don't lose half your armored force due to accidents. anyway, i'm done for now. bye bye

Interesting posts. I have to say that some of the tests that support the argument that HTs are much more difficult to kill in 1.12 than in earlier versions are rather convincing. I'm tempted to make a test myself and see what happens Havent yet experimented with the game that way, but I think I will soon. Anyway, carry on. I shall read the posts as the appear.

I understand the desire behind a new command like this. However... I think that a new command isn't needed, and perhaps the TacAI just needs to be tweaked a little. For example, let's say I have 2 M8s in an ambush position. This will be the "control," so to say. Now, there will be two possibilites in this scenario... 1) They encounter a Tiger 2) They encounter a group of German HTs, Spw 351, or whatever. In the case of 1, the TacAI should instruct the M8s to fire a round, and then drive as fast as they can in the opposite direction. This still serves one of the purposes of an ambush, as it will slow down the advance of the enemy. In the case of 2, the TacAI should instruct the M8s to continue firing after the first round, as there is not yet an immediate threat to their existence. I believe that in real life most commanders of the M8s would withdraw anyway after a few rounds in situation 2, despite the apparent lack of a threat. One would not press his luck, and would probably withdraw to safety. Of course, experience and morale could affect this decision to a great extent. I believe the AI does something similar to this. I have had some situations though where my vehicle(s) in question took more time than I think would be reasonable to withdraw. Sometimes the AI does a good job, sometimes not, but then again in real life some people did a good job, and others did not