c3k

HIDE basically keeps your spotting abilities very low. That's not a good idea. My visual is of a child who "hides" by placing their hands over their eyes. The game effect is similar . Instead, as ZBPII posted, set cover arcs; your men will assiduously scan that terrain and they will be ready to fire upon anyone entering it.

I'd think visuals such as antennas would be a big giveaway. As well, the German tactical numbers on turret sides let us all know that "0" is a good aimpoint! Some early command tanks may've had extra bulges/boxes visible from outside to house the radio gear. Are these in the game? Regardless, I can see an argument being made either way. Ken

C'mon, stop playing hard to get! What was the range? Ken

So, does that mean FLARES are in the base game, or will they be added with the flaretruppen? in a module

Thanks. Because you KNOW I'll have to post about reticles and ranging with US weaponry! Ken

Elvis, Great thread! I love seeing it from each side as it unfolds. I agree with the first part. About the coax, I disagree. Didn't Elvis mention it was around 450m away? Kind of far for a coax in WWII, no? Thanks for doing this. Ken

We're hanging on the edge of our seats for each installment and you post a picture of a bucolic road?!?! Vere are ze tanks? Yeah, it is cool having the roads autolevel. I've noticed that in CMSF... This is a fun DAR. Thanks, Ken

Just addressing these with no deep thought. A delay could be based on three parameters: the total distance the movement order enpoint is from the startpoint; the total length of the movement path (The difference between the two highlighted by a unit moving in a straight line or a unit moving in a sweep, like a letter "C".) The last parameter could be the number of waypoints. There are pros and cons to each of the three approaches. (Note that I don't know if only one of the three should be used, or if the delay should be based on ALL three.) Next up... That's why I think each subordinate unit should have its delay "factor" based on its link with its superior echelon. If the squad is in close command of the platoon HQ and isn't trying to do something too complex/far away, then no delay. The same applies to the platoon HQ with regards to the company HQ, etc. Certainly nothing more than an initial cut at the complex issue of appropriate delay. However, how do we differentiate between German and Soviet delays? (For a concrete example of forces.) A national differences coefficient? If nothing else, this is an interesting idea to try to work through. Ken

ZPBII makes a lot of good points. I'll toss in a minor addition or two. In the urban settings, use General target type. That will allow better effects inside the buildings. If you have any 82mm, overlaying that on top of the 152mm strike at the saime time, but fuzed for Personnel, will clear out balconies and rooftops. The most important point is, as ZBPII said, "timing is everything." You need to develop a sense of how far your units can advance and preplot artillery strikes with that in mind. I find that using Soviet squads like US squads tend to leave a lot of dead Soviets. I've found that the best approach is to treat each Soviet squad like a fireteam; the platoon is manuevered and used as if it were a squad. I set my objectives, firing and moving with that in mind and I've done much better since I adopted that outlook. Night fighting? I've only played one scenario and it seemed that two things affect night vision. Moving units are spotted much more easily than stationary. I "think" units which have fired their weapons have a reduced spotting range. Flashblindness? Good luck! Ken

Two situations: 1. A squad, poorly led with no C&C links to HQ is alone in a small house. The enemy is approaching with 3 squads, one of which has a flamethrower (hey, we can hope). Would the squad just sit there? Would they run out the back door? Should the player, assuming many roles, in this case squad leader, HAVE to wait before the squad could run? 2. A platoon with poor leadership is positioned on a flank to defend against a possible enemy move. In game, it becomes apparent to the player that the platoon is positioned for a swift penetration into a momentary gap in the enemy's line. Should a platoon like that be able to execute a plan with that much aggressive initiative? Does a Stalinesque "stay here and defend" order prevent such an opportunistic movement? How do you balance low level reactions with higher level paralysis or rigidity? I don't think a straight time delay is the way to do it. Off hand thought: tie the delay, yes that would be needed, to the total command chain distance. If a squad, platoon, company, battalion are all very close, the squad would have a minimal delay to execute its movement. (I would not institute any delay for firing or other non-movement actions.) If the platoon is way off on a flank, I would think its ability to execute initiative would be reduced. In that case, all squads moving beyond a certain small range of the platoon HQ would incur a penalty. The platoon HQ, being beyond close range of the company HQ, would incur a penalty to its movement. I have not thought this through too thoroughly, but it would have the benefit of allowing the player to determine how responsive he wants his force to be: keep them tightly grouped and you get minimal delay; spread them out and you induce paralysis. The determining factor would be the distance each unit has to its parent HQ and then the distance that parent HQ has to the overall force HQ. (An overall onboard force HQ would need to be defined.) Edited to add: The level of command, close, far, voice, radio, as well as the hierarchy should be accounted for, as well. Here's a rough diagramatic illustration: Batt HQ --(link A)--> Company HQ --(link --> Platoon HQ --(link C)--> Squad If link C is close voice, then the squad would have no delay moving anywhere a short distance from its present location. The delay that gets incurred increases with the distance of the move. E.g., moving 10 meters, no delay. Moving 100 meters, delay. Moving 1,000 meters, BIG delay. If link C is far, then the squad gets a larger delay for every distance moved. Let's make up some numbers. If close, voice then distance/delays are: 10m/0sec;- 100m/10sec; 1,000m/100sec If far,--------- then distance/delays are: 10m/15sec; 100m/20sec; 1,000m/200sec Again, those are just numbers thrown up to illustrate a concept, not to define actual delays. For the Platoon HQ to move, it looks at link B. Close, voice and a short move? No delay. The delay magnitude is determined by the command link and the distance of the move. That precludes having to pre-determine an HQ's command ability for every position on the map. You merely check the command status of the unit at the time you give it an order. So, it's advantageous to be close, voice. However, even being close, voice does not give carte blanche, since the delay is calculated based on the TWO issues: command status AND distance of move. The expected effect would be that low level units, regardless of training, experience, or status would have minimal to no delay for tactical decisions. The greater autonomy a unit seeks, without command and control being robust, the worse off they are. So, that platoon HQ would really want to be near the Company HQ, as would the other platoons. So, let's see how this would work. You start with a company in front of a ridge. Everyone is close, voice. You order 1st Platoon HQ to advance 500 meters over the ridge (the distance to the movement order's endpoint). It's far, but 1st platoon is starting close to, and in the command of, it's higher HQ. Let's say a 500m move means a delay of 50 seconds - just for argument's sake. So, 50 seconds later, the platoon HQ starts moving. (You're not incompetent, so you ordered 1st platoon's squads to follow the same movement order.) All of 1st platoon completes the move some time later. Your endpoints for the initial movement order kept all the squads close to the 1st platoon HQ. There they sit, 500m away over a ridge. The platoon's squads can move normally, with regard to the platoon HQ, over there. They move, dig in, fight, whatever. But, you want to move 1st platoon over to its right some 100m. Well, THAT will take some time. It's link to Company HQ is broken (or poor), so all delays are exacerbated. The platoon HQ can move, but it will be delayed. A lot. Meanwhile, you ordered 2nd platoon forward 100m (with its squads). They had almost no delay. (That's the difference between, "Hey, lieutenant. Move your platoon over by that tree over there" and "Lieutenant, let's look at the map. I want your platoon to take up a forward position 1/2 a klick over that ridge. Let's review support procedures and 'what if' what I expect from you and your men over there." The first option is clear cut. The second takes some preparation, hence the delay.) 2nd platoon decides to move. Their link is better than 1st platoon's, but not as good as 3rd platoon's. They can move, but there'll be an intermediate delay (compared to the other two platoons). The tactical effect of this system would be good for a fixed defense, but a very rigid system for attack. Kind of like the Soviet army, huh? End of edit. Thoughts? Ken

Krilly, go ahead, take the plunge. At least try the CMSF demo. The game could be looked at as a training aid to get your skills up to speed before CMBN gets released. How embarrassing for you if the release finds you unable to properly command your troops! I can think of some other reasons to give it a try, but the demo should be a good start. Ken

Pz III/N - it was usually found as a support company within the various Tiger Battalions. The stubby 75 was useful to lob HE at targets in support of the Tigers. Obviously there's a LOT more information of a groggy nature about the III/N and its role in the TO&E. Ken

Okay, THAT was funny. Kind of. I got a laugh out of recommended specs for CMBO. Technology has changed very rapidly.

FWIW, I understand the desire to have misidentified units in the game. I have no idea how that would play. As stated above, if a PzIV is misidentified as a Tiger, that information disseminates through command links. When the initial unit correctly ID's it as a PzIV, how would that play? One unit "sees" a PzIV, another "sees" a Tiger. Remember, what you see is how it works. Targeting, penetration, hull down status, etc. In my dream world, I'd like <?> contacts to go through several levels of identification. I'd think an initial <?> would swiftly be discriminated into one of three types of <?>; infantry (men), wheeled vehicles, or tracked vehicles. Icons of men, trucks, or tanks with a "?" over them would convey that information. Next, as the <?> gets resolved, you'd see generic men, vehicles, or tanks as icons. At this point you would have NO idea what unit it was or where in the command hierarchy it was. (Right now in CMSF as soon as you resolve a <?> into a solid contact you get its exact name and type, i.e., "3rd Platoon HQ".) I have no idea what it would take to code in layered information. Note that this is a fundamentally different approach from MIS-identifying units. Instead it is a way of UN-identifying units. There would be no false information disseminated, rather just a lack of information. Further thoughts: "Men" would cover any non-motorized unit, including mortars, guns, MG's, etc. The movement of the crew would be what is seen, not necessarily the weapon. Later, as identification improves, then the type of unit would be seen. Any non-moving vehicle would be identified by its engine noise. Hence, either icon, truck or tank, could be used. However, once a vehicle is moving or in sight, any tracked vehicle should use the generic tank icon. (The noise of tracks is so distinct as to preclude misidentifying a tracked vehicle as a wheeled vehicle. I would classify initial contacts with half-tracks as a tracked vehicle.) An example of the layers, using a PzIVH would be: <?>: Possible Location of an Enemy Unit <?+Tank Icon>: Possible location of Enemy Tracked Unit <Tank Icon>: Enemy Tank Location <PzIV> : PzIV Location <PzIVH>: Specific model identified as PzIVH <PzIVH, Platoon HQ>: Self explanatory, but specific platoon unknown (tank number gives that information, so perhaps include it) Next would be status information, ie, if the the barrel is bent, then the allied player would know that the main gun is inop, or maybe they would know if it's immobilized. This may be too much. Thoughts? Ken

GaJ, That may be my fault, adding a discriminator between OPTICS and SIGHTS. By SIGHTS I mean to remove any discussion about the properties of light being manipulated to bring a target into closer view. Hence, to me, OPTICS is all about the quality of the image brought to the eye. There has been a LOT of historical perspective about the fine quality of German optics, mainly the mirrors, prisms, and glass used in the manufacture of the gun sighting systems. My talk about SIGHTS meant to discuss the difference between the reticles, graticles, stadia, operating procedures due to those, and other elements inherent in the SIGHT, not the OPTIC. For example, one rifle equipped with either of two identical scope tubes, each with 3x magnification can have identical optical properties. Yet, tube A could have simple red dot reticle (2 moa ), while tube B has a crosshair with a ballistically compensated range ladder. Tube A would be very well adapted for (relatively) short range point and shoot. Tube B would be much better at ranges when bullet drop makes a difference on target impact. The ballistics of the weapon haven't changed. The optical properties of the sighting system haven't changed. The SIGHT has changed. I only offer the above to explain my differentiation of OPTICS and SIGHTS. Steve has responded. I consider the issue of German sights vs. Allied sights in the current version of CM:BN to be closed. Ken

What? Mentioning SOVIET tanks? Is that a secret, end of year, BONE? All in good humor. I appreciate you taking time to read and comment on these issues: repeatedly. I'm sure it gets tiring from your perspective. Of course, our perspective is different! Every drib and drab of information is eagerly sought after. (And gnawed upon, then questioned.) As to the points in this thread, as I mentioned, I've already beaten my last upon this expired equine. I consider my points expressed and not in need of repeating. As I do the other points here. Happy New Year! Ken

Flogging the hide of the dead beast one final time... This is not about OPTICS, it's about SIGHTS and their relative effectiveness at getting hits beyond approximately 500 yards. Especially first-round hits. Here's another example: if two rifles only have iron SIGHTS, their OPTICS are exactly equivalent. There is no magnification, no coatings, no doping the glass, no better off-axis viewing, etc. The optics are the user's eyeball. One sight style used for hundreds of years, right to the present day, is a bead welded/affixed to the end of the barrel. That kind of sight has NO effect on a rifle's accuracy. (Yes, they are used on some rifled firearms.) The rifle is as accurate as it is no matter what type of sight is used. As well, the OPTICS are as good as they user's eyesight. However, it is VERY difficult for most users to achieve the rifle's potential due to the difficulty of using the SIGHT. (It's been relegated, mostly, to shotguns: close range, dispersing shot pattern make up for its weakness in getting rounds on target.) Now, let's look at the SAME rifle, but with different sights. Say, the style on an M1 Garand for familiarity's sake. The OPTICS are the same, the rifle's ballistics haven't changed, but the ability to use the SIGHTS to accurately, rapidly, and consistently put rounds on target (or correct spotted misses) is dramatically different. It's not OPTICS, it's SIGHTS that make a difference. Of course, all this is moot since there is no hard data. It's a "fuzzy" topic since we can't rely on non-anecdotal evidence. You cannot scientifically prove that a Tzf 5, 9, or 12 is easier to sight with. On paper, many things seem one way but in actual use they don't quite live up to expectations. This is one of them. The human is IN the sighting loop: you can't create or use data that does not rely on human factors when discussing the UTILITY of a particular sight. (A bead is just as accurate as an aperture sight - seriously.) Human factors are a "fuzzy" subject. All this is for distances beyond 300m. Shorter than that with a good zero it's pretty much find the target and put the crosshairs on it with your magnified sight. Beyond that, the sighting systems and operating procedures make a difference. I own many of Jentz' books, and am familiar with the anecdote quoted. Is this anecdote (or historical recollection) to be given more weight than years of evidence? What drove off the Panthers? Was it HITS, or was it being FIRED UPON - which meant that they'd been spotted and it was only a matter of time before the jabos or artillery came down? The M10's at K&S: I hadn't heard the range in excess of 3,000 meters. On which day of that multi-day battle did that occur? Another anecdote? Regardless of the weight you give that particular story, how long had the M10's been there? How many times had they fired upon the road the PzIV's were using? In other words, these were not 3-5 round hits. I'm willing to bet, regardless of the actual range (not 3,000 meters - at that range the AP rounds would have low penetration, so HE?) the M10's had been firing at that spot for many rounds and so had, through trial and error, corrected for range. Do these two anecdotes, remembered because they are so far beyond the bell-curve of normal ops, outweigh all the anecdotes of German tanks hitting allied tanks before the allied tanks could return effective fire? Was it due to weaker gunpowder in the allied shells? Of course not. What then accounted for all of this accumulated evidence? (I'm including both fronts: it wasn't all due to Germans on the defense in '44.) This does not put me in the uber-German-cats camp - I hope. I merely want to raise the fact that issues beyond glass properties are far more important in how accurately tanks can put rounds on target. Thanks for listening. Happy New Year! Ken

Aye, something BIG on New Year's Eve would be a great way for BF.C to end 2010! Aye, something BIG on New Year's Day would be a great way for BF.C to start 2011! Ken

There has been all sorts of studies done on the human factors. Suffice it to say that the ability of a trained gunner to accurately estimate range is very poor. The German stadia (I need to find a picture) uses triangles which are of specific MOA. Knowing the dimensions of the enemy tank allowed the gunner to MEASURE the range - not anywhere near as accurately as a binocular rangerfinder, but FAR more accurately than possible with the U.S. style. As to how much you'd miss, well, if the battle sight were set to 500 meters, the arc above LOS prior to 500 meters would be about 20" high near 250 meters. (Rough numbers.) So, if your target was a hull down tank with a 3' high turret, your 500 meter battle range sight would send your shells skimming over his roof. A miss every time. Again, the ability to accurately gauge your first miss is critical. The typical ladder range scale in a fixed reticle does not help. I'm off to find some images.... Edited to add a link. Go here http://pedg.yuku.com/topic/1728/t/Ranging-Turmzielfernrohr-TZF-9b-gun-sight-optics.html for an excellent tutorial on the Strich and ensure you scroll down and watch how adjusting the range estimate moves the reticle (two settings on the adjustment, one for 88mm the other for machinegun). Ken

Just crunching some quick numbers with a ballistics calculator. This is WAY different than the ballistics of a 75 to 90mm shell, so take it all with a grain of salt. Given a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps and a zero of 300 yards, at 800 yards you'll be hitting 12' below the target. Extrapolate 12' under a target and you'll get many dozens of yards short. And that assumes you estimated the range correctly. I think, obviously, that the sighting technique makes a huge distance at anything beyond 300 meters (which is what I understand both sides set as a battle sight range - Germans may have used 500 meters...). So, you don't need to imagine a 2km shot, merely something like, say, on the scale of the ranges during Operation Goodwood or anything beyond the bocage or village streets. Ken

A detail often overlooked when discussing battle optics between Germans and Allies was the type of reticle used and how gun-laying procedures and the reticle interacted. NONE of this has anything to do with coatings, optical clarity, monocular vs. binocular sights, or anything else. This is purely to do with how the gunner actually aims the gun. First, the simple type, as used by the Allies. It is just like an unadjustable scope mounted on a rifle. It would be calibrated at a known range and then locked in, if time allowed. Hopefully, the zero stayed. The reticle had a simple ladder to allow the gunner to compensate for range. If the target was near the zero range, all was dandy: put the crosshairs on it and fire. However, if the target was at a longer range, it got very difficult. The gunner had to guesstimate the range. Then he had to elevate the gun to compensate. THIS IS WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS REALLY IMPORTANT: the reticle was fixed in the sight and the sight was fixed coaxially to the gun. So the gunner had to raise the gun until the reticle ladder with range "rungs" overlaid the target. If the shot ended up short, he had to guesstimate the amount of short and re-adjust. This should be very familiar to anyone who has fired a scoped rifle without adjusting the reticle. It's called "hold over". The Germans used a reticle which moved INSIDE the sight. If a target was beyond the zero range, the gunner could use the accurately sized stadia triangles in the reticle and MOVE the reticle. Say, he thought the range was 800m. The reticle would sink below the target. Then he would elevate the gun until the reticle met the target: now the gun was elevated to fire at 800 meters. If the first shot were short, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS MOVE THE RETICLE TO THE IMPACT POINT! Now the reticle and the gun were ranged to within 10's of meters of the target. Adjusting the reticle to the target would lead to a 2nd round hit. This is similar to benchrest firing a rifle with an adjustable reticle: if your shot is one inch short, based on the range and the MOA adjustments, you add the clicks and get the next shot in the bull. These are VERY different approaches to targeting and engaging targets. One relies HUGELY on range estimation and "Kentucky windage". The other has a system built into the weapon to adjust for long range shooting. The difference is a rifle with a fixed reticle and one with an adjustable reticle - with a stadia built into the sight to estimate the range. This is a big advantage. Thoughts? Ken

Hmmm, I can't wait for cows that fly through the air after a near miss with a massive HE impact. Brings back images of Monty Python... "Splat"

Exactly my own sentiments. I play WeGo almost exclusively. I will play RT, but rarely, and then only when I'm controlling a platoon or less. Any way you play, the game engine is a great leap forward from CMBO/BB/AK. Enjoy, Ken

Off the top of my head, I'd think i5/i7 or AMD's equivalent (or their 6 core CPU, if you have some extra...). Quad core is almost standard at this point. I'd think for CM series that CPU speed is important. 3.4 Ghz should do for some decent grunt power. Depending on the CPU and mobo, my preference would be either 8 or 12 Gb of RAM. Video card is where you can save some money with CM. The mid-level cards should do very well, meaning GTX460 1Gb for nvidia, or something along the line of the HD6850. (Either would be under $200 US these days.) (Video card choice assumes relatively simple display: 1920 by 1080 (or 1200) or so. They could drive larger screens, especially with CM's engine, but may bog down with other games, especially if you go with some sort of triple screen setup. ) Happy shopping

Agreed: the flames need proper treatment. (from http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89904 ) Hmm, maybe a good place to start would be...FLARES! (See: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92544 ) Ken