Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Vanir Ausf B

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,610

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B

    Purchase points are way off ---- again

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Here's a few ideas on how to deal with the StuG issue without having to resort to "don't buy StuGs" type rules.

    * Play random dates

    StuGs are at their most dominant from roughly August '42 (when the F8 Late drops from %50 rarity to %30) until April '44 (when the Soviet 85mm guns switch to APBC ammo). So with random dates you will have to deal with uberStuGs less than half the time.

    * Play random terrain

    Open fields with long line of sight are the StuG's friend. To beat them you have to flank them or get within a few hundred meters for close range shots. As it is now, I would suggest setting trees to moderate and setting the other 2 to random. In the 1.01 patch random hills will never pick "flat". For the 1.02 patch it would be nice if BFC would do the same for trees by making it so random trees never pick "open". It would still be possible to get some fairly open maps with some combinations (light trees, low hills, farmland), but most of the time you will get a map that will give the Soviet armor a chance.

    * Make the Germans attack

    Perhaps not all the time, but StuGs are better on the defense, as has been pointed out.

    * Set the division types to "infantry".

    The Germans get far fewer points in the armor category than the Soviets with this division type. They can still buy StuGs, but they can't buy a lot of them.

    * Set weather to something that will often result in less than ideal ground conditions.

    As has been mentioned, StuGs are crappy off-road in bad weather.

    Unfortunately, this option doesn't work real well at the moment. Using the same settings will always result in the same ground conditions, and some ground conditions are impossible to find in some regions. For example, it is not possible to get dry or damp ground in the Southern region during the summer months. Setting weather to "clear" ALWAYS results in very dry ground, and setting it to "overcast" ALWAYS gives wet ground (in the south). The 1.01 patch fixes a bug in this area, so hopefully things will be less predicable soon.

    Doing these 5 thing should prevent StuGs from dominating QB games, by-in-large. There will be occasions when the luck of the draw will result in ideal StuG conditions, but that sometimes happened in the real war, so deal with it.

    One observation I have made is that the thing that makes the StuG such an issue for so much of the war is that Soviet guns seem to consistently under perform what the unit stats screen suggests. For example, the 85mm gun becomes available late in '43 on the SU-85. At 500m its AP ammo is shown as penetrating 114mm at 0 slope and 90mm at 30 degree slope. The StuG's armor is 80mm at 10 degree for the upper hull and 80mm at 21 degrees for the lower hull. Therefore, on paper the 85mm AP round should penetrate the StuG frontally pretty easily. It doesn't. The targeting tool gives a kill chance of "low" and testing shows that this is the case. Shells usually break up or only partially penetrate.

    Do a test comparing the Sherman 76 and the T-34/85 in the summer of '44 against StuGs. According to the armor penetration tables in the unit descriptions the 85mm is a little better. But in testing you will find that the US 76mm penetrates more consistently.

    In fact, it is interesting to note that the most effective anti-armor tanks the Soviet have for a good chunk of the war are lend-lease. The Valentine IX with its 6 pounder can take on the StuG frontally out to about 500m. After the 1.01 patch this should increase as it will be given a longer gun. For most of '43 and early '44 it's rarity fluxuates between 30% and 40%, so you will occasionally be able to buy it at regular cost. It's a cheap tank, so a small 5 or 10% percent rarity hit isn't too bad. Just make sure to bring some other tanks as well since it's anti-personnel capabilities are small.

    0

    And now for my next trick, I will make the v1.01 patch feature list appear!!!!!!!!!!

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by KwazyDog:

    Vanir, IIRC more of the gun is actually in the turret on that particualar vehicle.

    Do you mean outside the turret (refering to the M1940)? The reason I ask is that if you set the KV-1 M1939 and M1940 models next to each other the M1939 has a noticably shorter gun, although both tanks have the same gun. But I agree that if the blueprints say that's the way it is then that's how it must be.
    0

    Preview Map in Quick Battle?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Good lord, NO! Previewing the map would ruin QBs by allowing the players to cherry pick their forces to the exact characteristics of the map. If you want to do that you can import a pre-made map into a QB now. The heart of the QB is to pick a force without knowing exactly under what conditions it will be used (though you may have a general idea), and to use that force in whatever circumstances fate decrees better than your opponent.

    0

    Eh... 32 Pages Missing From the Manual

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I haven't seen anybody else comment on this, so I assume I just got a bad copy somehow.

    Pages 65-96 are missing. In their place pages 97-128 are printed twice. In other words, the manual skips from page 64 to page 97, goes to page 128 then repeats 97+. It wouldn't be a big deal if it were a section that I don't care about, like the editor, but as it happens it's almost the entire Combat section. I have the US version.

    I also got one of the CD that won't install all the way. cry.gif

    Anybody else get one of these manuals?

    0

    Eh... There Are 32 Pages Missing From The Manual

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I haven't seen anybody else comment on this, so I assume I just got a bad copy somehow.

    Pages 65-96 are missing. In their place pages 97-128 are printed twice. In other words, the manual skips from page 64 to page 97, goes to page 128 then repeats 97+. It wouldn't be a big deal if it were a section that I don't care about, like the editor, but as it happens it's almost the entire Combat section. I have the US version.

    I also got one of the CD that won't install all the way. cry.gif

    Anybody else get one of these manuals?

    0

    CM:Modern Battles

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    You guys saying that BFC has little interest in modern warfare are wrong. Steve has said they would like to do one or more modern warfare CMs at some point. He specifically mentioned a hypothetical NATO vs. Warsaw Pact ~1980 conflict as a possible future CM.

    Typical modern engagement ranges vary greatly depending on terrain. 3000+ meters may be the norm in southern Iraq, but I guarentee it wouldn't be in most parts of Europe.

    As Moon pointed out, saying the current engine couldn't handle it is correct but irrelevant.

    0

    50mm moter cost 210??????

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Flesh:

    You could allow the rarity values of units to determine whether or not they are available in a QB. The points cost could then reflect the combat effectiveness of the units.

    Yes. I think what we are seeing is a consequence of using cost adjustment, rather than availabily, to represent rarity. Hopefully there is a workaround.
    0

    Replacement command for the CMBO "Sneak" Command?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Priest:

    That is probably true, still I have not had a hard time moving into contact with the enemy yet. At least not when cover is ample. As you said MTC allows you to move through cover without the enemy seeing you but you see the enemy hence the problem. Well as Kwazy already said, use Move then which is sneakier than MTC and does not stop after spotting someone. Doesn't seem like an issue to me. The only thing left for BFC to tell us is if the Move command somehow supresses the urge of your troops to rip off some shots at distant units. If not then great, if it does then we can use cover arcs.

    That's how I see it, but it still leaves the MtC command with very limited usefulness.

    It's ironic. Two years ago when some people on the forum were arguing for a MtC command, the issue of units stopping when they spot distant enemy units was the main counter-argument given by BTS against the move.

    0

    CMBB Infantry Too Brittle?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by MrSpkr:

    One thing to remember -- the Russians in the early war have an effective morale penalty of -1, meening Regular troops are really Green troops; Green troops are really Conscripts; and Conscripts are really Dental Hygenists.

    I haven't received my copy yet, but according to the little webpage of CMBO to CMBB changes Madmatt put up when the demo was released the penalty for Russian troops is only to command delay.
    0

    M17...Holy freakin' s....!!!!!!

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Old 20mm vs. MG discussion. It includes some tests, albeit against CMBO MG42s.

    Here's what BTS had to say at the time:

    Madmatt:

    You guys apparently have been watching SPR too much. A cannon has MUCH slower ROF and shell velocity than the MG42. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the results here. The blast rating of the 20MM is around the same as that of a grenade and against a fast moving and dodging infantry sized target it is not easy to achieve accurate fire. With a MG you can pretty much spray and pray and still achieve good results. Cannons are good against large targets (vehicle/plane size) and slow moving or stationary concentrations of troops. It also gives a pretty capable anti-armor punch as well as it's intended Anti-Air defense role. You are comparing apples and oranges here. The key here is in the rate of fire and distance between men in a squad being engaged.

    A MG42 can spit out literally hundreds of rounds in a few seconds (based on between 1200-1500 rounds per minute cyclic rate) while the 20mm is only getting at best a little under 1/2 that amount (assuming between 350-700 rpm and IIRC they aren't firing anywhere near that rate in the game for the most part). While the cannon rounds explode it is doubtful that a single rounds explosion would injure more than one man in a squad using proper combat spread. Obviously a cannon shell will cause greater damage to the target but the end result in the game is same, an incapcitated man.

    So, all things being equal, in the same stretch of time the MG42 is able throw out at least twice the firepower and as such cover a greater area with lead with relatively the same effect as the cannon when a man is hit.

    A more fair test would be to compare the results based on similar amounts of rounds fired.

    The test above shows a MG42 getting 110% more hits than the slower firing 20mm yet what no one is looking at is that both weapons are shredding the squads apart.

    Is a MG42 more effective than a 20mm on a one to one basis? In some situations yes, as it was historically.

    A cannon will show its greater effectiveness when used against targets in cover over a Machinegun where its inherent, albeit still small, explosive ability come more into play. As I indicated above, add in its anti-armor ability and air defense capability and you have a well rounded weapon.

    The direct comparission is apples and oranges as you are taking two different weapon designs with two different intended methods of employment into an artificial situation that greatly favors the overwhelming rate of fire of the Mg42.

    0

    Possible BIG bug

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by ParaBellum:

    No. The game I played vs Andreas was a QB were we both picked our own forces. He could see my forces using the 'setup-cheat' and I could see his forces, not only the map.

    Ah, I see. As Andreas said, that is a bug.

    [ September 23, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    Possible BIG bug

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    The 'map peek cheat' has been a known issue for a couple of years now. It is the only "easy" way to cheat at CM that I know of. We were hoping the setup sequence would be altered in CMBB to eliminate it, but it appears that will have to wait for the rewrite.

    A small note: you only see your opponent's forces if you are doing a computer pick game or a scenario. If it is a QB where both sides are purchasing their own forces all the cheater sees is the map. Still a cheat, but not nearly as much of an advantage. That's why for ladder games I do not play comp. pick QBs or scenarios unless it is someone I've played previously and trust.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...