Vanir Ausf B

I don't know if it is still current, but you can look in this thread.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: But that was my point. If we fought a realistic balance for games, we would have lots of infantry vs infantry, a good number where the US have tanks and the Germans have nuthin, and some where both have tanks, and very few cases where German tanks fail to meet US tanks.<hr></blockquote> Oh. Heh. I guess you were agreeing with me and I was just being dense or somefink. :eek: But, yes, you're right. A realisic balance would not be very fun, especially for the German player. I was just pointing out that people who don't know any better can get the wrong impression from playing CM.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The average US Infantry Division had a battalion of medium tanks and a battalion of tank destroyers (later there might be a second battalion of either added). German infantry divisions where suppose to have at least a stug company, but rarely had this intact (a few formations had larger numbers of tanks, but they were more rare).<hr></blockquote> Yes, but my point is that almost every CM game you play has tanks in it. CM sized engagements with no tanks weren't uncommon in real life. They are in CM.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: We should not forget that the 'typical' - especially QB - CM battle is a completly unrealistic situation, and a CM battle is IMO in general mostly unhistoric. a) equal forces meet on the battlefield air superiority, the most important thing in the late war, doesn't matter (not realy) c) tanks didn't meet in close combat every day - and close combat for tanks means everything below 500m. Tank guns were not without reason build for lang range accuracy. d) when a commander meet a superior force, he usually tends to retreat and call for support. This is not possible in CM, so casualties are always extraordinary. I'm pretty sure that the US had reconsidered their engagement if they had all the time casualties like on Omaha beach or in Huertgenwald.<hr></blockquote> Very true. I would add an e) Tanks in general were less common on the battlefield than in CM especially for the Germans. [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by TSword: You're correct on the detail, that "only" all the Panther versions including Jagdpanther are on 85% armor quality, BUT ALL GERMAN armor beside PzIV G, Tiger IE, IE late have reduced armorquality ratings !!!!!!!!!!!!<hr></blockquote> Is this wrong for June 44-May 45? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>rune: and what does 100+ mean? It means it is a variation between 100 and 130. the manlet varied and cmbo randomizes the armor if it hits in the manlet. So the problem is what?<hr></blockquote> Actually, I believe it is a variation between 100mm and 200mm.

Can you believe this thread started out as a discussion of Russian IS tanks? I'd like to hear Rexford's opinion of Hannibal.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aaronb: The .303 British bullet is .311 in diameter;<hr></blockquote> Yeah, I said that earlier. What I'm currious about is how it became known as the .303 in the first place. Wouldn't marketing tend to exaggerate caliber instead of understate it? Was it originally .303 and then refined to .311 but kept the name?

Busted

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Nice try, but still not sufficient because, in fact, there probably aren't stats for an approach to an assault at any distance. Not for 10 meters, nor 5, nor 15. And who determines what distance is appropriate? Are you implying that the only time an infantry assault occurred during WW2 is when a tank happened to park itself within ten meters of a stationary infantry unit? <hr></blockquote> No, I already stated that I was not saying that it never ever happened otherwise. Almost anything physically possible has happened at least once. I have now said this 3 times and I'm not going to repeat it again. My point, as it has been from the beginning, is that troops did not go charging at moving tanks over open fields across hither and yon like a bunch of Rambos. I seriously doubt you believe otherwise yourself. You're just trying to score points off of the fact that my position on this cannot be proven. The absense of proof of a thing is not evidence that its opposite is true. Nice try, but as you say, not sufficient. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>At what point did the infantry have the germ of an idea that they were going to take out a tank using close assault and move toward said vehicle in an effort to carry out that plan? That could be any distance wouldn't you agree?<hr></blockquote> Of course. But you don't need a new command to run them towards the vehicle. You can do that now. The question has been do we need a new command to have them chase after the tank if it drives off. However, it would seem to be a moot point now as your latest version of this idea is quite different. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Okay, let's say we have an "assault vehicle" command in the game - an order that would only be available when your infantry squad is within - say thirty meters of the target (I pick 30 meters as a reasonable arbitrary distance for the 'final approach' of a theoretical tank hunter team). You use the command to target a nearby tank. Once the tank is targeted the infantry will move toward the vehicle with the intent to assault it. If the vehicle moves such that the distance between the assaulting squad and the targeted vehicle increases or remains the same then the command would automatically abort and the squad would cease their assault / movement. If the enemy vehicle moved in such a manner so that the distance between it and the squad decreased (possibly reversing in their direction etc), then the squad would continue their effort to assault the target vehicle.<hr></blockquote> This is reasonable because it does not increase the ability of the player to issue Rambo tactic orders beyond what he can already do in the game. It also would not cause the silly sight of squads running after a retreating tank like a bunch of schoolboys who just missed the bus. It does have a few problems. The most obvious is that if the vehicle moves away and the assault is aborted there is a good chance they will be caught in the open "looking stupid" same as before. A marginal improvement at best. However, I have taken the liberty of thinking of a solution. Perhaps if the assault is aborted the squad(s) could automatically move to the nearest cover, same as if they were under arty attack. That would seem a logical thing to do and wouldn't require new AI routines. After that, the problem becomes one of programing it. Currently it is not possible to target a unit with a movement command. Only Charles would know how hard or easy it would be to get around this. Anywho, as it currently stands I have no objection to this proposal. I would probably never use it because I have never run infantry over open ground to try to close assault a vehicle (except for tests). That seems like a last ditch suicide tactic to me, but maybe that's just me. It would provide a modest impovement on the current method for those who do that sort of thing. Now all you have to do is convince Steve. Good luck

Busboy, that's a very good post for a donkey (hee hee) I can confirm the points others have made re: Patton. The details of military history are glossed over in American public schools. WW2 is all about Pearl Harbor, the nuking of Japan, and the Holocaust happening somewhere in-between. Anyone who knows much about Patton at all probably learned it on his own.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: So I take it that you have access to thousands of accounts of close assaults vs armor (both successful and unsuccessful) where the precise number of troops assaulting and the exact distance covered is detailed - thus validating your broad sweeping statement? Or are you just assuming facts that don't necessarily exist in order to support your argument because you don't like the 'assault vehicle' command?<hr></blockquote> Don't be silly. You know as well as I do that such stats don't exist. I'm basing my statement on the fact that I have never heard of infantry chasing down a moving tank to close assault it beyond the 10m or so CM allows. I never claimed it never happenened even once in the history of WW2, I only claim that it was exceedingly rare at best and not something infantry would typically attempt. I stand by that. If you can dig up anecdotal evidence that this was done I would reconsider my position. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I believe that is a false statement. I have never seen the Tac AI automatically move a vehicle away from enemy infantry.<hr></blockquote> I did some tests. The TacAI did not move tanks, but it did move SP guns and halftracks. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>No, the abort would occur as soon as the vehicle began its move away.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Let us also say that the player controlling the tank decided to move it 15 meters further north (without any knowledge of the presence of said infantry). Wouldn't it be nice if the squad could figure out what you are trying to accomplish and move the extra ten meters or so that is necessary to assault that tank on its own?<hr></blockquote> You appear to be argueing in favor of 2 mutually exclusive features. Either the order is aborted if the vehicles move, or it is not. Either they chase after the vehicle or they don't. It can't be both. For the record, I think an order that aborted the attack if the vehicle moves isn't a bad idea, but that is quite different than what has been proposed to date.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: For instance, the 250/1 and the 251/16. They both have forward mg's. Are these on the front hull, the same as the bow mg's on other vehicles and do they differ in any way? Regarding the Vickers mg, if the caliber of the round is about the same as the American 30 cal, why does it have a higher firepower rating? Can this be attributed to more rounds per minute or is it a higher muzzle velocity?<hr></blockquote> I'm not an expert one this, but the MGs appear to be mounted on top of the hull, not in it. So no, it's not the same as a bow MG in a tank. I think it is called a "forward" MG in the game because they can only fire at targets in front of the vehicle or close to it. So in that way it is similar in function to a hull MG. If anyone else knows different... The Vickers has a higher FP rating because it is water cooled, allowing it to fire longer without overheating. It may also have something to do with the crew having more ammo to burn than the M1919. Interestingly, according to several reloading handbooks I have, the British .303 round is actually .311" in diameter. [ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

Well, yes, the Vickers is .303 instead of .308, but the difference is so small I tend to think of them as both 30 cal. [ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by stodge: They need to get rid of the sandbag images; I find them very ugly and un-professional.<hr></blockquote> Those are sandbags? I thought it was a brick wall.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: (1) Is the American MMG, a 30 caliber gun? (2) What is the caliber of the British Vickers mg? (3) Is a forward mg the same as a bow mg?<hr></blockquote> 1. Yes. 2. 30 cal. 3. Not sure. What vehicles are you refering to?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: I don't know for sure, but that sounds like a broad sweeping statement to me. <hr></blockquote> You're right. It is a broad sweeping statement. That doesn't mean it isn't true at least in the vast majority of cases. CM seems to assume the max assault distance to be 10m IIRC. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Option 3: Vehicle does not spot the infantry, but the player controlling the vehicle plots a move of 20 meters in length - in which case, the infantry stand in the open where the tank used to be, all the while looking stupid<hr></blockquote> I think it extremely unlikely that the infantry running "in the open" would be unspotted at those distances. That sort of thing is hard to miss. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Going back to the assault vehicle command - perhaps the command could be automatically aborted if the vehicle moves away - or doesn't move slowly? At least that way your infantry wouldn't still continue to run out there and stand stupidly in the open when there is nothing to do there anymore.<hr></blockquote> But that's just the point. Even if the opposing player does not order the tank to move away, the TacAI will automatically retreat it when the infantry get close. So it's going to move one way are another unless it is immobilized. So, then the assault order is aborted and your men are left to stand stupidly in the open anyway. Or, if it is a slow tank they can give chase and try to run it down (probably while being shot at the whole time).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy: But I honestly don't recall when I got here.<hr></blockquote> You registered on this board on Oct. 8, 2000. [ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

And yet some bemoan the fact that BTS has "abandoned" CMBO.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vinci: Whether ineffective or not, I assume everyone agrees that during WWII infantry did try and take on armor with close range weapons.<hr></blockquote> Yes, but they didn't do it like some are trying to do it in the game i.e. rushing a platoon at a tank. Usually the tank moved too close to some hiding enemy infantry.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy: Again, this is all opinion. I myself am rather like Patton,<hr></blockquote> So, you're saying you have a high, piping voice and carry a couple of revolvers around with you at all times?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: Is this realy a topic?<hr></blockquote> Is that really a post?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: I think though that when you send your squad to attack an enemy vehicle that they need to know whether to button it up with gunfire or to physically assault it my climbing on top of it. <hr></blockquote> I don't see the point. The way things work now, they will automatically attempt to close assaust the vehicle if it is in range, and they are not too suppressed. There is no need for a choice of "button it up with gunfire" or "close assault" because close assaulting will cause the vehicle to button anyway. Also, in real life any commander who ordered his men to charge a tank would be lucky not to get shot in the back.

First time in my life I've been called a whore (as opposed to a slut, which I have heard before). I find that mildly amusing. Wacky: It is partially your own fault for assuming. Having said that, yes, you have almost certainly been had. The problem is that you can't really do anything about it because you can't prove it, and even if he did what you think he did he didn't violate any agreement. As others have stated, you have 3 choices: 1. Ask for a restart after confirming he did pick his own troops. If that doesn't work, then... 2. Surrender the game and be done with it. If you really don't care about your ladder record (you're not the only ladder player that doesn't BTW) it's no big deal. Or... 3. Play it out. People who do these kinds of things are almost never good players. You might be able to pull out a draw, which would surely piss him off. Are you RD or T-House? If you are RD please email me this guys name.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: As for your gun problem, I never have seen something like it.<hr></blockquote> The only time I have ever seen an unsuppressed gun not fire at a targeted tank is if it has little or no chance of penetration.

My current rig (P3 500, 256 meg of PC133 ram, Geforce 256) will run CM2 fine. But I will likely upgrade in about 6 month anyway... for Unreal Tournament 2 I'll probably go with: Asus 766a motherboard AMD Athlon 1.5-2.0 Gig (depends on budget) 384 megs of PC 2400 ram Leadtek GeForce 3 500i I'll probably get a new HD as well. My current 27 Gig Western Digital is starting to make an odd noise.