Vanir Ausf B

Random turns #s are in CM2.

BTS has said that few if any CM1 vehicle mods will be compatible with CM2. The CM2 models have more polygons, so the textures wont fit right.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Out of a matter of interest, is windage modelled in CM? I'd expect the 95mm CS How. to be quite badly affected windage, as it was quite a low velocity weapon.<hr></blockquote> No wind in CM. I'm not sure if ballistic coefficients are modeled "under the hood", but with no specific wind modeling I doubt it. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add this to CM2. Perhaps they already have?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by moosehead: Now now, thats not true. I got one of your tanks with a zook. <hr></blockquote> Yep. I corrected myself. It was our game I was talking about. You probably remember my long range shreck hit on that M8 sitting on the road. It was not a good day for tank crews

I wish this were possible for QBs (hint, hint).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I don't think that applies to HEAT, neither in reality nor current CMBO modeling.<hr></blockquote> True, but then you have 2 different armor thickness values, which is cumbersome IMO. A thought just occured to me. According to a post I saw by Rexford a while back, German armor thickness was often thicker than what official spec required, sometimes by as much as 5mm. That right there may explain the KT vs. zook debate as CM seems to use official numbers. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: wait! when is CM II the engine re-write of the ETO going to happen? Within CM3 of after it?<hr></blockquote> Originally, it was to be done after CM3. However, in recent months BTS has been hedging on that, saying it may be after CM2. I don't think they know yet themselves.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: In the time I have been playing CM I have never lost a tank to a zook, and have only lost 1 to a shreck (this is against human opponents). I am paranoid and that keeps my tanks alive. I've also been a little lucky at times.<hr></blockquote> Minor self correction here, due to small brain fart. The tank I lost was to a zook. Mk IV at 150m. Oddly, it was in the same game I got the 185m shreck kill.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Penetration stats for 0 degree obliquity From: L. Bird & R. Livingston’s “Armor & Gunnery” UK 95mm HES….127mm<hr></blockquote> CM number: 125mm Rexford has spoken. I don't see a problem here. CM has the bazooka at 90mm at 0 degrees. Does anyone have a sourse with a different value?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: To Vanir - Well, in a recent outing against a human player, I killed a "Super-Sherman" (76mm W+ HVSS) with a green schreck, and gun-damaged its mate (same model), with the same team. Both with turret penetrations, and both within about 40 seconds, firing from the second floor of a tall wooden building. The range was 100-125m, and there was some smoke about (he put it there, not me). A green schreck costs 18 points. Those tanks cost my opponent 424 points; one was KOed, the other crippled. Methinks infantry AT teams can work a bit better against humans than you would have it.<hr></blockquote> So are you saying that shrecks are overmodeled as well? They are more accurate than zooks. You also were a bit lucky. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But inside buildings you get the full accuracy, unlike shooting from woods.<hr></blockquote> Wrong. Firing from a building does degrade accuracy vs. firing from open terrain. BTW, you don't need to tell me how effective AT teams can be. Although I have not been keeping track, I would estimate that of all the tanks I have KOed vs. human opponents, about 1/4 of them have been by AT teams (all types). A few were to lucky long range kills, like the example you gave above (my personal record is a 185m shreck kill vs. a M8 HMC), but most were at less than 100m when my opponent got careless. But I don't need 2 per platoon to do this. A couple of other quick points: The 22% number I gave above may be too high. It assumes a 10% weak point penetration chance vs. the whole tank then using a Panther with a shot trap. If the shot trap only works when struck on the turret then the chance is closer to 16%. Of course, ideally the shot trap should not even be a factor with shaped charge rounds. CM rates the Tiger side turret to be at a 0 degree slope, but in fact the armor is not flat. It does curve along the horizontal plane, which could effect rounds that otherwise are marginal in their ability to penetrate that area (Sherman 75 and zook). It would perhaps be more accurate to assign a 10-15 degree slope to the side hull to reflect this (that number is a guess based upon nothing more than eyeballing overhead pictures, so don't take it to heart). German ubertanks also have very high silhouette ratings, which makes them much easier to hit. I suspect CM does not weigh vehicle height as heavily as it should. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

The odds of a single zook round penetrating a Panther frontally in CM is either 13% or 22%, depending on what model of Panther you are using and whether CM models the shot trap as having the same effect as on AP shot (I don't know if it does or not). This is assuming the tank is not hull down; if it is the chance is either 1% or 10 %, as above. CM rates the Tiger I as having 80mm side armor at 100% quality and the bazooka as penetrating 90mm at 0 degrees. Does anyone have any information that either of these figures is incorrect? KT is delt with in the other thread. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: Zooks are great. Regular ones only cost 14 points; they get 8 shots; they can be expected to hit things out to 100 meters pretty consistently, and you can let fly at 150 meters if you shoot from buildings or behind walls, watch the obstructions, or have several to open up at once. They also ignite woods and buildings at 100 yards, three times the range of flamethrowers, more often than you might think. They can knock down buildings with sustained "area fire", and they KO wooden bunkers with ease.<hr></blockquote> This is an exaggeration. If you shoot from a building the zook will suppress itself with the backblast, and there is a significant chance it will set the building on fire. In fact, zooks (and shrecks) are far more likely to set their own position on fire than the area they are firing at. Also, with a blast rating of 6 you would need a large number of them to knock down a building. In real CM games the tanks do have HE and the good players screen them with infantry so that you never get your zook within 100m. In my expirience, it is rare for a zook or shreck to get off more than 2 shots before it dies. In the time I have been playing CM I have never lost a tank to a zook, and have only lost 1 to a shreck (this is against human opponents). I am paranoid and that keeps my tanks alive. I've also been a little lucky at times. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Buy lots. Two per platoon, at least.<hr></blockquote> I buy one per company. That's all you need to keep the other guy honest and to punish him if he gets sloppy. [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

I am not Steve (surprise!), but as some of this has been commented on before... <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Incidentaly, will the CMBB be downward compatible with CMBO in any respect ?<hr></blockquote> No. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Are there any plans to make a CMBO Mark2 out of the CMBB game engine ?<hr></blockquote> No. Any CMBO remake would be with the all new CM engine coming up sometime after CMBB. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Is it even possible without months of recoding ?<hr></blockquote> No. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> How deep are the vehicle specs involved in the arithmetics ?<hr></blockquote> The heat of the meat is inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Here's another question - as I understand it, CMBO and CMBB will be completely seperate games. Isn't that a little strange? Will there be an effort to integrate the two, so that perhaps Korea, as another poster has asked, could be modelled?<hr></blockquote> It's not strange at all when you realize there are a number of changes being made to the game engine that will make them incompatible, as Slappy said. However, BTS has said they may release a CMBO/CMBB combination game, redone with the CM TNG game engine, sometime after CM3.

I'm going to stand up and say that I too prefer the "clean" look. Caking a layer of mud over the tanks makes them look ugly. I don't like looking at butt-ugly units. Also, if I were a modder I don't think I would enjoy cranking out mod after mod in various shades of brown. It's like someone else said, if you want all these different types of mods, we will have to find some more modders. In other words, if you don't like the way it is, do it yourself

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: I just noticed a HQ unit will hold on to the pistols rather than retain the rifle when it sustains casualties.<hr></blockquote> I suspect the reasoning behind this is that the officer is always assumed to be the last man killed in a HQ unit.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tanaka: Just remember, in the all war, "only" 250000 Americans died in both battlefields (Europe and Pacific), so leave at lest a few thousand for ETO...<hr></blockquote> The US lost about 407,000 killed (from all causes) and 670,000 WIA during WW2. Combat KIA was about 292,000. US Casualties

Well, in an attempt to mollify the disheartened, I will mention that BTS has expressed an interest in doing a Korean War CM at some point, probably for CM 5 or 6 if they do it. No Japanese, but it's the closest you're likely to get to the PTO with BTS.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: I'm also surprised that BTS appears to be so glib and dismissive of the potential market that exists for such a theatre being addessed by their game... I think its rather misguided and arrogant, thats all to be so dismissive of both a potential market and a theatre of war where tens of millions lost their lives.<hr></blockquote> I don't agree with this. For one thing, judging from comments made on the subject, they are not dismissing the potential market. Rather, they simply do not find the subject matter interesting. I don't see why that is a crime. You could make the same arguement about the Napoleonic wars, American Civil War, WWI, or whatever (in fact, at various times people have lobbied BTS to make a CM games for each of those wars). My point being, whether or not Pacific War ground combat is interesting or not is an entirely subjective arguement. I would no more rake BTS over the coals for feeling the way they do than I would call someone a fool for finding the US Civil War dull. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If BTS won't do it, will they hand over or even perhaps sell their engine so that other could?<hr></blockquote> They've been asked, and as you correctly guess, they said no. I have doubts about how well the current CM engine could handle jungle warfare anyway. You would probably need to shrink the scale down and model the individual units in more detail.

Ok, I found one of them: CM Artillery is too slow! It seems the slow movement of CM guns may be an abstraction to help simulate some of the crew going back to retrieve the rest of the ammo. So, maybe it's not a problem. They do go too fast up hills, however. [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cooper: No, that is just mg teams move too slow<hr></blockquote> I tried to find those threads, but couldn't. However, I am quite certain that there was much discussion of towed guns moving too slowly in the game. In fact, I believe someone posted an official table showing how fast various guns could be pushed. It showed the guns to move about 1/3 fast than they do in CM IIRC. [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

I think you're right, Michael. I don't think units ever fatigue when using a Move order. But as Jason pointed out, I'm not sure if it really matters as guns are rarely moved more than a 100m or so during a typical CM game. It's interesting that some are arguing that guns move too fast in CM. I don't know if they do, but I do remember that there have been several other threads on this topic and the general consensus from those was that guns in CM move much too slow.

I want to be the Finns, because they will never lose (just like real life ) [ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

Well, actually, the main reason Steve gave is that they do not have much personal interest in Pacific War ground combat and they do not care to make games on subjects they do not find interesting.

Michael, I think in the example you gave your troops must have been fired upon by an unspotted enemy unit. Wolfe is correct that MG and small arms fire during the daytime cannot injure friendly troops. Do this test: set up a game where you have a tank a short distance behind a friendly platoon of infantry sitting on open ground. Order the tank to area fire with MGs only directly at one of the squads. The tank will blaze away turn after turn with no effect on the infantry. Then order it to area fire with main gun. It will not fire the main gun, but will fire the hull MG (also to no effect).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: Well, here is my pet list:<hr></blockquote> Good list. Some of these refer to units that will not appear in CM2. I'll comment on a few of the others, since I have nothing better to do at the moment <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- killing unarmoured vehicles by HE bug. The whole damage model seens to be reused from the infantry model and is inadaequate for vehicles<hr></blockquote> As you noted, this has been fixed in CM2. You said it sounded like the fix was not complete, but IIRC Steve did not say anything about how it was fixed. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- no burst fire, increased rate of fire in emergency or self-defense. Hurts MGs, which can be overrun too easily and guns like the 25pdr, which in real life could deliver exceptially many shells in short time<hr></blockquote> Fixed for MGs. I don't know about other types of units. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- Overall, turrets always point wrong and entierly unrealistic. In real life, they would point to a possible threat. Again, punishes slow-turret tanks more than it should, even is the turret speed is right<hr></blockquote> Well, I wouldn't say it always points the wrong way. I would like to see a "Point Turret" command that could order a tank to point its turret independent of the hull, until a target came into view. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>- Strange bogging chances. Compare StuG III and Panzer IV in mud<hr></blockquote> I don't see a problem here. The ground pressure of the StuG III is much higher than the Panzer IV. It should bog more. I pretty much agree with the rest. [ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>