Vanir Ausf B

<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>

I don't have a problem with this. If a TC gets whacked I don't see why the driver would need to suddenly stop the tank. I also don't see why it couldn't continue to fire at an already spotted target.

CGW had been listing CM2's release date as "Fall 2001" up until the latest issue. It has now been changed to "Winter 2001". Whatever that means. Technically, winter doesn't start until Dec. 22 (or 21?). So that would give them about a 1 week window to release before 2002 hits.

Actually, if you look down at the bottom of the page I linked to in my first post you will see a DirectX Uninstaller there. I think you should try the 3.90 drivers first.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Runyan99: Okay, I installed the latest video drivers for my Geforce 256, but I am still getting the freeze. I guess I will try a re-install of DirectX.<hr></blockquote> I had the exact same problem with CM and my GeForce 256. I also have 256 megs of memory. The solution for me was to actually use older drivers. 3.90 is what I use. I found that anything later than that caused CM to lock up after a few minutes. Note that I am still using DX 7.0, so no guarantees it will work for you. BTW, if you are overclocking your video card, that could also cause it. [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead: Systematic battlefield recon in CM, by any type of unit, is inescapably gamey because it allows for information to flow back from scouts to the commander, the commander to make plans based on this info, and then send the info down to his subordinates, in what is effectively zero gametime.<hr></blockquote> I wonder if there is not some misunderstanding about what actually constitutes "scouting" in CM. When most people talk about using scouts in a CM game, what they are refering to is sending out a forward screen about 50-150 meters in front of their main body. The main body then advances behind this screen, springing ambushes and revealing enemy positions. I'm not sure if this really is scouting, or if it's just being smart. In fact, doing it any other way seems like inviting your main force to get bushwhacked and annihilated. How do you prevent this? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Your mission is to take the assigned objectives RIGHT NOW due to the pressure of events in the larger context beyond the map edges.<hr></blockquote> I don't agree with the premise. Every scenario or QB has a set time limit. Whatever that is, is the time you have to complete your assigned objectives. If you really want to simulate a situation where you must take the objectives RIGHT NOW, then the time limit should be set so that the attacker has no option but to throw all his forces headlong from turn one. Most games have a time limit of 25-35 turns. That does not correlate to "right now" in my book. It means you have 25-35 minutes.

I've had several AT teams get a kill on the 3rd or later shot. I would have been annoyed if they had packed it in earlier. More realistic? Would depend on the situation.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead: However, scouting per se is gamey in battles of CM's scale. Having your main body wait while a few expendables systematically scour the map looking for the enemy is by definition taking unrealistic advantage of CM's universal spotting system and the unlimited realtime available between turns of gametime.<hr></blockquote> Would you also say that using half-squads as scouts on the attack is also gamey? The reason I ask is that they are at least as expendable as sharpshooters (18 pts for a sharpshooter vs. ~16 for a half-squad), and Steve has stated that half-squads were put into the game specifically to be used as semi-expendable scouts. Does BTS promote gamey behavior? Next time on Oprah...

Old Discussion <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>CRourke: I may be wrong, but my sense of things is that units probably spent long period of time out of control of their superiors. Without radios and beyond shouting range, you are, at best relying on runners. This would result in quite a delay, not to mention some reduced squads due to lost runners (lost to fire that is). Obviously this wasn't how any side fought the war. What really happened is that the attack (or defense) was planned out in detail before hand.. a platoon knew what its role was going to be for the whole battle, and what it wasn't explicitly told, it figure out. This is where AI has problems. It doesn't have the brain to figure out just what CPT Miller meant by "Take Hill 452, then advance by bounding overwatch to the forest along with 2nd platoon." Having out of communication units just "sit there, fire, and retreat" isn't realistic. So, given the choice between two unrealistic solutions, I'll choose the one the lets me give orders and play the game. Chris<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Big Time Software: Chris, We reached exactly the same conclusion. Charles<hr></blockquote> Another <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Big Time Software: Totally realistic C&C at the Company and Battalion level would NOT be fun to play. Even extending turns to 5 minutes won't be realistic either. What you need is painfully limited intelligence levels and serious restrictions on your ability to command troops. Even then it really isn't going to be even close to realistic, since individual units would need to display their own unique initiative rather than following your overall instructions to the letter whenever they may come (no platoon I know would sit quietly and wait for 5 minutes while some opportunity is in front of them just to see what Big Daddy wants to do about it ) Real life battles are decided at the lowest level once the battle has been engaged. The best orders from above mean jack squat if the troops trying to carry them out lack the skills and initiative to carry out those orders. So unless you want to practically blindly issue a few orders ever 10 or 20 turns and have zero control over what your sub units do, you won't even get close to a "100% realistic" C&C system. In short, 100% realism is NOT an option for any game, since it would cease to be a game. Steve<hr></blockquote> The Search Engine Is Way Faster Since the Last Update <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Big Time Software: Slight clarification. Company HQs only affect the units within their command radius. There is no benefit given to units other than this. The reason is that platoons were intended to be largely autonomous formations when engaged in combat. The lack of a Co HQ would therefore have no direct affect on the platoon, at least in terms of delay times. Steve<hr></blockquote> [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I know that people have been howling for unit rosters ever since CM came out. I don't know what the current status is of BTS' promises in that regard, but I would like to raise the subject again and add a few notions to it.<hr></blockquote> Last I heard, rosters were in, but they are limiting the functionality. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The next thing I'd like to gripe about as long as I have the soap box is the lack of unit cohesion in the game. Now, squads are quite properly subordinated to their platoon HQs and are penalized if outside the command radius of their HQs. But it is still possible to mix and match platoons all over the map with no penalty. I would like to see platoons strictly subordinated to their company HQs and company HQs to their battalion HQs (when present in the game). If outside the command radius of their parent HQ, they and their subordinate units would suffer command delays too.<hr></blockquote> I'm not so sure about this. Let's say you are playing a QB and purchase an infantry battalion. In order to avoid excess delays, you would have to keep the battalion HQ unit near all the company HQ units while keeping the company HQs near their platoon HQs, and so on. In practice, this would lead to you operating with a rather small frontage, with your units densely packed. That or your battalion HQ is running all over the map to various hot spots. I'm not sure this is particularly realistic, and it sounds like the proverbial PITA to me. Maybe if the way C&C is modeled in CM were to be fundamentally changed this would work.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler: If BTS does its job right, most Russian armor will suffer in this regard in CMBB. <hr></blockquote> Alas, it will not be so. Modeling of different gun depression for various vehicles will not be in CM2. At least that was the last word I heard. It has something to do with the way the game engine calculates hull down status. I can't remember the details. Anyway, Tero will have a fit when he finds out. I anticipate many long threads

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms: This seems to me a lot like real life, since, as has been said, tanks are pretty big.<hr></blockquote> I would argue that it is not realistic, at least in the case of tanks beginning the game in trees and not moving. If given time to prepare, tanks can be camoed very effectively, to the point where they are difficult to see even when looking right at them. It is my opinion that it is unrealistically difficult to use tanks on the defense in an ambush role. Perhaps one of the RL tankers around here could comment. [ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Can you hide a tank in/behind some trees in the deploy where it has long lines of LOS across the map and yet can't be seen by the enemy because it's concealed? Does anyone set up their tanks like this in the middle of the open with only concealment to protect themselves and yet allowing you to shoot at the first armored target it sees without having to move the unit into view?<hr></blockquote> It is risky to try, and I would not recommend it. Vehicles are generally spotted quite easily even if they are hiding in scattered trees. I wish BTS would implement some sort of concealment bonus for vehicles that begin the game in trees and do not move.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: rubber wheels would have worn off faster than you can spell Abnutzungserscheinung, and the vehicle generally maneuvered very poorly (hence the nickname "Guderian's duck").<hr></blockquote> Ok, I may have been misinformed, but I was under the impression that "Guderian's duck" refered to the Hetzer.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: Yes guys, NEVER go hull down with a PzIV against 75mm or less opponents.<hr></blockquote> Depends on the range. 75mm can penetrate the Pz IV hull out past 1000m anyway, so at less than 1000m you really don't lose anything by going hull down. I would say the only Allied tanks you should worry about not going hull down against are the 37mm armed ones. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Redwolf: Speaking of skirts, has anyone been able to confirm that they do good against PIAT or Bazooka? In quick tests I found the kill probabilty equal for skirt and non-skirt variants<hr></blockquote> Yes, they do work. The big skirts on the Pz IV cause a roughly 30% that a bazooka hit will not penetrate. Even the tiny little skirts on the Panther A work, though to to a much lesser extent (roughly 3%).