Vanir Ausf B

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%).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish: IOW, there is a randomness in the movies that will generate different results if played multiple times. That randomness can be used by a player to their advantage if he is allowed to watch the movies and issue orders before his opponent.<hr></blockquote> I do not believe this is true. I think Leland was mistaken. As long as the person calculating the turn does not get to view the results before the other player sees it, it is secure. If the movie was different each time you viewed it, you could cheat now. Dschugaschwili's/Elvis's system was shot down for purely technical reasons. BTS had trouble getting the files to contain the orders for the current turn and the movie for the previous turn at the same time. If the technical hurdles could be overcome there is no reason why this would not work fine. [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: haha, wow Dorosh can palgerize books, wow your so smart, see most people read more then once source about a subject then draw a conclusion, but not Cliff Notes Dorosh, he just finds somehting he agrees with and copies it to a forum,..........genius<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, it would only be plagiarism if he tried to pass off the work of others as his own. As he clearly cited his sources, it was not in any way plagiarism. Do you actually have a source that contradicts his? [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I'll 3rd Michael's idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: I'm not sure the Tac AI is that smart. I think it says, "I can't penetrate THE HULL with AP so I'll load tungsten".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The problem is that the M10 can penetrate the hull of the JPz IV with AP. In fact, in my limited testing it penetrated the upper hull and superstructure consistantly at 500m. The TacAI apparently is aware that tungsten is not useful or not needed, because it always fires AP even with 5 tungsten rounds on board. So why does having the tungsten lower the kill chance? Still dunno...

Not really. Because logically the TacAI should pick which ever round has the best penetration. If tungsten is less effective than AP then tungsten will not be used, so the kill chance should remain the same. [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: something I'm curious about, a vet M10 TD with five rounds of tungsten (plus default AP) vs a regular Jagdpanzer IV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's something weird. Line up a M10 with no tungsten 500m from a JPz IV and target it. You get a kill chance of "good". Give it a few round of tungsten and the kill chance goes down to "ok".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: And I'd like to see mixed Companies. Best served cold, in a quickbattle you know when in setup, but not earlier whether you got veteran Bazookas in a exchange for a green platoon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would work in practice, however. The problem I see is that is would mess up the points total. Each player would buy 2000 pts of stuff for a 2000 pt ME (for example), but due to randomization of expirience one player may actually end up with more than 2000 pts and the other somewhat less. Assuming I understand what you're saying. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mr. Johnson: For you information guys, CMBB will have some cool sort of randomization of infantry formations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is news to me as well. [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

IIRC, Steve has said that medium quality for QBs in CM2 will be green and regular, rather than regular and vet. Although I agree this is a more realistic mix, from a pure game-play perspective I'm not overly thrilled with it. The reason being that I doubt there will be as many people who use greens as there are who use veterans. As it is, there is a pretty good mix of players who prefer vets or regs or some combination. I'm afraid greens will be a rare choice, making most QBs all-reg battles. Bleh. I hope I'm wrong. A curious by-product of this is that the low quality category will have only one option, conscript, while the high quality category will have three. Unless BTS is doing something more than what they have said...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tiborhead: Yeah, I realize that. I just thought since targeted shots that hit go through houses, a missed shot would go through the house and either hit the ground in front of the target, or fly off the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I don't think that's how it works. To the best of my knowledge, this is how it goes: Tank fires at enemy tank and at that point CM rolls the dice to see if it hits. If it does, the shell animation flies to the enemy tank and strikes it, ignoring anything and everything that may happen to be in the way. A hit is alway a hit. If the shot misses, then CM plots a semi-random path for the shell so that it will fly near (usually) to the targeted vehicle, but will not hit it. In this case it will not go through intervening terrain/buildings because it doesn't have to get to the enemy tank like it does on a hit. So anything it happens to hit is SOL. [ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I agree. This webpage would look hot in a red dress.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Williams: So, Mr. Johnson and JasonC, you contend that 40 combat infantrymen armed with rifles, automatic weapons, and hand grenades, and swarming all over a tank have virtually no chance of doing any damage to it or it's occupants? If that is actually the case, then CM does indeed model close infantry assaults correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, infantry with no AT weapons do have a fair chance of immobilizing a tank in CM. KOs are rare but not impossible. The one area that is likely unrealistic is that open topped vehicles are also hard to KO by close assault. Hopefully that will be fixed in CM2.