Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:
Vanir posted an accounting of the "side" oriented patch items, but a full reading of the release notes leaves little doubt that the chief beneficiary of most patch items was the AI. Apparently he has the most influential lobby....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
'Tis true.
I now feel a bit chagrined at having wasted my time compiling the list in response to what I can clearly see now was troll bait. Oh well.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:
Oh, for goodness sakes! Are you really trying to say that MG teams are completely independant entities, who have no relationship with the batalion around them? That they do not move with, eat with and take orders from the batalion... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What on EARTH are you talking about?
Of course they are part of a larger organsization. What does that have to do with them not being able to grab 100 lbs of ammo and move 50m away to the west? All this babel about eating and sleeping with the battalion has nothing to do with this issue. The whole battalion is not moving 50m to the west. They will still be part of the battalion after they move.
The whole purpose of the SAS example was to show that from a physical standpoint, this can be done. Anything else you have read into it is a product of your own imagination. If the example bothers you that much, go back and reread Marlows weight breakdown on the previous page. He is talking about regular grunts there, which kinda shoots down your whole "its spec ops so it doesn't count" arguement.
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Hey, Bitter, did you ever play WarCraft 2 on Kali?
BTW, I went to your homepage. It has a very nice... background
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:
Observe the registration date and number of posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup, and I doubt we'll ever see post #2.
Rereading his post, I now get the distinct impression that Mr. Dunphie has never actually played CM. I doubt he even ownes the game. Notice how he doesn't say anything about the game except what he has gleaned from the forum? Is there anyone who has actually played CM who would say that rifle grenades represent an "impressive tank killing capacity"?
Kind of embarrasing for a published author, assuming its not an imposter (a real possibility).
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog:
It is hard to be certain but I suspect that due to the tone of the origional post the author may be more interested in causing a stir that seriously commenting on the concerns that have been raised.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm starting to think the same thing. He was likely just trolling to see what reaction he would get, maybe get an entertaining flame war going for his own amusement. I doubt he even believes what he wrote.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:
They also tend to work in special ways, ways impractical for large bodies of men on or near a continuous FEBA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But we're not talking about "large bodies of men on or near a continuous FEBA". We're talking about 6 men (MG-42 crew) moving perhaps a few hundered meters (at most) during a typical CM game.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, we all know what happened to that overloaded patrol, right?
McNabs' RSM advised him to either take vehicles or to lighten the loads, but he wouldn't listen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Their problems had little to do with their loads and a lot to do with their radios not working.
Irrelevant anyway, as the point is that they did carry those loads.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
List of changes made to CM in patches that make non-US units better/US units worse:
1.01 patch:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Pillboxes are slightly harder to spot (if in cover), and can 'hide'
(which helps save ammo). Also, they are now far more resistant to
artillery.
1.03 patch:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Vickers MG is available to British and Polish paratroops.
1.04 patch
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Tiger tank now models the varying thickness of its mantlet armor (up to
200mm in places).
* MG fire against vehicles is now less effective (i.e. less accurate) if
the firer or target is moving.
* Small-caliber shells that enter a pillbox's firing slit are less likely
to knock out the whole pillbox.
* British 2-inch mortar is now able to run for short distances (like
Panzerschreck), but ammo load reduced from 22 to 20.
* Canadians have use of 40mm Bofors AA gun.
1.05 patch:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* JPz IV and JPz IV/70 now have a bow MG, but it's somewhat less
effective at short (under 100m) range than a 'standard' bow MG due to
its simplified and somewhat underprotected mounting.
1.1 patch:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Vehicle top speed over open ground reduced somewhat, especially for jeeps.
And all wheeled vehicles are slightly more likely to bog down in bad terrain.
* Pillboxes:
- Acquire targets a bit faster than other guns (it's assumed that they've
pre-ranged to landmarks).
* Data changes:
- MG Jeep cannot carry passengers.
- PzIV silhouette reduced.
- Marder III armor changed.
- Sherman Jumbo's speed and some armor values lowered.
- British Carriers now have smoke mortars.
1.11 patch:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Fixed a bug that allowed tungsten rounds to be overly effective against
highly-sloped armor.
1.12 patch:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Firing ordnance while moving is less accurate than before.
* Pillboxes have slightly better 'reaction time' and are slightly less easier
to spot at long range. It is also somewhat harder to hit their firing slits
from longer ranges.
I'd say the pro-German/pro-British lobby is doing a fair job themselves
-
You obviously have not been following things as closely as you claim as your post contains a lot of factual errors and unsupported supposition. In fact, the whole thing is way off-base.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:
The most influential set of contributers to this forum are based in the USA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You sure about that? I would be willing to bet that at least half of them are outside the US.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US squads are tooled-up with an impressive tank killing capacity in those armour-piercing rifle grenades following a concerted campaign by these incumbents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What campaign? The rifle grenades were in the game upon its release and have not been changed in any patches. The "impressive" tank killing capacity you claim is not backed up by my experience. In the year that I have been playing CM I have seen exactly one German AFV killed with a rifle grenade during a game (a 234/3). If you think that is impressive, I think you have not played the game much. If you think rifle grenade effectiveness is over modeled, state your evidence. "Because they are American" doesn't cut it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US armoured vehicles are now blessed with an almost supernatural ability to fire and hit at fast speed which would impress any honest M1A2 Abrams commander. The justification seems to stem from an innate belief in the technological superiority of the US military - and ultimately in the US political system itself! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For non-gyroed vehicles, the hit-on-the-move chance is the same for US and Axis.
There is no US lobby. The game was that way when it shipped. It was not changed latter in a patch due to American lobbying. In fact the most vocal proponent of toning down tank accuracy while moving (Tom) is an American, and if you had actually read the threads regarding this issue (which you obviously have not) you would know that he is not the only one by a long shot. And as far as "supperior US technology" and the "US politcal system", you're way off in outer space there.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The British and Commonwealth forces are treated in an almost cursory manner. The recent debate on the effectiveness of the reliant 25pdr has highlighted this issue. British infantry squads are represented only by the regulation '8 rifles, a Bren and a Sten' despite the fact that in reality the Sten (the 'Woolworth's gun) was produced in such numbers it frequently equipped half a section, particularly for street fighting duties. It's not quite as bad as the Steel Panthers 'Late war British troops were terrible and suffered from bad morale' but its getting there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you had been reading a little less selectively, you would have noticed a couple of lenthy threads about the US not having as many SMGs as they should as well. Kinda shoots down your point.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US troops had great confidence in their material advantage but often suffered from homesickness and confusion over their role in this theatre. British troops had the enemy that was dropping doodle-bugs on their homes on the run. The Germans I interviewed all impressed me with their sence of 'duty' irrespective of personal considerations. All these factors influenced small unit combat as represented here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What this has to do with the game I have no idea. Do you want BTS to introduce a "homesick" modifier for US troops in the next patch?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh and another thing; all the US tank crews I spoke too (NW Europe) insisted they disabled the gyroscopes on their weapons as they proved so defective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you for providing us with this information that we already knew. There are a lot of people who think there are too many gyros in the game (I am one of them). But they were not put in in response to the outcry of the pro-US forum.
BTW, gyro effectiveness was actually toned down in one of the patches, again shooting down your theory.
I certainly hope you research your books better than you researched your post.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
About the 70 lb thing, I don't know about the typical infantry man, but special forces units routinely carry loads of over 100 lbs when on extended patrol. And they carry them for days on end.
For example, here is a snippet from Andy McNab's Bravo Two Zero talking about his squad's preperation for its insertion into Iraq during Desert Storm:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides the tactical considerations behind equal weight distribution, people want and expect equal loads, whether they're 5'2" or 6'3". We have a scale that weighs up to 200 lb, and it showed that we were carrying 154 lbs per man in our bergens and belt kit. On top of that we had a 5-gallon jerrican of water each--another 40 lb. We carried our NBC kit and cache rations, which weighed yet another 15 lb, in two sandbags that we tied together to form saddlebags that could go around our necks or over our shoulders. The total weight per man was therefore 209 lbs, the weight of a 15-stone man...
...Belt kit consists of ammunition and basic survival requisites--water, food, and trauma care equipment, plus personal goodies. For this op we would also take TACBEs in our belt kit, plus cam netting to provide cover if we couldn't find any natural, and digging tools to unearth the cables if necessary...
The best method of moving the equipment proved to be a shuttle service in two groups of four, with four giving the protection, four doing the humping, and then changing around. It was hard work, and I didn't look forward to the 12 mile tab that first night--or maybe two--from the heli drop off to the MSR...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, special ops guys tend to be in very good shape, but the fact remains that a grown man in good condition can carry way more than 70 lbs for considerable distances. He just can't do it quickly.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:
I also should address Vanir's unit price issue. He compared the HMG-42 only to the 1917 (or Vickers, same gun). He noted the cumulative fp per point is about the same for both. He did not mention that that means the HMG-42 gets its higher fp per shot, with all of its greater suppression effects, less time needed, etc, for free.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do can you say the MG-42 gets its higher FP per shot for free when the FP per shot rating was half of the equation?
FP per shot x ammo units
Its in there.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He also did not compare it to the historically most common US MG, the 1919. Which gets only 55% as much cumulative fp per point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
2 reasons for this. One is that my post was in direct response to Triumvers statement that the 1917 is overpriced. He did not mention the 1919.
Secondly, when you compare with the 1919 you start getting some apples to oranges problems. Specifically, the 1919 can move faster than the MG-42 and has one less crewman (less durable). Without knowing how much weight BTS put on these variables when computing purchase price a direct cost/FP comparison is difficult.
Note that I don't think your larger issue is neccesarily wrong, just that your analysis of my numbers is off.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:
Somehow, I get the impression that CMBB will be "lost" to you too. We shall see, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh, I think that's a given. The game Tero wants CM to be is something like Close Combat, but with the players only giving general commands to their forces and then watching the TacAI try to execute them using official training methods for the respective armies (i.e. the game plays itself). Just look at my sig for an example of what CM would be like with Tero as Lead Designer :eek:
The funny thing will be that in CMBB Tero won't be able to accuse BTS of rooting for the home team
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
I am making a point that names dont matter. Performance and functionality do<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is what I've been trying to say. This "proper definition" stuff is an arguement only a lawyer or bureaucrat could think was important.
The US called the M26 Pershing a "heavy" tank for moral purposes even though it was really a medium. Who cares? Calling it a heavy didn't make its armor any thicker, and calling the M1917 a MMG doesn't make it weigh any less or shoot any slower.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest:
Just to make one thing clear guys and gals, CM3 will be the first game after the engine re-write. Steve has stated that fact many times. After CMBB the re-write starts!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're wrong and you're right. The rewrite will start after CM2 and will be done at the same time that CM3 is developed. But CM3 will use the current engine, not the rewrite.
EDIT: Note that this is not 100% written in stone, only a likely possibility.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan:
official designation is
Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 34 (MG34)
and
Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 42 (MG42)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Looks like they called it a GPMG, more or less. Makes sense as that's what it really was.
I found a site with some nice MG classification definitions for those who think they are important.
Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) - Originally, any machine gun designed for heavy sustained firing from a tripod and utilizing a water jacket cooling system around the barrel to dissipate heat, hence the term "heavy". Examples include the Maxim, Vickers, and Browning 1917A1. Later this term applied to machine guns that fired bullets larger than those used in the issue service rifles. The most popular example is the Browning .50 caliber M-2 series.
Medium Machine Gun (MMG) - At first this was a lighter variant of the early heavy machine guns. The barrel jacket water cooling system was dispensed with and a heavier barrel substituted. This gave the weapon greater portability but reduced sustained-fire capability. One of the best examples is the Browning 1919A4. By the advent of W.W.II, many water-cooled machine guns were reclassified as medium guns.
General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) - A German invention between the World Wars, its purpose was to provide a very flexible gun that could serve as light, medium, and even heavy gun by adding or subtracting features such as tripods, bipods, shoulder stocks, sights, ammo carriers, and barrels. The real secret of the concept was the quick-change barrel system that allowed a hot barrel to be replaced in seconds, thus maintaining a heavy stream of fire. Another feature of all modern GPMGs was borrowed from the Germans - heavy use of stampings, spotwelding, and simple cast or machined parts. Examples include the German MG-42, American M-60, and Belgian FN MAG.
Light Machine Gun (LMG) - A lighter weight, purpose-built machine gun, usually of original design and not converted from a heavier weapon, that fires a rifle cartridge either from a belt or large magazine. Most LMGs have shoulder stocks and folding bipods. Some have been adapted for tripod use such as the excellent British BREN gun. The current trend in LMGs favors assault rifle ammunition.
Automatic Rifle - Often this term is used interchangeably with LMG. The automatic rifle is normally a rifle caliber, shoulder fired machine gun containing a detachable magazine and folding bipod. Perhaps the most famous example is the Browning BAR. Many post-war designs were essentially existing service rifles refitted with bipods and selector switches for full automatic fire, and sometimes muzzle brakes, heavier barrels, and full pistol grips.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Why? Simply have to have agreement on the various aspects of the weapons employed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh. Look around on this board and see how good people are at agreeing on this stuff. Or go reread the SMLE vs. Garand thread as a refresher
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, as for the Germans calling the MG42 a HMG, I've never seen a German reference refer to it in that way. I've seen translations and intel reports refer to it that way.
Which indicates what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you actually read German or are you speculating? That's a lot of mistranslation if one were to believe your theory. I'd have to see some evidence.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
The "CMII" engine will likely first be used on CM4.
The CMBO and CMBB "remakes" will likely be combined into a single game.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
I'd suggest that in reality they are making the American interpretration of different nations' weapons.
They are not representing the "systems" aspects of them very well IMO nor are they utilising how the various nations themselves viewed those weapon systems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong.
There is no "Americanization" going on. BTS used whatever classification system the nation that used the particular weapon used. I.e. the MG42 HMG is called a HMG in the game not because the US labeled it as such, but because the Germans labeled it as such.
Now, you can argue that the Germans and the Americans used the "wrong" method of classifing MGs, but you can't pin that on the makers of the game.
Personally, I think its a silly arguement as you can apply any label you want to a weapon and it doesn't change its physical characteristics or performance. But I seem to be in the minority on that...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, I'd have much rather they'd have not hard coded the various weapons' data into the game engine but rather left them as "plug-in" data files which could be added to or altered very easily - to allow players/developers to extend a good system and make it better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's been suggested. The problem is the effect that would have on multiplayer games.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg42 gunner:
dont be a smart ass<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who are you talking to?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg42 gunner:
dont be a smart ass<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who are you talking to?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg42 gunner:
That definetley needs to be fixed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg42 gunner:
That definetley needs to be fixed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Pure physics.
The tripod is the lightest of the bunch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but the 1917 tripod was heavier than the MG42s (24 kg vs. 20.5 kg), so I guess it was the most stable of the bunch (along with the Vickers)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
The M1917A4 MMG weight WITH the tripod is 41 lbs,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you mean the M1919 MMG?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would venture to point out that the M1917A4 was the least stable of them,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you get that from?
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Triumvir:
Does this make the MG1917 underpowerd? Perhaps; but if the MG1917 accurately reflects SOP, then perhaps we should call it overpriced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regardless of whether it is modeled correctly or not, I don't think its overpriced.
I did a little math to compare price and total firepower.
MG42 HMG
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>77 FP x 95 ammo= 7315 total
7315/28 pts (purchase price)= 261.25 FP per point spent.
1917 HMG<UL TYPE=SQUARE>48 x 125= 6000
6000/22 pts= 273 FP/pt
Vickers<UL TYPE=SQUARE>48 x 130= 6240
6240/22= 284 FP/pt
Of course, the MG42 does have some limited anti-armor capability that may explain its lesser FP/pt figure. But overall, I think they are priced about right.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
British Field Artillery Undermodelled?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:
An effort was made to cannibalise but to make up numbers they had to go "cap in hand" to the Brits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Considering how much stuff they had recieved from the US by that time I would think the Brits would have been more than eager to give a small portion back...
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]