Vanir Ausf B

Good to hear Rexford. Thanks for the update.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: The Yanks went for the volume of fire (semi-auto, keep the enemy's head down) philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, US troops were specifically trained not to shoot at anything they couldn't see. However, in actual combat it was found that the volume of fire philosophy was superior, as enemy soldiers were rarely visible during combat. When firing a bolt action rifle you have to reacquire the target ofter every shot, while with a semi-auto you can keep it in your sights until you reload. So in a typical combat, I would argue that the M1 had generally more accurate fire. Of course, its something of a moot point, as soldiers in combat usually are firing at an area where the enemy is known to be, rather than at a specific enemy soldier. When an enemy was visible is was usually for a brief moment. I think CM has the M1 and Enfield effectiveness modeled quite well. [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack: Well this rant is over. Once Again I dont think that ANY rifle was superiour..THats was the point of this argument. That nobody can say the Lee Enfield was better than the Garand, or the Garand was Better than the Enfield. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think 9 grogs out of 10 would disagree with this. The M1 Garand is widely considered to be the best non-automatic rifle of WW2. Being semi-auto was a huge advantage over the Enfield and the K98k. Even with 2 fewer rounds per clip, the M1 could lay down a larger volume of sustained fire, and at equal or better accuracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Hence absolutely no recce type formations appear in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I could have sworn I've seen German fusilier companies available. Plenty of other recce units also (jeeps, Greyhounds, 234s, ect.). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Kettler: Seems to me the game either needs to be recast to allow effective prebattle recon by the players or some mechanism has to be devised to give them the benefits therof without having to physically do the work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Given deeper QB maps, greater starting distance between forces, and enough turns, this could be done. Some people do this to some extent already. But frankly, I don't see what any of this has to do with the LOS tool. As far as that goes, I see no problem with a 360 degree function, especially during setup. As for being able to use the LOS tool without it being anchored to a unit, this has been shot down by BTS more than once as too unrealistic. I think you're all wasting your time on that one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: These reviews arent exactly glowing. Ones lukewarm and the other is a little degrading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here are the summaries for each of the 2 reviews: World War II Ballistics reads like a mathematical proof, but it is also, albeit somewhat indirectly, a work of industrial history. Within the narrow arc of its subject, the authors condense a staggering amount of material and frequently emerge with little known, but crucial details. This reviewer was fascinated by the description of variance in the thickness of Panther glacis, or Tiger tank welds that shattered when struck with a hammer. Wargame designers will certainly appreciate the incredible wealth of mathematical models, like the "Theoretical hit probability method," which could significantly enhance the quality of armor combat simulation. Despite its organizational flaws, Bird and Livingston's World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is certain to become a standard reference and could well be the starting point for a much more robust study of military technology and the people who created it. ... World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery will provide both wargamers and historians many insights into the mechanics of armor penetration. It will give the wargame designer a set of tools for the design of armor combat formulas and it will help the historian to understand the problems associated with published penetration tables and armor resistance data. As there are no other commonly available books that deals with the subject, " World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is recommended despite some of its shortcomings. Hopefully Charles is aware of the errata, as there is apparently an error in one of the formulas for Soviet APBC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Duh. It gives anything UK a 1.4 times blast multiplier, as I already said. The question is "why?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it may be because of different materials used in US and UK shell casings. I can't find where I read it, but I remember reading that the British did some tests that showed cast iron casings produced far more fragments upon bursting than steel casings (about twice as many IIRC). The downside to cast iron shells was that they had a shorter range than steel shells because of the weaker material. So, if the Brits used cast iron casings and the US used steel, that could explain the difference. However, I can't find a source that states whether or not this is true. Of course, none of this explains the 25 lber ROF.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: So, BTS, is this in CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hope so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Similarly, the 5.5" had only 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the HE burster of a US 155mm, but is given the same blast rating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not the same. The 5.5 has a BR of 208 compared to the 155s 198. Which is something I have always wondered about, as the 5.5 is only 140mm...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina: If i can see that my opponent is totally overwhelmed i would mention to him in my e-mails that now would be a good time to surrender, whether he chooses to surrender or not i leave it up to him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've thought about doing this many times, but the one time I did try it my overly sensitive opponent mistook it for gloating. :confused: Having said that, if it is obvious to me I have no chance to even force a draw I will surrender or at least offer cease fire.

I remember a story posted here not too long ago. Several T-34s were advancing on a German AA unit equipped with nothing heavier than their 20mm AA guns. So they opened up on the tanks with what they had. The 20mms pelted the T-34s for a short time with no apparent effect, then the tanks came to a halt and the crews proceeded to bail out. Of course, nearly all of them were cut down right away. When one of the few survivors was asked by his German captors why he abandoned the safely of his tank for near certain death, he replied that the noise created by the constant stream of 20mm shells impacting on the tank was so fearsome inside the tank that they would have done anything to get away from it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Sure, right. If being able to hide is worth so much, why isn't a US M-10 tank destroyer less expensive than a US 76mm anti-tank gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The M-10 has more advantages over the 76mm AT than the Nashorn does over the Pak43, including a larger ammo load. In fact, with the notable exception of the gun the M-10 is a better all around vehicle than the Nashorn while the 76mm AT is markedly inferior to the PaK43. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FFE: Ideally, the Nashorn ought to be used like an AT gun, at (long) range so small arms (and even .50cals) are pointless<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but easier said than done on most CM maps. Should be more feasable in CM2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But as a counter position, why is the Archer more costly than a 17lb ATG? The Archer has no turret and the hunt command is all but useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point. I suspect the Archer's unique handicap may not have been factored into its price. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mattias: Only very few of the vehicles modelled had the ability to turn on a dime. This obscures one very significant weakness that some of the turretless vehicles in the game had in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true and I agree that German turretless vehicles seem to be priced more in accordance with their real world effectiveness rather than their in-game effectiveness. I would like to see this looked at for CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nothing fancy, just Steve: Try "Fast Moving" (arty shift)that Pak when the spotting round hits. Especially in the woods where it will suffer from the dreaded air burst. Of course it's always fun to move the Pak after it's LOS has been obscured by smoke. :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but... The important thing here is that because of the PAKs ability to remain hidden while in LOS of the enemy until it opens fire (try that with a Nashorn), if the enemy is hitting it with arty that usually means the PAK has already made its first kill.

I agree with Andrew and Clay. In addition, the PAK gun carries 10 more rounds than the Nashorn (50 vs. 40).

If LMGs could run, even for short distances, they might be worth it. As it is I think they are one of the more useless units in the game and never buy them. I can't think of any type of game I would not rather have a HMG. HMGs are terrific HE soaker-uppers. Hopefully this will be fixed in CM2 by allowing them to abandon the weapon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zgrose: Does the Hide order have the same effect of making the unit hold its fire like it does for an infantry unit? I have a tank sitting in ambush on the blind side of a curve in the road and would like for it to go "silent" to maximize my chance of getting the first shot off, but I don't want it to try and "hide" from any tanks that appear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want to get the first shot off, I would not hide. Hiding tanks do not spot very well and will be sluggish to open fire when a target presents itself. Hide is a mostly worthless command for vehicles.

Nobody buys them huh? In a game I'm playing now my opponent bought no less than 9 of them (3000 pt ME, heavy woods, S75 rule).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: why did BTS do this? i think to represent the fact that most of the time, germany's forces were lots of soldiers with support, vehicles and some tanks, mostly SP guns and assult guns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's exactly why they did it. As for whether it gives the Allies the upper hand, I would say no, I don't think it does. In fact, I would say the Germans are a little easier to win with in combined armes battles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Wacky: What is the ladder that most CM players use? I have been told tournamenthouse. Is this right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I might depend on how you intend to play most of your games. If your going to be doing much TCP/IP, Tournament House is the way to go. If your a PBEM only guy I would recommend Rugged Defense. I've never tried TH, but I've been on the RL ladder for months and like it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: In short, if your opponent doesn't tell you that he wants this or that specific rule, then it is his problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the bottom line for me as well. I have just had a similar experience in a game where on turn 19 or 20 of a 30 turn game my opponent informs me that "some people" would consider using Gerbils as gamey. This despite the fact that we had made no restriction on the purchase of infantry types. When I took exception to this, he reminded me that he was not calling me gamey, just suggesting that "some people" would think me gamey. I found that mildly amusing. I have nothing against requiring transport for guns, banning anything carrying an SMG or whatever. But if you don't inform your opponent of what you expect prior to the start of the game, don't come crying about it later on when your losing. You could ask 100 CM players to make a list of things they consider gamey and no 2 would be alike. It's not your opponent's fault for not reading your mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I think what was meant was that you plot a move requiring more than one turn to complete. At the beginning of each turn, put in a pause. Thus, you have a pause in the middle (more or less) of the move (not the turn).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think that is what he meant. There would already be a C&C delay so giving a pause order on top of it would be unnecessary unless you wanted the tank to stay there for half the turn. But, whatever. It's not a big deal. I just think having the ability to do pauses in the middle of move orders would be nice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: True, but this is up to the player. There are a half dozen ways of doing this, but generally they center on the HUNT order, giving Pause orders during the middle of a move, or halting orders completely and then replotting using the C&C penalty as a pause of sorts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The pause command cannot be given during the middle of a move, only at the beginning. I wish we could do that. Using the C&C penalty to do halts means you have to plot the orders over the course of more than one turn. One extra turn for every halt. This is usually not feasible and is unwieldy in any case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: BTS do this test:...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Guys, maybe I'm not making myself clear here. BTS already knows there is a problem and is fixing it for CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: vanir (or anyone whos tried this), where will the red target line be drawn then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you manually targeted, it will be on the target. When the TacAI fires the MGs at a target it chose, there is no target line if only MGs are being fired.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: i give the "fire" command and select to not fire the MA, the turret then will not swing to engage that target, leaving the old targets (this is assuming that the old target was not a big threat, ex: a tank)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, if you manually targeted the infantry in front of your tank it would swing the turret back around so it could use the coax MG.

I took one out with a 2 inch mortar in a recent game.