Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: so the general consensus is that the bow MG's firepower is added to the others and he fires it when he darn well pleases! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not exactly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i knew you couldnt give the BOW MG specific target orders,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes you can. If you give a tank a fire order it will use the hull MG against that target if it can, regardless if you tell it to use main gun or not. If the TacAI gives the fire order, then the hull MG may fire at a second target, if available. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but when your turrets one way, your hull is another, and some ground pounders show up infront of the hull and not the turret, does the BOW MG automatically engage them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ive never seen two sets of tracers come out of a tank in a case like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Play the game some more and try letting the TacAI choose your targets for you most of the time. That's what I do and your tanks will live longer lives that way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>or are the bow MG tracers not shown (this is in situations when the BOW MG does NOT have its own ammo, unlike the carriers where the bow is the only MG)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tracers are always shown.

If left to their own discretion, the different MGs can and sometimes will target different targets at the same time. You'll know when this happens as there is a tracer animation going to each target. The hull MG will often shoot at a differnet target than what the main gun is firing at. I've never noticed any difference in tracer animations from the guns, but the hull and coax MG do have different sound effects. If you're using the stock sounds the hull MG is a light snaping sound (the same sound used for the Vickers, 1919 and 1919 MGs), while the coax is a deeper, rougher sound. If the flexible MG is a .50 cal it will use the unique .50 cal sound; if it is a .30 cal I believe it uses the hull MG sound. [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Oh, I forgot: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: Group morale is portrayed by global but morale and it's effects are much more complex than that. Sub-units will suffer varying morale effects based on what is happening.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was also discussed and there will be no moral modification to individual units based upon what they can see. It's an engine limitation thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: It has been said that the first two points will be in CM2 but that is like saying "it is in the Bible". I was wondering if anybody has heard anything more specific on the subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not even going to try to find the exact quotes. I think most if not all of them are in the various recent machine gun and SMG threads. Steve really hasn't said much more than what I said. As for MG ROF, in CM2 MGs will vary how often they fire depending on the distance to target. MGs firing at very close targets (like rushing SMG squads) will be able to "go for broke". This may or may not increase the chance of jamming. Beaten zone is already modeled somewhat in CM, but its affective area will be enlarged in CM2. I don't know if it will be in an oval shape or not (I think it is circular now). No details beyond this that I know of.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: a) Rate of fire. It is situational and a "rapid rate" is needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's in CM2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beaten zone. Or "grazing fire". This allows the effectivness to be distributed (like in real life) over an oval shaped area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's in CM2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) Group suppression. If squad A sees squad B getting cut to pieces, they are going to hit the dirt and stay there. As will C,D and F. Because the aren't suicidal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is what global moral is currently for, although in a very abstracted way. I'm pretty sure the unit specific effect you mention won't be in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Next, CM's RUN speed, IIRC (and from RTFM's description), does not indicated "maximum sprint;" rather it indicates a run like normal joggers do. The infantry are also ducking here/there, hitting the dirt, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You must have missed the MG threads a ways back. IIRC someone did a test that showed that running infantry move at about 3m per second. So how does a group of guys moving at about 10 feet per second manage to "duck here/there, hit the dirt ect."? BTS doesn't know either which is why they are significantly lowering the cover given to running squads in CM2. Ducking and hitting the dirt while advancing will be modeled with the new Assault command. [ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Good idea. It sounds like SOPs though, which won't be done until the engine rewrite.

Foxholes in CM are all generic. They are all the same regardless of what kind of unit made them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: That's probably why BTS will make it an option. This is not something that the 'big cat' lovers are going to like at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, and if so, nevermind. But there is no provision in the CM2 rarity option for a tank or unit purchased to not show up in the battle. Rarity only affects unit price. If you buy it, it will be there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: I personally think these numbers are very low compared to reality. I think they have made CMBO an "infantry heavy" game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct on both counts. The problem is the way the "run" move order is modeled. It allows infantry too much cover for the speed at which they are moving. That makes them unrealisticaly resistant to incoming fire (not just from MGs either, small arms and DF HE as well). This is being fixed in CM2 by making running troops have much less cover, and intoducing the assault order where they will move with a fair amount of cover, but much more slowly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigAlMoho: Interesting... I will pay a little more attention... I wonder, is the "!" situation tied to the half-squad with the SAW?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a good question. I don't know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigAlMoho: I believe the squad automatic weapon stays with the "b" half which make it less than ideal for scouting...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It actually varies with different squad types. For example, the SAW goes with the b team when using US 44 Rifle and British Rifle, but goes with the a team with German Rifle 44.

The Answer But Maybe It Should Be

Straight

Oh, yeah. Same thing happens in scattered trees. It represents the gun getting caught on stuff. Of course, that wouldn't be a problem with the Priest, but they probably couldn't code in exceptions for individual vehicles. Still, the Panther would have one that one in real life anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grunto IV: i read somewhere that the long 75 on this vehicle had a tendency to warp the chassis when fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know I've read the same thing, but I'll be damned if I can remember where. Apparently the gun just had too much recoil for it to handle.

I guess it is nice to see (for once) someone leaving who isn't all pissed off and bitter about something

I couldn't find that discussion either, but going from memory I believe the main points of it were: When Panzergrenediers were exploiting a break in the enemy line, it was SOP to fire while mounted at enemy units they were bypassing. However, they didn't do this expecting to hit anyone, it was supression fire only to keep the enemy's heads down long enough for them to zoom past. When they reached an area they were expected to assault, or if their way was blocked unexpectedly, they would dismount to fight. Fighting mounted from a stationary HT was not SOP and would have been a very bad idea in any case. Being as CM does not really model the breakout type of engagement (unfortunately) where firing mounted was SOP, the lack of this ability in CM is not a big deal. Someone (Michael Emrys?) made a suggestion to add this type of engagement into CM2. I thought it was a great idea, but I don't know what came of it.

Shandorf is correct. You shouldn't be complaining that your Priest rotates too slow, because in real life they couldn't rotate at all. It would've had to back up and pull forward to change facing.

It's an almost certainty that BTS will stick with WW2 at least through CM4, but it's likely they will do some modern warfare eventually.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xerxes: What's the best tactics/strat for countering a full on maximum infantry frontal assault when you're defending?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You could write a book on this, but I'd keep a few basic principles in mind: Ambush, pullback, ambush again, pull back, repeat as necessary. Try to position your men so that when you spring your ambush, his men are in less effective cover than yours. Hit his guys with light mortar fire as they advance to disrupt his planning and unit effectiveness. When he masses for a rush, hit him with bigger stuff. Stay mobile. Don't stay put long enough to get overrun or plastered by arty. [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Score one for Babra

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shipmonkey25: Who was the Modder that left because of a bootleg CM copy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let's not bring that back up. It was a long time ago and the situation was more complicated than what has been suggested here.

Petty. Very petty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: for CM2:BB, can we expect to see illuminating rounds/star shells? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, unfortunately. That would require Dynamic Lighting, which the current graphics engine does not support.