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 Ron:
I'm really don't know where you are getting that from. Pure SMG squads are useless at 100m and only come into their own at the 40m range. From experience playing or a 'sterile' test, SMG squads will cause zero to minimal casualties at 100m while US Rifle squads will eventually chew said SMG squads up at that range. SMG squads are only good at close assault.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm afraid this is simply not at all true. A quick look at the CM FP ratings shows that SMGs beat rifles hands down at 100m.
FP at 100m:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>K98k 5.2
Garand 7
Lee-Enfield 6
SMG (all models) 9
[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wadepm:
When did being a crack unit mean you are on crack? The Stuart advanced on the infantry in the same turn they backed away from the Hetzer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You say it "advanced" on the infantry. Meaning it drove towards them? If so, was this a movement order you gave it? If not, it could be a bug.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I gave the iv/70 a move order. However, since it tried to turn the gun it obviously wanted to do something useful. In this case the AI has to take over, just as the crew would in real life!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nothing wrong here. When moving with a Move or Move Fast command a vehicle will fire at targets of opportunity if it gets the chance, but it will not stop or otherwise alter it's movement path to do so. That's what the Hunt command does.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Case 3 I was expecting the crew of the Hetzer to leave the vehicle and overcome the crews of both Chaffees with their bare hands after cutting through the side armor with a can opener!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It doesn't sound like the Chaffee that got away was posing much of a threat either. The fact that it had just had its TC killed and was therefore coming out of a shocked state likely had something to do with it. Not a big deal IMO.
-
Being elite does not give a unit 100% perfect spotting ability.
Frankly, I can't believe you actually think there is something wrong with this. The tanks are obviously close to the limit of sight in those conditions.
Besides which, this is one single incident. Anything can happen once. This is like those people who see their Panther get weak spot penetrated by a Stuart and say "BTS fix of do somefink".
As for the question marks... The tank has been identified (contact level 4). The infantry units have not (contact level 2 or 3).
There's nothing wrong here, and I see no reason to waste any more time on it.
-
-
Tero, I got your saved game that you sent to me and Steve and maybe others. Upon looking at it, it immediately became obvious that you had neglected to mention one very small detail: the game is at NIGHT in a RAINSTORM! LOS range is 96m max and the tanks are 85m from each other
[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:
But perhaps 1 to 2 or even 1 to 3 would be a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1 to 3 is about what it is right now.
-
I think it all comes down to time. BTS has already said they have more stuff they would like to put into CM2 than they have time to do.
Also, making it optional would not be a good idea, as people who use it would have have a small advantage over those who didn't. For example, if you know your opponent is using an infantry type with 10 man squads, when you see a squad with 3 men shown graphicaly, you know it may have 8, 9 or 10 men left. You don't know exactly unless you have the highest spotting info level on it. People using an option to show more men graphically would have more detailed info by just counting the little guys shown.
-
CM does not model hits increasing to hit chance more than misses.
After about 5 shots, the to hit chance "maxes out" in CM. For example, Pak40 vs. Churchills max out at 41% to hit at 1600m. No matter how many times they fire at that same Churchill, they will never exceed 41% to hit.
Against a stationary target, a hit should almost always dramatically increase to hit chance of following shots. Most guess work in gunnery is in estimating range. When an AT gun (or tank) hits a stationary target, the range to that target is known. Hitting it again afterword is much easier.
Chance of first shot hits against any target near the first one would be higher as range is already known.
-
I think if BTS were to do this it would end up looking not nearly as cool as some people think. For one thing, they would have to make the squad graphics more spread out and less uniform than they are now. Putting 12 figures into the same little squares that now hold 3 would look kinda crowded. Real squads do not fight bunched up shoulder to shoulder like that.
Sounds like a good feature for the engine rewrite.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
In a recent PBEM we had two unbuttoned tanks face eachother for two turns well inside LOS and the markers did not change from contact to full blown ID'd unit until we got some help from additional units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[sarcasm] Well, we all know this could never have happened in real life. Eveyone knows that it would be impossible for 2 vehicles to fail to see each other after being in LOS for two whole minutes! I've always felt that one of the big failures of CM is that tanks are too hard to spot. [/sarcasm]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt:
What I want to know is, has anybody actually ever done that in a real game vs an opponent? Come on, fess up!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep. Claymore did it to some guy in the latest AKOTM tournament.
-
Isn't this thread more appropriate for the General Forum?
-
Try hitting Shift-I.
-
Leaving a foxhole does not effect the ammo level of any infantry unit. They start with 40 and keep it until they fire it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:
In CM, the 'later' shots doesn't show a higher tendency to hit the target then the first shot, also if the target was already hit once.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In all fairness to Scipio, he does say something here that others have pointed out as well. Namely, the fact that scoring a hit does not seem to increase the to-hit chance of later shots any more than a miss does.
Of course, this is not something unique to the 88. It's just the way the gunnery model works.
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
I think that the M2HB should definately be abandoned like a mortar, but an MG42? It is not that heavy to grab and run. Neither is the 1919.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if they are not that heavy to grab and run, then why are they not allowed to run in CM?
Seriously, I suppose it would be more the ammo slowing them down rather than the gun itself, but if you abandon the ammo, for game purposes, they might as well have dumped the gun, cuz the unit is now useless.[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
If a mine layer couldn't lay mines would it still be a mine layer?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
Soviet AT defence belts at Kursk were massive, some sources put them at 470 AT guns per km, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can't wait to see that scenario in CM2. Those Russians were some gamey bastards.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:
So basically it doesn't really help spotting to have multiple observers. I've been wondering about that before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lewis:
Well yes it does. look up at my example above with the X's and Y's. Each X is getting a chance at spotting the Y's. Its shared information if one of the X's gets a spot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well this may be what your example says, but it doesn't seem to be what Steve's says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve:
Basically, the highest spotting value "wins". For example, various spottings of a single Enemy unit over time...
Unit A spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 10.
Unit B spots Enemy unit with value 20 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 20.
Unit C spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value remains at 20.
The current spotting value determines what the friendly side gets to see/know about the Enemy unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Steve's example above suggests that there is not a seperate spotting check done for each unit in LOS. Rather, the highest spotting value of any single unit in LOS is used when doing the check. If the result comes up as "spotted" all units in LOS spot it. Having more than one unit in LOS could help in that the more units, the higher the likelyhood of one of them having a higher spotting value, but it does not increase the number of checks made.
If this is correct, that would mean that 1 unit with a spotting value of 20, would be more likely to spot that enemy unit than 6 units each with a spotting value of 10.
-
I meant to say 234/1.
I've had no bad experiences myself. I've simply read enough of others to know not to risk it except in very particular situations.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
Could this possibly be reflecting the use of the ambush command by my opponent where the area I moved to has, in effect, been pre-sighted and therefore gives an advantage to the ambusher.
Regards<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I did this in a PBEM a while back. I used it with a 251/1 to nail a Greyhound on the first burst, but it was very short range, like 100m. It's the only time in recent memory I've used ambush with a vehicle (a practice I try to avoid).
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:
I meant, we should not discuss if something is worth to be coded, but of cause we should discuss if a 'problem' is caused by the coding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only thing I see here that I would like to see changed, is MGs being allowed to abandon.
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:
I guess it's still operable, but the crew has run for cover, cause the situation was a little bit to hot. ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is not necessarily the case. Steve has said that if a crew abandons a gun having sustained few or no casualties, the gun is assumed to have been damaged. If they have taken serious losses they are assumed to be too rattled to go back a few minutes latter.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is only true of MGs, and is due to a coding issue (MGs are considered infantry in the CM engine).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) why can a machinegun not be knocked out with a surviving crew? Is a MG not so vulnerable like a 60mm mortar?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See above.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>d) Maybe a surviving crew would be able to man the weapon of another - maybe killed or routed - crew? Maybe they could even man an abandoned enemy gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you would have the opportunity to use this feature often enough to make it worth while. If you can actually get your own routed crews all the way over to where the other guy had his own guns, you've probably already won the battle.
I can just see people charging their crews across the map, braving MG and tank fire to make it to that abandoned enemy 88 on that back hill... bleh
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:
What about this extra 65mm of armor on the mantlet? Is this true? Would give kingtiger 185mm + 65mm armor thickness. Maybe an add on in the field?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look at a picture of a KT and see for yourself. As Rexford said, the mantlet obviously only covers the area immediately around the gun opening. It doesn't even come close to covering the whole turret front. In fact, I just looked over at Achtung Panzer and they list the KTs front turret at 180mm at 9 degrees.
I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My armor does goofy stuff....
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wadepm:
In Case 2, I have seen tanks with a move order take shots, even if they had to stop and turn to do it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are sure about that? I certainly have never seen that and AFAIK the Move command is not supposed to allow that. So if you really did see a tank with a Move order abort its move to stop and shoot, that would be a bug. Or more likely, you gave it a hunt order on accident.
[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]