Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Has anyone read anything about this any where? Has Steve commented on this option somewhere and I have missed it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I personally like the idea very much and hope there is an option for it in CM2. IIRC, Madmatt made a comment to the effect that they (BTS) liked the program, so I'd say there is hope.

A while back, some guy who claims to have been a RW artillery officer for 15 year made a post about changes he would like to see in CM arty. I'll cut and paste the relevant stuff here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>X-00 wrote: (2) Sheaf: (a)Both the normal and target wide are basically a converged sheaf. An open sheaf (all guns firing the same deflection)was the standard form of delivery (b)It's east-west orientation should be rotated 90 degrees to reflect (a) above. © Guns are usually placed 50-100m apart in a Lazy W. Using an open sheaf the rounds would fall on a frontage of basically 150m-300m with a depth of 50-100m (depends on the probable error in range). (3) C2. Similar to onboard indirect fire, if an allied leader has C2 over an FO that leader should be able to adjust fire. Additionally, in order to increase the importance of Company Commanders if a Company commander can see a target regardless of C2 with a CO he should be able to adjust fire. (4) Target Shift Time. The 100m adjust radius (the green line) is arbitrary and frankly shows no understanding of how fire direction is conducted. To a Fire Direction Center it doesn't matter if the correction is 50m or 500. For example say an artillery Battery is 5000m from the target and is directed to shift the gun-target line 50m left or right. The deflection correction would be 10 mils (less than a degree)for a 500m correction it would be 100 mils (about 6 degrees). The FDC and the Gun-line can apply these corrections in seconds. Today and then. (snip) 5. Effects. The effectiveness of an artillery "barrage" significanly decreases after the first "salvo". The Joint Munitions Effects Manual (JMEMs), a classified document, reflects this. Soldiers under artillery fire are very good at finding effective cover after the first "surprise". Veteran soldiers are very good at finding cover. If they weren't they wouldn't be veterans. Additionally, foxholes provides much better cover than is reflected in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Let's start placing odds on seeing a thread titled "I JUST ORDERED COMBAT MISSION 3 DAYS AGO" sometime tomarrow

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shatter: I do own 2 PC's and ocassionally play myself in a battle, by going up and down the stairs each and every turn. So I do need 2 backups to do this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why aren't you using the hotseat option? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ya I also buy beer in bulk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nevermind, that explains it

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybeq: The reason I'm asking is because I just surrendered a PBEM and my opponent told me "that's weak".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless you agreed to fight to the last man, as far as I'm concerned you are totally within your rights to surrender when the outcome is no longer in doubt. I get rather annoyed at opponents who keep fighting with a few tattered units when they have no chance. I think most people are like this, and the ones who get some perverse pleasure out of spending 15 turns trying to kill every last bailed crew on the map are rare. Just don't play him again.

There is no box. The manual is pretty good and fairly thick. If more people read it this message board would have much less traffic. Don't freak out when you open the shipping package and see no CD. Its tucked inside the manual. I live in Wyoming and I think I got mine in about 4 or 5 days after ordering.

Rarity does influence computer purchase.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: As for skirts on Gs, they may have simply been left off as an aid in identifying the vehicles while playing. Cover up that redesigned upper hull side and all Panther types tend to look the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno. Those skirts on the A are functional, tho not very effective. I once shot a whole bunch of bazookas at some Panthers (in the game that is) and the skirts on the A deflected about 3% of the hits.

oops [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I must have a weird copy of the game or something. My tanks always seem to blaze away at infantry with the main gun without being told to. In fact, I rarely target my tanks at all, I just let the TacAI do it. I don't have to start telling them to use the main gun until they get low on HE (like 1/4 the rounds they started with).

So you say the Gs did have the Schrurtzen? I wonder why BTS left them off in the game. I know the As have them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Had the Schurtzen not worked, the II would have been produced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, I've been wondering why the Panther G does not have the Schrurtzen. Did the Russians stop using the 14.5mm AT or something? [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ] [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Will the water cooled HMG's get any special treatment for being able to fire longer bursts than the aircooled ones ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is actually a good question. Because of the way CM abstracts MG and small weapon fire, I doubt that longer bursts are possible. More frequent bursts would be, however. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So is the German HMG undermodelled in CM at present time ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTW tero, any problems with MG modeling currently in CM apply equally to all MGs in the game, not just German MGs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Experience ranges for Quick Battles have also been adjusted downward so, for example, you get to buy Green-Regular troops instead of Conscript-Green or Regular-Veteran. This should lead to more use of Green and Regular troops and less Regular and Veteran combos.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although I admit to being totally biased on this issue, I strongly suspect this will not be a real popular decision among QB players. While I agree that green/regular would be a more common mix historically, there seems to be a general opinion that green troops are not a good choice for competitive play, and are only useful in scenarios where you are modeling actual specific units that really were green. If given a choice between regular and green I doubt many will chose green. The end result will be a lot of totally regular forces, or totally veteran if you go high quality. Personally, I like to buy mostly regulars, but always buy my sharpshooters at veteran. I won't be able to do this anymore (yeah, whaaaa, I know, but it bugs me).

Moon, I have tried to duplicate your test results and have been unable to do so. I set up the tanks at the distance shown in your screen shots. I even gave the 105 the same ammo load. From the 2 different distances shown in the 2 screen shots, it appears the Mk IV was moving, so I tried tests with it moving and stationary. In every instance only HE was fired. I think I know how you did it though. You mentioned you used two 105s in your test. I suspect the Mk IV was firing at the other 105, which was off to the side. This would have put the Mk IV at an oblique angle to the 105 shown in the pics. At that range, an oblique angle would make the Mk IV front turret impenetrable to 105 HE, which explains the HEAT round being used. I also assume the other 105, the one firing directly at the Mk IV and therefore able to penetrate the turret with HE, did not fire HEAT. If these assumptions are correct, your test results do not contradict mine. In fact they support them. If my assumptions are incorrect, please supply more information about your test so I can try to duplicate it again. No one is saying that the sky is falling or that this is a game breaker. But it is a legit issue. It took months of threads like this before BTS changed the tungsten use code, but they did change it. If this problem is still present in CM2 it will come up again and eventually it will get fixed. We'll just have to be patient.

That's a fluke (or a rare bug). That unit is also green and out of LOS! I don't recall ever seeing one of my own units do that in similar circumstances.

If you look at the screen with squinty eyes the vehicle that blows up the church tower kinda looks like a Marder of some sort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clinton: 1.) Are Dead Zones modeled on tanks and vehicles?(The area around the vehicle that is not in veiw while buttoned.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorta, kinda. In CM tanks can spot 360 degrees around them, but they are much less likely to spot stuff not in front of them right away when buttoned. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.) When Assualting a postition, do most of you issue a move command to take advantage of more firepower but more exposure, or do you issue a Run command to get there quicker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd run, assuming you are suppressing the defenders. If you don't have the defenders suppressed, your guys will die either way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5.) When using hedges or walls as cover, should you move the cursor to where it says "wall" or should you position the movement cursor just behind the wall. Will the wall give cover if units are just behind it and not positioned on it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BEHIND!. If your guys are right on the wall they will recieve no cover from it at all. As long as you are within 15m of the wall and it is between you and the guy shooting at you, you get the cover (unless he is at a significantly higher elevation). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7.) Are there any Allied Winter Uniforms out there. Been looking but can't find any.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm pretty sure there's some at CMHQ. I know Maximus did some a while back. [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Steve has said they will introduce SOPs when they rewrite the engine. Until then we'll just have to see how "covered arc" works out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: No, it wasn't. The FlaK gun is 113 calibres long and have plenty of ammo feed. The gun in the non-AA dedicated AFVs (such as PzKw II, PSW 222 and PSW 234/1 were only 55 calibres and fed by a 15 round clip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's interesting, as CM gives both the same muzzel velocity (780) and AP penetration.

You can't even post without screwing it up. HA! Just giving you a bad time, Ott..uh I mean AI Seriously, it doesn't sound like anything a good 12 step program couldn't solve. Or at least help. In the meantime, keep your mortars out of LOS of the enemy and use HQ units with combat bonuses to spot for them. Then watch your forces roll to victory after victory. [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

My testing shows the following: 1. The chance to kill shown with the target command is for HEAT rounds, not HE, as long as the tank has at least 1 HEAT round. 2. Vs. Mk IV, Sherman will only fire HE. 3. Vs. Tiger, Sherman will only fire HEAT. 4. Vs. Panther, in the test I did the results were very strange. If the Sherman has smoke rounds it will fire them. If not, it fired a mix of HE and HEAT!. The tank I tested had 52 HE rounds and 4 HEAT. On the first turn of combat it fired HE with the first round, HEAT with the next 2 rounds, and then switched back to HE for the 4th round. [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoopenfaust 101: 2nd SS "Das Reich" were no where near spielberg when he was filming the movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would certainly hope not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Heh, funny again how the example tells me something completely different. With a "good" kill chance, why use C ammo? To make it "über-really-overkill-very-good"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm having deja vu about the old tungsten use threads. It took months of haranguing to convince BTS that the tungsten use code was messed. The problem with this explanation is that the "good" kill chance was assuming the use of HEAT shells, not HE. But HE was used. 105 HE can only penetrate the Pz IV frontally through the turret. A hit anywhere else will not penetrate. So, you've got a bunch of Sherman 105 tank commanders who are so confident in their gunner's skill that they will fire HE only at a tank that must be hit in the turret to be destroyed, even though he has HEAT rounds that will penetrate anywhere they hit, even though the Pz IV's gun will penetrate his own tank easily, even though less than half of all hits will strike the Pz IV's turret (assuming he is not hull down). These Sherman tankers seem to have a remarkable lack of sense of self-preservation programmed into their behavior. If only the first shot was HE, you could say the game was simulating shooting the round in the tube. But every shot thereafter is HE also, so that's not true. If this only happend once in a while you could say the programming is simulating human error and mistakes under stress. But it happens the same way every time. Try it. Make a little scenario, line up a Sherman 105 across from a Pz IV and see if it ever fires a HEAT round. If you try this against a Tiger, HEAT is fired as HE will not penetrate the Tiger frontally anywhere. At some point, you have to just admit there is a problem with how the TacAI selects what type of round to fire vs. certain targets. I think the evidence in this case is irrefutable. If course, BTS isn't going to make a new patch for CM just to fix this, but hopefully the problem won't be present in CM2. [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Thus any and all attempts to induce differentiated, army specific tactics and doctrines to simulate the different paths the different armies took to reach their goals (which were more often than not very different) that are not based on technical facts (mv, fp, signals equipment etc.) or such abstractions as fitness and experience level are inherently impossible to model without the results becomming gamey, unbalansed, unrealistic and historically untrue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'll be damned. I guess I'll have to get a new sig now.