Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
<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.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:
In the “World of Combat Mission” there is no distinction between squads aside from weapons make-up and numbers of men in a squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree there are very real differences in squad drill. I think the problem is the level of abstraction in the game. In CM squads are a single unit. When a squad moves, everyone in the squad moves at the same time. Squads fire in "volleys", and when they fire, everyone fires and then no one fires again until it's time for the next volley. I know Steve has said they plan to increase modeling of individual soldiers when they rewrite the engine, which would help greatly. Until then, I'm not sure much could be done.
The one area where changes might be made now is in how half squads are used. When you split squads into teams you get an over watch element with the MG42/BAR and a maneuver element with rifles. This arrangement would seem to be more natural to the Germans because of the superiority of the MG42. The problem is that CM actively discourages people from doing this by giving half squads a moral penalty, as well as a global moral hit, when they split. The net effect of this is that infantry teams are only used as ambush-springers and for deception. When the bullets start flying everyone only fights with full squads since teams cannot take a punch, i.e. come under fire without suppressing and panicking almost right away.
If I were looking for better modeling of squad drill in CM in the near future, I would begin by asking BTS to consider doing away with the split squad moral penalty. Then we would see a greater use of infantry teams as they were historically used, and perhaps a greater differentiation in the performance of German and Allied squads.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord:
Has anybody considered going after any of the Churchills/Cromwells in hires?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tiger did a couple of nice hi-res churchills. At least I think they're hi-res. They look great in any case. I'm using the non-weathered one now. IIRC it's at Manx's site.
Someone must have done a Cromwell at some point as the one I'm using is not stock, although I don't know if it's hi-res, and I don't remember where I got it.
What I'd really like to see is a winter Churchill and winter Cromwell. AFAIK no one has done one of these.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:
I'll use the Gulf War to explain the importance of "national modifiers". How would CM handle it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CM would handle it by making the Iraqi's conscript (which they were) and the US a mix of regular and veteran. Then you properly model the different levels of C&C. If the US then is allowed the same overwhelming air and artillary assets they had, the result would likely be about the same as real life.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An example would be the Germans use of fieldcraft in Normandy. All the reading I've done suggests the Allies were impressed by their use of cover and concealment, and I don't think that's reflected at all in CM. Spotting German units in the bocage is almost a trivial matter, even at long range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spotting anything is CM is pretty easy, but that's a function of the Borg spotting model and can't be avoided.
You can make the Germans spot the Allies better than vice versa by making them higher expirienced in the game. That would be realistic for the ETO in summer '44 anyway.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:
You cannot tell me that a man who has lived all his life with those conditions isn't more used to them than someone who is coming into it for the first time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Although rather irrelevant to CM, this is interesting. I was always under the impression that German difficulties in Russian winter (especially '41) were more due to a lack of proper clothing than any innate resistance to cold Russians may have had.
Does anyone know if there have been any studies done to see if, all else being equal, people from colder climes freeze to death more slowly than their warm blooded peers? On the surface, it sounds absurd to me, but I've never really looked into it.
[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
It is unfortunate that mortar HTs cannot use spotters in CM. In good weather they are mostly worthless. In your situation they are completely worthless. I'm afraid you're screwed.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:
The most glaring example would be how Russian soldiers could stand up to the extreme Russian winter better than the Germans, as they were more used to the conditions. Didn't that have an effect at some point..?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No doubt. But during a CM game? I don't think enough Germans would have froze to death during a 30 minute battle to model them dropping from frostbite in the middle of a firefight.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Duquette:
What I am suggesting is that Armies are not generic blocks of units that are interchangeable between differing nations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree completely.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Example: The Red Army employed 3 tank armored platoons. US Army employed 5 tank armored platoons. US tank platoon functions in two cohesive groups…a heavy section and light section. One section overwatches for the other during movement. Within the Soviet system two separate platoons are employed for overwatch. I would suggest that the US system is better as overwatch is conducted within the platoon…no coordination with another platoon is required. Subjective?…sure it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The question becomes to what extent you force the player to use those tactics and prohibit him from using others. What if someone wants to use 2 of his T-34's to overwatch the other advancing. How do you stop this? Did the Russians never deviate from offical SOP? How do you force the player to only use marching fire on the attack as the US in summer '44? Depuy states they did not discover squad overwatch suppression tactics until later. How do you stop the US player from even targeting defending German units with stationary US squads? Tero wants the TacAI to have German units automaticaly area fire at unseen enemy units. The net effect would be that German squads would run out of ammo much faster, blowing it firing at sound contacts, while doing little more damage. It would become SOP for every German player to begin his orders phase canceling all the area fires the TacAI had ordered during the turn. This would be a mess. People would hate it. Tero would hate it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Be as subjective as you like, as personally I am less interested in what someone thinks about the implications to a wargame as I am in the real world mechanics of what is implied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This whole thread is pretty much about how RL stuff translates into CM terms
[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
No counter arguments have been made. None that have come with actual, factual counterclaims anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What a load.
Look, this has gone beyond pointless to absurd. People post stuff left and right countering your arguements and you pretend they don't exist. Then one person posts some opinions that mesh with yours and you lap it up as if God himself had just come down and appointed you his spokesperson.
This reminds me of another arguement I had with some guy last year on another forum about a new graphics engine coming out. He was going off on how it couldn't be any good as it still supported Glide. I posted a quote from the lead programmer where he flat out stated "we are dropping Glide and going with DX and OpenGL only. Glide is dead." The guy's response was to say "I don't see anything in there about Glide support being dropped". He simply refused to admit he had been proven wrong even though the proof was right there for everyone to see. It reminded me of argueing with a small child who plugs his ears and goes "LALALALALALAL-I can't hear you!-LALALALALALA".
So when I see you refusing to admit that Depuy thought the M1 had anything to do with US suppression problems, even though I provided 2 quotes where he clearly does, I begin to hear LALALALAL and know it's time to agree to disagree and move on.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kallimakhos:
Vanir & co, I object to your implications that Finns are nationalist or even racist if we think, based on historical comparison and evidence, and say aloud, that Finnish army did very well and and other armys could even learn something from us. When you make this kind of accusations, every Finn can be offended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can only speak for myself, but at no time did I ever accuse Tero of being racist, nationalist, sexist or any other ist. I did say his arguements were based upon stereotypes, which they are.
I never said anything about Finland, the Finnish army or Finnish people in general.
[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:
What on earth would make you think that the M1 is a poor suppressor?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the off chance you were directing this question to me, the answer is that I never at any time said I thought the M1 was a poor suppressor. I only quoted Depuy's remarks on it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have here Patton's Letters of Instruction to the Third Army, dated April 1944 (War As I Knew It). In it he is already advocating "marching fire", of which he is known as the foremost advocate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have here a quote from Depuy who apparently was not a big advocate of marching fire.
"So, marching fire obviously was designed to overcome that problem, but somewhere in the transmission between the lessons learned and our unit, marching fire became the tactic through which you attacked. In other words, we lined up two battalions with two companies up and they went across the line of departure, using marching fire. It might have worked if the enemy was not well dug in, not well camouflaged, and very weak; but, if the enemy was professional, as the Germans usually were, was well-hidden, and was in very good positions, marching fire as often as not, just wasn’t sufficient. We marched into their killing zones."
[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Well DUH ! What was their primary infantry fire arm at the time ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depuy doesn't say anything about any weapons that would have been good suppressors if they had only been used as such, there or anywhere else.
However, the M-l rifle, coupled with the rifle marksmanship program, worked to discourage active firing in combat by the average soldier.
The M-l rifle was a precision weapon but there were no precision targets
What parts of these sentences do you not understand?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why is that ? I used to think that the Garand WAS an excellent suppressor, being rifle caliber, high MV, semiauto, multiple shot weapon. Silly me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, silly you. I thought we were talking about Depuy's opinion of the M1, not yours.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tero:
What words have I put into Gen. Depuys mouth, exactly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One blatant example:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Really ?
GEN DEPUY: We didn’t do that very well. You see, one of our training deficiencies was that almost all suppression was done by indirect fire weapons. Very little suppression was done by small arms. Occasionally, we would use our heavy machine guns. People thought first about mortars and artillery, then heavy machine guns, and finally, light machine guns. Really, they didn’t think much about using riflemen for suppression..... We didn’t do direct fire suppression very well in my outfit until the latter part of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You quote this to support your contention that Dupey thought the M1 Garand would be a good suppression weapon if they had tried to use it as such. This despite the fact that he makes no mention of the M1 anywhere in that quote.
In fact another Depuy quote that you posted earlier (but seem to have somehow forgotten now) pretty much discredits your point:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DEPUY: However, the M-l rifle, coupled with the rifle marksmanship program, worked to discourage active firing in combat by the average soldier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And again later:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DEPUY: Really, they didn’t think much about using riflemen for suppression. They just thought of using riflemen for maneuvering and sharpshooting. The M-l rifle was a precision weapon but there were no precision targets<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find these statements very hard to reconcile with your contention that Depuy thought the M1 was an "excellent suppressor" (your exact words).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you Americans see the boogie man every time the effectiveness of your army gets questioned ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet another stereotype.
[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Tiger Tank
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
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.