Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Vanir Ausf B

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,589

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B

    "SMG Gap" A Proposal

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I keep telling myself this is pointless, but I keep posting anyway. I can't explain it.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    To me he comes across as having been turned from that into thinking that the M1 would have been an excellent suppressor if it had been deployed in that manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    He never said anything of the sort, or even suggested it.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect it is not. A semi-auto FP rating is better than the bolt action FP. Bullet for bullet. :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Check the FP rating for the M1 and K98 sometime.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes. But how did the Germans react in a similar tactical situation ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You tell me. You're the one wanting to give them extra bonuses.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Hey, somebody is firing at us from that direction with a MG ! Sorry, can't see it. Can you see i..argh. **** this ****, lets call in some arty to flush that speck of woods. Yeah, Rock'nRoll !"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The thing that bothers me so much about your nationality modifier crusade is that it's based upon stereotypes like the one above. The use of stereotypes, even ones with some basis in fact, in modeling human behavior is wrongheaded

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A German squad (9 men) vs an American squad (12 men), both in covered terrain and advancing, distance 75 meters. The Germans open up first. What happens next ? Which team in your oppinion prevails and why ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Result would hinge entirely upon what the 2 squads had eaten for breakfast.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And a single shot from a K98k would drive the entire US platoon to ground and they would look for a sniper for minutes before they dare to move on. Is that now modelled in the game ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Now you're just making things up. And another stereotype to boot. "US soldiers were so jittery a single shot would suppress them for minutes. German soldiers, however, would bravely push forward, unbothered by the small annoyance."

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think this is worth a closer look at least, given the weight of evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    All your weighty evidence amounts to words you've put into Depuy's mouth combined with stuff you've pulled out of thin air.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That would mean that in essence using above average troop quality for the US infantry becomes gamey. How realistic is that ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Are you suggesting there were no above average US troops in the ETO. How logical is that?

    EDIT: DOH! Steve posted stuff while I was typing. I need to learn to type faster...

    [ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    "SMG Gap" A Proposal

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    I was referring to the remarks by (among others) Gen. Depuy about US troops being predisposed not to returning fire at enemy units unless they could clearly see a target and how that sometimes subjected the US units to become suppressed easier than the enemy units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think the US units not returning fire was in large part a function of the weapons they were using i.e. M1 Garand. As Depuy said, it was a point target weapon, not a suppressor. I suspect this is already factored into the FP rating of the weapon in CM.

    And in case you think the Germans were somehow immune to this phenomenon, note that Dupey's comments talk about German units suppressing US units with automatic weapons fire, not bolt action rifle fire ;) The Germans used a lot of K98 rifles.

    In short, the superior German ability to suppress with infantry fire is already modeled by giving them a lot more automatic weapons than the Allies. And I doubt all those Germans with bolt action K98s were firing more than US guys with semi-auto M1s, so an across the board bonus to all German infantry (or across the board penalty to all US infantry) is not warranted. Correct modeling of weapons effect will take care of that. Using regular Germans vs. green Americans can compensate for any other discrepancy.

    0

    How big was a Penther's weakspot???

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Oh man, if I had a nickle for every one of these posts ;)

    A weak spot on a Panther would likely be a MG port. I believe there is a flat 1% chance of hitting one.

    Also, note that all Panthers except the G late have a shot trap, whick significantly increases the chance of a weak point penetration. In that case it would be the shell richocheting off the turret down through the top of the hull, but the message you get is just "weak point penetration".

    0

    Is "Buy your own" realistic?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric Alkema:

    I always assumed that it was not totally random, and that rarity influenced the result.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'm pretty sure there is some rarity factored in. For example, Panthers show up much more frequently than Tigers, despite costing more. However, you do still tend to get one of this and one of that and two of those. The forces I pick for my own QBs are more historically correct than computer pick for this reason, though this will vary greatly from person to person.

    [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    A few tank questions for grogs

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman:

    1. What type and how many tanks were in a standard tank company?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    14 was typical for German Heavy Panzer companies after May 20, 1943, at least on paper.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Also how were heavy tanks used on the Eastern front? In mass formations or just one or two working with a regular Tank battalion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Whole books have been written about this. Officialy, they were to be used en mass at critical or decisive moments only, and not used up in "unnecessary" actions. In practice, local commanders often ignored this doctorine and used them as fire brigades, a few here, a few there. For this reason Heavy companies were rarely at full strength.

    EDIT: Mace posted what I forgot to about their independant organization.

    [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    Is "Buy your own" realistic?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    Does anyone have an opinion on attack/defend type QBs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I do smile.gif

    Attack/defend QBs are mostly what I play. They are great for honing your tactical skill with a variety of weapons platforms, and playing with different combinations of units and formations to see what works. Just pure tactical warfare, with a greater variety of methods than seen in MEs.

    The one big problem with them currently is that they are unbalanced. The defender is at a real disadvantage. There are multiple reasons for this, some of which have to do with the game in general (MG effectiveness and gamey rush tactics, being fixed in CM2). The problem particular to QBs is the shape of maps. QB maps are simply too shallow in depth to allow the defender to set up much of a layered defense. In large QBs, if you luck out with the terrain, you can sometimes get a compressed defense in depth, but the spacing is not good. Your MLR is usually on or just in front of the VLs, so if the MLR is penetrated there is no real fallback position, as falling back means conceeding the VLs.

    Hopefully CM2 will allow deeper QB maps, either by default or through greater player control over map size and shape. This would allow VLs to be staggered more front to back as well as side to side, making VL possession less of an all or nothing proposition.

    For MEs opposing forces should not be starting as close to one another as they currently do. Deeper maps or thinner setup zones are in order.

    [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    Is "Buy your own" realistic?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

    The fact is, quick battles aren't realistic at all. How often did two opposing forces meet which were perfectly equal, and fight in an environment totally unaffected by nearby friendly or enemy units, the 'winner' being the side which has secured some big flags in random locations on the terrain whilst inflicting the most damage and suffering the least damage in exactly 30 minutes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Actually, except for the VL locations, doesn't this describe most scenarios as well? Most scenarios I've seen are designed to be fairly even fights, they all have set in stone time limits and they are played on maps with borders.

    0

    "SMG Gap" A Proposal

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    I doubt the US Army infantry units tendency of not firing back at all because they see no target is not even properly modelled in CM at the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sure it is. No unit in CM will fire at a target it can't see unless you specificaly give it an area fire order.

    0

    "SMG Gap" A Proposal

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    First of all, thanks for posting that stuff. It has been helpfull, although some of the "second batch" seems to deal with the PTO.

    But, thankfully, I have found something wrong with something you said ;)

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    I think that when you compare the cost to the potential manpower losses incurred to make it work properly I think the trade off in the lower cost is fair. You gain some more fire power but if you are not able to utilize it properly you lose the squad in long range duel with a unit that is better at it than the SMG squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'm not sure what you mean by "the cost to the potential manpower losses incurred to make it work properly". Makes no sense to me, but if you are refering to the smaller size of VG SMG squads, it is irrelevant. British rifle and para squads are the same size, German Gerbil units are 10 man, ect.

    Also as I stated before, the risk of losing a SMG squad in a "long range duel" sounds like something someone who has not spent much time playing the game against other people would say. It just doesn't happen. They are underpriced, period.

    0

    "SMG Gap" A Proposal

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    After reading tero's Dupey post, I think it is entirely possible that the US was simply mistaken about the effectiveness of SMGs and the M1 rifle. SMGs apparently did not fit into their philosophy of what proper infantry tactics were. The Germans had a rather different view. I don't see what other conclusion can be drawn.

    None of this alters the fact that SMGs are woefully under priced in CM.

    0

    T-34 vs Panther

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    About rarity in CM2: I don't know if BTS is considering numbers of tanks fielded vs. number of tanks operational, but I do know that unit rarity will only be relative to other unit types on the same side. For example, rarity of Panther will be compared only to numbers of other German tanks, and KV-1 only with Russian. So, even though there may have been several times more T-34s than Pz Mk IV in late 1943, they will likely have about the same rarity factor, as they were both the most common tank for their respective armies. Yes, this means a German player will be able to buy just as many tanks as the Russian as long as he sticks to the more common types, just like in CM1.

    [ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    Sherman 75mm Effectiveness

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:

    When two face-hardened plates are bolted or welded together, the total may be more resistance than the sum of the thicknesses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, crap. That means the Jumbo armor in CM may be wrong. IIRC after learning that Jumbo glacis was 2 plates Charles lowered its resistance significantly.

    0

    Pershing vs Panther, 90mm T33 APBC

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TT:

    One last thing: If the T33 was able to penetrate the turret front of the Tiger 2 at long range, why then the hurry to develop the "Super-Pershing"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think the Super Pershing was a shop modified conversion, only 2 created and never put into production. IIRC they were meant for anticipated city fighting, not really to counter Tiger IIs specifically.

    0

    "SMG Gap" A Proposal

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    Was my national bias argumentation so convincing you start seeing it everywhere ? :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Don't tempt me.

    Actually, it is interesting stuff, though trying to extrapolate US and German OOBs for the entire ETO from what he writes there is a huge leap of logic. I don't think he mentions American SMGs once. Does that mean US troops didn't use them at all? Noooooo...

    0

    "SMG Gap" A Proposal

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    So far: German SMG's 2 - American SMG's 0 :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What!? I didn't see any comparison of American and German SMGs in that.

    Please try to refrain from turning every thread into some nationality "Germans kicked more ass" debate as you always do. We're trying to get something accomplished here.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...