Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Dancing and lifting weights at the same time--impressive!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, hehe. You don't want to see me dance. I've got white man's disease bad.

I lift weights for 30 minuets every day. I feel pretty chipper most of the time.

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.

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.

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 ]

<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.

Yep, about as often as you. I've got an Aureal Vortex sound card with the A3D 3.0 drivers.

Wake up Panzer! I can't remember the discussion that well as I didn't pay close attention to it, but I seem to recall that one of the reasons for no NKVD is that contrary to what you see in movies they were normaly deployed 1-2 km behind the front lines, which in most CM battles would put them off the map.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: An interesting AA report:... (snip) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't help but wonder if those rounds were hitting the side at a oblique angle. 76mm vs. Panther side at 800m should be no contest if the shot is perpendicular to the target.

Sorry, BTS has said no NKVD in CM2.

All the old patches are still available at the BTS ftp site.

<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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Was my national bias argumentation so convincing you start seeing it everywhere ? <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...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Quite a difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I'm sure Tero will be outraged at this blatant bias on BTS's part [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: So far: German SMG's 2 - American SMG's 0 <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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jarmo: There was also a mention in the direction of longer range rifle fire being made a bit more effective. Or less ammo consuming or whatever. Whether these create changes actually are enough to make rifles more desirable remains to be seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ya know, I thought Steve had said something like that as well, but a few days ago he said there were no changes to be made to the ammo model, so I figured I was imagining things. Good to see it's a mass hallucination (I hate it when I'm the only one going nuts). [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Umm.. which one does CM give Pershings, T33 or HVAP? Whatabout tungsten? Were all commonly availlable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM gives Pershing T33 155mm penetration at 1000m, 124mm vs 30 degree armor at 1000m and 60mm at 60 degrees. HVAP = tungsten. CM HVAP penetration at 1000m: 252mm at 0 degree 187mm at 30 degrees 53mm at 60 degrees [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

SMG squad effectiveness is likely to decrease a bit in CM2 as changes in the infantry movement model and MG effectiveness make the "SMG rush" less viable. However, this will not decrease their effectiveness on the defense, nor do I think this will change the typical squad vs. squad engagement range to any significant degree. Slappy's numbers suggest this is fine and good, but the fundamental pricing imbalance will remain only slightly mitigated.

Yes, I know JasonC has posted on this topic before and I don't mean to steal his ideas (though he wasn't the first person to comment on the dominance of SMG squads in CM), but I think this thread is becoming lost in arguments over minutia and I wanted to steer it back to the relevant. I'm also aware of BTS's stance on it and I have a little bald spot on my head from scratching it wondering at their reasoning. To anyone who has spent a lot of time playing this game (that I have talked to) it is clear that SMG heavy units regularly rip up rifle heavy units. Engaging SMG units at long range is not economical from an ammo usage standpoint as a rifle squad can blow through its whole load at enemy infantry in tree cover 250 meters away and only inflict 2-3 casualties (if lucky) and some suppression. So now you're left with an out of ammo squad that has revealed its position, and for what gain? [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

If I may, I would like to bring up something that has nothing to do with the weight of a M1 round, but a lot to do with SMGs in CM. Slappy posted something that caught my eye: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: 2) The accurate shooting range for soldiers in combat, with a few exceptions, was far shorter than expected. German studies indicated that long range for infantry action was 300 meters, and that 80% of all infantry action ocurred at 100 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had just been thinking that to my somewhat unscientific observations of my own CM games, at least 80% of all infantry squad vs. infantry squad firefights occurred at 100m or less. It's great to know that CM models this aspect of combat so well. It's not so great to realize that CM's unit pricing system does not take this into account. Compare a British rifle squad to a British Para squad: Rifle 8 Lee-Enfield rifles 1 Sten SMG 1 Bren LMG Firepower at 40m: 161 Firepower at 100m: 89 Cost: 29 pts Para 5 Lee-Enfields 4 Stens 1 Bren Firepower at 40m: 248 Firepower at 100m: 98 Cost: 29 pts Exact same price, but the paras are obviously going to be the more effective unit 80% of the time (they get the gammon bombs free too). So why does the CM pricing system value a Lee-Enfield and a Sten the same? Is the wild popularity of VG SMG squads any mystery? Setting aside any argument about whether CM models SMGs properly, I think the pricing system should be tweaked to be more representative of the weapon's actual in-game effectiveness. The current "1 rifle = 1 SMG" pricing is out of whack IMO. This doesn't sound like something that would eat up days of Charles's time either. And if anyone says that the best solution is to stop playing QBs I'm going to throw a heavy object in their general direction. [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Not much more to say here, but I couldn't let this one go: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: In the case of SMG's there are two schools: those who say it was ineffective and those who say it was effective. Both schools use the same data but come up with different conclusions. And by and large these conclusions are determined by their frames of reference. Which is inherently based on national experiences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no idea where you get this idea. There are people of the same nationality on both sides of the debate, which seems to shoot down your theory. I could list the nationalities of each of the major participants in that thread if you don't know them already. You would see there is no correlation between nationality and opinion of SMGs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: You are missing my point. Whatever attack command you use it leaves the unit vulnerable to enemy action because you can not simply order the unit to Run and expect it to make it if it turns its back to the unit it is currently engageing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought your point was that German units should have a special type of withdraw command only usable by them. That is what nationality modifiers are all about and I thought that was what your whole arguement was in favor of. I have nothing against a "fighting retreat" type command as long as everyone can use it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes. When you start assessing what is Ad-hoc and how it should be implemented. I think no army had a ready solution to Ad-hoc unit formation. It was up to the local commander to gather them. And that is most definitely behavioral. National charasteristic dependant even. Do you still say they are NOT discussing national biases over there ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hate word games. But what the hell. The weapon mix of a squad is a PHYSICAL characteristic of that squad, just as the number of HE and AP shells carried by a tank is a PHYSICAL characteristic of that tank. They are objects you can touch and count. They are easy to quantify if you have the data. They are either there, or they are not there. The performance of these weapons is also a physical characteristic. The reasons why a unit has a certain weapon mix could be thought of as behavioral, but it is entirely irrelevant to CM as the game does not allow the player to decide such things for his units (outside the scope). Just because you see evey issue in terms of nationality bias doesn't mean everyone else does. [ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Ok, this got me curious as I had always assumed grenades are modeled indentical in CM except for the graphic. A search showed this not to be the case: A thread I'm not sure if the blast effect is differently modeled. My guess is that it is not. We aren't modeling each type of grenade for each nation as that is a bit more detailed than it needs to be What we did do is make the German theoretical grenade range a tad bit longer than the Allied. Yes, the spud mashers could be tossed a good deal further due to the handle design. However, in most practical situations the range is going to be about the same due to other combat elements. Steve Another thread I am nearly certain we cut down the tossing ranges since the Beta Demo. The Germans can toss about 10m further than an Allied grenade IIRC. There is a random +/- on the range and I am pretty sure terrain is looked at. The adjusted ranges were suggested by Los I think. Man, that was a long time ago we tweaked that stuff Steve ....Remember that squads don't stand on the head of a pin, so this means the CENTERS of the squads are 40m apart, which means the men in the front of each squad are only about 20m apart. More grenades are thrown as the distance shortens. Charles One last little thread As I recall, Yes, they are different (German lower Blast rate but slightly further range) Madmatt Ok, so it seems clear that German grenades have more range than Allied. What is not clear is if there is a blast difference. Steve seemed to think no, Matt seemed to think yes (German lower, not higher). Neither seemed to sure about it and all these quotes are from the beta days so it could have changed. I thought I had read somewhere that all CM grenades have a blast rating of 6, but I can't be sure.

I was wondering about that myself. Nice to know. A small suggestion: maybe give the PIAT a "jammed" sign or something so people won't hurl objects at their screens thinking the PIAT is brewing tea (don't worry, my monitor survived only slightly marked).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: And that toning down is a hit on the nose of the historical/real life accuracy of the game. The shift in favour of the Red Army over the Germans occured after they started receiving large quantities of SMG's. And you tell me there is NO correlation between Red Army going full-auto and the Germans falling fortunes ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh boy. No, I'm not even going to start on this one. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then perhaps the command should be altered to include an appropriate command delay. I think it is highly unrealistic to have all your troops know instantly when to widraw and to what location when they do not know instantly where to attack and in what mode.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you take the command delay out you remove any incentive for the player to use the withdraw command. Use Run instead and avoid the moral hit. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So why is there no break contact/disengage command now that allows more realistic defensive manouvering ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know, but it has nothing to do with nationality modifiers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The last time I checked they were discussing ad-hoc type squads and stuff like that. That is a behaviour type quatifying, not physical one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They are discussing the frequency of use and the effectiveness of various infantry weapons especially SMGs. Lots of stuff about bullet penetration, ammo loads, rate of fire, accuracy. And you call that behavioral?