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 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:
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
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
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?
-
There is little doubt that CM units occasionaly have trouble deciding where to run for cover.
In a recent PBEM I had a platoon on top of a hill out in the open, but using a stone wall as cover from the enemy infantry firing up at them from the trees at the base of the hill. 2 of the squads paniced, but instead of simply ducking down behind the wall or runing back away from the hill crest they ran over the wall half way down the hill towards the enemy troops where they became pinned to slowly machinegunned to death over the next few turns.
-
Very generally, I rank them as follows:
1. Moral
2. Combat
3. Command
4. Stealth
-
Small arms fire from 400-500 meters away can be accurate and deadly at times. Not as often and as reliably as at 100m (of course), but it can and does happen both in RL and the game.
Also, be carefull about forming opinions based upon observation of a single event. Almost anything can happen once, that doesn't mean it's the norm.
-
I agree with the others here that this randomness in unit behavior is realistic and good. I think it's one of the best things about CM and hope it never changes.
[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
"Hull down" simply means that whatever part of the AFV that houses the gun is the only part exposed. Depending on the vehicle this may be the turret, superstructure or upper hull.
-
That's a top notch sight you have there, Tom.
Anyone know where I could find a winter versions of the Churchill and Cromwell?
-
Well, a lot of this is general "I don't like the way the game works, period" type of stuff. Some of it I more or less agree with, but...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
And please do not let the Finnish army know about this startling BTS revelation that maximum ROF at the decisive moment of the rush is not realistically possible to overcome the enemy. Otherwise they will have to revise their current training program to reflect this. "insert smiley"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what's to stop the defending unit from using "maximum ROF" to "shock" the charging unit at the "decisive moment"?
I still think the whole idea of allowing a unit to move quickly and fire at maximum efficiency at the same time is positively nutty. If SMG squad rushes are gamey now (they are) just imagine if BTS actually did this. The game would turn into some sort of WWF wrestling team rumble. SMG squad effectiveness is going to be a bit toned down in CM2 and 99% of the people on this board think this is a VERY GOOD THING.
How does it feel to be a minority, eh amigo?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find it odd that you people do not find it perculiar that you can only widraw/disengage to the direction of your baseline (ie. your edge of the map) and not in any other direction. I think it is imperative, ESPECIALLY in CM scope battles, that you can manouver defensively as well as you can manouver offensively. This is why I posed the question if the current set of attack oriented commands is nationally biased against the Germans. I know their SOP was to counter attack whenever possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is another thing that if implemented would totally ruin the game.
What you are asking for is a way to circumvent the command delay. If people were allowed to "withdraw" in any direction you would see players using this command all the time, "withdrawing" all over the battlefield, in place of the other commands. Why not? It magically allows you to get around that annoying and highly unrealistic command delay
If German SOP was to counter attack whenever possible, players can do that right now, using commands intended for that purpose. A withdraw/disengage command is meant for withdrawing and disengaging, nothing else. Withdrawing towards the enemy is not a withdrawal, and is therefore not allowed with the withdraw command. Simple enough?<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW as we speak about my extreme bias against the Allies the Americans (and/or other Allied nationalities) are doing the same kind of complaining about the absence and lack of effects of their respective SMG's in CM. And I do not see you or anybody accusing them of being biased to a remarkable degree. I wonder why that is so ...... NOT. Could it be that their kind of bias is different from my kind of bias ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is a very big difference between modeling the physical differences between armies (what they are talking about) and the behavioral differences between armies (what you are mostly talking about here). Physical differences are far easier to quantify and prove.
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Do we know that this bonus doesn't already exist as part of the game's spotting program?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes.
One other thing I would like to see is German tanks being somewhat more difficult to spot once they start firing (during the day) because of their use of smokeless powder.
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Actually, the main reason I would like to see this has nothing to do with rallying broken units.
If you have an HQ unit spotting for on board mortars that do not have LOS themselves (the prefered way to do it) you have to be very carefull not to get any other HQ units close to the mortars or they will switch to his command, rendering them unable to fire at the target unless the second HQ also happens to have LOS.
-
Man, if I were you I'd be shopping for a ring about now.
-
Looks to me like you won't see it until 2004 or so. By that time 1 Ghz processors and 64 MB video cards will be as common as 300 Mhz processors and 16 MB video cards are now.
When they do rewrite it, I hope they really make it a huge leap, not some minor improvement. I'd like the difference between CM4 and CM1 to be as great as from Steel Panthers to CM1 was.
-
If you are our captain, why is your name Sgt Kelly
Seriously, I think these are very good suggestions, especially the option to assign units to a HQ.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:
Reread Steve's response again. He said you CANNOT target something YOU see unless that target is already on the units' spotted list. I for one appreciate how this will work and am looking forward to seeing it implemented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think Steve was talking about how relative spotting will work when it is implemented (CM4 maybe). He was not talking about how it will work in CM2, which will not have relative spotting.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
But is it really only pushing buttons if you refuse to be assimilated and you do not memorize the party line by heart ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you were assimilated a long time ago. You're just in a different collective than the rest of us
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For example the CM2 is rumored to include the Assault command as a new feature. That is good. The implementation is rumored to be so that the firepower is DIMINISHED (halved I think) for the assaulting unit to depict one half squad moving and the other covering. A Finnish unit in assault would sneak up on the intended target location and rush the last 20 meters or so firing at maximum ROF with all weapons. So what is the command I should use as I can not get the shock rush with any command that is currenly present ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You see, this is the uberFinn mentality that bothers people so much. First of all the only way a soldier could fire at "maximum ROF" while "rushing" the enemy would be if he had a fully automatic weapon. Now assuming they all have automatic weapons, it is entirely reasonable that their firepower is cut in half while "rushing". A soldier doing this will not be able to fire accurately. You seem to be suggesting that Finn units be allowed to move and fire at full effectiveness at the same time! This is not humanly possible, yet you want BTS to let the Finns do it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there going to be Pull Back/Disengage command in CM2 ? CM assumes that the disengagement is always to your baseline.
Come to think of it CM actually assumes that you are always attacking and never pulling back unless it is a rout.
Is the current set of command nationally biased against the Germans ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I really don't know what you're saying here. There is a withdraw command. Did the Germans withdraw/disengage in a way unique to them that Allied units were unable to do?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the Suomi SMG is then (in our opinion) underrated in CM2 because the SMG in a squad, contary to Finnish national tactics and doctrine, is not very prominently rated there will be much wailing and knashing of teeth: "The foreigners have done it again. We are getting shafted yet again !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You see, you've decided that BTS will underrate the Suomi months before you know how it will be rated. No matter how good BTS ends up rating it, it won't be good enough in your eyes. You accuse BTS and anyone who agrees with their stand on nationality modifiers of being bias, yet you display a remarkable degree of bias yourself. Every single thing I have ever seen you post on this forum in relation to the game was in some way an arguement to make the Germans stronger and the Allies weaker. You really come across as a guy with an agenda. I can only imagine it will get worse in CM2 with Finns in the mix (heck, you've started already and the game won't be out for months).
Nothing personal against you, tero, you seem like a nice guy, but a little objectivity would go a long way.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
Yes Andreas, I know maybe it's time for another vacation from the board. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heck, you just got back.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"SMG Gap" A Proposal
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<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 ]