Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
There has got to be some change in the shape of QB maps for CM2 for attack/defend. Especially for larger pt games.
A bit narrower, much deeper, with VLs staggered front to back as well as side to side.
The current maps are fine for MEs, although I think the setup zones should be narrower (or the map deeper) so units don't start in LOS on the first turn so often.
A selectable menu option like PL suggested would seem the most logical solution.
[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
It's good to see that I'm not the only one who has never had this problem. I was starting to question my grip on reality
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SenorBeef:
So for CM2, if you could please allow vehicles to move to engage their targets (or specifically ordered/engaged targets only, if you wish), during the time before the actual movement order begins, it'd fix that little dilemma. A small tweak for a small problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, you can do this already.
Here's how I would have done it:
Target the Greyhound as you did, but then give the Hetzer a short Hunt order towards the other enemy vehicles. No delay. Vehicles will turn to target when executing a hunt order. As soon as the Greyhound had died, the Hetzer would have executed the short hunt movement, bringing it to face the M10.
[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Being as we are throwing out random thoughts on possible improvements to arty modeling in CM, I will reprint here part of a post by X-00 on CM arty. X-00 was an artillery officer for 15 years.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>X-00:
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
(
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).
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.
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.
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>
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt Canuck:
I know this doesn't exactly relate to the topic, but if someone could send me the original .wav file for the 20mm cannon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need. You can simply copy the original file off the CD.
-
In every game I have played (1.12) it has been my observation that tanks and 234/1 WILL fire its HE at infantry without being told to until it gets down to about 1/3-1/4 of its initial HE load. Then it stops using it unless you tell it to.
I have never seen a tank or AC with its full HE load not fire it at infantry at every opportunity. If you are seeing this we are not playing the same game.
-
The best AI fix: PBEM.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote:
I hope I will be able to play in better graphic mode than that dinky 640x480 resolution from the demo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I play at 1280x960. The game will run at whatever resolution your desktop is at. I wish the game allowed you to set game resolution seperately.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:
But from 1000 meters it's impossible to put a shell through a firing slit with 2x sights. And HE shells do not bang around. They explode. But how can it kill a pillbox if the gun isn't damaged and none of the crew are hurt?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was a huge discussion on this last year.
The slit of a pillbox is about as high as a tank turret, but wider.
If the crew bails out with no casualties I think it can be assumed the gun was damaged even if it doesn't say "gun damaged".
[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef:
This is more or less the system they're using, except that it doesn't account for regions like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are not using a system where the price increases the more you buy. The first Tiger will cost the same as the 3rd Tiger.
-
No
Sure people could purchase more than one unit if they really wanted to spend the extra points, but that would rarely happen. As Jarmo said, most games would feature 1 of each instead of a full platoon of the same. Not historical. When you say it would discourage unrealistic numbers, the exact opposite is true.
The system you propose here has been proposed before on more than one occasion, so BTS had considered it.
-
Oddly, I only get the hack message when I try to enter the Tips forum. It won't even let me in. But I can post :eek:
-
I get the hack attempt message when I try to enter the Tips forum, but I can post ok here.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
For the 251/1, CMBO models it as twice as powerful as MG42 LMG, half as MG42 HMG.
34 or 42 isn't that important, the mount is, CMBO seems to assume the vehicle mount is between the bipod and tripod. Sounds right to me, but I am no MG expert.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where did you find this information at? I've been trying to find the FP ratings for vehicle MGs for months.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
Tiger 1 was, on the german side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct, and the Brits had it before them (IIRC the Germans got the tech from a captured Churchill, but it may have been a different tank).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CombinedArms:
There was a thread testing the tendency to bog a few weeks back (with search quasi-dead for the time being--reportedly BTS is working on it-- it's hard to find it) in which someone ran tests showing that the speed at which your AFV is moving had nothing to do with bogging and that you bog less in scattered trees than on clear ground. Since then I've been cheerfully moving fast through scattered trees--without many problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All true, even though it directly contradicts what the CM manual says. Keep in mind that these tests were done prior to BTS fixing a bug with the bogging model that prevented bogging while in reverse. It's possible Chucky may have tweaked a few other things while he was under the hood.
[ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
I agree with Redwolf about the halftracks. The way it is now, the M3A1 is worth about 100 pts but only costs 46. The reason is that it gets 250 ammo, half of which will be fired from the .50 cal. That's 125 .50 cal ammo. To get that much firepower from .50 cal HMG teams you would have to buy 3 of them (40 ammo each) at a price of 78 pts. Add in the halftrack's .30 cal MG (125 ammo), mobility, armor, and transport ability and you have a 100 pt unit (roughly). Seperating the .50 and .30 cal ammo would solve this, unless it really did have that much .50 cal ammo, in which case it should be priced much higher.
Compair this to a German 251/1 halftrack (52 pts, 6 more than the M3A1) that has a single MG34 MG with 57 ammo. This is less firepower than a single MG42 HMG team (95 ammo) which costs 28 pts. Sure the 251/1 has a few small advantages, such as smaller silhouette and slightly better armor and faster speed, but none of these even comes close to making up for the M3A1s' huge firepower advantage (IMO, does anyone disagree?) This one seems like a slam dunk to me. Even if you think 100 pts is too much for the M3A1, does anyone actually think it is a less capable all around unit than the German 251/1 (as its pricing suggests)?
For the record, I agree with Jason that SMGs should be worth a bit more than rifles, since in my experience the large majority (maybe 80%) of infantry squad vs. infantry squad firefights take place at 100m or less. I conceed that this is debatable, and other's experience may vary depending on how you use infantry, but it seems to me that if you engage other infantry (in cover) in firefights at much over 150m or so, by the time you get them worn down you are almost out of ammo. So most players charge their SMG infantry in and do it close range where it's over in a turn or 2. Of course SMG squads will be less effective in CM2 even without price changes since changes in the movement model will make charging over open ground more realisticly dangerous and difficult.
Just my 2 cents. Not meant as a flame. I just think on the whole the pricing system works pretty well, but discussing possible holes in it is constructive.
[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
There must be an enemy unit within 80m of the flag. If there is not then I have no idea how it could be neutral.
Was it an ME or an attack/defend? The amount of points you spent is as important as how many of your units are still alive and how many of the enemy's you killed. Did the other guy capture any of your units? Captured units are worth more than killed units. Also, some units (tank crews) are worth extra if killed, and arty observers are worth less than what they cost to buy.
The best explanation of how victory levels are calculated comes courtisey of JasonC:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is how it seems to work, based on my observations anyway (corrections welcome).
Add up all the objectives, your force points, and the enemy force points. That is the total "pool" of points, and serves as the *divisor* for victory level calculations. The remaining procedures do not change this divisor.
Award the objectives to the side that controls them, or to neither if abandoned or contested. Live guys to the side that owns them, dead guys to the enemy side. Some units seem to be awarded to neither - either guys that run off the map, or broken/routed units still on the map, or both - I am not sure about those, but there seems to be such a category. This forms the numerator for each side, with the total of the two numerators, less than or equal to the denominator from step one.
Divide each sides numerator, by the one common denominator. That is the victory level for that side, in percent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As Tom said this ratio must be greater than 1.25 to 1 for you to win.
[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
The Germans are (in general) a bit easier to win with for the following reasons:
1. SMG infantry. BTS made a mistake having an SMG cost the same as a rifle. This makes all SMG squads terrific bang for the buck units. The Germans have them, the Allies don't. In order to compete in this area the Allies must use Airborne or Glider units. If you are playing with rules that prohibit buying your tanks and infantry from 2 different troop categories this becomes a HUGE German advantage, as the Allies must chose between SMGs and having tanks. Germans can have both.
2. German infantry formations are more flexible. Many Allied infantry formations come with a very larger number of support weapons, while most Germans are sparse. This can be an advantage for the Allies in some circumstances, but there are many times when the terrain or battle type will render some types of support weapons marginally useful. For example, on board mortars are of dubious value in a ME with a large town to fight over. But if you are the Brits you must buy a 50mm mortar with every platoon. US Glider troops are great but they come with so many support units that you can never buy very many of them. The Germans can get good infantry with or without the support weapons and tailor their force to the specific parameters of that battle.
3. Germans have better "cheap" armor. The Hetzer is dirt cheap and invulnerable to Allied 75mm frontally and even to US 76mm past about 500m. Tungsten is of no help due to the armor slope. The Mark IV is a better all purpose tank than the vanilla Sherman. The reason being that if the Allied player wants armor that can withstand the German 75, he must buy some pricey units (Jumbo, Churchill, Pershing) while the German player can get units that will withstand the Allied 75 quite cheaply (Hetzer, JPz IV). This forces the Allied player to categorize and specialize his armor units into either "infantry killers" or "tank killers". The German can buy Mark IVs knowing that they are good against infantry and will take out any Allied tanks that are frequently seen in QBs, while an Allied player buying Shermans of roughly equal cost knows that if the German player buys the commonly seen Hetzer or Jpz IV he is screwed unless he buys fewer of them so he can get a few Jacksons. But Jacksons aren't as good against infantry... This is historically accurate, of course, but knowing this doesn't make the Allied player's job any easier.
4. Cheap infantry guns. Germans have them, Allies don't. Allies can use Bofors or 105mm howitzers as substitutes, but they cost much more. In conjunction with SMG squads this brings us to "The System" used on the TH ladder. I have never used The System myself, but many people on this board have testified to its effectiveness.
Of course the Allies aren't without advantages, but they pay for them whereas the Germans get theirs more of less for free. The Allies have the .50 cal MG, but it is expensive and with only 40 ammo its cost effectiveness against infantry is not as good as the MG42 or M1919 HMG. US arty have lots of rounds and are fast, but you pay extra for both of those features. US squads are large and durable, but you pay for those extra men.
Germans are generally more flexible and cost effective (bang for the buck).
I actually play Allies more often than Germans, and I have had little trouble winning consistently with both (multiplayer on the RD ladder). The commander who plays better (or is luckier) will win 9 times out of 10 regardless of which side he plays.
I enjoy playing Allies as much as Germans because of the challenge of it. But if I were playing for money instead of for fun, and I could choose which side I played each game, I'd go with Germans every time.
-
Keep in mind that the range has nothing to do with whether a penetration will kill or not since we are not talking about a weapon that relies upon kinetic energy to penetrate.
AFAIK, the chance of whether or not a weapon that penetrates a vehicle kills it is based upon the caliber of the projectile; the larger the higher the likelyhood of a kill. The Bazooka is 60mm, the Piat is 77mm, and the Shreck is 88mm.
I once did an extensive test where I hit some tanks with over 200 Bazooka rounds to test the effectiveness of skirts. I was only keeping track of the number of penetrations, not the number of kills, but I would guess that about 25-30% of the Zooks penetrations did not kill the vehicle.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Keep it middle of the road!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Being that Deanco's popular Gunmetal mod was inspired by the Fallout games, I've been hoping the CM2 interface would have a StarCraft inspired theme. A Protoss motif would be divine, with units screaming "For Adun!" when given orders.
[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
This is an excellent idea. Random terrain too.
-
Well, I'm not currently on the TH ladder (I'm on RD), but I'll throw out a few thoughts for the hell of it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German “Heer” Allied “British”.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It seems to me this would really favor the Germans. They can still get units with high short range FP (SS Motorized) with armor support while the Allies (and especially the Brits) are stuck with vanilla riflemen if they want some armor.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
German SMG Troops
German SMG platoons and Volksgrenadier armed with SMG will be limited to no more then 3 platoons allowed per game. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the player’s before setup.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Shouldn't this scale for game size same as with towed guns?
I'm all in favor of random weather.
[ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jgdpzr:
Kingfish,
I'm not positive, but I don't think the command bonuses are attached to individual HQ members. I'm relatively certain that the command bunus relates to the officer (ranking officer in the case of a BN HQ) in the HQ unit and as long as there is one person left, it is assumed to be that officer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm almost positive this is correct.
[ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
I wouldn't worry too much about the 105 having a gyrosabilizer. According to some posts in the Tips forum 105's will generally fire HE at enemy tanks rather than HEAT due to a TacAI problem.
It's east-west orientation should be rotated 90 degrees to reflect (a) above.
CM 2 Article, with Screens
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dima:
jshandorf is absolutely right !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, everything he said is completely wrong. Robert and PL are correct. Posting pics in a high traffic forum like this is not for "personal and private use". CGW does indeed own the copywrite for screenshots printed in it's mag. I could go on.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And all this *hush* about CM2 on this board from BTS is one more proof - they don't give a damn about us!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[sarcasm] Definitly. All those patches they made for CM... all those months they worked on TCP/IP... all the discussions they have had with us on this board about the game... Yeah, they don't give a damn. Thanks for showing us the light dima. We should have known all along. [/sarcasm]
[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]