Vanir Ausf B

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.

Exactly. I didn't read through Martin's lengthy solution, but simply having the 2nd comp do it is all it would take. I didn't think about the air support thing. Perhaps the 1st comp should do the weather only. Without a map to look at the 1st player still couldn't look to see exactly what it was.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: Not true, every time a turn pbem is load by any CPU a NEW map/turn is calculated... So you can reload your turn as many times you want, that when you send your turn to the other player a new calculations is always done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wish this were true, but unfortunately Martin is correct. The first computer generates the map that is used, not the second one. This is very easy to test if you think about it. And Martin, you don't have to send the file to yourself to do this cheat. Just use the copy of the first file that is already on your computer. [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Yeah, it would be nice of you could do that, but it's not going to happen until relative spotting. In other words, not for a long while. Frankly, my biggest beef is that tanks themselves can't hide. Even if they are in trees, haven't moved and have a "hide" command they are spotted every time. It makes them of dubious worth on defence. I know for a fact hidden and camoed tanks were much harder to spot in real life until they opened fire, and sometime even after they fired.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Would it be correct to say that the USA has never had either the biggest army in the world / or the best trained army in the world at any one time in its history?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe that would not be correct to say. I'm going from memory here, but IIRC at the end of the American Civil War (1865) the United States had the largest standing army in the world. It was also without question the best equiped and most experienced. In short, it was the biggest and the baddest. What did the US do with this awesome force? They dismantled it as fast as they could. And as someone else said, in the late 80's and early 90's the US army was unit for unit as good as anyone in the world IMO, though not the largest. [ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Mattias is right. The mantlet has a variable slope. You just happened to hit the wrong spot. Very unfortunate indeed.

This is just classic. First Lewis rags on Jason (and Rexford) saying: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Is JasonC related to Rexford? I notice the same long winded self serving style in his posts. Also the always lovely "follow my own post with yet another important post by myself".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then follows that with: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Little do many people here know, but I was instrumental in making changes in the initial infantry firepower handling debacle. It was like everyone was firing blanks. Ive been suggesting run limitations, assault moves,etc, since way back when. Its rapidly becoming apparant that my ideas are slowly transmogrifying into BTS "ideas".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sometimes all you can do is laugh.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hmmm... I'm surprised to hear that. I would think, and reading of doctrine and AARs leads me to believe, that this is a very risky way to defend against a likely superior foe. In current times perhaps this is much more viable as the firepower at this range is so huge? Still, I was under the strong impression that the idea was to keep the enemy from getting near your MRL, not the opposite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the idea is that in a forward slope defense, a superior attacker can usually bring most or all of his superior fire power to bear on the defender at once, while in a reverse slope defense the attacker is only able to engage with a fraction of his force at any given time, and is then forced to commit his forces piecemeal. The defender can have support fires from units overwatching his front line, while the attacker is denied this. Of course this works much better if you have a proper defense-in-depth set up which is hard to do with the shallow QB maps (hint, hint .) I think this is what X-00 was refering to when he was lamenting about where the VLs are. [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I think BTS gave units the amount of ammo they have because that's (roughly) how much they had in real life. I would expect they will do the same in CM2. [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I know I read somewhere recently that the Germans would often give the green crews the better tanks (Panthers) while the vets got the Mk IVs. They thought quality of equipment would make up for lack of expirience/training.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: the best option for avoiding artillery strikes would be to either move north or south!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that's what they meant by "to the side". Most people view the battlefield from an East-West perspective. [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Will, I'm with you all the way on this, for all the good it will do. What you are really asking for are SOPs (standard operating proceedures) ala TacOps. We're not likely to get them, but let's see what CM2 has to offer and then we can bitch