Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
WineCape,
I don't mind units missing, given the period such things are to be expected (though for a change I wouldn't mind having some of those tanks that people were on about here just a couple of weeks ago, you know, the ones that always scored first round hits whilst on the move). What I was getting at in that post is this business claimed by Steve that gunners have memory. If they do it is on a par with goldfish.
However, Mr. Vulture's explanation that the point of aim is decided upon by a process functionally identical to rolling fair dice makes perfect sense in that it is a theory that fits with experimental results.
Anyway my re-enforcements have turned up in Herr Blucher's "Bloody Dawn" scenario (which is a cracker) and they include a fair number of tanks. So I am off to roll some more dice.
-
Thanks for that, Mr. Vulture. I am relieved to know that all this talk of complex modelling actually comes down to picking some random numbers within a defined spread. It certainly makes the results I see in game a lot more understandable, for all Steve's talk about gunner memory and the rest of it. My guys just keep rolling ones when they need sixes.
-
"My point though is that i would like to know if there is some historic/realism similarities with the results i am seeing. 40% off all shots fired hitting the weapon on a hull down tank"
I suppose the question could be rephrased into what % of the target area is made up by the gun in a head on aspect. Is it 40%? Seems unlikely, on fag-packet calculation I would think it no more than 5%. However, that 5% is smack in the middle of the target area, which does seem to suggest one of two things; the gunners are very good or Redwolf's complex probability model to decide on the precise point of aim is perhaps not as complex or as probabalistic as one might think (and neither, perhaps, is the in-flight balistics model).
The only one of those options a user can test is the crew quality. Do you get the same sort of results with Green, Regular, Veteran etc. crews?
As for confirmation of your results by a historical facts, you might well be out of luck. However, if there ever was a WWII study on such detailed accuracy of AT guns one of the grown ups on this site will know of it.
Good luck.
-
This is a misnormer. It just shifts where you pick a probability model.
You have to decide which way the gun pointed before going into flight path physics. So you have probabilities for range misestimation errors, gun sight disadjustment, traverse errors, crew screwups (drivers rocks the tank while firing), lateral misaim etc etc etc. Then even after you decided which way the gun points you need a probability to have a worse or better performing round, a better or worse gun quality and gun wear. The latter will be an issue for the Russians in particular. Ever heard of thermal sleeves for tank guns? They were put on for a reason.
And that doesn't begin to touch the issue of trying to hit a moving target which has all kinds of gunner performance and estimation probabilities involved.
Ok, and CMx2 models all that does it? Really? Including the persistant variables?
-
I've got just one more noob issue that isn't related to C2, probably it's just a game mechanic thing.
Sometimes when I have my troops "move out" en masse, if they have to go through a choke point some of them will choose a completely different path than the one I've selected for them. (I note that vehicles will use a small pause to wait for their way to clear, but it seems foot soldiers don't do this.) Several times this has been disastrous. Is this a path-finding bug that will be fixed at some point, or is this intended behavior that I need to plan to work around forever?
If I were you I'd plan on working round it forever, bunching your troops up is never a good idea regardless of the game mechanics. The pause command is your friend in these situations.
-
I am impressed by your spirit of enquiry and the willingness to run lots of tests. As you might well find out when the grown-ups appear, you will need hard data not just feelings to convince them of the possibility that there might, just might, be a problem. Be prepared for the energy vampires.
P.S. When recording your results you might want to remember that the Gun and "Weapon (Gun?) Mount" are regarded in the game as two seperate spots
-
how do others feel about this? so far it (the morale bonus for units in command) does not seem very big or important in my experience.
Dunno. Most of the time my unts are under command, but on the odd time they haven't been I can't say I have noticed a big effect. I did push a couple of sections way forward in a battle yesterday and they bumped into an inferior enemy unit and did less well in the encounter than I would normally have expected, in fact they got thumped. How much of that result was down to a lack of C2 I don't know.
I suspect that this issue is so deep and complex that it would take a lot of testing to sort out what goes on and why. Good luck to anyone who wants to go on that journey.
P.S. Wouldn't it be nice to have a manual that actually explains some of this stuff.
-
Jocke P,
Well on the information you have provided I am as lost as you are as to why you got the results you did. I expect there will be a grown-up along soon to explain it.
-
Good point, does the game model all the tank/ATG moving because of recoil, atmospheric changes, differences in propellant, barrel temperature, gunner scratching his bum on this shot, continental drift etc that cause each shot IRL to be different?
Dunno, and I don't suppose we will ever find out.
On a related note do you gents recall a post from Steve a while back stating explicitly that [tank] gunners have a memory? I am fairly sure he not only mentioned that fact that gunners retained, for a limited time, where a target was if it suddenly went out of view, but, and here is the cruncher, actually acted on the fall of the last shot.
So, unless my dementia is getting much worse, what we should see is, for example, first round over, second round short, third round - split the difference - "Target!". Well I haven't seen that too often.
I zoomed in on a scrap yesterday and the sequence went:
1. Under
2. Over
3. Under - exactly where round 1 landed
4. Way over - much further than round 2
5. Under - back to exactly the round 1 spot
6. Hit
There were no trees in the way either, this was pure crew action.
I have got used to the fact that my Sherman drivers can't manage a clutch or steer in a straight line, but to have gunners who have worse short-term memory than I do, is bit galling. Perhaps the reason I have never seen the ultra-aggresive bailed out crew syndrome is that all my crews forced to evacuate are still looking to sort out their zimmer frames when they are mowed down (the occasional survivor I put down to the German infantry laughing so much they can't shoot straight).
-
"I'd be more concerned from the game perspective that an AT is able to fire that many rounds at the tanks and they do not run away"
Maybe they would have run away if their crews hadn't been "crack". Dunno, but it is worth a thought.
-
The first question I would ask is what is the attitude of the Panthers to the ATG? Are they hull down? The TACAi will always aim at the centre of the mass, if all it can see it the turret then that is what it will aim at.
The second, related, question is how many hits landed on the Gun as opposed to the gun mount? The end result is the same (i.e. a disabled gun) but the size of the target from a head on aspect is different.
The Panthers were stationary, each present a big target at 600m. In gun terms that is virtually point blank range so 18 hits out of 20 shots is reasonable, except the gun would have had to switch targets. That does make me wonder. How widely spaced were the Panthers?
Finally, the factthat the Panthers had crack crews is irrelevent in terms of the ability of the ATG to hit. You might expect such teams to have a better chance of spotting the ATG, but they can't affect the chance of their tank being hit, especially if they behave like dumb rookies (which your guys were).
Oh, by the way, someone will be sure to mention it so we might as well get it over with here. There are no hit probabilities in CMx. The game models the flight of each shell and they hit where they hit.
-
I am ashamed beyond words. The trees visibility setting is OFF.
No sweat, sometimes we all overlook the simple solutions.
Pity you didn't wait a bit until some people had accepted my bet.
-
"To target a building you need to have LoS to the center of the building (or at least the center of the floor you wish to target). "
Are you sure about this? I know there is still an issue if the building is at an angle - one might be able to see the face but the target line always draws to the corner so area fire is much less effective. However, I am quite sure it is possible to target a "blank wall" of a building in those circumstances the unit would have no line of sight to the centre of the building.
If Mr. Hukka could provide us with a save game, we could tell for sure waht is going on. Looking at the ground in his screen shot again and comparing foreground to background, I think I would wager a modest bottle of scotch (less shipping charges!) that he has trees turned off. Any takers?
-
With muti-storey buildings you can target each floor assuming a LOS, well usually. Dunno about the belfry in that church but it looks like a single storey building to me. One way to test is just give an infantry unit an order to move into it.
As to the target line not appearing in the screen shot, it doesn't look like you have the Panther selected, so the line wouldn't be displayed.
Now, to the meat of the question. Why is visibilty restricted to 50m in some directions but not others? It is impossible to say from that screen shot. I see that a couple of US units are clearly visible from some unit at greater than 50m. What level of difficulty are you playing on? Not that it would affect the question but it might help in deciphering the screen shot (who can see those 2 US units). Do you have a saved game?
One last thought. Do you have trees turned on or off? You might just want to check this.
-
This has proven to be unbeatable in PBEMs ive had. Roll sherman tanks up to the high bocage to defeat Panther and Tigers. Ive never seen shots penetrate my tanks from behind it.
Think yourself lucky. From my first introduction to CMBN at the February preview I have lost Shermans behind High Bocage.
Whilst I have sympathy for the OP point, I wouldn't want to see the current solution changed, not least because it would entail every scenario and map involving bocage to be re-done. I think this is one of those situations where playability must take precedence over realism.
-
-
JasonC,
I remember being told that the original USA war plan was for X armoured divisions and production was set-up to produce the appropriate number of tanks. However, by early 1944(?) it was realised that such a large number of AD's would not be required and the manpower was diverted towards the infantry, but a large proportion of the tanks had already been produced. Given your knowledge, do you know if that is actually what happened?
-
"The attack being discussed [use of heavy artillery over open sights against armour]occurred on 11 July,"
It certainly wasn't the 991st then as claimed by Cooper. They only landed in Normandy on that date and didn't get to the area of ops until the 13th, going into action for the first time, as corps level atillery, on the 14th (see the USAMHI's 1955 history of the battalion).
Even by the standards of military memorialists, Cooper seems very unreliable.
-
Direct fire -- I've not understood how to get that done. Is it as simple as targeting with the unit? I've only noted rifle fire that way. It seems I can't use the artillery menu because that is always labeled something like "denied."
Yup, but the mortar unit has to have its own LOS to the target. The advantage with mortars is that here are no time delays and no spotting rounds. You hit the button and the rounds start landing within a few seconds and with a guaranteed level of accuracy.
The downside if your mortar can see the enemy then there is a fair chance an enemy unit can see the mortar and it ends up dead very quickly.
-
"even the .30 cal machine guns were subject to being taken off and used for dismounted defense if necessary and IIRC, most tanks had a tripod for just that possibility."
Good grief! I never knew that. Sounds like someone in the chain of command Stateside had an attack of the clevers (probably pre-war). I wonder how often, if ever, those tripods got used.
-
You might want to do a search for "Command Lines" this is an issue that has been raised once or twice in the last few weeks.
-
"Is that not correct?"
Nope it isn't correct in my experience. The chain of command matters.
Looking at that I would guess you have a mortar platoon commander as the "controller", the three mortars from that platoon are available. The other three mortars are from a different Mortar platoon and possibly from a different company or even battalion.
Try putting the second mortar platoon commander down there and I think all will be well. However, before you leave the setup phase I should test what spotters from can call what mortars, especially if you have two companies.
Battalion level spotters should be able to call in mortar fire from different companies, but I am not sure about a platoon commander from A company being able to call in Mortars belonging to B company. I think the answer will depend on how whoever did the force selection set up the force structure.
-
An interesting way of testing this is to take one of your units and give them a movement order to the position of the ATG (and a face order if necessary), then select the end point and use the target tool from there to see what the ATG could see. Its not an infallibe method because of unit heights, but it works pretty well most of the time.
Do I need to remind you to cancel the move order afterwards?
-
"with the Parachute infantry, do you pool the platoon 60mm mortars in one place and control them together as a mini-battery for the company CO or keep them with their individual platoons for the platoon leaders to run?"
The same as with a normal infantry formation, it depends on the circumstances. Whilst I prefer to group my mortars (shame we can't in this game to a massed battery fire from a single spotter) really thats for ease of comms, resupply (if available) and keeping valuable units out of harms way. However, I am not dogmatic about it.
To me MGs, engineers, mortars are support units. My basic fighting unit is the platoon and each platoon will be allocated a task; depending on the task they will get such support units as they need to carry it out not because the T&OE says that they should have such a unit.
With mortars the main disadvantage of having them grouped at the rear is one loses the opportunity for direct fire, which can be deadly as well as fast. If I think a platoon will need to get mortar fire down very quickly then they will get one, or more. Otherwise the mortars stay safe with assured comms to all spotters.
When the Brits come with their 2inch mortars at platoon level I shall be less inclined to group them. Their range and ammo load will make them far less powerful units even if it is possible for a remote spotter to call their fire in.
Sounds
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I am going back a fair way here, to the days when the forum had different colours, and I am sure I remember a thread in which it was explained that the sounds of most of the small arms firing in CMBO were actual recordings of those weapons being fired.
I don't know what the situation is with CMBN, but there is definitely a difference between the sounds of US Browning, .5 cal and the German MGs. The sound of the last is still distinctive enough for me to know that when I hear it one of my units may have a problem and to go looking. I can't say I can tell the difference between a MG34 and a MG42, though.