Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Rocky Balboa

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    783

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Rocky Balboa

    A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Rocky, back up one page and I think you will find a treat. ;)

    Hah saved by a tree, that's what I call razor thin but your love for the evergreens pays off!!

    Unfortunately the US still has the advantage. At this range you must maneuver to try and set up flanking shots. He can pretty much hunker down and wait for you to move hoping to observe your movements and get a shot off before you can.

    0

    A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Bil, yes I did, but I have, what I regard as, a healthy skepticism to statistical 'truth'. If the M4 was a tougher tank than previously represented then there should be some historical support from either the allied crews: showing a similar set of results (multiple strikes but failure to penetrate, from 75L48's) or German crews: instructions for 75L48 gunners to shoot at turrets, not the hull. I have read none of these but if they are out there I'm sure a forum member will correct me. Upon reflection I should have put 'super'-Sherman, suggesting my skepticism, not a verifiable fact.

    Does the system reflect the wider field of view of german sights, allowing gunners to engage targets quicker, and does it give a first round advantage to sights with an integrated but crude range finder? Though at the range you were fighting at I doubt any ballistic drop need be compensated for, if you had engaged the Shermans at double the range do you think there would have been a greater advantage?

    Is there a mechanism by which gunners can select which area to target, tracks, turret, etc, as historically seems to have happened.

    I think this battle is far from over, and I'm guessing we will see evidence that the Sherman isn't the "Super Tank" that the first 4 minutes of this fight might indicate.

    Sitting on the edge of my seat for this one .... Is it April yet?:(

    0

    A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    No, because then the TC will get himself shot all the time.

    Button up, reverse, hit the MGs. Way smarter than forsaking the protection of your tank to spray some SMG fire.

    This!

    This buttoned/unbuttoned discussion prompts another question: I've often read about tank commanders keeping an MP40 or grease gun in hand while standing in the open hatch, during travel through close terrain, to quickly spot and suppress/kill any bazooka/panzerfaust teams that might be lurking in ambush nearby. Does CMBN model this, so that a tanker in the open hatch can use small arms while still inthe vehicle against dismounted infantry? It would seem so, since we've seen that the game lets crew members and even passengers shoot while mounted in halftracks. But I just wanted to know for sure. I hope so, because this would make the tank vs. AT weapons balance more realistic and ambushing a tank much harder if the tank is unbuttoned.

    From a tactical standpoint, when I have tanks that absolutely need to traverse through close terrain, (ie.. terrain that restricts or confines movement and or observation along a narrow path) and there is no other way to go around said terrain then it is always best to screen the area with soft skinned two legged bullet stoppers first. This would always be preferable to a TC in a hatch with an MP ;) ..

    0

    A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    One thing to keep in mind is that spotting in the game is not a simple "roll of the dice". Many factors are considered, including - just to name one example - the actual facing of the crew members! Blanket assumptions like this one:

    ...will therefore not (always) work. Being unbuttoned in the game does the same thing it does in real life, namely eliminate blind spots. It is not equal with "this tank now has to spot anything quicker than anyone buttoned up all the time each time".

    If an enemy unit happens to be (by pure coincidence, if you want) right inside the view of a crew member's visionblock, then - unbuttoned or not - it will be "spotted" right away (crew experience may play a role here, though, in figuring out what it looks at and to report it properly). Even if the tank is as blind as a bat in other directions, it can spot and identify a target in the direction it's looking at quickly. (In fact, at certain distances it will do so much better than the naked eye if unbuttoned).

    So while it's *usually* true that being unbuttoned gives you better all-around awareness, and *usually* you may have a higher chance of spotting that enemy tank in a spot that otherwise would be a blind spot for you if buttoned, you cannot make a simple a+b=c deduction from it.

    In fact, this deep core simulation is one of the beauties of the game, setting it apart from simplistic RTS games.

    It’s great that there are so many variables built in the spotting algorithms. I just found it strange that in his write up, Bill was taking hits but apparently wasn’t spotting who was firing. If this is just an isolated incident then yes I can buy your “maybe they were looking the other way” explanation.

    In any case I was just making an observation on this and it wasn’t meant to be a blanket statement unless of course it becomes a blanket problem. ;)

    0

    'Jumbo'

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Buildings catching fire by means other than flame producing weapons is more an issue of game balance imo. Yes if it happens then the mechanics need to be modeled realistically but if it happens is not nearly as important as when it happens.

    If it occurs too frequently in game then it becomes a gamey feature that can ruin the tactical aspects of the game. If it only happened very rarely historically, then you have to ask is it worth spending the development time to get the mechanics working correctly?

    Add to this the variables involved because some buildings should naturally (and possibly unnaturally) catch fire easier than others. So how do you make that determination in the game to make sure that it happens enough to please some players but not too much to be annoying to others?

    0

    Randomly Generated Maps

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Ya I've noticed this... on one mission where I was taking it slow (like always when ATGMs are in the area), half the enemy suddenly ran out of their buildings and into a hail of fire from my infantry across the street. Pretty dumb. I'd rather them just stay in place or only counterattack if certain conditions are met (i.e. 75% of the attacking force's armor is destroyed)

    Just play against humans is my solution. Making decent AI for any game is incredibly difficult, for wargaming, it's almost impossible.

    Yeah, human v human is where its at if you want a challenge although don't discount the realism of playing against the AI. Lots of crazy stuff happens in war due to poor leadership, bad training and miss communicated orders. All of these things can sometimes be experienced when playing against the AI. Although I've also seen plenty of boneheaded moves made by human opponents and even made a few myself. ;)

    0

    'Jumbo'

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I have already pre-ordered and can not wait for the game.There are many things I can live without in the game.Fire is not one of them.Fire and all the mayhem that comes with this natural delight must get in at some point.You can leave out horses and motorcycles without much argument from me.But fire, along with smoke, dust , and explosions is an essential product of the violence of war and must be simulated and done well.Its hard to find any war footage without fire at somepoint.Indirectly its already in because something is causing that smoke.But the pyromaniac in me is just not satisfied,lol.I need it to spread and cause panic.I need it to change the battlefield and your plan of action.I need houses to be completely engulphed randomly.Fire is the main ingredient of chaos.The original fire model from CMBO I thought worked beatifuly.I just want something similar back.

    Nice hijack attempt ... and oh yeah I agree 100% btw

    0

    'Jumbo'

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I don't think the A3E2's made it in time for the Normandy Campaign and if not mistaken the need was so great for an up armored Sherman that 3rd Army field modified many A2 models after the breakout to add extra armor. This made them roughly the equivalent of a Jumbo.

    0

    CM: BfN steam group

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I've bought a good bit off of steam and I like the service. You can get some really good deals if your willing to wait and watch but like most things I'm sure its not for everyone. When Martin says they've looked at it and it doesn't fit then I trust they know what there doing and it sounds like they might add some steam like features in the future. A battle finder service and removing the download limits would awesome. :D

    As for the Metal Box edition of CMBN, its nice but the digital download works just as well for me. The main reason I bought the pre-order was to support BF and to make sure I can start downloading on day one.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...