RockinHarry

They should rather avoid losses in the first place, instead of combat. I still see too many soldiers die/getting wounded, while reloading weapons without diving to cover first, applying buddy aid while beeing unable to do it from cover (prone) position and other occasions that make me think, even veterans don´t know anything about self preservance. What´s that "target briefly" worth, if it can´t be combined with a hide command. Target briefly + hide would make for a nice german "Feueruberfall" (concentrated surprise fire), the basic means of low level fire tactics on the battlefield. They then can reload weapons while back in hide or full cover and prepare for next actions.

So this is the visual difference, between CMBN V2.0 and CMFI Hotfix shaders (NVidia):

Thanks! These solved the odd looking shadows problem for me. It´s not entirely gone, but it now looks all smooth enough. Wonder these weren´t included in CMBN V2.0 by default? :confused:

Ain´t that "planning"? ...and here it goes, 1k of spamming.

Is that for Mac or PC? Where do I get this shader fixer? (I do not owe CMFI) :confused:

Still wonder the large team has not been split up yet to proper components (leader, gunner, assistant and ammo bearers). So the guys might have some inherent self preserving behavior and dislike to be deployed in such a densly packed, vulnerable manner. So in this regard (german) HMG suck two times. No close to RL firepower and no close to RL deployment scheme. = worthless.

Installing the patch worked smootly. Yet had the floating rubble objects problem occuring again, which vanished after saving and reloading the game (...a particular game actually). Noticed something had changed for the AI for the better, as it appears to make less stupid moves, when on the attack. Anybody else noticed changed/improved AI behavior in 1.11?

I too toyed with all that sunken trenches and buildings around long time ago and at last I figured, it´s not much worth the efforts. It looks crappy most the time and does not give the results we desire. We can´t make effective underground shelter. Period. Protecting trenches by sinking 1m works some and protecting houses by raising surrounding terrain 1m (instead of sinking the house) works some too. 1m terrain alterations is the maximum that can be halfway worked into the terrain mesh, without revealing what´s under, or behind. Anymore is suspiciously looking (to a a human player) and leads to another problem. If fortifications can not be concealed/camouflaged, then majority of their worth is already lost. Another is troops density and trench arrangements. Trench segments need to zig zag every other tile (every other 8m AS) as the real ones and there shouldn´t be more than 3-4 guys in each segment. Otherwise you have death traps. Compare some with the real stuff here: http://www.allworldwars.com/German%20Field%20Fortifications%20on%20the%20Eastern%20Front.html

yep, think just a 2D footprint would be enough and bits of reaction code, beside blasting with HE, when enemy infantry gets very close. Some basic abstractions should do the purpose actually, so there´s no need to bother with 3D stuff.

Where´s the problem? The Puppchen is a Panzerschreck with closed end tube and slightly shortened rocket projectile. The Ammo RPzGr 4312, provided a V0 of 110m/s, beeing 2.7 kg weigth and 490mm length. The standard projectile for the Schreck, the RPzGr 4322 in fact was a bit longer and has about 500g more propellant. The propellant was burnt off after 2m of the rocket leaving the tube. The Puppchen had an accuracy of 50% at range 250m, hitting a target 1m square. In fact there wasn´t much difference in performance (at higher costs) to the Panzerschreck, so production ceased again in february 1944, yet there were still 1649 pieces and about 70-80k of ammo among frontline troops at wars end. Source: Fritz Hahn - Weapons and secret weapons of the german army 1933-1945

Maybe sounds like a backstep, but I´d consider it more easily implemented by "caching" units in abstracted underground shelters instead. Imagine it a variation of CMBB sewer movement, where the sewer is the basement/dugout and the movements is just entering/exiting...

For the sake of immortal heroism, fumes (and burnt pants) would be accepted.

John, yes I know you weren´t suggesting to buy that leaflet, but I commented cause I´m already long time collector of original german stuff from wartime and before, so have bit of an overview. http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276

I´ve scans of this particular training leaflet, which is sufficient for my purposes. Would never spend 145 $ for an original. Saw some for a tenth of the price at local markets or german ebay I think. :cool: As said, 1m (3 feet) clearance for the firers safety was noted to be sufficient, if it´s a straight wall behind the firer. The photo sequence above shows a bit more varied area behind the firer and the blast/fire jet likely is more dispersed this way and less dangerous. Due to the very low muzzle velocity of the launcher, it has always to be aimed at an angle, the more if the target is near the max range. This means, the blast mostly hits between 10~40° of whatever is behind the firer and thus most likely away from him. With regard to effects of the warheads on infantry (Faust and Schreck), it was mainly dependent on struck materials. A tree hit would provide lots of wooden splinters, a wall hit sprays stone splinters and so on. Without that secondary shrapnel, the HEAT warheads were probably less effective than a standard hand grenade (of the offensive type) on personnel.

Thanks! Well, the original instruction manuals just tell that 1m clearance is sufficient for the firer to be safe from harmfull burning and blast from behind. That´s for the 100m version, which had the strongest, dual stage charge and surely counts the more for the smaller charges of the 30 and 60m versions. That´s just the "technical" POV. The other is what´s (more) of concern, when in the heat of battle and a good opportunity to kill a tank at very close range provided. Soldiers are taught to take care of their comrades and less care of themselves and in this situation, the firer would just keep his back free from any squad mates and the enemy tank in sight. Bits of burned pants, likely was least of concern. :eek:

just found an interesting photo sequence. The soldiers do not appear to be mightily impressed by the shooting. No idea what the polish text describes though.

IIRC it was from this scribd user, but he´s obviously relocating his collection elsewhere. http://de.scribd.com/haraoi_conal But could also be from another user at this site. Just have a look around. Else, drop me a PM.

This is the original service manual D 560/4 for the PzFaust 100m as of january 1945. It´s quite brief and for obvious reasons anything but rocket science. I bracketed the stuff of relevance for this thread in yellow and translated: "When launched, there shouldn´t be anybody standing up to 10m behind the firer." "The fire jet/blast can be lethal up to 3m if it hits a comrade." "When fired from within a foxhole, make sure the tube end points above ground." "Otherwise, when the tube end points within the hole, a clearance of about 1m (to the wall) is usually enough for the firers safety." THAT´S IT! Now use common sense and make own conclusions for any thinkable combat situation.

No idea why CGI tools aren´t used for creating credible WW2 scenes and movies. What can be achieved is repeatedly proofed by movies like Lord of the Ring ect., even when different themed (fantasy, SciFi). I could imagine credible Kursk tank battle scenes with current CGI technologies and way more. Too sad...

Bits of a tactical example for a german HMG42 in support of infantry attack on russian entrenched position, from training video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBXAqe9QVIc&feature=youtu.be&t=1m36s Context runs from 1:36 to about 1:47 The HMG section leaders order sequence: Auf Wisent (target "Wisent", bison) 200 Schuss (200 rounds) Dauerfeuer! (contiuous fire) The HMG now supports german infantry, already in enemy trench, to suppress russian infantry in a particular trench section, pre designated "Wisent". "Continuous fire" is not meant literally here, but rather applied in interrupted bursts, to fulfill the tactical purpose.

yep, my last comment wasn´t actually meant that serious, but while ammo resuppy is yet in the game, I find fuel resupply (or consumption) not that far off, particularly for late war germans. Capturing abandoned, yet undestroyed enemy stuff also could make for nice additional victory point earnings. And self destruction, to prevent this. AFAIK the very first Tiger I lost during battle, got stuck near Leningrad and was self destructed.

just few sequences actually related to the ardennes battle, but nicely recoloured stuff. :cool: Hopefully CM:BotB, will feature self destruction and lack of fuel/refueling modes for german AFV, since obviously it was the main cause of german tank/vehicle losses during that battle.

Agree, but... ...the main purpose of MG34/42 and applied tactics, wasn´t quite to put advancing troops to ground, pinning them, it was rather to hit/kill as many as quickly as possible, BEFORE they go to ground. Surely worked somewhat better on the eastern front, than it did on the western one. AFAIK the MG42 was developed to deal better with "eastern front conditions". Yep, thought the same about the Grease Guns ROF, while watching the vid. Maybe the US should have "lend leased" the russian PPSH41 in return of all the stuff they sent to the USSR.

I owe and play both, CMBN and IFL44. They´re not that much comparable and while IFL44 is termed FPS, it can also be played in sort of high command mode with a multitude of play modes, both vs. AI and in multiplayer. I like both games, although neither is at its peak of development yet, with IFL44 having some more problems, that are not actually the developers faults.

Propaganda, as trustworthy, as any other either from US, german or other origin. How many GI´s got injured or killed after seeing this film, cause they thought, german MG´s were inaccurate ammo wasting devices? How many GI´s got injured or killed, cause they thought, there´s just a lone, way forward german HMG, that exposes a famous "flank"? Who says the MG42 HMG gunner has set the various tripod adjusting possibilities correctly? Who says the GI´s using the german weapons enjoyed appropiate training? Who says used german weapons were in good (non worn out) condition? Who says german MG´s were designed to rip apart an immovable target at 300 yds? (while they were designed to deliver an accurate hail of fire up to 1200 for the LMG and upto 2500m for the HMG) Greetings from Hollywood