lewallen

I know non-killing penetrations are modeled, they just don't seem to happen (to me) very often. I hadn't thought too much about the 'knocked out' vs 'abandoned', and now that I do, I recall that I usually have more abandoned vehicles than knocked out, so it does make sense that these vehicles have been non-catastrophically damaged. When I was playing Steel Panthers, I must say that I was pretty surprised by the tank crews' hardiness; they'd stick around even after the tank had been penetrated two or three times (or sometimes more), so it sounds like CM models the tendancy of a crew to bail after a non-catastrophic penetration more realistically. I recall reading that Brit tank crews in North Africa would preemtively bail out of their tanks if they saw an 88mm shell impact nearby, as they knew from hard experience that the next incoming 88 would likely brew them up. And I definately agree on the points issue raised by redwolf. Thanks for all the comments! ~Sam

I think there was a thread on this a while back, but I couldn't find it in the Search, so here's the question: are tanks in real life usually knocked out by a single penetration? In CM it seems that virtually every penetration is a kill, even rounds that must have only barely penetrated (i.e. armor penetration of the shell is only slightly higher than armor value of the plate it hit), or penetrations by small rounds (37mm and 2lb mostly). I played Steel Panthers again a couple of months ago (which reminded me of why I switched to CM ), and noticed that a large number of my hits would penetrate but not kill the targeted AFV. Is this realistic, or is CM's modelling more realistic? IIRC the 2lb cannon, for instance, used only solid shot with no explosive filler, so I would expect that you might get several penetrations on, say, a self-propelled gun (with a big, lightly armored superstructure) that would not knock it out. And since individual crew positions are not modelled in CM (i.e. you cannot immobilize a tank by getting a hull hit which kills the driver, but does not damage the turret or gun), it seems that just damaging a tank, rather than killing it outright every time, is harder in CM than it should be. Anyway, can someone enlighten me? ~Sam

Well, I for one trust BTS to deliver the goods exactly when they keep saying they will: "When it's ready". They've stated several times that there will not be a demo (at least before the game is released) because that would signifigantly delay the release date (the CMBO demo delyed CMBO also). And honestly, it's nice to have a company for once not promise release dates they can't deliver on, or worse, push a product out the door before it's ready. (Anybody here play Falcon 4.0? Thanks to BTS "when it's ready" policy, we'll not have a repeat of that ugly experience with CMBB.) I wouldn't mind a few more screenshots, or more details about what all the features are going to be, but I'm also content to wait until the game is fully ready. Anyway, that's my $.02... ~Sam

IIRC, it's been shown that HQ bonuses do not affect FOs in as far as response times and pattern dispersion go. An FO in command radius of an HQ will benefit from Stealth, Command, or Morale bonus, but these will only affect how easy the FO is to spot, its command delay, and how quickly it rallies under fire, respectively. ~Sam

This is true to be sure. But I still wonder about my original question: "Will an allied tank EVER fire Tungsten at an unidentified enemy tank even after a ricochet?" Besides...the TC ought to aim for that turret anyway... -Sarge</font>

On a related note, what did the Soviets use? I've heard the Amis gave them 'zooks through the Lend-Lease program; any idea when (or if) they appeared in quantity? Other than that, did the Soviets independantly develop any AT rockets during the war? I'm thinking of the predecessor to the RPG-7 (might have been the B-40 or something; I'm pretty sure it started with a B ), or will we be stuck with close assaults with Molotovs and AT mines for the most part when AT rifles become useless against later tanks? ~Sam

I've been thinking about the micromanagement aspect of this, and I think I agree; for example, like Olle says, you make a pause in mid-turn by exploiting the unit delay time, so why make it an unnecessary pain to do by having to do that instead of just having a pause command that you could use mid-turn? And I think it's not unreasonable to expect that a CO or platoon commander could say, "OK 1st platoon (or squad), run to that building, sit there for 20 seconds firing at the enemy in the building across the street while 2nd platoon moves to better positions, then charge in and take the position" or something. In addition to its uses for tophat/lowski (and sometimes it would be useful to be able to pause several times during a turn instead of just once like you get with the unit delay exploit), I'm thinking of situations where I'm, rushing a defensive position in, say, woods or tall pines, and it'd be nice to get my guys into the woods, and have some of them stop just inside the treeline and bang away at the enemy while other squads charge the foxholes, and then after waiting for 15 or so seconds, hop up and chase after the enemy, thus keeping the pressure on, instead of having to wait to the end of the next turn. Human players will naturally try to make up for the limitations of the game engine or the TacAI. I frequently spend additional time during the setup phase tweaking unit positions for ideal line of sight, for example, because the TacAI isn't smart enough to know how to position itself in a good hull down position. (I know the Seek Hull-Down command is in CM:BB, I'm just using that as an example of the micro management that already occurs in the game.) So I think a mid-turn pause command would be a welcome addition. ~Sam

In CM:BB you will be able to set fields of fire. This is called the "Cover Arc" command, and replaces the Ambush command from CM:BO. It also acts as a "rotate turret" command for tanks, so you can make their turrets cover one arc while they drive in a different direction. IIRC, you'll be able to designate an arc up to 180 degrees and up to infinite range to have the unit engage enemies in. There is also a "Cover Armor Arc" which will tell units to fire only on hard targets within that arc (good for units like AT guns and tank destroyers that you don't want giving away their position by firing on infantry). ~Sam

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about the shoot and scoot. I agree about the micromanagement bit; hopefully the shoot and scoot command will solve that. I'm also hoping that the TacAI in CM:BB will be a little smarter about when to stand toe-to-toe with another vehicle and slug it out vs. popping smoke and running for cover. The M18 basically needs to always only take one or two shots, and then run away, unless you have a juicy flank shot on a slow-turreted tank or something, and if you don't have the movement orders already plotted, it'll happily sit there and bang away as long as it thinks it has a chance of penetration, regardless of its vulnerablity to the enemy unit... :-p Oh well. Thanks for all the posts, everyone! ~Sam

That's the tactic that I usually end up using, but the problem is that it takes a lot of time; most of the time of the turn is spent in pause, rather than moving and shooting. Also, in reply to Slappy, the first difficulty with moving further over the crest is that you get more exposure; in a Hellcat especially this is bad, since you're vulnerable to almost anything, incl flak guns, light AT, etc., and most Allied tanks are more vulnerable in general than their German counterparts. Also, it makes you easier to spot, plus the tanks are less accurate when moving (though also harder to hit). I think a 10 second pause would be just about right for a veteran crew if they spot the enemy as soon as they crest the hill. a 5 second pause would work if they can lay their gun on target just before they stop moving.

This is a difficulty I've been trying to find a way around for some time, and I'm wondering if any one else has experienced it. I'm having a hard time getting "top-hat/lowski"/"berm-drill" tactics to work (where you place a tank on a hill's reverse slope, then set orders to move to the top and reverse back down, zig-zagging along the top of the hill). I find that the faster the vehicle, the worse the tactic works (in CM, whereas in RL it should work best with fast vehicles). For example, I've taken a real fondness to Hellcats. When I issue them orders to Move to the top and then Reverse back down, as they move to the top, they see the enemy tank, turn the turret, depress the gun, and by this time because they're so damn fast they're in reverse headed back out of LOS before they have a chance to fire. What I'm looking for is a way to put a pause order in the middle of a move, like: Move to top of hill, Pause (preferably for some shorter period of time than 15 seconds, but even 15 seconds would work), *then* Reverse down the hill. That would give the tank enough time to acquire, lay the gun, fire 1 or 2 shots, and then get the F outta Dodge. I've tried using the Hunt command to get them to the top of the hill, but the problem is that when a tank is in Hunt mode, it will stop and engage an enemy tank until either the enemy or itself dies. With a Hellcat, this is not a good tactic (duh ). So in Hunt mode, they go up to the top of the hill, acquire target, lay gun, fire, fire, fire, fire, and then get knocked out by either the tank they're shooting at (who by this time has figured out where the shots are coming from and faced strong armor towards it and is beginning to return fire) or by another tank or AT gun or something. So: is there any way to avoid this unfortunate situation, and if not, will there be a way to do so in CM:BB? The ability to add a pause command in the middle of an order instead of just at the beginning would be really handy, and it would also help if the pauses came in 5 second blocks. Then you could use it for short-distance overwatch bounding (infantry, for instance: two squads, one rushes 50m, pauses, say 25 or 30 seconds, second squad rushes 50m, pauses, etc., would work equally well for tanks), top-hat/lowski, and for generally tighter control over your troops. Comments? ~Sam (Lewallen)

That is what I had in mind. Am I correct in assuming that CMBB will have most or all of the terrain types that are in CMBO (i.e. hedgerows) in addition to the new ones that are CMBB specific? If so, the CMBB engine could model battles anywhere in the ETO including all of western Russia, so the front lines could go in either direction. I keep thinking that the CM scale and idea would be great for almost any era, but anything that introduces guided missiles, night vision equipment, helicopters, etc., would involve a ton of work (I imagine along the lines of a whole new game to do it real justice), not to mention the system requirements involved with the size of the modern battlefield (for 1960s equipment, probably 6km on a side would be good, for modern, more like 10km or 12km?). But I think the '50s units offers a good compromise between existing engine limitations and abilities, and some of the improvements in tank and weapon design that happened after WWII, some of which were directly due to German influence (for example, IIRC one of the first tanks the French produced after WWII was armed with a direct copy of the Panther's 75L70). Does anyone know when the Brits introduced the L7 105mm? I'm even thinking that it would be cool if BTS could just add the existing Allied units to CMBB. They could even only make them available in the same time-span as they are in CMBO, sort of as a "power-user" addition to CMBB, which I would think would minimize the amount of work involved, unless they would have to be reformatted or redone somehow to transfer to CMBB. And even if no battles designed as Russian vs. American/British came with CMBB, we could at least make our own. The logical extention to that would be to make it possible to put any country against any other country, as was possible in Steel Panthers, so you could do things like British vs. American, or maybe even make it possible to put the same country on both sides so you could have civil war situations (Steel Panthers had such a scenario). That's all pretty much a flight of fancy on my part, but it doesn't seem, at first glance, that it would be that hard to program, and it would add a lot of flexibility to the game... ~Sam

I posted this up earlier today, but somehow the thread has been destroyed, and has turned into the CMHQ Update-April 17 topic. So, here goes again... I used to play Steel Panthers before I got into CM; if you're not familiar with SP, it's turn- and hex-based, and works on about the same unit scale as CM (smallest unit is one tank or one squad, hexes are 20m or maybe 25m IIRC). Anyway, one of the campaigns that SP came with was a World War Three scenario, where Patton's Third Army took Berlin ahead of schedule and went from there directly into combat against the Russians. It was pretty interesting seeing Pershings and Jacksons going up against T34-85s and JSIIs and IIIs. What I'm thinking is, since all the units you'd need to do that are in a CM format already (with CMBO or BB), how about Combat Mission: World War Three (or something), where US and British forces fight the Russians after VE-Day? If BTS wanted to be extra cool, they could make US, British, and Russian TO&E for up to about 1950, which would make the later model Pershings available, and the Brits would have Centurions (I think??); I forget what tanks the Russian forces would have around that time... the T-10?? And since the technology involved wasn't really any different from WWII (i.e. no guided missiles, etc), the CM combat engine should still be sufficient for correct modeling. And even if BTS didn't want to do new units, they could still do it pretty well with just the units available in 1945. For example the Easy Eight Shermans were still in wide-spread use in Korea. So, just a thought. Comments? ~Sam

i use 81mm spotters quite a bit, and i've noticed that when dropping smoke, the accuracy does not degrade after the smoke has obscured your initial aimpoint. if you adjust fire, however, and pick your initial aimpoint again (i.e. adjust fire to the same place you were already targeting), LOS disappears and the accuracy degrades appropriately. one problem i've noticed with artillery smoke is that there is no "target wide" command for smoke like there is for HE. with the 81mm especially, but also with other arty, i like to drop it in a wider pattern to block larger areas. if you have a fairly high density map, it's not too hard to put your target behind a building or something to block your line of site, but then you get nailed with the longer countdown time. it'd be nice to have a target wide command to drop smoke in a larger pattern without having to artifically block LOS. ~sam

one of my friends was a tank driver; just got out of the Army this year. when he was home on leave a couple of years ago, he brought me a sabot petal from a 120mm. it's about 7 inches long and 4 or so wide at the widest, made of aluminum, and fairly heavy. *definately* not something that you'd want to have smack you in the back of your head doing 1800 meters/sec. my friend says that 'crunchies' are not allowed to be within about 200m in front of the tank when it's firing the main gun due to the sabot petal danger. ~sam

I've noticed that the TacAI will sometimes unbutton my own tanks if it feels that there is no longer a threat. This seems to happen more often if the tank is near friendly forces; if it's out on its own or under heavy fire, it generally won't unbutton automatically, but if it's just sitting there with no particular reason to be buttoned, it'll sometimes unbutton itself. If this is so, why doesn't the TacAI unbutton the AI's tanks, or am I seeing something I shouldn't here?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: What we really needs are the self-propelled 150mm infantry guns, like Bision et al (thin) and Brummbaer (thick), they were intended for direct fire. I think CMBO only got the Hummel because it could share the 3D model with the Nashorn.<hr></blockquote> I was actually very much looking forward to being able to use the Brumbar (or however it's spelled); from playing the Steel Panthers series, I remember it being monsterously effective against infantry, particularly in urban environments, where it usually brought the building down on top of them after a couple of shots. However, from this site: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nstalker/armoury/german/brumbar.htm I believe it may have been mainly used on the Eastern Front. There is another web site, however, which suggests it may have been also used on the Western front, and says that only 313 were built. A Google search for "Brumbar" turns up mostly sites about plastic models... Anyway, it's certainly something to hope for in CMBB. [ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: lewallen ]</p>

gotta agree with the 150mm. even better is the version of it mounted on the hummel. blast=200. i played a QB against the AI where one hummel scored fully 1/4th of the infantry casualties (27), knocked down several buildings, and basically turned the battle into a massacre. the only drawback is that it only carries between 12 and 15 rounds, but you sure can do a lot with that if you pick your targets carefully...