Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Aaron

Members
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Aaron

  1. Originally posted by Biltong:

    Not so sure about that myself... good sources very hard to come by. Read/serached the web/asked the grogs for some input, but even they did not have much. Got a very good idea when snow/blizzards/mud & rain started and ended, but the individual temperatures?? Most good reports centre around battles. Some temperatures I took from other years, e.g.: Stalingrad etc... Lots of pure guesswork. If Moscow had -30 the Kiev had -15... that type of thing... I hope in time some Grogs will question some of the modifiers and come up with more reliable sources. If you have anything please let me know.

    I've been playing it wrong. I used the casualty factor for attached units only. I did this because

    I track my own battle group's casualties separately. My main problem with using casualties for the battle groups is that its highly improbably that a unit will lose 50% of their soldiers in the few days between battles. With the replacement rules, battle losses are replaced almost instantly (one day), why aren't these weather losses also replaced?

    One alternate is to reduce the size of the battlegroup for the battle but only count battle casualties as lost. This, however, would require you to record the number of men in each squad both before and after the battle.

    Aaron

    [ February 20, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

  2. Originally posted by laxx:

    What about Captured or lendlease Tanks in the Allied Camps ? Did they have a name like "StuG IIIF(g)" for Captured StuG originating from Germany ? or just simply "StuG IIIF".

    The only use of a captured tank by the Allies that I know of is Oddball's Tiger. I'm not sure what it was designated.

    I have seen pictures of americans using captured 251 halftracks though.

    NOTE: When I read this question I assumed that "Allied" meant US/Britain/France. Guess I've been playing too much Totaler Krieg.

    Aaron

    [ February 19, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

  3. Originally posted by Andreas:

    Production:

    1940 94

    1941 349

    1942 1030

    1943 1324

    Ammunition production (AT) in thousands:

    1940 156.2

    1941 889.5

    1942 270.0

    1943 287.1

    Ammunition production (HE) in thousands:

    1940 0

    1941 9.2

    1942 373.3

    1943 130.1

    Great link, I missed that one before. So we have 5,339 sPzB versus around 20,000* 3.7 PAK and 1.6 million rounds for the sPzB vs 10 million for the PAK. I stand corrected, that's far more common that I thought.

    Both the PSW221 and the SPW250/11 which are armed with the sPzB41 are in the game.

    Can't believe I missed both of those. Was the 221 a field conversion?

    Finally, the idea that the PAK38 is better in any respect is quite simply not so.
    Did you mean "in any respect" or "in all respects"?

    Aaron

    *I've seen number between 5,300 and 40,000

  4. Originally posted by Apache:

    How does availability and use of this weapon compare to the PAK 36/30/40 etc? Also, which units would have been more likely to use it?

    I've look through everything I can to try and find production figures for this gun but came up empty. I know they were common in North Africa (where they were introduced) and many where given to the Italians. By '41, they seem to be only used by the Luftwaffe and, according to CM, the few Light Infantry division. By the time the 5cm PAK became availiable, I guess the infantry's 2.8cm gun would be religated to rear-echelon troops as the 5cm was superior in every way. The lightweight Luftwaffe version was used throughout the war. The small number of tiny shells needed to support this version wasn't much of a drain on the tungsten supply.

    Some were used instead of 3.7cm PAKs on 251/10 halftracks and a few were mounted on 221 Armored Cars. Neither of these vehicles IFAICT are supported by CMBB.

    Because it was classified as a heavy anti-tank rifle, I'm not sure if it was used as a replacement for the normal PzB39 in the infantry companies or if it was used in AT companies.

    Sorry I couldn't be more help.

    Aaron

  5. Originally posted by Shifty 101:

    My rule to playing so far has been if it has a rarity below 100% then it's ok but even purchasing a unit with 70-80% rarity I feel like I am cheating the AI out of a fair game.

    I don't think there is any tank so poorly priced that buying it at +100% (i.e. paying twice what its worth) will give you an unfair advantage.

    Aaron

  6. Originally posted by JigVictor07:

    What do I do when I set up the real battle? Do I purchase only one 81 mm mortar spotter and use the rest of the points for what ever I want in that category or do I only purchase more of those same spotters?

    The first one. You buy what is specified and use the rest of the points for whatever you want (in the same category)

    What about the 350 point limit mentioned above? Will I just lose the remaining 200 points? What's the point of getting a lot of points for arty (550 in this case) if you can't use them all?
    A couple things. First, some players use the extra points to buy on-board artillery. However, the large artillery rolls generally only apply to June/July time frame. You'll soon be well below the QB imposed limits.

    Aaron

  7. Originally posted by Terrapin:

    I thought they did this now. At 250M, isn't only the LMG firing on most squads? I never see the SMGs light up at 250M.

    That's true. However, even if just the LMG is firing, the entire squad loses AMMO points as if the entire squad was firing.

    It would be nice, as he mentioned, to be able to pick who stays and who goes when splitting squads. I'd like to split a squad into a 2-man LMG team and an 8-man assault team instead of two 5-man teams.

    The main advantage of 1:1 is that my 88s have more than one guys manning them.

    Aaron

  8. Originally posted by kenm:

    After the last battle I realized the %Ammo wasn't set correctly. After playing around with the QB generator it became obvious that the %Ammo doesn't seem to work on my machine. Is it time to reinstall CMBB? A search of the archives has one short thread about a QB generator %Ammo problem, but that thread seems to describe a more limited bug.

    What is it doing or not doing? The effect isn't actually detectable until you start the battle and check the guys ammo loadouts.

    If the %Ammo isn't working is there a way to compensate for this through a rules tweak?
    I'm not sure how. The ammo setting doesn't seem to effect unit prices or total number of points. Its kinda a "screw" setting. (i.e low ammo is -bad-)

    This does remind me of an older question. If you have a German casualty setting (say 50%) and you play the battle. Do you consider the guys that didn't participate as KIA, and thus they need Replacements, or do you only need Replacements for the guys actually killed in the battle.

    Aaron

    [ February 06, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

  9. Originally posted by gunnergoz:

    What the army did, was experiment during and just after the war with covered halftracks, utility tracks (M-39), three-quarter tracks and finally settled upon the idea of the fully-tracked, fully-covered battle taxi that evolved from the behemoth M-44 (think of an entire platoon conveniently carried in a gasoline cooker) M-75 to M-59 to M-113

    The germans were also, IIRC, working on a fully enclosed tracked troop carrier based on the Pz38 chassis. I forget what they called it.

    It would be groovy if you could add entire vehicles to the CMBB database. That way we could try out some of the proto-types that never actually made it (such as the improved turret for panthers).

    Or Gear Kreig stuff ;)

    Aaron

    [ February 06, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

  10. I just did a quick test. Situation: a 2 kilometer map, very dry, cool conditions.

    The Running squads took 22 turns to move 2k, while the Moving squads took 24 turns (actually more like 23.3). At the end of 24 turns, the Running squads were Tiring while the Moving squads were Ready.

    I ran the same test in Hot conditions. The only difference was that the Running squads ended up Tired.

    I guess the conclusion is that Move is just as fast as Run over long distances. The little time Run gets you is wasted as your squads have to rest a the extra two turns.

    Aaron

  11. Originally posted by Peterk:

    Hate to burden you with more work, but I was thinking of adding a little something cool to my Java tool. I plan on maintaining a battle history for the player's group and instead of just saying Battle 1, Battle 2 etc...I thought it would be kind of neat to stick a geographical location along with it, so I could say "Battle 2 - near Russia/German border", "Battle 6 - Outskirts of Grozno", stuff like that.

    I've been trying to come up with something similar. I've been tracing 1 PzGrp. Here are some places and dates. I don't have dates for every location.

    Lutsk-June 22

    Dubnio-June 25

    Berdichev

    Zhitomir-July 9

    Kiev (outskirts only, bypassed)

    Uman-July 8-16

    Kirovograd

    Denepropetrovsk-August 25-Sept 4 (kinda bypassed)

    The Dnieper river crossing

    Lubny(closing Kiev pocket)-Sept 16

    Stalino

    The Mius river crossing-Sept 20

    Taganrog-Oct 17

    Rostov-Nov 20

    After this point 1 PzGr retreated to behind the Mius.

    There are some good maps on West Point's webpage that show the movement of the various german armies and their soviet conterparts.

    http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhistorymaps/WWIIPages/WWIIEurope/WWIIEToC.htm

    Aaron

    [ February 05, 2003, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

  12. Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

    Do you understand that 4000pts w/ 50% casualties gives you an on map force size of 4000pts, not 2000pts?

    Its not a question of points but of total number of units. At 50% casualties I get twice as many squads each with 5 or so dead guys. More squads = more time. The extra time taken isn't linear either. Its taking three minutes to run the turn (compared to less than one for 0% casualties). Add a minute for the movie and a 30 turn battle takes a minimum of 2 hours to run.

    You would get the same effect just by splitting all the squads into teams.

    Aaron

  13. Originally posted by SuperSulo:

    Yes, "Map damage" definitly slows down the game. I *think* it even slows down the turn processing, all those craters seems to give the TacAI alot more to think about (available cover and so on). On my slow PC I use "Medium damage" as max, unless the map/battle is very small.

    I don't use the Casualties field for the same reason. I can run a big (2000 pts) battle on my machine no problemo, but if its a big battle with 50% casualties its almost unplayable.

    Aaron

×
×
  • Create New...