Yggdrasill
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yggdrasill
-
-
Hi. I've been playing CM since CMBO, but haven't played in some time. Would love a head to head or PBEM game over the next few days. I have a block of time I won't have again for a while.
I don't care which side, type of scenario. I just want to play.
-
What Xian said.
-
are the way to clear buildings now, especially against US and German forces who can't use their AT weapons inside a building. Clearing house to house with just infantry is ugly unless you have overwhelming numbers.
Another option is to use an MG in its own building to suppress. Say you're clearing a two story building that may or may not be occupied. Have the MG pour fire into the bottom floor for a minute or two to suppress. Then simultaneous switch the MG to rake the upper floor while assaulting the suppressed bottom floor with a squad.
-
Augh, that map is gorgeous!
-
8 HOURS HOLY COW!
That's incredible. How on earth did it last that long? The ammo loads (in the game) for the US are way too small for that kind of extended battle but I assume there were other US forces involved?
-
Slight SPOILER ALERT.
I recently finished scenario 5 or so, the one about Turnbull's stand (Neuville-au-Plain). It's a great scenario and I did reasonably well though Turnbull was killed by artillery falling on his building. I had two thoughts I wanted to share.
First, veteran and especially crack troops are, well, awesome. I rarely get veterans in QBs and never crack units. They do die just as easily though!
Second, I would love to read about how the original battle unfolded. The Americans have two AT guns and the Germans two PZIV and a Marder. Seems like you should not lose more than one AFV per gun. Once it's location is known, mortars should take it out. I understand why the AI doesn't do it that way (or at least not in a timely manner - those positions were shelled long after they had run out of ammo) but I don't know how the Germans lost that engagement with such overwhelming numbers. If just one AFV survives the defenders are toasted by direct HE fire.
-
I've noticed that certain vehicles (e.g. german halftracks and PSW armored cars) suffer track/wheel damage when driving over certain obstacles such as low hedges, and fences. Does speed bear on this? I've never understood if there is any advantage for a vehicles to go "I" instead of "B", except of course if you want to go more slowly for timing reasons.
-
Yankeedog, that's very helpful. Thanks!
-
I know this issue has been beaten almost to death in countless threads, but I still confused so I am posting some clarification questions.
As I understand it, except for acquiring from vehicles, sharing ammo/weapons can only happen when one soldier is giving buddy aid (medic) to a wounded comrade. When doing this the medic has to use the acquire command to take the wounded soldier's weapon/ammo. Is this correct?
If so, is it the case that a wounded soldier can, sometimes, continue to fight after receiving buddy aid? And, if so, what happens if he has been relieved of his weapon? Does he pick up another weapon?
Thanks in advance!
-
My wife would like that....
ROFL ROFL ROFL
-
Wow, 124 views and not a single reply. Guess I'll have to do it myself!
-
Has anyone put together a sticky or some other document that lists the composition of the various infantry units (squads)? For example, a Panzergrenadier squad has X rifles, Y LMG, Z MP, etc. I know that the actual composition varies among squads in a particular platoon - one might have an MP44, another might have three SMG, another two LMG.
The thing is that the quick battle forces selector doesn't tell me which units have AT capabilities and which don't, which US squads are all rifle and which aren't, and so on.
I'm sure someone has done this. I just couldn't find it.
-
WEGO. I'm 50 and grew up playing board games - AH, SPI and many more. It's what I'm used to and yes, I do obsess over the instant replays. I would like to try RT, though, in a small single player game. But WEGO is essential to learning to the game, for answering questions such as, "why was that unit able to see my gun and kill it" and "why is my tank on fire" and "how did my squad just get mowed down?" You get the picture. I die a lot.
-
I'm interested as well.
-
I'm sorry if this has been covered (of course it has) but I didn't find anything through searching.
What happened to good old Shoot 'n Scoot from the CM1 games? I really thought that was a useful command.
Also, CM1 showed firepower on the targeting command. That's gone.
Finally, the field manual omitted armor penetration data that was so helpful and interesting in the CMBB and other games.
-
I'm looking for a good scenario that is infantry heavy, for PBEM play. My opponent says he prefers infantry games. Supporting armor/vehicles are fine, but it seems as though most of the scenarios on the disk are tank battles. One that isn't that I am considering is Marsh Madness. I have already played "Backs to the Volga" (awesome) so that's out.
Any ideas?
thor
-
I agree with most of what is written in the other posts, though I cannot concur with JasonC and PiggDoggthat FTs are always inferior to other units that can accomplish the same things (e.g. taking out tanks, killing infantry at close range, etc.)
For one thing, FTs can set buildings (and terrain tiles) on fire, which can be very useful. For another, FT tanks with their superior range can dislodge enemy infantry from positions that might take a high toll on assaulting friendly infantry. Sure, you can bombard with a regular gun, but that can take a while against heavy buildings. So if you're pressed for time, a couple of FT bursts will clear the enemy right out.
Walpurgis offers good pointers for using FTs on the attack. FTs are difficult to manage, which is why so many players get frustrated with them, but used correctly they offer unique characteristics. That said, I don't recommend buying them, but if you get them (say, as part of an engineer platoon) they can be used to great effect.
thor
-
I absolutely LOVE AT rifles. Much has been written about them on this site, but I will briefly enumerate their virtues.
1. CHEAP
2. LOTS OF AMMO, and some even come with HE rounds, useful against soft targets.
3. EXTREMEMLY HARD TO SPOT.
4. THOUGH NOT DEADLY, THEY WILL KILL LIGHTLY ARMORED VEHICLES.
Against HTs, trucks, light tanks, MG carriers, they are fantastic. May cause crew to abandon. I have killed all of the above with AT rifles, especially as the Russians.
Against tanks they force the enemy to button up. For the Russians this is terribly important, especially in 41 and 42 when you're likely to have a lot of 2-man turret T-34s that have to button up to fire. Keeping enemy armor buttoned puts lessens your disadvantage in tank engagements. Also makes it harder for enemy tanks to spot your AT guns and infantry.
-
Joachim,
Ok now I understand. Yes, you are correct. I did not think clearly in terms of the relationship between the size and to hit probabilities.
*but* what if you change the ratios for hull down so that, for example, half of the exposed area in a hull position is turret and half upper hull (instead of 1/4 and 3/4). Then the chance of a turret hit does go down.
Do we know how much of the exposed area for a hull down PzIV is hull and how much is turret?
I guess the only way to "know" this is is to run a bunch of tests with immobilized PzIVs in a hull-down position, and see what the relative turret/hull hit ratios are.
thor
-
Originally posted by Joachim:
[QB] Though Thor presents some interesting points, I have to point out that Jens/pyewacket's model does not fit to Dschugaschwilis assumption.
e is fully visible
The 1/3 factor actually states that hitting the upper parts of the tank in hull down-mode is 1/3 while the tanks is still half exposed. Not very convincing:
-
Jeez, and yet people wonder why statistics is confusing.
I'm going to try to clarify this, if only to get it straight in my own head. In simple English the question is, for a tank such as the PzIV, that has weaker turret armor than upper or lower hull (frontal), is it safer to be in a hull-down or exposed position?we assume (common sense) -
1. the probability to hit a hull-down tank (anywhere) is less than the probability to hit a fully exposed tank (anywhere). Joachim gives the statistical rationale:
"Project the visible parts of a tank on a (huge ) piece of paper. Form a bell from the function of a two-dimensional normal distribution modelling the hit prob. Yes, this looks like a real bell put on the paper
Now the likelihood to hit the tank is the volume of that bell that is above the outlines of the tank in relation to the volume that is outside the boundaries of the tank. The likelihood to hit a certain part is the relation of the volume above that part in relation to the rest. The center of the bell is the aim point."
2. given a hit, the probability that it will be on the turret is higher on a hull-down tank than on a fully-exposed tank. This makes sense because the turret on a hull-down tank constitutes a greater portion of the target area than it does on an exposed tank. In Dschugaschwili's model, which looks at the vertical axis only, the turret is closer to the center of the bell curve (fewer standard deviations away) in hull-down than in fully exposed position.
To answer the original question, it depends on:
1. how much reduced the hit probability is overall for an hull-down tank; and
2. what the turret hit distribution is for both hull-down and exposed.
Now, Dschugaschwili argues:
"But since the entire turret and a part of the upper hull remains visible, the probability of hitting a hull-down tank anywhere must be at least as high as the probability of hitting the turret of a hull-up tank. In fact, according to the model I outlined above, the chance to hit only the turret of a hull-down tank must already be higher than the chance to hit the turret of a hull-up tank."
The second sentence is true if we're assuming a hit. But is it true for any shot before it hits? D claims that it is, but the second sentence doesn't necessarily follow when you introduce the second (lateral) dimension into his model (as Joachim pointed out). Pyewacket presented a simple mathematical example of a case where a turret hit is less likely in hull down position. It all depends on the overall to hit probabilities and the hit distribution probabilities for exposed and hull-down. Since we don't know either of these, isn't the question moot?
Here's my question: what game test can we devise that will provide useful data for this question?
thor
-
Thanks for all the feedback. I'll let you know how it goes in a couple of days! Have a great holiday everyone.
-
A couple of points.
First, Hitler's personality did factor heavily in poor German military decisions, as has already been point out. But here, the important distinction lies in differences between democratic and totalitarian governments. Churchill was, in his approach to military matters, a lot like Hitler. He fancied himself a general, was always coming up with hare-brained schemes (remember, his political career was almost ruined by the disaster at Gallipoli). The difference was that Churchill, after plying his persuasive talents to the utmost, would in the end let his generals make the final decision. (Read Lord Alanbrooke's autobiography for a great description of this). Whereas, Hitler would insist on being right and fire anyone who opposed him. The early war successes in Poland and France, where he had pushed the offensive doctrine of younger officers like Guderian over the objections of more conservative senior generals, lent him the aura of a military genius - especially in his own eyes.
Second, strategically, the "axis" was really just a marriage of convenience, and had none of the coordination and cooperation that marked the Allied side, especially between the two that mattered, Germany and Japan. What if, for example, Japan had pushed westward rather than eastward in 1942? Instead of dying at Midway, the Japanese fleet might have been able to drive the British from the Indian Ocean, block the flow of supplies to Russia via Iran (not to mention the flow of supplies to China over the Burma road), and link up with the Germans in Cairo. The oilfields of the middle east would have fallen to the Axis. Or, the Japanese could have attacked Russia in the east and kept the Siberian army from reinforcing Moscow. Now EITHER of those
events would have drastically changed the strategic picture in 42. The point is, the axis never concentrated on a single enemy. Good thing, too.
-
I know that you can target units embarked on AFVs, don't know about trucks or HTs. But definitely, if you take out the carrying vehicles, the passenger/s will be at least pinned (unless maybe they're crack).Originally posted by Slappy:Agreed. Actually, I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to target embarked units (let me know if I'm wrong on that). Your MG can and will take down the truck in short order (KO or abandon is equally likely). At that point, the passengers and gun will be forced to disembark immediately and you can target whichever you like.
I'm going to try to clarify this, if only to get it straight in my own head. In simple English the question is, for a tank such as the PzIV, that has weaker turret armor than upper or lower hull (frontal), is it safer to be in a hull-down or exposed position?
Looking for CMBN game over Thanksgiving holiday
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Really? No one wants to play?