cool breeze
-
Posts
985 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cool breeze
-
-
If the half track is at 700 or more yards the rifles wont even shoot but the 50 cal will work fine.
-
2 hours ago, rocketman said:
If that is the case with the game engine, I'd like BFC to confirm that. Otherwise it is an assumption I don't really believe in. The map is completely flat, but the engine simulates undulations of 1 m over long distances so that isn't the fact here. We can place bushes and even brush on the map, none of which exists here so there shouldn't be any "invisible ones". If there was foilage I'd agree to a degree, without a single tree nearby I tend to disagree. That a soldier that walk and then run would pause to take cover every now and then, then surely they wouldn't advance at a constant speed. And also it is my impression that the engine does simulate bullit hits by the pixel, so if what we see is different than what counts, I'm confused...
But I might be completely wrong, but in that case I have the wrong view of the game engine and what goes on under the hood.
I think the regular short grass ground cover has built in small undulations. Playing the game I notice that on paved surfaces my pTruppen die more, and I dont think it just ricochets. Plus the game isnt designed to simulate the sort of test situations we devise, the fudge factors have all been adjusted with actual game play on regular maps not for test set ups.
2 hours ago, rocketman said:The upper body of a HT gunner is about a 0,5 m2 target. At almost 300 m, was a regular soldier in WWII with a rifle without a scope able to hit that consistently? Anyone have data or source to confirm or dismiss?
There was no real source for that, I just pulled the number out of my butt. After I sent it I kinda wished I had used a less questionable made up number. I'm totally unqualified, having only had one shooting session with a rifle, and it had a scope and bipod, so didn't count ( but I did nail it, am a natural shooter
) . But I'm also vaguely referencing JasonC and his unscoped rifle range condition numbers hes thrown out a few times. Training was less back then than now but firearms proficiency was more widespread, at least in the US. Marines are supposed to all be able to pretty reliably hit a man size target at 500 yards on the range.
-
While the tracer fire does look strange coming at the mg gunner like that, in the context of CM, because we are used to seeing it more like the tracer fire being shot at the walking guys; I propose that its actually pretty reasonable. Part of why the regular aim of soldiers in CM seems bad is because its partly simulating that the targets are benefiting from a lot of micro terrain and micro movements that aren't ... um shown... for lack of articulation. The game assumes there is more stuff blocking los, and more work is done by the soldiers to hide behind it than the engine can show/ simulate so it gets fudge factored. But the mg gunner on the stationary halftrack has none of that stuff going for him. While the engine never tries to give us shooting range performance, shooting at the mg gunner is the closest to a shooting range target. And honestly to me the grouping for tracers in the pic seems like reasonable for a shooting range target under combat level stress environment. If it wasn't for combat stress they should be like half or more hits, right?
-
Finally got a new password to sign back in!
Having the two tanks right next to each other is a great idea, its really cool that it works. If ever there was a real life tactic to be inspired by someone playing combat mission, that seems like a reasonable stop gap measure for Russia to use if they were to fight Javelins, if it worked in real life too. Seems like there is a chance it would. Really brings to mind the old Land Ship concept. Which then brings to mind those silly scifi giant tank scenes. Have a few super tanks in the middle with long rang Anti Air missiles and have it surrounded by shorter range AA missle carriers and have it be a regular land ship battle group -
Oh and Ill add that the 210 mm or the ruskies is a great deal, and would be even more so if it had guided rounds available. I like the USA 155s a lot more than the ruskie version because I think the guided rounds penetrate better ( probably because of the glass seeker head on the krasnopol" Plus the USA 155 are just insanely fast and accurate, almost the only weapon youd ever really need.
Most of my arty testing stuff has just been against the AI (for some reason most people like to fight against soldiers and tanks vs the sky is falling), and those 155s with a BFIST are pretty amazing at holing tanks with a short unguided burst of 155. Seem like they dont even have to do spotting round but just dump a big enough handful right over the tank that they get it.
-
And get your pokemon out of this thread we have enough of it everywhere else!!!! lol;)
-
Totally agree being able to buy tube with more ammo per gun would be great. I think the main thing I buy more tubes for is more ammo. I like to use very long harrass or light missions with 105mm+ and I often dont put all of the guns on the mission, because I want the ammo to really last. It's kind of like comfort on the attack, its out there and you hear it disrupting, and you know its ready to be adjusted to wherever it might be needed. I always try to get a rough idea o what my indirect fires did by looking through my unit kills and then end game kill total, but i dont commit it to memory so I have pretty much no idea what my average might be. And sometimes I go pure direct fire.
-
2 hours ago, JasonC said:
Ammo being limited is not a function of era and whether you have enough trucks. The ammo limitation that matters is right up at the firing position, and the last half mile to that firing position is man packed. Nothing else lives in infantry forward areas where MGs are firing at each other, certainly not unarmored trucks packed full of ammo. They can't go there; they don't go there. The ammo an MG in action has is set by the ammo men can carry to the firing position in their hands and on their backs. Including ongoing trips by ammo carrying parties to be sure, but always strictly limited.
Every MG ever made can fire off the ammo that can be hauled to it in those tactically relevant circumstances much faster than it can be hauled up to the gun. You can cite games with indirect fire from covered positions out of action, but they don't have exposed targets and will never even "rate" in the accuracy per round sweepstakes.
Firstly, very much appreciate the insightful reply. With regards to my point about maybe the more modern approach being to just have more bullets, I should have said I was thinking about not modern but near future warfare. The more trucks with the ammo are to bring it to the IFV/APCs and also robots like the robot dog and similar tracked things and flying things can carry and resupply troops in action. If you can somehow get 150% the firepower, by shooting 200% to 300% more but carry 400% the ammo, you get more firepower per gun. Which either increases firepower or frees up manpower for the all important supply operations.
Also I don't think burning up MG barrels sounds bad in modern day, just bring more
And I'm also thinking about not the briefly exposed targets that obviously provide benefit to the higher rate of fire, but the ones that are " not exposed" . Like just firing into the woods or bushes where you think or know the enemy might be. If the double rate of fire can sweep double the amount of woods, you can have half the number of guns for the same sweepage, which if you wanted could let you trade one mg for one ammo bearer.
Oh and I'm saying have both not one or the other. besides sweeping woods and crests and bushes, one of the other main things I have my mg's do in CM is shoot windows. When they occupants are laying low, the high rate of fire MG's are probably not ideal, shooting the windows at a lower rate would be sufficient. But when they are fighting out the windows you want the extra RPM. If the gun had both it would have the best of both worlds.
-
I think one thing with them that is kinda of counter intuitive is the best spots for them have the least cover. Something like short grass is fine, but the ideal spots are so hull down that you don't want any foliage blocking the view, so a wheat field is no good because to see over the wheat you've got to expose hull above the dirt.
-
If you get them in a really perfect maximum hull down position, it acts almost like it can fight through the mast. enemies can barely see it even at modest range, and when they do see it and return fire, they aim at the center of what is visible, which is the mast! Your launchers will probably be holed, but the thing is likely to survive.
-
Well sure you can't make Full use of the higher rate of fire. But some of the dispersion is set by the auto rocking mechanics that some MGs mike the MG42 use. In that situation, it seems you could double the left right sweep with double the rate of fire and get the same density spread at a given range. Sure, its usually better to fire at a point target that is too small for that to work, but often MGs do area fire and covering twice as big an area seems sometimes helpful. Although I hadn't been really thinking about air cooled and the barrel changes in particular. But not counting running out of ammo, doesnt more barrel changes mean more shooting? And my "point" is also not about ww2 where supply was obviously limited, but modern where we can just have more trucks with ammo. Also my point was that 800 like we do use was seemingly better than 500 ish like the Lewis, not 1200, although I guess that sort of follows the same line. And I wasnt thinking high rate as default, but as an option. Sometimes accuracy and sustained fire seems better, but some of the time maximum lead dumpage seems good.
-
And also, not to really argue, since I totally see what your saying about the MG rate of fire, especially with regards to ww2. But on the other hand... lol. Since ww2 we have switched to a more MG42 style MG with higher (but not as high) rate of fire. Maybe this shows that the better more modern approach is to just bring more ammo? Part of my thinking is based on your point about the beaten zone of the MG being set by gun manipulation mechanics. Doesn't this mean that if you wanted, you could have the gun shoot twice as fast, over twice as big an area, giving you no overkill but more firepower (Edit to add: per unit time) ? I mean that doesnt work if the target area isn't big enough, but it does seem like a worth while capability. On the one hand you are of course right, and ammo is always in fact a limited quantity. But on the other hand you can always have just taken more in the first place. And MG ammo fired at the enemy seems like usually a good thing to have space and weight wise.
-
22 hours ago, JasonC said:
breeze - If I have a motor vehicle to carry gun and ammo, I'd take a belt fed M1919 over a Lewis or a Bren, any day.
On 7/12/2016 at 2:10 PM, cool breeze said:Not that they would be as powerful as a bigger better belt fed, but having the jeep cancels out most of the problems, so why not, since they were lying around. Id rather have a Lewis on my jeep than nothing, or an extra Lewis with something.
As you see I am in full agreement. My point was just that the better guns go more critical places first, and after you've used up all the good/best guns and still have some jeeps that could use more, stick the Lewis guns on em cause why not. Better to have the 3rd man in the jeep with his own Lewis vs anything else you could do with em like giving em to a 5 to 8 man mg team.
-
One thing that can't be argued with is that it is freaken cool looking gun. It looks maybe even better/cooler on the jeep than on the Stormtrooper. On jeeps sure does seem like a good place for em though. Not that they would be as powerful as a bigger better belt fed, but having the jeep cancels out most of the problems, so why not, since they were lying around. Id rather have a Lewis on my jeep than nothing, or an extra Lewis with something.
-
Lol, Funny story. They also don't rinse the dishes and are all used to the soapy taste. Or so I hear
And just so we are clear Marmite is that funky smelling green rotten veggie goop, right? Just kidding its not that bad. Toast tho, that's a good'un. They do butter it, right?
-
Your profile pic goes perfect with that post
-
17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I think it's got less of a chance of happening than the EU invading Great Britain to take back all the superior cuisine that Britain acquired over the past 40 years.
Steve
LOL! Kick em right back to the culinary stone age and probably have em mass migrating to the new world all over again.
-
Ive heard a few times about the ruskies or at least the soviets using one command level up the chain for a given task than the west. So the west would go team first then squad then platoon the ruskies go squad followed by platoon.
With the US I want to spread my infantries fancy optics all over the place while with the ruskies I like to have big concentrated blobs of firepower. Seems to work.
-
Brown dust on the brain from blasts wow sounds nasty, being in a war just got a lot worse sounding for me upon reading that. Makes me think that in the future some rigid sealed armour might be an important thing to protect against blast effects. Brings to mind Star Wars Stormtroopers, and Halo, and of course this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Hurtubise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Ballistics_Suit_of_Armor
-
Fire Superiority.
-
Hey, what going on here?! Whats with all the reasonable discussion? WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THE WOOD WORK TO JUMP ON THE CM SUX WAGON?!
-
44 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:
That is not true, infantry in CMx2 are actually 1:1 in terms of representing soldiers, they are not blocks that is why individuals can get shot and it doesn't take away a random number of men when something actually hits them. This would have been true in CMx1 but it isn't now, an easy to way to see this is when a MG burst catches 2 or more soldiers at a time, if it weren't a 1:1 abstraction than it wouldn't matter where the bullets went as long as they "hit" which would mean it would just kill of random people in the fire team or squad instead of where they actually are on the map when hit.
I think this is just a misunderstanding rather than a disagreement. the point was, i think, just that because the guys get a bunch of modifiers applied based on the terrain and their movement and things like machine guns and HE blasts and shrapnel being toned down to balance things, we still have an abstract system like CMx1 but of course a MUCH higher fidelity version.
-
Yeah, problem is it targets where the dudes were rather than where they are/ were heading.
-
I been doing this for a long time
Old timers
) . But I'm also vaguely referencing JasonC and his unscoped rifle range condition numbers hes thrown out a few times. Training was less back then than now but firearms proficiency was more widespread, at least in the US. Marines are supposed to all be able to pretty reliably hit a man size target at 500 yards on the range.
Old timers
The one minute gun range survivability test
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
Another thing that shows off how BFC sometimes lets the units natural accuracy out vs. its fudge factored accuracy, is shooting at windows. They aim pretty good when shooting at the windows, its only the super good saving throws that the building provide that gives the window guys a chance.