Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by womble

  1. Sadly, the opinion seems to be that this period would not sell sufficient copies to be the "first and biggest" launch of a new title. However, with some clever architecture choices, my pessimistic outlook might be unwarranted. One of the big chunks of work for any of the titles is the TO stuff, and the base data for that changes not one whit with a new game engine. All that work could be re-used. Similarly, the data behind all the armour values and such is already crunched, and could be imported. So perhaps the CM3 family would inflate with Big Bang speed (relatively speaking), rather than taking a decade and a half to get from partial '43 to mostly-ETO '45... which would mean that the AK period and first couple of years of Ger-v-Sov could come along sooner than we might think. There's hope yet.
  2. I'm not sure a direct comparison of CM1 and CM2 in terms of longevity is quite appropriate. ISTR that one of the reasons for getting rid of (rather than iterating upon) CM1 was its monolithic spaghetti code which was not amenable to updating without totally breaking. CM2 was designed, I get the impression, to avoid (at least to some degree) that stumbling block, and that's why we're on engine... is it 4? now. Nevertheless, the base engine and concept is, for some values, showing its age now, and there are obviously some core tenets of the code that would be good to upgrade, in the light of experience, but which are too deeply embedded to be readily changed. A fresh start on CM3 would be good, especially if it could leverage the non-code-specific work that's been done. But then we would definitely never get to the early war setting...
  3. That seems abnormally long, IME. ISTR it depends on the soft factors of the team in question, but 15-30 seconds is more 'expected'.
  4. Here's a question I don't have time to test: since the MG can "ammo share" while dismounted, can it do so from other carriers in the same platoon? As if they were ammo bearers in a leg MG formation. And if that's true, can they share from other carriers while mounted? Or doesn't it work like that?
  5. A Target Arc will turn a turreted vehicle's turret axis to bisect the arc it's given, potentially meaning that the hull vision blocks aren't pointed in the direction of the TA while the hull axis is deflected from the turret weapon's axis. This might reduce the number of eyeballs that get a "chance to spot" something.
  6. I don't believe it is, no. You get a "tentative contact" or a "full spot", and that's it.
  7. Relative experience and leadership levels of the vehicles matters, as does prior information about the presence of a target and the actual viewing quality/vision aids of the given tank, and which of those are available can be affected by the axis of the target arc (whether that's a target armour or target anything arc). Terrain will have an effect too; it's possible that a tank sitting in ambush can have its LOS obscured if you're not careful about tree foliage, while still being visible to its putative ambush victim which hasn't got a tree in its face. And it's still random, so sometimes even the lower-chance-of-spotting element will get the drop on the one you'd 'expect' to spot and fire first. Once the PBEMs are over, you might get a better idea of the issues involved in the specific cases if you can cooperate with your opponent to go back and rerun that turn a few times to see if there's something systematic, or if someone just got a better dice roll.
  8. For the same price? You really don't interest me enough to fire it up and dig out Jagdpanzer prices... It's not that I want to use them that way, it's how they end up getting used, both in-game and historically, because of the strategic stances of the forces involved at that time of the war. And they're not "mediocre"; they can kill most Allied tanks (even most Allied tank marks; there were a lot fewer Churchills than Shermans and Cromwells in Normandy) and can stand up to the most common opponent at mid-or-greater ranges. As Assault guns, they're mediocre by that time in the war, having a low ammo count. Sherman 76s aren't as good as 75s in the HE-chucker role. But having some to engage the enemy armour, like a proper tank should be able to is a good idea. Unit pricing is a really tricky art. There a bunch of assumptions that have to be made, and if they're different to yours, you'll disagree with the pricing. Thus it will ever be. And BFC aren't going to enter into any discussion about it. And we're not going to be able to do anything about it. It is what it is. Buy those "Better options", and stop worrying about the missing "common weapon" in the artificial arena of a QB.
  9. For the most part, I've been talking about the AP shell. Because CM vehicles will (right or wrong) elect to use an AP shell. The HE round will tear a turret off the KT, or just kill the crew, and doctrine was changed IRL to reflect that. But CM has limitations. One of those limitations is that teams of infantry can't spread out as far as they would IRL, so HE doesn't rock the world quite as hard as it "ought" to.
  10. I was working at a defense show the other year. A client had some gear mounted on a vehicle that they had to make sure they absolutely did not turn on by accident, because the bill for fried mobile phones would be astronomical. And it wasn't aimed at mobile phones. Drone denial around airports is a different animal to drone denial in a battlespace...
  11. Ah, no. Paintballs do not travel at Mach 0.9ish... That would leave some welt... As to ringing the bell of the crew, the 152mm AP round won't come close to penetrating the glacis of a KT, let alone an Abrams. I'm sure the clang would be impressive, but that's way better than having 40 kilo of steel come roaring through your cramped fighting compartment...
  12. I'll assume you mean "square-on", by "straight". At 200m, yeah, the AP should've penetrated, without some fairly odd circumstances. Maybe even an Abrams. Though not from the front... It's only got a muzzle velocity of 600m/s.
  13. Or, shorter: "There are limitations on what can be coded. We live with them." Did anyone express "happiness" about the situation? First, it probably wasn't an HE round (unless it had already expended its allotment of AP - I don't know how RT handles ammo loadout for the SU-152, but other assault guns in other titles get handed a small allocation of AP or HEAT rounds). Maybe something has changed, but even though a 152mm HE is probably more effective than the relatively low velocity APBC round that weapon chucks, it uses the same ammo selection criteria as every other unit that can choose HE or AP, and would choose the AP round for shooting at a KT. However, it still "ought" to get a penetration on the side, unless some additional 'deflection' angle is involved by the positioning of the vehicles, from the numbers I can easily find. That possibility is important, though. Was it a square-on shot? What range? It may also be that the general nerfing of HE effect to "compensate for" the coding limitations around infantry (one team per AS, mostly) have made the HE round's effectiveness against armour as well, if that was what was actually fired.
  14. If you've got a unit that's not going anywhere for a bit (I'll often choose the highest level HQ), give it "Pause indefinitely" order, then give it waypoints to each of the TRPs. Then when you "Show all movement paths", you can see where they are. As and when you need to actually move your TRP-keeper, you can usually find another unit that'll be static for a bit to hand over to. Depending on what you're doing with the TRPs, you can spread the "responsibility" out. As an extra wrinkle, you can put 50m target arcs at each of the waypoints so that you can actually see where the TRP's benenfits apply. Best if this is done when the spotter you're going to use to call in to the TRP is (one of) the one(s) with a waypoint on it.
  15. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, here. Or at least shade your definition. Yes, one of a tank's jobs is to be a moving pillbox and an assault gun, throwing HE at pesky enemy who won't be dissuaded by MG fire. They can outgun any infantry weapon and are (if you don't push too close) immune to anything the enemy pTruppen can do. But the other job of a Tank (specifically, rather than a TD, or an assault gun) is to "support the infantry" by protecting them from the enemy's armour. Largely by blowing them up. In conceptual terms, the two have equal weight for a tank. TDs are meant to take out armour, primarily, and assault guns are principally to facilitate the advance of infantry against static threats. The M4's fast turret is only useful for vs-armour duels, and is entirely unimportant for giving the gropos a leg up (unless you're cavalier with the things and put them in ranges where they're in danger from infantry AT). Yes, Shermans spent more time supporting their dogface little brothers, but the ability to shut down the enemy armour was in toto as important, and by June '44, it lacked a little in that regard (hence Sherman 76s, Fireflys, M10s and so on). Unless you want to call a "vanilla" M4 an "assault gun"... If "supporting the infantry" was the primary consideration, you'd've had much lighter-armoured things with 105mm HE-chuckers and more MGs coming off the design boards, but "being there to kill Panzers" was job A to "breaking infantry resistance" as job 1. The StuG III is a wierd duck by that point in the war. It's "supposed" to be an assault gun, but the Germans aren't conducting many infantry assaults at all, let alone on prepared fortifications, but it's got decent frontal armour, and a good, tank-killing 75, so it's probably better considered a TD. If you can find a long (>500m) fire lane on your QB map, it can totally kill the bejazus out of any Sherman 75s trying to boost their infantry along that axis... I guess it depends what size of map you like to use for your QBs. But if you want a cheap HE-chucker, the StuG ain't it... PzIV is probably betterer.
  16. My woolly recollection is that the standard M4's short 75 does have difficulty penetrating the glacis of the StuG III, even at relatively close range, whereas the StuG's gun has no trouble whatsoever with any aspect of a Sherman's armour at the same ranges. So (assuming my memory is both accurate and representative) if you can control the initiative of the armour fight, StuGs are worth buying. Probably worth some controlled testing to see where the StuG's advantage pertains, and get an idea of how often it could be made to apply in a QB.
  17. The shot-trap thing doesn't invoke "outbound" armour, AFAIK, it's just a ricochet off one plate onto another, easily-pierced one. There's no penetration in the first impact, so the engine doesn't, as I understand it, stop counting that vehicle's armour. Though most of the time, given the thin skin under the trap, it may as well not be there. I don't believe the energy is reduced at all by the outbound skin. It might be reduced by the amount needed to pen the first layer, but since that was a PzIV, it probably isn't material to the chances of a JS-II's chance of penetrating anything except a Jagd-whatever's glacis plate.
  18. By "right", do you mean "an accurate simulation", then no, obviously it's not. Steel plate is steel plate and takes energy out of whatever penetrates it. But I'd imagine that the designers considered the number of times that it may occur where a penetrating hit can go on to strike another target low enough to not burden the codebase with very-rarely-used calculations.
  19. One thing to remember when considering whether this works for you as part of the "simulation" is that the outbound armour skin isn't counted. So the PzIVs are no surprise at all, and no impediment to the shell carrying on and whomping a Tiger in the same shot, for that gun. I don't think CM can model deflections outside of projectile/armour interactions, so no, there won't be any deflection to a shell that penetrates. But, given the stipulation above about the armour that's counted, if there was some sort of random deflection once penetration is achieved, it would just mean that "lined up" would mean something different in the chaotic system generated than we might expect...
  20. Aye, that's right; it's the same as setting up an arty mission in that respect (among other, obvious ones ).
  21. Neither did combatintman. The fact that you miss his point is telling.
  22. I can't give much useful help about your main question but I can shed light here... Your limited experience is 100% accurate within certain parameters in CM. Small arms are defined as bullets of less than 12mm calibre, so your Ma Deuce and its peers will inflict friendly casualties. And ricochets don't have any concept of "friendly", so even standard rifle and pistol calibre ammo can cause damage to your friends once it's bounced off a wall.
  23. Just making them harder to spot than a big retroreflective blanket would be a start. I know they're "just expedient excavations", but most of the time you're better off without 'em.
  24. I remember reading somewhere that pink was a good colour for a warplane's underbelly, too.
  • Create New...