Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Fußball

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    196

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Fußball

    T-26 piece of crap or piece of crap?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    They are fun tanks nonetheless. Always gives me that early war feel when I fight them in scenarios. Though I must give praise to one T-26c(Ot-134) which flanked my PzIIIG while it was KOing BT-7s and T-60s. Shot it right in the upper left side of its hull. Killed no crew with its weak ammunition but it did KO the tank. Sadly for the T26 my PaK5,0 was waiting for it to reverse, which it did...

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    help with quick battles; attacking russians

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    -Faxis

    This morning I was working on a quick battle map in a scenario style. A map that would play like a quickbattle but look more like a "real" Russian village/rural setting. Its quite immersive if I do say so myself. It is a company sized German attack set during June 1942. I have yet to playtest it but if you are interested send me an email at karl_doenitz101@yahoo.com if you are. smile.gif I can give you more detail on the map and send it to you if you would like.

    Originally posted by Joachim:

    Just ignore Jason being rude. You don't have to like him to find some of his posts useful.

    This is very good advice to take. Faxis, just cease any kind of arguement toward Jason. You will never get through Jason's thickhead whether you like it or not but his advice can be helpful. :rolleyes:

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    Until then, pound sand.

    That gave me a good chuckle.

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    Best mods for sept 1942?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Before I post I would like to thank all the modders for the massive work and selection they have put into CM. smile.gif A personal suggestion for the pzgrau PzIII and PzIV is MikeyD and Heinzbaby's works. I currently use all of MikeyD's PzIII and PzIV mods available. Of course do remember, this is my personal preference. ;) I would provide links but they are all on one page. Hope this helps.

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    Interesting CM quirk

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Either crews randomly have either low ammo or full ammo/partial ammo upon abandoning a gun. Or when the crews use their sidearms it actually takes up ammunition from their sidearm bar. I have had several times where my crews have shot at the enemy and caused casualities. Then shortly after abandoning their gun only to have low ammo. Moral of the story being = CM is wonderful.

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    MG42 Kill halftrack?

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Of course it will! The 7,92mm round coming from the MG42 or MG34 is powerful enough to penitrate the American halftrack. My last battle I knocked out a lendlease M3 halftrack of the Russians at 114m. I would say it is safest and best to engage the halftrack below 100m if possible though. It only takes a hit in the right spot or enough hits to knock them out. smile.gif

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    What the....

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The cartridges are comparable, slightly more powerful for both of the Russian rifles but not nothing noticable.

    Actually the 7,92x57mm cartridge is faster, losses less distance and the round itself is larger than the 7,62x54mm cartridge. This would not have much effect on the performance however. Just a factual sidenote.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    Moreover, why do you think the MNs in CM all must be carbine versions? It just says MN rifle, it does not specify the type. Why does the K98 get a marginally better figures? It wasn't zeroed with an attached bayonet, front-heavy, like the full MN. It didn't have muzzle climb issues, like the shortened MNs. Which would you rather match shoot? We are talking about differences of 9, 2, 0, 7 FP per squad, in other words nothing. There is nothing wrong with the ratings.

    I would obviously choose the K98, it is also my favorite rifle of all. And by the way, the MN91, M38 and M44 each had muzzle climb issues and the sights had to be adjusted a certain way for the round to stay on target with what you are aiming at. Perhaps it is only a few FPs but a few FPs can add up. Otherwise I have stated all reasonings for extra FP values in previous posts.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    As for pretending bayonets mattered, as anything other than accuracy inhibitors, it is simply ridiculous. Sure manuals told people to use them, and people once thought the world was flat, too. But here in the corporeal world, it is utterly irrelevant. On issue, the 1938 model shorter carbine was out well before the war of course. The 1944 model became the standard issue weapon.

    If you are referring to me pretending the bayonet mattered, I am not. I am just referring another point as to why the Russian soldier preferred the full length rifle to the carbine. I am not referring to the bayonet in any means of being able to increase FP value in any way, shape or form. And why would they just specifically model one FP value for two ( three at best ) weapons? As I stated if it were the full length MN91 the stats would still be differed. And I personally believed there would not be an m44 modeled as the weapon the soldier carries.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    Moreover, these are loader adjusted FP figures. The MG itself is effectively being credited with the listed line plus one K98 in each case, as already explained. Meaning the real ratios of MG 42 to MG 34 are 1.33, 1.28, 1.22, 1.12 at the different range windows. With a 33% higher cyclic ROF.

    This makes things much more understandable.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    As for the MP44, marginally smaller mags than MP40s or Stens, and would be used for short bursts more frequently. (Less control on longer ones, not more, from extra kick per round).

    Two rounds is honestly not going to subtract much at all. And beside that the calibre more than makes up for the two lost rounds. As I have stated before and will state again there still is no discrediting that the Mp44 deserves a higher FP value.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    On Sten feeds, if the user held it by the mag they could cause feed problems it is true, by jostling the mag in its seat as the gun recoiled. If held under the barrel where the mag joined, that problem did not occur.

    After the Mk.III that may have been the case. But the Sten magazines suffered from a weak spring just as the Mp40 did. In a sense the StenMk.I and II were like the Mp38. Just like the Mp38 they had a tendency of firing off if dropped onto the ground. Differences between the Mp40 and the Sten Mk. II-V were particularly minimal. Mp40 had slightly higher muzzle velocity, 380mps in comparison to the Sten's 365mps. The Mp40 had 500rpm ROF in comparison to the Sten's 550. And the Mp40 had an estimated effective range of 100m in comparison to the 70m of the Sten. The Mp40 still deserves a higher FP value. 38 is perfect in my opinion.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    If you want to complain about infantry small arms, there are a few items you might have noticed, but apparently national bias has you looking in the wrong spots. There are no airborne model M1919A6 LMGs for the US airborne squads. Those were used as LMGs much as the MG42s were. Instead they are treated as separate tripod weapons, as though they were M1919A4s. The US armored infantry don't have their BARs. Adding them as separate teams does not work in remotely the same fashion.

    For one, I am not biasing anything against anything else. I have not pointed out any problems in Allied weapons from CMAK. I used other weapons as examples. I was initially focusing on German and Russian weapons. I realize there are problems such as the ones you stated. Nor you or I have the ability to fix them ourselves. Thus why these threads are made. To discuss opinions and whatnot over problems.

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    What the....

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The FP values are the same whether you call it a MN or a carbine. As for soldier preferences, some disliked the carbine not for the lack of length (ridiculous on its face), but because the full caliber ammo in the shorter barrel increases muzzle climb.

    This is untrue. Given the full length MN91 the values should come out the same as the K98. This would add the range and accuracy of a full length rifle.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    On availability of Russian rifles, they produced tens of millions of full length MNs but also lost them in huge quantities in the first two years of the war. Production of the carbine version was very high later in the war, and the new forces raised then got lots of them, whatever doctrine wanted or they wanted themselves. Doctrine wanted bayonets to be effective, who cares? Its just nonsense.

    They lost huge quantities but there were plenty more left. And dispite whatever you may think the MN91 was preferred and more common seen with the average Russian soldier. Russians also heavily emphasized the use of a bayonet. Where is the bayonet on the carbine before the m44? Nowhere. Bayonet or not thats just one more reason why it was preferred. Its inaccurate for CM not to have the MN91.

    Originally posted by JasonC:Minor remaining differences reflect feed and reliability issues and the like - the M1 Thompson was famously the most reliable SMG of the war, firing full bursts with no feed issues or jamming forever. That makes a difference because men treat less reliable SMGs more gingerly in terms of length of burst and the like. Whereas the MP40 was notoriously suspectible to feed problems if its mag springs were weakened, as happened regularly if the full 32 round capacity was used.
    If the remaining points not given to the Mp44 are because of feed and reliability issues that still does not stop its need for the higher FP value. Any soldier who carried it remarked how it never jammed and it was reliable through even the harshest Russian weather. Yet again there is nothing discrediting the Mp44's need for a higher FP value.

    'Famously' the most reliable SMG of WWII? You are the first I have heard branding the M1 as the most reliable of all WWII SMGs. Do not tag me wrong, the M1 Thompson was a reliable weapon. But I have heard plenty of good and not so good comments about it. The Mp40 did jam, but not as often as many would like to think. And the Mp40 especialy was not 'notorious' for it. This was not much of a problem however. Since the majority of the jams were simple stovepipe jams all that was needed was a simple pull of the bolt to remove the jam. This jamming was most attributed to the 32 round magazine. That is why many soldiers removed 1-2 rounds to prevent the jamming, which it did. And also, the magazine springs could be replaced if it were that much of a problem. The Mp40 was also a reliable weapon. There is no doubt about it.

    And if you honestly want to go into feed issues. The Sten Mk.II does not deserve a 39 FP value. Now the Sten Mk.II is a SMG that had a bad reputation for jamming. But just as with the Mp40 good cleaning and maintenance would keep this problem minimal. As cleaning and maintenance does with most any weapon.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The MP44 does better at range, where its improved accuracy matters, and over whole ammo loads when you consider all the shots the squad will take. There is no question it improves a squad compared to having another MP40. The difference is just marginal, because all small arms FP at medium range is marginal to begin with.

    This still does not discredit the Mp44's need for higher FP value at close range. And I am fully aware of how accurate the Mp44 was at medium range. Just because its values are better at medium range than a SMG, does not mean that its values at close range, should necesarrily be worse. With the size of its round, rate of fire and control of recoil it was better than many SMGs of the time. 34 FP value does not in any way show how effective the Mp44 was at closer rangers. It would be unreasonable for the M1 Thompson's value to be 39 or 40. Or for the PPSh's FP value to be 44. The same goes for the Mp44. It is not given the FP that the weapon truly deserves.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The MG34 had factory set ROF between 800 and 900 rpm. While it could and did use full belts, it was also frequently used with a 50 round drum instead. Its lower FP per unit time than the MG 42 is fully justified. If you look at the HMG versions, you will notice the 34 get 105 shots to the 85 given to the 42, so the slower firing 34 gets back over time some of what it gives up per burst.

    Ja, the 50/75 round saddle drums were used. But the belts were far more common. The 50/75 drums were initially intended to withstand attacks and fast paced movement into and out of positions with ease. It had its other advantages but overall the saddle drum was the same as the belt. The differences being the saddledrum kept dust and dirt from causing jams and the saddledrum held less ammunition. But overall it proved to be unnecessary in comparison to the belt.

    I am not saying at all that the MG34 needs to be as good as the MG42. I am only saying for its capabilities its FP value is too low. As I have said in my last post. The MG34 is clearly not as fast as the MG42. But that is'nt the point. With the same ammo loadout as the MG42, the MG34 would only be behind by a few points. I think 40 FP value is a nice and even ratio for the MG34.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The 40m FP rating of any particular weapon is not a manliness quotient. The full squad FP ratings accurately reflect the firepower of the various infantry types at various ranges, how compressed that firepower is in time of delivery (e.g. rifle squads take longer to achieve their delivered FP) and the suspectibility of that FP to reduction by manpower losses. Nothing remotely as accurate in tactical effects has ever been achieved in any previous simulation.

    It is indeed not a manliness quotient. The values remain, and if unchanged, will remain inaccurate. A weapon's ( not the squad or man using it ) will have a set value in FP itself. This is accuratley portrayed with weapons such as the Mp44. Argue if you must, it is incorrect.

    Of course the effects in CM have never been met by any other game. Its a wonderful game. Despite my wishes for corrected FP values and despite the stickler I am about these things I still play it. And it, of course, still retains the title of my favorite game. But such a great game should have such minor fixes to make it that little bit more of a better game.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    There are plenty of nits to pick with CM as it stands, this just isn't one of them.

    These are problems that I for one would like to see adressed. Whether or not there are more than two people behind me wanting the same thing is debateable. They can be overlooked by those who are not interested in such small realistic detail. But problems such as the full length MN91 being replaced are problems. Its as if taking the M1 Garand and replacing it with the Springfield. Point being: It did not happen that way. CM is wonderful game of tactics. But it is also a very realistic game. These few and minor changes would just prove this fact even further.

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    Red orchestra

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Tiredboots:

    Thanks fussball. Being already pretty much burned out on WW2 FPSs, I think I'll waite until an FPS analog of CMBB comes along(if ever),your comment on armor was the clincher.

    You're welcome. smile.gif If you can't wait for a good WWII FPS then take a look at Resistance and Liberation ( RnL ). Its not out yet but it looks like it has some promise. From current information if all goes well RnL should be the most realistic WWII FPS when it arrives. Check it out: www.resistanceandliberation.com. Enjoy. smile.gif

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    Red orchestra

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Its the best FPS out there. But that is not saying a lot. There are a lot of problems with the game that the developers are most likely not going to fix. Red Orchestra: Ostfront ( RO:O ) should be released within the next month. Hopefully they will have fixed problems with the game by then. From what they do it seems as if they do not have a historian on their development team. I will list a few problems with the game to give a little insight into its workings.

    1.) ROF for weapons are not what the developers tell people they are. Supposedly RO has the MG42 at its real ROF of 1200rpm. This is untrue. The weapon fires at around 850-900rpm. If they cannot model it to have 1200rpm then they should not advertise it as having so. The MG34 and PPSh are also lowered. The Mg34 has 650-700 instead of 850-900rpm. While the Ppsh only fires at 750-800 in comparison to its actual 900rpm.

    2.) The MG34 and MG42 are horrendously inaccurate. The spread fire on the two is horrible. Yet the Russian DP27 in RO fires exactly where you aim it. Ask anyone who has fired the MG34 or MG42 and the reply should come out very positive. The MG34 also has a lowerd 50rd saddle drum in comparison to having a 75rd saddle drum. I am supposing its in attempt to keep it from bettering the DP27. The developers seem infatuated with the DP27.

    3.) The grenades are horrible. Supposedly this problem will be fixed in RO:O but we shall see. Here are a few problems with the grenades. Grenades can be thrown much further than the estimated 28-32m. This is a very bad decision for the game because more often than not games are decided by who can throw a grenade better. Firefights are not as large of a factor as the grenades in RO are. The grenade's explosive radius is very out of proportion. A popular term among RO patrons for grenades are "mini nukes".

    4.) Do not touch the armor in RO. The RO attempt at simulating armor is a pitiful attempt. And that is putting it lightly. It looks nice on the outside. But when you actually play, especialy if you enjoy armor simulations and CM of course, you will likely be dissapointed. The developers should have stuck with infantry as they originally did. Perhaps stick a halftrack or truck in an occasional map. But no, they added vehicles on large scale maps when there are but few people. I could make a large list of the problems of armor in RO but I don't have all day. ;)

    To sum it all up RO is a sub-par FPS game. It is a far better alternative to such games as Call of Duty ( CoD ) and Medal of Honor ( MoH ). Since CoD is just a pitiful and gamey attempt at realism. Realism being giving the ability to aim down poorly modeled sights and changing nothing else. Play RO if you have a craving for a WWII FPS and can overlook the downsides.

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0

    What the....

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The carbine length was preferred simply because it made the weapon lighter.

    But it did not replace the entirety of every Russian MN91. This is very annoying. That a game so accurate to detail could miss or 'change' something like this. The carbine was intended for calvary use since it was a lighter and less bulky weapon. Thus lightening the load on a mounted soldier. Do not tag me as wrong. I understand that carbines were issued to units other than calvary. And from what I have read the average Russian soldier preferred the longer MN91 to the carbine. Also an interesting note. Quite a many Russian soldiers did not prefer the carbine. It was not viewed as a "Man's weapon" due to the shorter length. You just cannot replace such a weapon as the MN91 for a carbine. Its as if taking the K98 away and fully replacing it with the G98.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The low short range values seen for the MGs in some squads reflect the missing FP of the loader. In squads, all individual weapons contribute firepower. The MGs are actually being manned by 2 men, not 1. To reflect the fact that one other man in the squad is not firing when the LMG is, the FP of the LMG itself is reduced - in effect, that line is the excess FP over the loader's weapon, that the pair can contribute. The total being contributed by the MG, in reality, is that line plus the loader's weapon. How big a difference that makes depends on the weapons of the rest of the squad, and the range. At long range, nothing is given up. At short range in a rifle squad, you are only missing the contribution of one rifle, to get the full MG firepower. But in a squad full of automatics at close range, you only get the FP of the MG by giving up the FP of one of the SMGs, which can be a significant difference. In some 2 LMG squads, the reduction might reflect an average for the loaders (as though one SMG and one rifle aren't firing, while both LMGs are).

    Good explanation. smile.gif I never really looked at it in that way.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    As for the FP of the MP44, most of the short range FP values reflect ROF and ammo load. At 40m, it makes no difference whether a round is pistol ammo or carbine ammo, so the FP is basically the same as any other German SMG. At 100m, the MP is getting an accuracy boost from its better muzzle velocity. The PPsH about matchs it due to a larger magazine size and significantly higher cyclic rate of fire.

    If calibre does not play a slight role then there are a lot of FP values still out of place. The Greasegun comes to mind here. At 450rpm comparitive to the Mp40's 500rpm. That would mean that the Mp40 still needs to have a better FP value. The two should actually, as I have stated before, have their FP values switched. They both have a controllable recoil, the Mp40 has a higher muzzle velocity, is 50rpm faster and the rounds do not 'spread' as much as the M3A1's rounds at full automatic fire. Switching the FP values for the two would be a very sensible decision. And then the Sten Mk.II. Why is it stronger than both the Mp40 and M3A1 by 3 and 1? The only thing that differs it from the Mp40 is the 50rpm faster rate of fire. Face it, there are a few weapons values that need to be tweaked. If calibre did not play a slightly significant role then the weapons values would be slightly different.

    And the Mp44, even if you do not count calibre, is too weak. Calibre aside it should have 36 like the botched Mp40 at the least. Now throw in calibre and all those goodies you have a weapon thats FP value should be 40-42 at 40m. The Thompson with calibre aside only has one thing going for it and that is 700rpm rate of fire. Assuming that this is the M1. That would only give it around 42-43 FP value in comparison to its 45 FP value.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    Notice also that both the PPsH and the MG42 get some of their high FP values from significantly higher than average cyclic ROF. The PPsH fired 900 rpm, vs. 450 to 500 from a typical WW II automatic. The MG 42 fired 1200 rpm. These get the highest FP values in the game. But squads that have several of them are also docked overall ammo points to reflect the high consumption.

    If this holds true the MG34 needs to have a higher rate of fire than 36. At 850-900rpm, 40 is a good minimal change of FP value. The accuracy of both the MG42 and MG34 are about the same. And the muzzle velocity only differs out at 30 or so meters. The difference between the two being 300-350rpm.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    The CM FP values are much more sensible than the casual comments here suggest, and more thought has gone into them than people here wishing their favorite item had this or that number at this or that range, suppose. In addition, all of these effects are minor.

    Its not about having a favored weapon. It just shows how much historical accuracy goes into such a small detail. Anyone who knows such differences in small arms will agree. Many small arms are misrepresented whether its ones favorite or not.

    Tschüß!

    Erich

    0
×
×
  • Create New...