Fūrinkazan

I have sounds from a real Panther tank, moving an stopped that i took from a vidéo. * did someone tried to use real life sound for mods * how long is the loop and what format The idea would be to clean the sound and use it to make a realistic loop for tanks, with real engine and tracks noise. As there are videos of Tigers, Sherman etc... It could be interesting.

I also don't think that new feature or order is necessary. And i don't think that developers would do it. When i did some tests with bunkers, i believe that a good result could be obtained by changing some game parameters. The closer the enemy, the shorter the time between bursts. Unfortunately, this happened too late, allowing the infantry to come at good range, suppress the bunker and win the battle. 3 seconds intervals are possible in the game but it happens at less than 200 m. I guess that we may all agree on 2 things now : 1 reduced delay between bursts at long distance 2 more suppression effect on the attacker I think BFC should look at this because it was in CMSF and it will come again. In CMBN you may notice it less because of bocage, but in more open terrain (Easfront), it will be more a problem. I hope they would at least give this solution a chance to see if it works and if it's more realistic and satisfying. If it works it could be applied to CMSF and other games.

I've been learning a few things from a QB today. It was infantry battle in bocage, only 1 Sherman, destroyed with panzerfaust easily. The Hmgs inflicted in average 6 losses to attacker. it's possible to nail infantry but at too short distance i think. On the open ground at about 300 m of HMG positions. Attacking infantry started running and then crawling, with a few soldiers trying to return fire with very less efficiency most too supressed to shot which feels really realistic to me. It was not a question of casualties but they were trying to find cover down on the ground. I had infantry squads with HMGs so it helped a lot. I found that at short range, about 200 m, the delay between HMG burst can go down to 3 seconds. At about 300 m it was more 5 or 6 seconds. For me, the problem is that they switch to short delay bursts at a too short distance, allowing the infantry to return fire (200m). so, i don't think it's a game engine problem. If BFC could turn down the delay between burst at 1 or 2 seconds at longer range : 500 m or more instead of 200 m i think the results would be more convincing. Maybe a little adjustment in supression caused by HMG and it could be perfect. Maybe keep longer delay bursts (5/ 6 seconds) for long range targets, more than 500 m i think.

I agree that for LMG it's correct, and i also think that maybe it's more a problem of calculating each bullet trajectory with long bursts. But maybe they can reduce the delay between each burst, 6 seconds is too much. Maybe 2 seconds for hmg 42/34 and more, 4 seconds for allied HMG's to reproduce the difference between the fire rate + changing suppression effect the higher caliber and fire rate the higher suppression. It may be a more convincing simulation without slowing the game.

"Miraculously escaping injury" Yes i think that he was very lucky and extremly brave for this action, no doubt. War is full of extreme exemples like a Tiger II tank destroyed by a light mortar fire that went in the commander hatch. I've been reading a story about at Tiger tank destroying an airplane with it's main gun on the Eastern front. It seemed the Russians used to attack in the same direction every day and Germans pointed the guns in that direction and by extreme luck touched a plane. I Had in CMBO a Tiger destroyed by a Stuart. The Ap round went through the drivers block of vision. That changed the Villers Bocage battle results That's not a problem since it's possible and it happen very very rarely in the game. I don't expect HMG's to be super weapon. There are no super weapon. I would like them to have more effect on suppressing, stopping infantry. What are the chances that a man can do the same after running 600 m in front of 4 mgs without cover ?

I had mine in France today, in good state, no extra charge. It took 8 days since i had the changing status mail. The only thing is that the package was not strong enough to avoid damages to the box. I was lucky, but i understand why some people had their box damaged. Nice box and manual, i don't regret my preorder.

Just one little thing about moral. Of course Green troops will be nailed much faster than veteran. But, does it mean that a veteran troop can run in front of mgs for 600 m or more and succeed in the attack ? what i mean is that veteran would not act like that, they use a proper tactic to get close to mg. If green, veteran etc... use bad tactics, they should be punished the same way. veteran should maybe suffer less losses, or they should get much closer to mg positions, but i don't think the attack would be a success, of course, in the same conditions that i used : no cover, no wind, bunker for mg etc...

Totally agree with YankeeDog for enfilade fire. I did tests in CMSF and if you target the last squad of the column, you will cause casualties and suppression to all the squads in front. Sometimes one burst can hit 2 or 3 men at a time. I have been reading that it was the case in WW 1 were MG were placed on the flank of the attack. When i said that i used WW tactics for my testing i only meant that i did not use short runs of 50 or 100m to reach the mgs but that my men attacked in line, moving fast all the way. I know that there were obstacles, mud etc... And i did not want to reproduce the WW 1 battlefield. I did it to show a situation that i think is impossible in real life. The map was 250 m wide and i used for heavy HMG's because i remember the Germans used about 12 mg for 1 Km of front. I would not be disturbed by the results if i had used small fast movement to reach the Bunker positions, It would have taken just a lot more time. Here, the mg position were reached in 3 Minutes only. I don't know if changing the rate of fire is the solution, it was just a suggestion. If turning down the moral does the same, it's good for me. I said before that i was not interrested much in technical solutions, i care only about the result. If the result is plausible, or convincing that's ok for me. Makes me think of the gun elevation thread in CMSF. Gun elevation is not modelled and most of the time we don't notice it. When a tank is shooting at infantry in a building from very close range, it is a problem for me and i suggested to put a minimal range about 20m for a tank main gun, taken from the minimal range of a T62 tank for weapons to avoid point blank shots in cmsf since it was not possible to model gun elevation. I think that if Battlefront developpers can find a convincing solution, or a compromise to tweak this, we will not see in future realeases threads like this one that was already in CMSF and before.

it seems that during WW2, 2 or 3 barrels were furnished with the weapon. It takes 6 to 10 seconds to change the barrel.

Same for me. That's the case in CMSF and i don't know why this was changed in CMBN. if it's a problem for the AI, well, i don't expect the AI to be as smart as a Human player so... But when i play against a human player, i think it's more realistic. Of course double penetrations were very rare, i just put this to say that it happened in real life.

it's not necessery to go into very detailed things. Is there a way to obtain a "realistic" result. I suggest shorter delay between burst, especially at short distance when enemy is getting closer, faster switch of the HMG between targets, increase suppression or decrease infantry moral. I'm not asking the game to model every detail of a weapon. what i expect is that the result on the battlefield is most of the time logical, or historical. I think that we most agree that a normal company would not succeed in assaulting 4 HMG in a 600/ 700 m run (with good weather, no wind etc...) I tried with the 0.50 caliber hmg and 4 of them, in foxholes did not stop infantry, and i think there was no difference in suppression. Close Combat was far from beeing as detailed as CMBN, but if i remember well, HMG were quiet efficient and seemed to have "realistic" results by blocking infantry. Some may say that tactics between WW1 and WW2 are very different and that's right, but i used a WW1 tactic when i did my testing, and the soldiers did run all the time without pause for more then 500 m and they were able to take the position which i think is impossible. This is why during WW 1 tanks were used to break the defense, and why Germans used Stoßtruppen to infiltrate and destroy enemy trenches.

If it's an AI problem i understand. But i feel it was a cool thing introduced in CMSF. It's quiet unrealistic when you see a column of vehicules destroyed like that, by shooting through transparent tanks. And that's not justified against a human player.

There was some posts about this problem. It's also the case in CMSF were trees are very hard to destroy. If a shot can go through an half track or tank, a tree should not be a big obstacle for ap rounds. I saw a Marder in CMSF shooting on a tree, 3 bursts and no effect. The small wall behind was less hard to destroy and was in ruined after 2 or 3 bursts while the tree was still there.

Destroyed tanks should be an obstacle. I think it's the case in CMSF. I have seen destroyed vehicles taking hits and protecting vehicules behind. I have seen a Panther shot go trough an half track without problem and finishing it's course on the ground 50 m behind. In CMSF, there was a screen of 2 Syrian tanks destroyed from the flank by one single shot. It happened in reality, i have been reading it about 2 tanks destroyed by one 88 mm shot 2 Stuarts if i remember well.

From the test i have done it's correct, up to 5 6 seconds between each shot. With 4 hmg in bunker a company of infantry was able to reach mg position by running without pause in 3 minutes after 600 m run on flat ground without cover.For me, this should be impossible. Some bunkers had more suppression than infantry squads and one was destroyed. The rate of fire seems to be correct for light machine guns inside of squads. But not for HMG. I think there should be much less time between each burst. This was the same in CMSF so i think that maybe it's a question of computer power. If every bullet is taken in count by calculation, having 4 Hmg or more shooting at the same time long bursts would slow the game. If that's not the case, maybe 1 sec pause or less for HMG between each burst would be more realistic i guess.

For the turret i did not see blocked turrets in CMBN or CMSF. Only damaged main guns. I remeber that was possible in CM 1 and i don't know if that's possible in CM 2

Well i was just asking a simple question. When i use the search engine on optics, i have 2 pages of answers. As English is not my mother tongue, it's not always easy to read and find what you need. I don't post a lot, only when i think something may be wrong in the game. I think i was the first one who posted on the missing panzerfaust in CMSF. And i can't follow everything on this forum.

I would like to know a few things about optics damages. When we say optics does it mean targeting and blocks of vision or the targeting optics are separate from the blocks of vision.? I'm asking this because i saw tanks with highly damaged optics still shooting with accuracy. This was also the case in CMSF. I may be wrong but i don't have the feeling that damaged optics change a lot in accuracy, is it right ? When the tracks are in red, highly damaged, the tank cannot move, and when damaged, it moves slowly. I can see the difference but not for optics. Or does it affect only spotting ? I did a test today with 5 Panthers against 18 Shermans at 1200 m all tanks on static position . All regular troops. German losses 1 tank 3 immobilized. U.S. losses 18 tanks. I was not surprised since i think that German optics of the Panther were very accurate under 1 500 M and degrading after from what i could read. I have found on a review for the main gun of a Hetzer : 98% chances of hits at 1 000 m on a target of 2 m X 2.40 m on the best conditions. I have found other stats about 88 mm and 75 mm guns that shows that, even in combat, in good conditions the guns were very accurate. But, on another test with the same troops, i made the Panther move at normal speed and they were able to put 3 shots while moving on 3 Shermans that were destroyed.:confused: In some QB's that i played i had the same feeling that on the move tanks are too accurate. I thought that it was very rare to hit something while moving in WW 2 tank combat and that tanks stopped to fire and sometimes restart between each shot. Maybe something to look at. Do other players have the same feelings about accuracy while moving for tanks ?

For historical exemples : I saw on a documentary an old french veteran ou survived at 4 years of war. He was in the company of the french poet Charles Péguy in august 1914. They had to advance in then open and they did a first 100 m run. after that, according to him, half of the company was down due to MG fire. At the second run the company was defenitively stopped after only 200 M and the commander, Charles Péguy was killed.

i would not go into technical or historical considerations. Every one can show exemples that show exact contrary results and there are too much variable things like experience of troops, weather etc .. I made a company of infantry run in front of 3 MG 34 and 1 MG 42. The run was a little more than 600 m and the HMG's were in bunker. Troops regular on both side maps 250 m large. It took 3 minutes for the infantry to reach the bunker. After 3 mn of fight : 16 dead and 10 wounded for the U.S. company. 2 squads were panicked, 1 pinned (HQ) and one shaken. One mg bunker destroyed. Most of the suppression was at less than 200 m of the bunkers. I think it was easy to get at good range of the mg to destroy them. And i gave no orders, just watched the action. some of my squads may have go behind bunkers if i had continued the battle after 3 minutes. All the bunker had their suppression bar at the maximum. So do you think that in that particular situation, this is possible. Is it possible to run like that without pause on flat ground and with good visibility and reach the mg position ?:confused:

Ok for mg shots but for 20 mm or 120 mm ? I've been reading post about trees resisting to direct hit by heavy weapons.i saw many times trees stopping 20 mm burst or bigger round in cmsf. Strange when you see how walls are destroyed. do you know if developers are working on this ?

Hi all, I was posting on the "my armor far too inaccurate" thread to say that in Barkmann's scenario the Panther killed 12 shermans with only one miss and and it's quiet funny to see how we have totally different opinions on the game. I totally trust the Battlefront team for the serious search, historical and balistic, they did, and they have a long experience in doing wargames. I 'm very satisfied by the game on that point. I used to play Steel Panthers or Close Combat with a lot of pleasure, and tank combat was certainly not 1 % as detailed as in CM. In those old games, tank were not detailed and i think they had pretty realistic results with also a big part on luck. I have the same excitement that i had when CMBO came out. When i think that i was playing 2d games i'm amazed by the details in this game. When you started years ago with board games and figurines and dice, it's almost incredible. Younger players, who started with computer games may not have the same perception but this is the game i was dreaming of when i was a kid. If i could change things, i would change the behaviour of tank crews. They act like infantry when the vehicle is destroyed, and i think that was a problem that was fixed in CM 1. I also think that trees are too resistant, also in CMSF. I was area targeting infantry with a Marder 20 mm gun . Few shots hit a small wall and destroyed it , and some hit a small tree without effect. I think that in the first version of CMSF trees were less resistant and were destroyed by light fire like HMG. I don't know why it was changed because that was great compared to CM1. And it's "just" the base game. I think we can expect great things with modules to come. I'm dreaming of modified old french tanks, flamethrowers, and why not hand to hand combat abstraction...

I did a little test with 0.50 HMG's map 250 x 700 m flat map with regular troops 4 Machine guns in foxholes. 18 dead and 13 wounded for the Germans but they were able to reach the Mg's and they destroyed one after a 5 mn battle. In CMBO, there was long time between each burst allowing squads to advance and finally destroy the HMG. I think it's the same here. The delay can be of 5 seconds or more between each shot and in the case of my last test sometimes only 3 bullets were shots. Question : 1 can a company of infantry charging 700 m in the open reach the mg position (4 Mg 34/42 in bunker or 4 M1 in foxholes) ? It's not a question of casualties but more of stopping the infantry. 2 If it's unrealistic could it be possible to make them fire more bullets with less time between each shot and make them switch target to the nearest squad to solve the problem ? Once one squad is pinned then change to the nearest one. Having them fire in line is a great idea but certainly more time consuming in computer programmation and test i think. I also tried to shoot behind and through the charging troops and no targeting a squad. Effects at long range were not that bad but at shorter range mg decided to choose their targets themselves.

I remember this because it was a steel panthers II campaign about the hitlerjugend in Normandy. They were commanded by Von Ribbentrop. There was 4 scenarios based on the historical battles. And Panthers did not have good results In the first 10 tanks destroyed in night attack. In the second, at Norrey en Bessin 5 tanks and more in the battle of Rots where the company commander was killed. From what i've been reading in the scenario it was by luck that the Canadians surprised the attack on the flank. It seems that Germans had a lack of infantry during all the counter attacks of that unit.

Thanks for the answer Steve. I have seen many times in books that Germans discoverd that schurzen, designed as you said against at rifles were efficient against hollow charges. I was disappointed in CM 1 when my tanks or Stugs were destroyed by flank shots of bazzoka or piat. Sometimes we expect results that may not be realistics because of wrong informations. I have been playing wargames since i was a kid but i still learn new things. In some books, infos are totally false and that's why we may say that something is wrong in the game. Thanks for the great job all the team did and all details you put on the game.