Odin
-
Posts
265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Odin
-
-
It's still .30 cals that are taking the half tracks apart though John. I will write no more on the subject or I may start to pull clumps of hair out!
-
Bimmer have you heard how close the other game is to completion? Eniced did you hear back from Wreck? When it's finished let me know and I'll upload the video AAR
-
I apologise I got my model numbers wrong. I meant the M19A9 series. The point still stands about the .30 cal though.
-
I can't believe we're even discussing this. You seriously doubt a .50 BMG could knock out a halftrack? I mean I can understand questioning the degree of threat that a .30-cal class MG poses to a Hanomag, but Ma Deuce?
Yes I am serious. .50 cal is almost always mounted on armoured vehicles. I haven't checked the editor out to see if it available to infantry in CM, but I can't remember the last time I saw a squad armed with one. Your quote even refers to the .50 being mounted on a vehicle.
What I've seen on plenty of occasions is infantry armed with .30 cal weapons go through half track armour like a knife through butter. For me this inaccurately diminishes the usefulness of the half track.
-
I'd also add than small arms fire coming from guns with less punch than a .30 cal seems to do damage to half track armour in CM.
-
What you aren't taking into account though is the 35° angle of the side armour plate, which in effect makes it much thicker than 8mm.
If you present a decent combat source which says an M2 Browning could penetrate the armour of a sd kfz then fine. But I haven't found one. Without fail every source I've read says they could stand up to machine gun fire.
-
Just referring to C3K's point about Allied half tracks, you may well have a valid point about the vulnerability of their side armour. I would still argue though that their 12.7mm thick frontal armour was considerably thicker than the Germans' side armour (and it was also angled), and so should still stand up to small arms fire even if made from inferior metal.
In agreement with you though, this can't be said about German halftracks.
-
Ranges are short enough that commonly issued ammo types will regularly penetrate the 8mm or so of steel plate they carried on their flanks...
Unless you think BFC have made some sort of mistake, at which point you'll be needing some decent sources to convince them that full-power rifle bullets can't penetrate 8mm steel plate with commonly-issued ammunition at ranges under 100m. Good luck.
Whilst I don;t know enough about Allied half tracks, yes I would say that they've got it wrong in regards to German variants. Every source I've read on the subject states that their half tracks could stand up to small arms fire and drivers were expected to drive through it.
To get geeky on the subject here's a quote referring to the sf kfz 250 series taken from Military Vehicles in Detail SdKfz 250/1 to 250/12, 'The armoured body provided protection against rifle calibre projectiles and small artillery or mortar fragmentations, frontal protection was .57in (14.4mm) thick, with .32in (8mm) each side'.
I'd also add that in my game experiences halftrack armour is often penetrated beyond ranges of 100m.
But whilst we're on the topic of wish lists and halftracks, how about the inclusion of halftracks armed with mortars like the sd kfz 250/7, with the mortars able to fire mounted in the halftrack.
A more detailed rate of fire option (similar to that available for artillery) would also be useful for all types of units.
-
Might as well ask for "Shermans which stand up to 75mm AP". They already do, to an extent, but get the angles wrong, (or ignore the fact that they're open topped, in the case of halfies) and your pTruppen will pay the price. And any greater resilience would not reflect their real world performance.
I would disagree half tracks are constantly put to flight by small arms fire, being little more effective than a jeep in taking hits. Their raison d'etre was to stand up to small arms fire, or troops might have well as been transported by trucks.
-
Agree with just about every request made so far - especially the quad 20mm! My list goes as follows:
- Infantry able to ride into battle via armoured steed - essential for the Eastern Front game.
- Roads which can be curved (with the ability for vehicles to navigate down them quicker than a blinded pensioner who's never learnt to drive).
- On a similar note much improved AI vehicle navigation.
- Ability to choose ammo carried on board support vehicles.
- Half tracks which stand up to bullets.
- Tank commanders which don't play out as cow sized bullet magnets (especially the Brits which seem to get it more than most).
- A 'hunt-quick' option. ie Selected unit will advance quickly but will hit the deck/halt as soon as it comes under fire.
-A 'hide-ambush' option. ie A unit will stay low but open fire when an enemy unit comes within a target arc/short range. In return they'd sacrifice some spotting capability (but not as much as the 'hide' option currently does), and some concealment (but not as much as is lost when no 'hide' is selected currenty).
- Shadow, or even better, model of attacking fighter aircraft... of course with quad 20mm able to open up on it!
-
Like all your mods, fantastic!
-
Bimmer,
I'm happy to report that after a closely fought contest I was victorious in my semi final against Viajero with a USA minor tactical victory. I've also produced a video AAR which I'll upload once the other semi final is completed. Good game Viajero, I really enjoyed it.
-
I'm playing as the Americans in round 4 and so far I have been unable to save my opening deployment round, with the game crashing on five separate occasions when I press the red button. Have any of the other players in the tournament had this problem?
Battlefront please get this patched soon, looking at the tech support forum it looks like it has been an issue for some time. In the meantime does anyone have any suggestions as to how I might fix this problem?
Thanks
-
Looking forward to it Bimmer
-
Great AAR and a nail biting finish Viajero. I was playing as the Americans in one of the other games. Unfortunately, my opponent was unable to finish the game so I won by default.
I think that particular scenario is quite a tough one for the Germans to win, and if your men in the cafe had opened fire when they were being approached your right flank would have held up well. Maybe I shouldn't be saying this incase I'm drawn against you the next round, but I don't like using the hide feature if you're expecting close quarter fighting. In the past I've had an opponent's tank drive right over a wall where a unit of mine with a panzerfaust was hiding and because the men were on 'hide' they did not see the tank until they were being crushed to death! After that event I stopped using hide for such close range ambush situations and find that although you are more likely to be spotted at a further distance you will still more than likely see your opponent first and come off the better form the encounter.
All the best for your next round.
-
Gungriffon I'd be happy to give you a game
-
I can understand it if people wouldn't want it altering. But if Battlefront did decide to make surrendering easier could they just make it more likely that soldiers who are broken are more likely to surrender when they come under fire rather then fleeing (which is pretty much the standard practice at the moment)?
-
Couple of questions I thought I'd put out there. Firstly, am I in a minority or majority in thinking that too few soldiers surrender in CMBN? It seems common place to find the number of surrendering soldiers at the end of a game to be be an insignificant proportion. I'm sorry I don't have any figures to hand but I do know that far higher proportions of soldiers surrendered during the Normandy campaign than what you find in CMBN (even taking into account the mass surrendering of large units, which would be more likely to take place on the German side due to their precarious position). Instead, I frequently see 'broken' units in CMBN making a run for it only to be cut down by gun fire, when in reality they would be far more likely to stick their hands on the air (even at the risk of still getting shot). Take this link for evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUUG5mf5ENE&feature=related
Again the tankers might well have been more likely than not to be cut down if they had tried to surrender, but I think the mechanics of the game should have at least had them making an effort to surrender.
Secondly, I don't think I've played a game yet where there are more casualties which are wounded than killed. Again I think statistics show this not to be the reality of the situation.
I know they're relatively insignificant in the overall enjoyment of the game, but they could easily be remedied.
Your thoughts please!
-
Yankee Dog I didn't pay it too much attention at the time, but you're completely right it couldn't have been that easy to put in such an accurate strafe run. Battlefront add fighter plane accuracy to the patch list please!
-
CMBN can throw up some great moments, but I think some of the most spectacular moments can come when an air or artillery strike reeks havoc. I've pasted a couple of links to incidents I've been involved with. With the airstrike I was on the receiving end. I did get some payback though (unfortunately against a different opponent) with a nebelwerfer strike, which was fortunate enough to detonate just as my opponent was advancing across an open field.
-
cheers Para
-
looks like it had the change log. When will we get it officially?
-
what's that about
-
CW manual on Battlefront's home page
New features wish list!
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
I ran some tests myself, and I will admit that I found that half track passengers were getting chewed up by machine gun fire due to their poor use of the protection offered by the half track rather than ineffective armour (although there was still frequent armour spalling).
I've posted a link to a video below which shows all three passengers ending up as casualties within 50 seconds after coming under mg fire at ranges of approx 125-175m. I ran similar tests 10 times, on 9 occasions it ended up with some or all of the passengers ending up as casualties. On the other occasion the half track took out the 2 American mgs. (5 trials the half track started facing the mgs, the other 5 it was sideways on as in the video)
http://youtu.be/eZG5jIJN23k
The basic problem seems to stem from troops in the carrier insisting on manning the half track mg (even when ordered to button up) this results in a conveyor belt of gunners getting picked off when coming under fire.
Maybe there should be a button up option which insists none of the passengers man the mg?