Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

freeman2344

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by freeman2344

    We-go or Real Time?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    RT can be tough, especially considering the increased lethality of this conflict compared to previous CM iterations. It's very quick and it's possible to miss things if you're not super attentive - particularly due to the fact that there still isn't some kind of combat log or other indicator for losses and units taking fire apart from the flashing icons. However, I wouldn't ever consider playing WEGO, in fact, I would never have gotten into CMSF back in the day if it hadn't featured RT. Don't get me wrong, turn-based is fine, I love turn-based games in general, but I feel a game like CM needs the extra micromanagement - WEGO can't offer that. IMO the TacAI makes too many dumb and unrealistic decisions when units are under fire, which can be partially remedied by RT intervention, and, for me, the 1-minute intervals and associated planning requirements in general often lead to situations where troops die needlessly. But that's the beauty of CM - you can have it your own way.

    0

    Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    The argument is sound that since SU-25 is in, A-10 should be in. But I honestly think neither should be. Both aircraft require very controlled air spaces for the kind of effectiveness seen over Afghanistan. The aircraft should only be included in scenarios with a back story of temporary air control, and if this is the case, then the other side should not get their reciprocal attacker for that scenario.

     

    Every kind of CAS, no matter which aircraft is carrying out the operations, requires a high degree of control over both airspace and the SAM environment. If we assume that SEAD operations are not all that effective, especially against Russian long-range SAMs - then one would have to ask what aircraft can seriously be used for such a purpose without the mission being akin to suicide? I would doubt that an F-16 on a ground attack mission flying at medium to high altitudes has a higher degree of survivability than a low-flying A-10 in such an environment. Sure, the A-10 would be subjected to ZSU, MANPADS and all that stuff - but the low-level threat environment is not all that different (though certainly more lethal) to the one pilots would have faced during the cold war and for which the A-10 was designed.

    0

    Test range: The Maxim generates the similar firepower per minute like the heavy MG42

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    I just ran a test under similarly unrealistic circumstances (bunch of russians charging across open field and then through a bottleneck) with both an HMG42 and Maxim HMG with maximum stats in a fortified, elevated position and "Scenario Author Test Mode" to exclude any spotting limitations.

    The results: 73 Maxim kills, 113 MG42 kills, both tests concluded after 10 minutes.

    The Maxim does indeed fire more bursts, albeit shorter ones, but the MG42 makes up for this with increased accuracy. This is the result to be expected IMO and the MG42 does seem to be simulated as the "more potent" weapon in this game. I don't see a problem here.

    0

    Is the Sn-42 body armour in the game ?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    If you shoot a 9mm Parabellum round from a P38 pistol it has about 533 Joule at the beginning.

    @100 meters it has 270 Joule and may still be able to penetrate roughly:

    1 mm steel; 2mm iron, 28mm concrete (not reinforced i guess), 72mm brick (wall), 66mm sandbag (dry!), 138mm pinewood (dry!), 138mm soil/earth (natural evolved)

    To be able to penetrate the skin you only need about 1-3 Joule ...to be able to penetrate your skull about 30 Joule ....to be deadly a shrapnell needs about 80 Joule...

    Despite the fact the round is weak and only has about the half Energy left...it still has penetration power and kill/damage power.

    Out of curiosity: is there a source for these numbers or did you calculate that yourself?

    0

    20mmAP Vs T34 armor or "Ya, wir können!"

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Hitting the optics and radios seem to me more unlikly than the first two options i mentioned.

    But damaging radio/optics seem to be the most common thing in CM:RT....aiming on, hitting and destroying the tracks on the other side i see not often.

    Track hits are not as common as one would think as units always aim for the center of mass and never specifically at the tracks. Radio/optics damage is, as far as I know, abstracted to a certain extent as impacts on the vehicle always have some chance of knocking these components out, for example due to the shock of the impact knocking optics out of alignment and so forth.

    0

    20mmAP Vs T34 armor or "Ya, wir können!"

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    ??? Small arms can penetrate wooden bunkers, and KO concrete ones... The hit text says small arms can "penetrate" concrete bunkers, too, but someone offered a good explanation of why that's probably a misleading artefact of the stepped embrasure.

    I remember it being this way from CMBN, but I don't think this is the case in CM:RT. Maybe these were coincidences on my end, but I've seen it happen a number of times now. In fact, in my last game, not even flamethrowers were able to knock out a WOODEN bunker.

    EDIT: Just did an isolated editor test...and it turns out something else was keeping that bunker from being penetrated, most likely a terrain issue. Flamethrowers are definitely not as effective as one would think, though.

    0

    German infantry AT grenades

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Won't they throw on unbuttoned tanks, too?

    And what was the reasoning behind the not-from-buildings limitation? I can remember the discussion but not that bit.

    I could be wrong, but I remember reading that infantry throwing grenades on tanks is supposed to represent some kind of "close assault", which would naturally be hard to do from within a building (no matter how abstracted). It does, however, beg the question why this is possible from 30m out (probably a design error, as 30m is also the range at which infantry generally starts chucking nades at the enemy).

    I did a number of semi-isolated tests with a couple of infantry squads on either side + some rather uncautious T34s for the soviets. Whenever the T34 ventured too far in front - or I managed to sneak up on it with a German squad - it was generally incapacitated after just 2/3 grenades thrown from fairly far away. I think we can all agree that this is not really what the designers had intended and that the ranges at which this phenomenon can occur have to be somewhat decreased.

    0

    Hummel?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    That's a valid point. I expect they were included mostly for the coolness factor, although I wouldn't swear that the SP and towed pieces are exactly identical. Have you tried checking the ammo counts on the two types?

    Michael

    They're not identical. Hummel batteries are only allowed approx. half the shells that the field artillery of the same caliber may use. They do, however, have 6 vehicles while there are only 4 guns in the field battery.

    0

    Engel Mission Five Bridge Crossing problem

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    No. I would hold onto to your between missions campaign save and then try the mission again after the patch. Until then, the new MG campaigns should be fine to play and have some amazing missions.

    Not true. There is one mission in the Allied MG campaign where the same issue occurs. I'm not sure which one (I have already completed the campaign), but it was one of the early Irish Guard missions - I had the exact same problem as the OP when trying to move my Shermans across one of the old bridges.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...