Chibot Mk IX
-
Posts
620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chibot Mk IX
-
-
On 9/28/2023 at 7:36 AM, Andrew Kulin said:
If you have more kills in a turn you get 3 points and your opponent gets 1 point. If nothing happens it is 0-0. Presume it is same 0-0 for a tie in kills which might be rare if they score kills based on values of units (e.g., tank vs. X soldiers).
I always thought it an odd way to score and figure it would be more logical to do it the soccer way. 3-0 for a win, 1-1 for a tie, and for CM 0-0 if no casualties in a turn.
Yes, the way it score is an odd way. Just think about a scenario. A NATO company combat team maneuver to take a flank shot on WP's marching formation. A Mi-24D detects the NATO company. 1st turn a Bradley destroyed by an ATGM, 2nd turn a M1 suffered a hit on the side of the turret, lost its commander, 3rd turn the salvo fire of rocket disabled a Bradley kill/injure half of the infantry squad on board. then in the 4th turn the NATO get into the position, wiped out a company of T-62, BTR-60 and kill most of the infantry on board.
but based on current score system, the ending score is NATO:WP at 3:9 ???
-
I am afraid I have experienced a bug. Steam version 2.13, looks like the game won't upload to the server.
Turn 0, my soviet start dialog asked me to choose a PW, I ignore that and hit OK. That brings me to "Save email game" page. I leave it as default save file name and hit OK. however the game is still under "in progress" page, it is still the same turn asking the SOV player to choose a PW.
My German side game had the same problem but bring up a more frustration experience. After I spent 1 hour on deployment, I hit the red button, save file. I almost throw my mouse on the screen when I saw the German side deployment phase game is on the list.
-
copy paste from subsim hq
-
1 hour ago, Tux said:
Does no-one else think that this is one of the more sensible and right-headed decisions the Russians have made, during this war? If the Russian expectation (practically their intention, as far as I can see) is that they will lose a large number of tanks, then surely your 50 year old tank stock is exactly the stock you should run down first? What else is it for?
I'm not saying it doesn't expose various kinds of 'flaws' in the Russian way of working and I'm not saying they haven't lost embarassing numbers of modern vehicles but I really don't think the reappearance of T-55s in Russian frontline service is necessarily a sign of desperation, at all.
I don't think it is Russian intentionally get old tanks blew up first. It's just these T-55 happen to be in a good storage condition. They might have less than dozen engine hours on the training ground before been put into a warehouse.
Soviets built a lot of T-55 until 1981 to use them build up the strength of category C and D divisions in Far East. It's quite ironically these T-55 have low engine hours; good storage condition compares to the worn-out T-80/72s retired from category A divisions (and many of these T-80/72 were put in outside storage).
-
1 hour ago, Hapless said:
It's gonna happen one day. I can't see KA-52s being close to the front, especially behaving so apparently nonchalantly, so this is a really good illustration of just how deep drones are getting.
Wake me up when it happens. I'd love to take credit for this idea.
-
11 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1696564228331655559.html
Good points with proof and examples of how we have observer bias on these fortifications dug in the open.
Interesting read. I'm not certain if these "tree lines" remind CM players of the bocage.
A while ago, there was a discussion on a Chinese forum where people spoke pessimistically about Ukraine's offensive. One guy listed the difficulties of the terrain. He mentioned that fighting in these tree lines is akin to fighting in the bocage. A small yet determined defender could delay the attacking force for a significant amount of time. In Normandy, under the cover of bocage walls, the German forces maneuvered into the flank of the Allied forces, using panzerschreck and LMG to harass them. In Ukraine, the open fields between the tree lines are much larger than the bocage terrain (ranging from 1km x 1km to 1km x 2km). However, with modern ATGMs' range, the defender's firepower can easily reach the other side. The good news for Ukraine is that the Russian LMGs and HMGs cannot effectively engage at long distances. Therefore, the advancing Ukrainian force will not face fire from a diagonal direction. Nevertheless, this could be bad news for the overwatching Ukrainian soldiers too, as they would be unable to assist if their comrades get bogged down by fire from the other side of the treeline.*******************************************************************************************
This is a highly interesting claim; however, it lacks substantial evidence. While some of Ukraine's video clips record their AFV and infantry firing into the treeline, not many Russian videos depict how they fight on the ground. Some video clips give people the impression that Russians are reluctant to move outside their prepared fighting positions. Therefore, fighting like the Germans, who sent a small detachment to harass the Allied flank, doesn't align with the Russian way of fighting.
The comment above isn't meant to downplay the difficulty of fighting in treelines but rather to argue that it might not be as challenging as fighting in the bocage.
-
1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
Guess they got to widen the flanks first. The breach is too narrow to support a direct push into the village.
-
On 8/19/2023 at 2:08 PM, PEB14 said:
I basically agree; but the problem is, 95% of WW2 CM battles occur at engagement ranges where any hit is fatal for AFVs (except for German tanks which are able to withstand several hits without significant damages: Tigers, Panthers, and even Pz IV against Shermans).
Additionally, I find the accuracy of the shooters incredibly high . I didn't perform systematical tests, but I would say that at least 80% of the shots directed at a static or slowly moving vehicles hit their targets. Which means that, basically, the first to spot is the first to kill.
I seems to me that, in WW2 CM games, gunnery accuracy is much to high, and spotting chances much too random. I have the feeling that it should be EASIER to spot than to hit (at least for opened up vehicles), while in CM WW2 games there is really no doubt that the opposite is true.
As for the randomness of spotting, it really leads to ridiculous results. In my last game against @FogForever, I managed only once to outmanoeuver him: I was able to advance an armored car on the flank of one of his light tanks, unnoticed. My armored car advanced in open ground towards his tank; the AC stopped about 100 meters away; the tank was right in front of the armored car, which was opened up. For about 20-30 seconds, both vehicles stayed in this position. Then the light tank turned his turret, fired and destroyed the armored car. At NO TIME the armored car spotted the enemy tank, for which it had a tentative contact. Yes the armored car crew was green; but the light tank's crew was only regular, so only one rank better. This was really ridiculous, just like facing an elephant in a corridor and not seing it. I would have been much less frustrated if the green crew spotted, missed because of its "greeniness", and then got dispatched by the light tank. Fair enough. But no spotting at this distance? No way.
As a conclusion I 100% agree with @SDG ; after 8 months of CM experience, I got so frustrated by the tank vs. tank and AT gun vs. tank game dynamics that I now play a lot more CMBN and CMFI than CMRT. Infantry rules!
I haven't finish all the discussion on tank gunnery accuracy discussion in this topic. I agree this is something need more testing and discussion.
What matters here is the first shot hit rate, and how much improvement the following shot can have
I have a lot of 1vs1 sandbox scenario at 1000m, with IS/2, T-34/85 vs Panther, vs StuG III, vs KT , checking how are their performance may help my decision making during the other CM game time. Most of the time you will see the Panther fired three shots then turn the T-34/85 into a fireball, sometime it is four, occasionally you will see first shot hit the target. Anyway, I do feel the needs to run couple tests and record what is the first shot hit rate in CMRT.
In the CMx1, the 1000m first shot hit rate is at 33%, then slowly improves to 66%-80%. In CMx2, after one or two correction shots, the following rounds seem to have a 100% hit rate. So compare to pervious engine, CMx2 has better follow up shots' correction improvement, after gunner zero in it rarely miss.
********************************************************************************************************************************
The weird part is a multiplier to one engagement. it seems like the ability to zero in is not based on each individual shooter, but based on the total number of shots one side have fired, In other word, assuming you have PzIVs shooting at a T-34 at 2000m, a PzIV might need 10 AP round to zero in the target, but after the first IV fired 9 AP rounds, the 2nd PzIV also spotted the T-34 , he might just need one shot to hit the target. I don't have any hard proof on this crazy theory. It's an impression from couple dozens long range engagements.
I even discussed this with one of my PBEM opponent. the scenario is a player modified German stock campaign mission 1. German Panzer formation try to capture several fords in an open terrain. In this German attack scenario, I sent PzG Inf forward, spotting T-34/85 then sharing the information with Panzer branch. Move Pz IVs into position, use HMG teams and mortar to keep T-34/85 hatch closed. Then I will let multiple Pz IVs jumping out of cover simultaneously, usually it is a 4:1 ratio to ensure I outgun the T-34/85.
From my conversation with my opponent,
The #1 T-34 destroyed , hull down position, distance 1400m, it is a one vs one duel, a veteran Pz IV fired 4 AP rounds. 1st , 2nd missed. 3rd, 4th hit.
another T-34/85 hidden in the woods was engaged by serval IVs, then later a veteran Pz IV at 1400m distance spotted the T-34, he hit the T-34 with first shot, causing ammo cook off.
third T-34 faced 4 Pz IV , multiple shots fired, it’s probably took out by 2nd shot from a regular IV at 1400m
forth T-34 facing two separated engagement from two directions. First engagement is at 1700m, again, after couple shots fired by other IVs, a regular IV hit T-34 with first shots although it didn't went through the turret armor. one min later, a regular Pz IV at a different direction spotted the T-34, the first round connected the target and kill the T-34 at 1300m, shocking…
Another T-34 killed by a crack Pz IV with 2nd round at 2000m. Before the crack Pz IV open fire, several others IVs fired 3-4 AP at the T-34.
From this PBEM record, seems like if you just look at the gunner who hit the target it shows a remarkable/unrealistic high accuracy. But like I said, put it into the big pic, this high accuracy is forged by total number of shots one side that have fired.
it's just my theory, sounds crazy....
-
I haven't played "Broken Shield" campaign but what is the weather conditions in that scenario?
Are your Panthers shooting at something before they were hit by T-34/85?
in the foggy weather, the spotting might become very weird. Sometime you won't spot a stationary AFV 200m away. However everything changes if your Panther open fire, let's say it is shooting an infantry squad 200m away with MG, it will become a beacon in the darkness, attract incoming fire from everywhere as far as 1000m away.
I also had some frustrating spotting experience in scenario "FR Feierabend", that is a scenario with mist weather, most Soviet tanker are Veterans with +1/+2 , they were boosted by high proficiency tank riders.
-
In CM I have seen several cases where the AFV bogged down then immobilized on the paved road. An engine breakdown description should be more fit into this kind of situation but "bog down/immobilized" is what we have.
-
18 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
Platforms for Lancet launching. Our drone pilot told, alas, they only could spot them, but weren't free assets to strike it. He also told Russians usually launch Lancets from 15 km from contact line - too far for usual FPV drones and on the extreme range for best long-range FPV
Is it possible to engaging them with Arty/ICM? Assuming Russian will change the launch sites frequently, there should be some pattern.
-
Looking forward to this
For a very long time I do feel CMFI is an excellent tool for modding Pacific theater and Korea war.
Brazilian can be converted into ROKA.
When I first thought about this idea, I was thinking KPA and CPVA should be mod from Italian. But later I convince myself British should be a better choice. Both KPA and CPVA were heavily influenced by IJA, so their infantry tactic is focused on small fire teams maneuverer. The cannot be split Italian infantry squad will be a problem here.
BTW:
LLF has a CMBN Pacific mod
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The fact that Russia wants to defend the outer belt of defenses to this extent tells me that they don't have much confidence in defending the next line any better. Probably also some combination of a Stalin like moronic override of sound military decision making in favor of "no inch of soil lost to the enemy" commandment from Putin and/or someone trying to keep his job.
This will make more sense if we put the thinking of maneuver warfare aside and adopt to the Pacific war mindset. In pacific war the US and Japanese fight inch by inch on some uninhabitable islands, the objective is to put the other side’s main base and sea lane behind it into the bomber’s range. They fight on Guadalcanal to prevent the IJN’s torpedo bomber interdict the communication between Australia and Vanuatu. Fight on the New Guinea to isolate Rabaul. Fight on Saipan so that the B-29 can reach mainland Japan.
Russian on the Southern front might have the same mindset. One inch step back means UKR’s artillery group is one inch closer to the main supply artery.
-
Just saw on twitter there is one more confirmed Ka-52 kills. Interesting to see more and more alligators fall to the victim of Manpads.
Back in June Alligators brought so much havoc among concentrated UKR armor column. They can hide deep in the friendly controlled territory, share information with surveillance drone and infantry posts, then jump out and fire at max range. In June Ukrainian claimed shot down several Ka-52 but none can be confirmed. Now after UKR force slowly penetrate the minefield and took a distributed formation, the Ka-52’s old trick doesn’t work as it used to be anymore.
-
6 hours ago, Haiduk said:
This morning UKR General Staff oficially claimed units of 35th marines brigade liberated Urozhaine village. It's took more time than expected after Russians abandoned the village, because they defended own lasr positions in several houses in souuthern end of village and conducted two large counter-attacks in order to recapture Urozhaine back. Now Russians pulled back to Zavitne Bazhannia and Staromlynivka. Simultainoulsy, UKR troops started to make recon in force from Urozhaine toward Kermenchyk village - next keypoint of Russian defense in eastern direction.
DeepState TG reported the battle for Urozhaine was hard and as example told about UKR vehicle losses during liberation of Staromajorske and repelling of Russian counter-atatcks on this village - 19 differnent combat vehicles.
On the video is an episond of 2-3 days ago during the fighting for Urozhaine - UKR tanks conduct "hit&run" attack of Russian positions in the village - UKR tank on full speed approaches to the village, conducting supressive fire with main gun. Russians fires back. On 2:28 something big has exploded - maybe remote controlled IED, which Russians activated too late, when the tank already passed this place.
There is other video of this episode, where UKR drone team, who watch this action cheers on guys in this tank
Did the tank commander turn out during the engagement?
-
1 hour ago, WimO said:
Show me yours and I'll show you mine (1908 house)
wow, buffet?
-
5 hours ago, Traitor said:
This is very interesting.
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the data correctly, but it seems that the SMGs are expending more ammunition in order to achieve this result?Yes, that is my understanding too. more bullets fired = more kills. simple like that.
So far we don't know too much about the game mechanism on casualty caused by small arms fire.
I just happened to read the reports from Drifter Man. It has a similar indication. The number of casualties is determined by a coefficient and is directly proportional to ammunition consumption, while inversely proportional to distance. These three values constitute a linear function. LMG, SMG and bold action rifle have different coefficient, and unfortunately for StG44, it has similar coefficient with other SMGs, so the StG44's low rate of fire at 150m -200m distance doesn't help.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/enmae2qpysgkace/CMBN Weapons Tests 2020.pdf
page 24
Also the page 13 shows the relationship between the RoF and distance.
Note based on his page 13 and 24's graphic the MP40 is likely causing 100% more casualty than MP44.
MP44 has 1/3 of RoF compare to SMG at 150m , and MP44 needs 200 rounds to causing a casualty at that distance while MP40 needs 300rds.
my test has same conclusion.
his two reports can be found here
I think we can bring up two more questions.
Is it normal for SMG to keep a high rate of burst fire at long distance?
Assuming the high rate of SMG fire at long distance is normal, since most of the SMG have auto fire mode only while inexperienced soldiers are likely spray and pray, many of the bullets will miss the target due to recoil. Should SMG suffer more penalties on rounds per kill at >150m distance?
-
Just wondering, is this a bug?
-
Finally, I have finished this great campaign (and thank you for creating this masterpiece George MC! ) It took me four years.... Yes, I checked my mission 1 save file, it dated back in July 2019!
Quote
Mission 1
Mission 2
Mission 3
Mission 5 B
Mission 6
And, finally, the campaign conclusion
in Mission 4 that requires the player to make the decision. I took the route of continuing the attack without resupply (leads to mission 5B) . I will try the different mission later.
-
5 hours ago, Codreanu said:
but I'm not even sure if SMGs will engage at that range in CM.
SMG will not engage target >200m, that is the hard cap in CM games. However, stray bullet aimed but missed the target at the front may still hit the target at the rear rank. At least in my test scenario III, the German 3 men Platoon HQ is at 210-220m distance, it was wiped out couple times.
5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:In a Debt Repaid F&R the StG44 was doing all right. Soviet Riflemen with the Nagant it was reported that the player needs to manually plot a LOF.
Yes, also, the backbone of the German firepower in that scenario come from MG42 , 15mm, 20mm flak on the SPW. Sturmgrenadier just need to clear the rest of the shaking survivors out of woods.
It looks like the Debt Repaid was created before F&R new OOB implemented. The soviet Infantry Battalion OOB is still the old version. 9 men infantry squad in 3 teams, 2 SMG per squad. First Platoon is supposed to be a SMG Platoon under new OOB but in this scenario it is the regular rifle plt.
-
Just before I hit the post button I run another test and noticed something weird, PPSh-41 and PPS-43 have different rate of fire when issued area fire command. As the attached video shows, PPS-43 behave more like a MP40.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEh66ZGUtB0
That partially makes sense as PPS-43 has full auto mode only while there are several versions of PPSh-41 can make single shot. However the question is , will this fire rate difference cause any lethalness difference in CM gameplay? This is something I need to look into later.
The fire rate table has been updated
min 0 min 1 min 2 min 3 min 4 min 5 Rate of fire StG44 0 53 97 151 194 251 50.2 MP40 0 126 248 379 492 624 124.8 PPSh-41 0 77 167 227 308 392 78.4 PPS-43 0 149 299 423 551 137.8 -
I know there have been complaints about the CM SMG's performance, which piqued my curiosity about their effectiveness at long ranges. To shed light on this matter, I conducted a series of tests using CMRT, comparing the StG 44 and the SMG. The results were quite surprising, as the SMG outperformed the StG 44 at long range. In this article, I will share the details of these tests and the implications they hold.
Test 1: Area Firing at Buildings
For this test, I deployed a 3-men StG44 team (split from an 80% headcount Sturmgrenadier Squad), a 3-men MP40 scout team, and a 3-men PPSh-41 scout team on the map. The target command was given to fire at buildings located 180m away from them. The results were fascinating. The StG44 fired single shots, the MP40 fired short bursts, and the PPSh-41 employed a combination of single shots and short bursts. (Video link attached)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ElUaGi7WM
Scenario attached
Test 2: Lethalness Comparison between MP40 and StG44
To compare the lethality of the MP40 and the StG44, I set up an open terrain map with buildings blocking the line of sight between left and right. Both the MP40 and StG44 teams were placed in one-story buildings. At a distance of 180m, a Soviet rifle platoon was positioned in front of each team. I began the scenario as Soviet under scenario testing mode. A "hold fire" order with a target arc was given, and the number of casualties and bullets fired were recorded over five minutes. Surprisingly, the MP40 team caused twice as many casualties as the StG44 team.
Scenario attached
Test 3: SMG vs. Sturmgrenadier Platoon
In the final test, I assembled a Sturmgrenadier platoon and an SMG platoon in an arena. The PPSh-41 and PPS-43 in the SMG platoon demonstrated a significant advantage compared to the StG44.the German side managed to secure one victory in ten tests, it could be considered a lucky outcome, as the Soviet side lost two squad leaders in the first turn.
Scenario attached
Conclusion:
Based on these comprehensive tests, it is evident that the SMGs in CMRT exhibit a level of overpowered performance at long ranges.
**************************************************************************************************************
While the StG44 was once known for its fire superiority at 100m in CMx1 versions, the current results indicate a clear shift in the dynamics.
The effectiveness of SMGs at extended distances calls for further study and testing.
-
That is likely to be the reason based on current information I have.
StG guy are just using single shot at 180m while MP40 guy fire short bursts.
The first test I did is to have a StG, MP40 and PPSh team area fire the buildings at 180m distance. I only did this test one time so maybe I need to retest it couple times, anyway the table below records how many bullets are fired
0min 1 min 2 min 3 min 4 min 5 min StG44 0 53 97 151 194 251 MP40 0 126 248 379 492 624 PPSh 0 77 167 227 308 392 PPSh also seems to love single shot when area targeting the building. But I noticed them were using full auto/ short burst when facing the sturmgrenadier platoon (need more test to confirm that).
-
On 6/27/2023 at 10:50 AM, Chibot Mk IX said:
+1
And.....
I even suspected the SMG squad will outperform the Stg44 squad at 150m distance. I thought about doing a test before, but haven't got a chance to do one.
FYI, I did a test compare a 3 men StG 44 team with a 3 men MP40 team at 180m distance. I would say, MP40 is twice deadly as StG44
180m test, 5 min
test 1
test 2
test 3
test 4
test 5
test 6
test 7
test 8
test 9
test 10
3 men StG44 team kills
5
5
4
7
7
8
2
5
7
7
expended ammo
225
237
226
229
229
235
224
227
236
228
3 men MP40 team kills
10
12
10
7
9
11
10
8
10
10
expended ammo
551
533
576
582
581
609
575
582
589
587
And then in a different test, I put a platoon of PPSh in front of a platoon of StG 44 at 180m distance. The StG 44 platoon is decimated in less than 3 minutes
Will send a report in general discussion later this week.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
what a beautiful smoke screen.