[T-72B3 has overpowered optics ingame (IRL commanders optics is terrible)]

I never thought I'd see a thread that says the T-72 sees too well. My Black Sea forums drinking game didn't account for this...

[DAR- Breakfast in Noville]

5 hours ago, Hapless said:

But if we were to place the game into a larger context then I'm on a winner already- it suits the Allies to have a German force pinned down like this. 

 

The picture you just provided makes this pretty self-evident. You are definitely dictating the pace and place where combat's occurring. So long as you don't over reach and break your neck you should be able to win. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast right? Once you get a better picture of what's going on you can put the pedal to the metal.

Your infantry has had a rough time of it though, the squad that is extricating itself, how many losses did it take?

 

Needless to say, I'm loving this AAR - keep at it.

[H2H Scenario "Dust off the Shot"]

10 hours ago, wildboar said:

Looked for the Scenario in the few good men'd site and could not find it.

Any idea as to where I should look for it.

Thanks for helping. F

Hello, thanks for the interest. I've had Bootie pull them down at my request while I cook up new versions. The project isn't abandoned. All I can do is ask for your patience as I find the time to finalize the new releases. I pulled the older ones down as they diverge greatly from the finals.

 

[DAR- Breakfast in Noville]

You have my full empathy with the Panther, very frustrating that the crew had the wherewithal after two clean penetrations to fire off two shots. I wouldn't be surprised if the crew is set to a high motivation and veterancy, they tend to lock up otherwise after a hit. 

[DAR- Breakfast in Noville]

I wouldn't go out and out and say that I consider my pixeltruppen totally expendable, but I would say that you can't play chess without pawns.

Amen, break eggs to make omlettes. I'd rather be losing recce than actual combat power.

[[Spring] Mod Tag]

Makes sense, cheers Mikey.

[[Spring] Mod Tag]

Hey guys, I noticed while fooling around with the unpacker that most of the terrain and foliage have skins with the [spring] tag, but for the life of me I can't get the mod tag to work in the editor - has anyone had any luck with this?

Thanks in advance.

[Follow up shot with Tanks]

1 hour ago, Wicky said:

 

*IIRC primarily from crunchies, but the code changes to allow this could be imapacting armour in close proximity with armour as well making them both more sluggish . 

As I suspected. I know almost immediately it would be a coding headache to differentiate for something like this between 'armor' and 'infantry' rather than 'enemy target.' All the video evidence just screams that its the changes introduced in Market Garden having unforseen effects.

[Follow up shot with Tanks]

24 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

Okay, good.  So are you willing to comment on what the appropriate time between shots would be for an engagement at 1000 meters?

I'm not quite sure what your definition of 'point blank' is, but despite the obvious facetiousness of this question I'll bite. Once a targeting solution has been found, and presuming a stationary target (much more likely to occur on the WWII battlefield portrayed in CM, but I digress), modern crews should be able to maintain a rate of an aimed shot every four seconds; I've seen it in LEO2s and I've sure as <redacted> seen it in M1s. 

Your first reaction will be to point out modern targeting aids. Actually besides the point; despite the fact that you seem to fail to comprehend we've been discussing point blank engagements, there's ample data that shows WWII era weaponry can reach (if not maintain) similar rates of fire, especially given the lower caliber weaponry and generally more accessible placement of ammunition racks.

For example, the M3 GMC 75mm could main a comparable rate of fire. Direct your attention to pages 2 and 3 of FM 23-95. Just to show what a nice guy I am too, I'll be the first to agree that what was on paper rarely matched what occurred in practice, and that I doubt highly even a skilled crew could maintain that rate of fire, especially at range.

That's not what the discussion is about though, despite your rather tiring efforts to make it about that. If you're plugging a tank's ass or flank at point-blank range (lets say for arguments sake, and given the scale of CM, 150-200m), you're going to be pumping those rounds as fast as possible -- certainly faster than is in game. Especially given that at such ranges, follow-up shots do not require much re-calculation of a targeting solution.

Have a wonderful evening

[Follow up shot with Tanks]

11 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

 I don't know why you are so offended.  If you know what all the correct answers are then just state them and we can proceed.

The lack of self-awareness is actually quite impressive. Or perhaps there's a touch of irony here that you're going for?

Shame, this thread was generating some good discussion too. I don't see much more point in weighing in if this patronizing tone is all  we'll encounter. I never claimed to have all the answers, but it certainly appears that you have nothing but rather dubious questions; I'm not precisely sure why Shift8's military experience or lack thereof is relevant given his attempt at providing game data. To satisfy your curiosity though; he's currently serving, and I'm a former service member. I in particular got to exercise with armoured units on a handful of occasions; there's nothing to suggest mid-caliber and high velocity weaponry cannot be fired rapidly in situations where a solution has already been acquired or is self-evident: re point blank engagements.

[Follow up shot with Tanks]

On 5/30/2016 at 5:59 PM, ASL Veteran said:

  Try to keep things in perspective and you will do a lot better in the game. 

Great way to foster discussion...

I'm quite tempted to be patronizing as well towards someone who talks like this, but I'll be the bigger man this time. Its clear you don't have much more to add to this discussion than "there's too many variables!"

The hand-waving isn't without merit, there are infinite amounts of variables, but the problem is very clearly reproduceable. We've seen several videos now from the same user. I'm more thinking out loud here, but I wonder if:

1) The weird delay in firing a targeting solution in infantile situations; is it a result of the artificial delay given to tanks from Market-Garden onwards (re: Delay to facilitate close infantry attacks)? This is worth exploring, because it would seem to me an oversight that this artificial delay for point-blank target acquisition would apply to enemy AFVs. It also may unfortunately be a necessary sacrifice to facilitate this feature.

2) Gun Depression is barely tangential to this conversation, and seems a rather bald way of hand-waving what has been a hitherto legitimately presented issue. We have an example of a tank on a relatively flat surface coming up on the rear and flank of another tank and not being able to pound off a quick succession of shots. Given that tanks are crewed by humans, and you don't need to be a Terminator to acquire and re-acquire a target at those ranges, the lack of rapid fire seems weird. 

2a) Increasing crew panic is a great idea, and one possible solution. 

2b) Taking a serious second look at rates of fire in different situations is an equally proper suggestion, and worthy of being taken seriously, not open derision and deflection.

For a bunch of people who proclaim to be die-hard fans of the series, there seems to be a hugely defensive attitude towards any observation that may be construed as negative. Shift8 is clearly trying to better a game he has a passion for; nothing wrong with that. I also don't see whining or anything that implies a lack of skill. He's put his money where his mouth is twice with video evidence.

[Real tank duel]

1 hour ago, Raptorx7 said:

"Engineering disasters: The Sherman tank"

What a load of bull man, I know its cool to hate the sherman and love the kitties, I went through that at a young age, but the myth just lives on and we keep getting crap like this from the "History" channel.

You can thank that useless hack, Belton Cooper for this tired trope.

German tanks had a horrifyingly bad loss ratio given that they were on the defensive in the ETO, and they performed even worse when they counterattacked. This silliness has to end eventually....perhaps when I have grand children myself

 

Quote

 

Well the uncomfortable truth is that often, what ultimately wins the war is not always the same as caring about the life of the individual soldier

 

...Yes as clearly evidenced by the high survival rate of Allied tankers and the AGFs insistence that anything brought to the ETO be throughly tested and proven first (unlike the Germans rushing designs into battle; Panther Ausf. D -- WEW LAD). Lmfao, please stop. 

[Follow up shot with Tanks]

11 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

've read accounts from more than one war separated by 25 years of loaders being overcome and collapsing from exhaustion. Manhandling 25 pound+ rounds one-after-the-other is grueling work.

That's  another thing too that's been niggling at me, reading this thread from afar. To my knowledge, tanker's don't fatigue in game when inside their vehicle, right? Would be interesting to see that soft factor have an effect on the turret crew's ability to maintain the maximum rate of fire. 

[CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2]

On 5/20/2016 at 7:13 PM, MOS:96B2P said:

@Rinaldi interesting fight.  Thanks for taking the time to post.  It will be interesting to learn what those two companies you got through on the flank are able to do. 

Not as well as I would've hoped; I unfortunately ran into some heavy defensive fire and took losses. I was bleeding both men and time so decided to ceasefire with most, but not all of the objectives. Eeked out a Minor victory. 

On the off chance it has not been reported already, @JonS: The "Sawmill" objective awards no points for being occupied; despite it being labeled as 90 points. Fantastic scenario.

The second mission went much better; a major victory -- despite me having to dodge a nasty surprise later on. 

We're shortly thereafter ambushed. Its dealt with swiftly; and its decided that staying on the main road will only invite further ambushes. A secondary road is discovered and used. 

Unfortunately, we're ambushed yet again - this time with a loss. The Shermans in the vanguard roar past the scout to deal with the anti-tank defenses, and infantry dismount to probe into a small hamlet astride the MSR.

Thereafter, resistance crumbles; and shooting everything up as we roar down the secondary road, the vanguard bypasses insignificant resistance and exists the map. A major victory for the British forces. 

[CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2]

Been slogging through the first mission of Amiens Tonight. Loving it, very interesting, compartmentalized battlefield:

Assaulting a Saw Mill under ample cover of smoke

The 2IC in his Bren Carrier draws fire; and gets incredibly lucky.

 

Lots of opportunities to infiltrate in this first mission; managed to get a 2 full companies on the flank of the objective with only a few minor dust-ups along the way. The Bren Carriers helped a great deal with this

Carrier platoon acting in conjunction with Armored cars clears out a few resistance nests

 

 

 

The sawmill and the main objectives are going swimmingly, but along the main route of advance, all attempts to outflank a roadblock are met with HE fire from two rather stubborn Panzer IVs. Infantry go to ground and wait for armor to arrive while the rest of the Battalion follows the undefended route to carry on. The Cromwells finally arrive:

I'm sure they began sweating when that turret began to ponderously traverse...

That'd give any tanker the shakes. You can sleep the nerves off later, the road needs to be opened!

 

 

 

[H2H Scenario "Dust off the Shot"]

Hello Morbo,

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah for whatever reason uploading to the TSDIII has been difficult lately -- and the version up is, as you suspected, very much outdated. 

Feel free to PM me your feedback and criticism, I'm eager for advice and experience. Additionally if you're willing I can give you the newer versions of the map. A few fellows have been making a campaign with me and as thus the map has been altered as close to historical reality as possible, and the forces and objectives greatly adjusted. It is still H2H capable at present. 

 

[A request to all scenario designers]

Uh oh...a scenario I'm designing has an exit zone. Should I be worried or re-think having it in?

[Parroy Forest Play Test]

Just finished playtesting, some hopefully spoiler-free shots of what people can look forward to

 

[Why smoke block small arms firing?]

The player as God problem. You know there's enemies and you want to area fire; that would functionally make smoke in game useless, even if in reality troops might continue to fire through a smoke screen; you're going to be a lot more accurate than in reality because your omniscience allows you to track the enemy much better than in reality.

[Is this family over?]

US by this point in the war. There's little organizational differences with the US, yeah. A bit more hodge-podge equipment with regards to things like helmets and P17s/1903s in lieu of M1s, but otherwise they were structured like US formations and fought like US formations. In fact, off the top of my head the only marked departure from the US the Free French had was that every division had full-battalion reconnaissance units. 

I'm hoping we'll see more Battle Packs, JonS's has been mighty fun thus far. 

[Parroy Forest Play Test]

I'm always hungry for Lorraine-campaign scenarios. PM sent, I'd love to try this US v Ai. 

[Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

.

However, I completely agree that it makes no sense to be forced to play with a platoon or tank that is combat ineffective, when there were other units that were just fine at the end of a previous mission.

One way to get around this I suppose would be to have a 'force evaluation mission' (something that's quite popular with community made campaigns) where you can choose which formation will lead the next attack through a rather simple selection of one of x number of objectives. If memory serves, @kohlenklau's Wacht am Rapido campaign had something like this where you got to select between two formations to act as your Spitze. I haven't gotten around to @George MC's latest campaign (but its to be done right after I finish my current one - looks fantastic George) but I believe he has something similar viz. selecting what forces will attack next.

Its not Graviteam levels of dynamic but its as close as we're going to get bar the full introduction of an operational overlay. 

[The Nature of CM Battles is...]

I generally share @womble's idea that asymmetric forces and, more importantly, asymmetric objectives make for an interesting and (often more immersive) experience. I play both H2H and Singleplayer in equal amounts, I reckon. Scenarios like "Breaking the Panzers" and "Studienka" are great because both forces have very different expectations thrust upon them during the briefing. 

[Shall try to start an unofficial screenshots thread?]

Conducting a terrain reconnaissance; Troina campaign. 

[How come British infantry sections don't have binoculars?]

I have long suspected this was something that went haywire with a patch around the 3.0 mark; I'm not sure why people are thinking a section leader wouldn't have optics...the British were starved for manpower in 1944, not material.

Further; they have them in Fortress Italy:

1943A formation for anyone curious, not that this should matter whatsoever. British infantry sections should have a pair of 6 x 30mm Binoculars -- quite common across all the armies at this time period and at the platoon-section level. Make differs -- and yes, there definitely were donated civilian models during the emergency years of WWI and WWII, but I digress -- but were usually models like Kershaw, pictured here.

 

50 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, because the cover of a model box should be used to determine whether or not something is rendered correctly. 

Finally, some sanity in this thread.

So far instead of doing a modicum of google-fu the thread has: Dad jokes, a picture of miniature box-art (top kek),  and 'well I'm sure they scrounged from the Germans, those masters of logistics that they were (I'm sure they did, and vice-versa, but that doesn't really answer the question of 'were they issued?').' 

Now I will admit, actually finding TO&E for something so minute is hard, and we all know TO&E doesn't always reflect the reality on the ground, but it seems less than reasonable to conclude a modern western army on lend-lease would be lacking in field optics for something as important as Infantry NCOs...