bruno2016

Does anyone agree on the very high frequency of gun barrel damage by shots especially from the front and at long distance (noticed it even happens even at 500 + m) in CM2 WW2? This is to me very unrealistic; in tank battle detailed accounts, gun damage is always mentioned as an exception. And the few pictures taken show gun hit from the side. From the front would mean they are hit exactly in the muzzle brake or on the recoil mechanism near the mantlet (even the thick additional protection of the Elefant for instance, added in the field precisely to protect the ball mount) . Looks very unlikely to me. What are your thoughts?

I noticed that, in CM2, tank crews tend to panic very quickly when they get simply hit (even without armor spalling, or immob, or anything else really harmful). And then it takes average 5 minutes, after they run away, to become available again! to reflect what? intense shock? This behavior is regardless of the armor thickness (for instance with Elefant crews hit, just hit, by a non APCR 76.2 mm fired by a wolverine). Same would also often happen with tiger crews, etc. Is it really realistic? I have never read this in any serious war history documents or tank crew bio. I was more under the impression that crews bail out only when the tank is destroyed of course or immob'ed in view of enemy anti tank capable units. Sometimes, like for the battle of Kursk, Panther crews were even forbidden to bail out if immobilized (by mines for instance), which in this case would be a special scenario rule. Well just a comment for your feedback. Maybe am I too much influenced by years of ASL games ... ?

Hi, any preferred scenario in mind with which side?

Hi Chris! I am interested. I have been playing mostly against the computer all CM2 WW2 games with extensions, and few H to H ones too. my email is vazquez_bruno@yahoo.com. We can use dropbox.com to send our turns. tell me how you wish to proceed and if you have any scenario in mind. Bruno

Hello. Then how come the opposite is true? If I have 60 HE rounds and 30 smoke rounds (typically 3 Wespe's like in the Conrath's counterattack campaign in CMFI), if I first fire the smokeall 60 HE rounds remain available.

Hi I am getting the same display error 1024*768, 32 bits when i launch the CMRT v4 in my new Lenovo windows 10 laptop, set up at 1920*1020 when I go to the CMT properties > Compatibility> Settings there is a "Change high DPI settings" box. After I select it, i have 2 check boxes: Program DPI - use this setting to fix scaling problems for this program instead of the one in Settings High DPI scaling behavior - override high DPI scaling behavior - scaling performed by (choice): application/system/system(enhanced) I tried to click all combinations to no avail. The error persists. FYI, when i run CMRT on my win10 desktop with 1920*1080, i have no issues

Hello Squarehead, Agreed, and this supports my point on the way the German HT's make turns in Combat Mission (and the speed) needs to be remodelled. Same for most of the tanks (except, strangely enough as I mentioned above in the thread the Tiger II)

Dear all, I found this video showing how quickly a Stug turns at almost right angle. Move the cursor to 1:27 just for this: as to the way a HT can turn - smoothly with no hiccup - at sharp angles, watch this one and go directly to time 6: 40.

I agree that the transission was weak, that just confirms the game is inconsistent across tanks as the tiger II should rotate in its tracks at snail pace then1 Regarding turning speed, and as I mentioned above in my initial message, look how a Jagdtiger (the Porsche one captured by the British) turns quickly and smoothly on soft terrain even with a large radius, moreover with one suspension bogie less... I hope you will better see why I complain about the hectic way a HT or a wheeled vehicle makes a soft angled turn in the game

Fine, I understand the reason. Yet I disagree on the way the game factors in this "risk management" regardless of the situation and not in a consistent manner across vehicles. For instance, why then in the game a Tiger II can pivot in its tracks so quickly, even in a non hard terrain, whereas the Panther does not? They both had the same engine and reverse track capability and the latter being 20 tons odd lighter than the former.... Turn speed: even when you micromanage the way points to make a smooth angled curve, a HT or a wheeled vehicle will often even stop at each way point to turn the wheels and move in a very weird fashion by hiccups, like you can see in some TV add showing an old 50's US sedan moving up and down on its brakes at a red light. Funny. I would get sea sick if I was a passenger in CMB lol

Thanks for these details. actually my point was more on the resistance of the HTs, especially the thicker SPWs, to horizontal fire from non MG, ATR, ATG, energy or nuclear weapons, lasers etc for - buttoned up - personnel when they travel in the HT at non close range (i.e.>40 m let's say) than the vulnerability of dismounted personnel which to me is OK in the game (as it was in ASL with no special protection, jsut as if they were standing idle in the terrain they occupy) And I can see by brwosing in this long thread that other players also find the vulnerability of travelling personnel excessive.

sorry I sent the above msg wrongly by trying to quote. So I will reply globally. @Rinaldi. Thanks for your reply, I wont take it personally of course, Just I believe ASL was not wrong and also ASL never said HTs are assault guns either. As to why they were accompanied by tanks, I would rather say the other way 'round: tanks were accompanied by HTs to provide infantry support and eventual assault of the enemy positions, with mutual cover fire of course. Full cover does not mean impervious to any attack, it means that at - horizontal angle - the carried personnel, as stated in one the messages above, could hide themselves behind the walls of the HT without having their head exposed. MGs, ATRs and of course ATGs could penetrate 10 mm armor. but rifles and smgs? If you believe usual 9 mm can easily penetrate 10 mm armor (please give any link to documentation showing this), then why doesn't the game show any armor penetration or spalling at least then? sorry this is not a consistent behavior, whatever the simulation of the game tries to do. As stated in older messages, that is probably because the game considers carried personnel have their heads exposed. Back to the discussion.... Now I agree with the statements that 200-200 m is a safe range and workaround for the behavior of the game, more than as a reproduction of reality. As to the turn radius of the HTs, even if it was big, in the game the HTs/SPWs are almost at idle speed when making a sharp turn. I have seen HTs in real life, they move much more quickly even with their radius. Consequence in the game: when you need to quickly escape, you get artificially exposed a long time. I also mentioned the slowness of other AFVs turning (except surprisingly heavy weights like the Tiger II): have you seen quickly a real Panther turns on its tracks? or even a Stug to name a few ...even if of course its slower than a Leopard II pivoting and keeping its gun steady in its direction. Even in the footage of the running Porsche Jagdtiger made by the British at the end of the war, watch how quickly it turns on itself, with some radius yes, despite its 76 tons... Now compare with CM and tell me if again I got it wrong... I am not trying here to find the devil in the details, just that these shortcomings can have very surprising and negative tactical consequences where you dont expect them.

I also noticed the extreme vulnerability of HT personnel to small arms fire. Also I noticed how slowly and awkwardly the HTs are making turns when moving. Vulnerability: even when the personnel is not "opened up" and at horizontal angle, they suffer from smg or ligh MGs up to more than 100 m away just as if they were sitting in trucks. That is nonsense. As mentioned above in this thread, HTs provided full cover from the battlefield small arms fire and shrapnells. And the MG shield should provide a cover to the gunner like behind a small wall. For whoever like me has been playing ASL for years before the digital games arrived, remember the "+2" protection when firing from a HT / SPW... Only when the angle of fire was steep (again in ASL, approximated by the the firer having to be 2 levels higher than the distance to the HT, in hexes) could it score hits inside. Only ATGs and medium/heavy MGs could punch thru the HT armor thanks to their AP bullets at level angle. Tactics wise, HTs were used to saturate the objective with MG fire (combined fire could also be done in ASL using adjacent HTs) while the personnel was dismounting. With CM, it is not anymore possible as HTs are as vulnerable as trucks. This is a misconception, not a bug. Last, as to the slowness and awkwardness of HTs to perform quick turns especially around buildings or hedgerow paths, that is very surprising. It even leads often the vehicle to make huge detours or even reverse completely and then become vulnerable to fire. The only workaround I found was to micromanage the waypoints and this is not fully safe even. The game engine should be able to devise the best path from origin to destination without getting into convoluted and unrealistic moves. Regarding slowness, I noticed that anything different from heavy tanks like the Tiger 1 or 2 which could pivot in their tracks using inverted track movement (see WoT), other AFVs are extremely slow pivoting, incl. the Panther (which could also invert track movement). That again is not realistic, they used to pivot quickly even if it took some radius when they had to block one track instead of reversing its movement. This can lead to artificial negative effects in critical tactical situations. To me this is another misconception to be fixed in the game engine.