Jump to content

Drifter Man

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Drifter Man last won the day on January 23

Drifter Man had the most liked content!

About Drifter Man

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It could be the case, so I repeated the test with the contact marker 300 m off instead of 60 m. The result was the same as with 60 m. If there is a bubble, it is big.
  2. Yes - they would be both partial hull down to each other. @chuckdyke Yes, both were unbuttoned (crew hatches open). However, in this case the contact was shared with the tank by a HQ unit via radio.
  3. It looks like the location of the marker is only for the player's (in)convenience - as long as your unit has a contact marker of the enemy unit somewhere, it has a spotting advantage. The Attacker had a Hunt command with the end waypoint in a partial hull down position 600 m from the Defender - a symmetrical position for the two tanks, in nearly full view of each other. If the Attacker spots the Defender on the way, he can stop earlier. The difference between a full hull down position with LOS to the Defender and the end waypoint is about 17 meters - two tiles.
  4. Finishing up with @KGBoy's suggestion about hiding. I wouldn't try to hide my tank - it does not seem to be helping at all when using a target arc - tested on Grass and Grass XT. Hiding without a target arc is a bad idea, the tank will hold fire until it gets shot at - which is usually too late. Table 9. Effect of Hiding. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open. Attacker Defender Grass, not Hiding [R1] 48% 50% [R1] Grass, not Hiding
  5. I don't think that using Hide alone is a good method - Hide will probably just prevent the unit from firing unless fired upon. Hide + Target Arc might help - then the unit should then open fire at a target that enters the arc. I think I can run two more tests on that.
  6. Done. First, the reference case with no contact marker [R5] was the same as an old one [R2], but I did it again because the test now starts 5 minutes into the scenario. This time was needed to acquire the contact by the spotting unit and relay it to the tank (the Attacker) + to move the Defender tank by 60 meters in the last test with marker in an incorrect position. Since the game appears to have a ca 7-second spotting cycle, I wanted all test cases to be synchronized in time. The new reference case ended up being 38:61 for the Defender, compared to 41:57 in [R2]. I'd say that's within statis
  7. Good picture @Sgt.Squarehead. I can see a good amount of effort went into ensuring that the weight is where it needs to be (as far back as possible) and at the same time that it does not fall off.
  8. If I recall correctly it was mounted to counterbalance the heavy main gun and shield. I'll dig up the reference when I have time. Edit: The source is Hunnicutt, but I misremembered. What he says is that the MG was located in the rearmost corner in an attempt to balance the turret, but not that the MG itself was installed to be a counterbalance. Anyway, that's a digression. I'll be back with results.
  9. The tests were done in CMBN v4.03. The Pz IVH (late), which was used in the tests on both sides, never fired any of its MGs at the opposing Pz IV. I believe it was because of the distance - 600 m. I another test, not reported here, I used a Sherman, which fired its M2 HB at this distance. Again, the opposing Pz IV would not fire its MGs back. Everything reported in this thread involves firing only the 75mm main gun.
  10. Yes, that would be interesting to find out, too. It will take some rearrangements to get this right, but I'll look into it.
  11. As @Bulletpoint can confirm, I do not attack with more than 4 on 1. 5 on 1 would not be fair.
  12. A Type B tree, which did not have any effect when 1 to 3 were placed randomly around the tank, gives some protection when the tank is right behind the trunk. A tentative contact marker from early intel helps a great deal. Table 7. Supplementary tests. Effect of a tree standing directly in front of the Defender. Effect of a contact marker provided to the Defender by giving him 100% intel strength. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open. Attacker Defender Grass 44%
  13. Of course, I only engage in honest and equitable duels. I never fire at the enemy if I think I have a superior tank.
  14. Thanks for the tips. I've set up the tree test with a Type B "grid tree" in the middle of the action tile, right in front of the tank, and fed it into the machine. Let's see what it spits out.
  15. I should add one more point: 7. You can do everything right and still lose. Thanks everyone for reading and for the appreciation of the work - I plan to do more of this stuff. As @Falaise pointed out, the inner workings of CM are still unclear. Rule No. 7. notwithstanding, I have more confidence now what is likely to help me and what is likely to hurt me when I have to fight tank against tank.
  • Create New...