Hockler Posted February 28, 1999 Share Posted February 28, 1999 I found that in close combat 2, the weapon that caused most losses from infantry were either grenades or hand-to-hand rather than bullets (even point blank SMG fire!!!). What to you have to say about this compared to CM's realism? Did infact grenades cause most casualties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted February 28, 1999 Share Posted February 28, 1999 Research done at the end of the Second World war showed that most casualties to the infantry were caused by Artillery (mortars and larger), not by small arms or grenades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 28, 1999 Share Posted February 28, 1999 Mike's readings are the same as ours. In fact, one source states Artillery (all forms) did 55% of all casualties in WWII. WWI was even higher at 71%, while Vietnam was down to 43%. Small arms only did 32% of the casualties, and 20% of the KIAs. CM reflects this quite well. You will be doing fine, only taking a minor casualty or two, then a 155 barrage comes raining down and wipes out 1/3 of your entire force in a matter of minutes! Thus, we are going to be VERY careful about allocating BIG artillery to either side! Just makes for really boring games if you are on the receiving end of it Thankfully, the big stuff was generally NOT used for CM's scale, so our apporach isn't unrealistic. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 1, 1999 Share Posted March 1, 1999 Another way to prevent overuse of artillery in CM would be to make it realisticly inaccurate. Calling a shelling on a position even 200 meters forward of your position can be a dangerous thing to do - so the safest use of artillery would be at distances beyond the usual spotting range... i.e. you could use artillery to hammer on probable enemy positions (like dominating hills etc.) but could't use it really as effective weapon once the small arms fire starts... Another thing of course are the delay times of artillery. Unless in a well pre-planned large scale assault, it should takes several turns (i.e. minutes) before the shells arrive. One question on the side: how lethal would a 150mm round be to tanks? In West Front artillery is almost useless against tanks. What is your approach to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 1, 1999 Share Posted March 1, 1999 Moon, Everything you suggested (and a bit more) is already built into CM. One of the things you didn't mention was who can bring down the big stuff. In many games it is whomever has LOS, perhaps using some delays. But in reality the big stuff was NOT ordered down by some lowly rifleman, even if he did for some reason have communications with the batteries (not likely at all). Because of the plotting involved, it would be impossible for an untrained soldier to put the rounds even close to where they should be. Therefore, FOs are the only ones that can bring down a heavy barrage. If you lose or badly deploy your FOs, you are SOL I would have to check with Charles for exact data, but a 150mm round could certainly disable a tank. The problem with an HE round is that it basically has to hit the tank, which is NOT easy with indirect weapons. If it is a direct hit, a kill is very likely. If it is nearby, the shockwaves and fragmentation would be enough to at least harm/kill crew and damage the tank. In general we have NEVER been impressed with wargame physics. HE rounds against armor is not the simple "it penetrates Xmm of armor" as they would like everybody to believe. Penetration doesn't matter if the kinetic energy is sufficient to literally rip a tank apart, or at least disrupt internal components (i.e. human and engine) enough to cause harm. CM's realistic physics fixes this problem quite well. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted March 2, 1999 Share Posted March 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it is a direct hit, a kill is very likely. If it is nearby, the shockwaves and fragmentation would be enough to at least harm/kill crew and damage the tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So how much detail will CM model in terms of damage - presumably mobility kills and damage to guns - will you bother modelling kills to tank commanders, wrecked optics, damaged turrets and such? I don't *really* care, in that I'm going to buy the damn game anyway, but I am a bit curious. Rocky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 2, 1999 Share Posted March 2, 1999 Vehicle can be damaged but we don't see the need to go to the nth degree. Basically, CM first determines if there was indeed a hit. Then the hit is looked at to see if it caused a non-critical hit, critical non-lethal hit, or a critical lethal hit. The first will not damage the vehicle itself. A non-lethal hit might damage a weapon or render the vehicle immobile. We make no distinction to the user as to the cause of this end result (i.e. main gun might be out because the gun is damaged and/or the optics are whacked, immobile because a track is blown or the engine is knocked off kilter). A lethal hit means the vehicle is a total loss and the crew must bail out (we do determine if the vehicle explodes). Depending on the nature of the hit and the crew's experience, a crew *may* bail out from a non-critical or non-lethal hit. Crew casualties can happen from any kind of hit, but are obviously more likely for a critical lethal hit. Vehicles can lose crew members, which can affect the vehicle in various ways (usual a delay while the crew rearranges itself). Also, an unbuttoned tank coming under fire will button itself up, which is in effect a penalty (spotting is terrible). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted March 2, 1999 Share Posted March 2, 1999 Eight in. howitzers had the reputation of uncannily high accuracy. Will your's reflect that.? There are numerous instances related of troops surviving barrages and giving good accounts of themselves in defence on the following attack. Or a few instances of such troops calling fire upon their own positions --- and surviving while their overruning attackers have been severly punished. Does the game reflect these capabilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 2, 1999 Share Posted March 2, 1999 Yes to all questions. In fact, we took out the 8in test artillery because it was too devistating with only 1+ company to shoot at. One volley pretty much totaled the other side! You can call artillery down on your own positions, but you are on your own in terms of luck Units that survive (i.e. that are missed) by artillery are perfectly capable of putting up a fight IN THEORY. However, don't expect too much of a Volksturm unit... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaberfellner Posted March 2, 1999 Share Posted March 2, 1999 If you have ever read Werner Adamczyk's (sp?) book "Feuer" he mentions an incident where his battery ( he was a gunner on a sFH 18 ) was ordered to fire, indirectly, armor piercing shells at advancing tanks. He mentions that he thought that this was a stupid thing to do, but later heard that his battery had knocked out three enemy tanks. This incident happened during the summer of 1941 in Russia. Anyway, just thought I would throw this weird tidbit into this thread since you were discussing the effects of artillery on tanks earlier. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts