Questions for Steve (General PBEM) #1

[Doug Beman]

Hey! Those new, winter, screenshots! Are they from this game?!

DjB

[Doug Beman]

Good fun. Question: what degree of "unit magnification" are the guys using?

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fatherof4, updates will be happening more frequently. Patrick just has to figure out why the 4.x family of Nav browsers isn't happy. The problem has been narrowed down, so hopefully this won't take much longer. And now your bargging rights are officiall on the line

Mike, Moon actually does have 2 tanks in position to fire at the town without getting whacked by Fionn. However, he can't get over the bridge without getting knocked out in the rear (enemy tanks) or the front ('fausts and 'schrecks galore <g>). Yes, any unit in the game can fire at stuff using Area Fire (i.e. LOF/LOS, but no actual target).

Doug, it would appear they are using different combos of +1 and +2 unit sizes.

Steve

[Mike D]

As far as unit maginfications go I believe Martin said he had his set on 3x (for tanks anyways), though I could be mistaken.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest KwazyDog]

Steve, Im just curious how long a turn takes to set up? Fionn had a lot of movement orders to give, and Im just wondering what time the average turn takes to get ready to roll?

Hehe, its interesting enough ready about others play CM, cant wait to do it myself

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-24-99).]

[Lutz]

Steve,

with Martins troops advancing over the frozen river, I was wondering how this type of terrain is simulated.

Would it be possible to break the ice with an artillery barrage? Would it break if one tries to cross it with a (too heavy) vehicle? Or are the tank drivers smart enough not to try this, even if given a direct order ?

Lutz

[This message has been edited by Lutz (edited 08-24-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dunno about the time it would take to set up Fionn's movement orders. Probably a good 10 minutes, including thinking and redoing a couple. Great thing is that orders can be manipulated to some degree on following turns. You can click on a waypoint and drag it around to fine tune your path without wiping out orders and having to reissue them again. Plus, reissuing whacks the unit with a delay penalty

We treat ice as being frozen enough for troops to pass over, but not tanks or other vehicles. My tank drivers manual staes that a 20 ton vehicle needs 16 inches of ice and a 46ton vehicle 2 feet of ice to drive over. Rivers aren't going to provide this very often in NW Europe.

No, artillery can't break up ice. We decided that ice that is thin enough to have a roughly 10mx20m stretch broken up is too thin to be walked on.

Steve

[Doug Beman]

BTS, one of Martin's MGs jammed while firing on the Germans. In CM, if a gun jams while it is in the middle of a fire order, or there are enemy targets around, will the MG resume fire once it is unjammed? Or, does the commander have to monitor the situation and re-issue the fire order once the gun is cleared?

DjB

[Mike D]

Steve,

Mission accomplished. Netscape now works for the CM page over at thegamers.net. Thanks.

Mike

[Ben Galanti]

Steve,

I was curious as to your opinion on martin's attack on the town. I would have to agree with Mike and say that I would have concentrated my forces a bit more. Though, since I haven't seen arty at work in CM, that might make a difference (i'm interested to see what becomes of Fionn's rocket barrage...)

Would a more concentrated attack have been more effective? I just don't see a peicemeal rifle company standing up to the flamethrowers and all the automatic weapons in the town... (though, in his defence, I don't know what if any info he had on the town defenders strength) Maybe Martin just needs to be a bit more liberal with his arty to keep the defenders heads down...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Doug, the gun team will unjam and start firing again ASAP. The traget could be the same one it had before, but as always, it could choose something better or more threatening instead.

Mike, the thanks go to Patrick at TGN

Ben, I think Martin is doing the attack the right way. He doesn't know what is in there, so he is being cautious. Remember that each turn is only 1 minute of combat, so in general you shouldn't expect to see everybody rush in at once. And his dispersion of troops is not only prudent as a defence against artillery, but also to have interlocking fields of fire. There is hardly a street or alley way in that town that Martin can't shoot down with decent firepower. If he had all of his guys bunched up he would have more limited lines of fire, and therefore allow Fionn room to manuver.

As far as artillery goes... it is devistating. Even smallish caliber mortars and artillery can cause large numbers of casualties to bunched up men. Last thing you ever whant to have happen to you is a treeburst above a platoon all huddled together. Such a hit could knock out 2 or 3 men for EACH unit AND (worse) cause several units to panic or at least stay down.

BTW, Martin's 81mm mortar bombardment of the open field in the south is not helping Fionn any

Steve

[Mike D]

Steve,

Roger on the thanks part, I'll send a message to Patrick over on the other board.

My curiosity is killing me here. What are the acuatual numbers of reinforcements that either side might receive and the probability that they will even show up????

Which leads me to another question. How flexible is the scenario design tool in terms of setting conditions for the probabilities of reinforcements showing up, or other events? For example, taken the game in progress, let's say that Fionn totally shreds Martin's tank force and rolls westaward toward the river. If I had designed the scenario I would possibly liked to have increased the chances of US tank reinforcements showing up triggered on either total loss of all US tanks, and/or, the Germans advancing to a hypothetical N to S line one the map by any sooner than turn 10 say. This would reflect local US forces calling back to regiment or division saying they are getting torn to pieces and they desparately need help, or something to that effect. I would think higher level command would be much more likely to send some reinforcements from their reserves to help fix such a situation much more readily if things were going bad (i.e. US tanks are all destroyed, or German forces advance to the west way to quickly) vs. if everything was going all right for the US boys and there were not any problems to speak of.

In any event, I would very much like to see some ability in the scenario design editor to set up some fairly complex criteria for whether or not reinforcements show up, the probability of them showing up, etc. Same might apply to allowing additional artillery fire missions from initially deployed FO's and available batteries if things start to go bad, etc.

FWIW The Op Art of War has some very powerful ways to set up conditions that add great variety to the game. While I'm not looking for something quite that extensive here (although it would be nice) I would hope that there would be a few tools in there to help set up some special conditions, etc.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Los]

"As stated before, all of the US tanks have been spotted while in good cover and in hull-down positions. That makes the silohette much smaller and harder to spot. From what I could tell, only 1 german tank spotted all of the US tanks."

This seems to me a function of training and experience, (in real life, but I'm assuming it's factored into here also) together with some luck.

"Do all German infantry carry binoculars?It is hard to see anything at 700-1000m especially when it is not moving. And if I

remember only one of the shermans fired at

anything."

I would imagine most squad leaders would probably have binos, or at least many of them. Even if you are not issued them they are the first thing you snag when you get the chance.

"By the way at 1000m the mg42, especially a bi-pod mounted one, would have a hell of a time hitting the little head of a tank commander sticking out of the cupola."

It's not as hard as you think. ( I have hit things at that range with both an M60 and an MG3) Again of function of experience more than anything. The hard thing about hitting anything at that range is spotting the targte. The guys sitting on a tank which is very easy to see. Several adjustments could rain rounds down on top of the tank very easily and if the guy is sitting out there he's just as apt to get hit as not. And if the MG is on a tripod a halfway decent guy could nail him in just a few short bursts.

Cheers...

Los

[dano6]

"It's not as hard as you think. ( I have hit things at that range with both an M60 and an MG3) Again of function of experience more than anything. The hard thing about hitting anything at that range is spotting the targte. The guys sitting on a tank which is very easy to see. Several adjustments could rain rounds down on top of the tank very easily and if the guy is sitting out there he's just as apt to get hit as not. And if the MG is on a tripod a halfway decent guy could nail him in just a few short bursts."

LOS, I believe that an extremely experienced soldier as yourself could have a decent chance of hitting a tank commander at that range in good conditions.

But... If rounds were coming in, then I am sure the tank commander would pull back in the cupola until the firing stopped. Then he would venture back out. If another burst came then he would duck back in again. I serious doubt if the first or second round would hit him in the head. This being at 1000m, you would be firing at an area target, not neccessarily a 1' by 1' target of his head. I even have a hard time hitting a target of that size at 1000m with a nice scoped(leopold) bolt-action 30.06. "Oh well I never wanted to be a sniper anyway". The conditions of this game being played would have a great effect in my opinion. On the snow, the bipod would sink from vibration and heat, causing major adjustments to be made at every burst. And after many bursts the melting snow from the heat would cause other problems for the operator to aim accurately. As for a tri-pod that would greatly reduce these problems and increase accuracy greatly. Anyways, just interested in your opinion of this.

dano6

[dano6]

I was reading the order of battle for the US and I found the 81mm mortar support and 105mm support. Doea this mean that the US forces have only one battery each of 105mm and 81mm fire support? If that is true then the germans actually possess more artillery support than the US.

Also curious how many support firings each battery can fire through the total duration and how long each takes to readjust and fire on a new location? I wonder if you could us give this information for both the german and US sides.

dano6

[Los]

"But... If rounds were coming in, then I am sure the tank commander would pull back in the cupola until the firing stopped."

Two thoughts: the TC could be sitting in his tank and bullets are flying around and **** is occsaionally going off here and there, still, he needs to be outside his tank and would not neccesarily button up. It's dangerous but this is war after all.

However you are correct in that if rounds started pelting the tank, he'd be down that hole like a scared rabbit. But I guess making a button attempt check on the fly is one of those little details that's to small to plug into the game. (Together with every other little detail then you have to draw the line somewhere.) Of course the vehicle suppression is basically the same thing.

"1000m, you would be firing at an area target, not neccessarily a 1' by 1' target of his head. I even have a hard time hitting a target of that size at 1000m with a nice

scoped(leopold) bolt-action 30.06."

Believe me it's easier to hit a target with a few burst of machinegun guided by tracer and a good assiatant gunner (AG) than it is for the casual person to hit it with a scoped rifle. Anything over 600 yards and ballistics take over. You are talking Kentucky windage and environmental conditions not the simple accuracy of the optics. The gunner is flooding a piece of ground with 6-20 rounds at a squeeze (hopefully less)and with a semi-decent assistant gunner, is guiding the bursts in via tracer and AG guidance. If you fire off 50 rounds at a time ala the movies you are correct in that you won't hit ****. But 6-9 rounds bursts (a little more a little less) and the things are pretty good. STill a klick is a long way but 700 meters in no porblemo.

The downside is that tracers work both ways...

"The conditions of this game being played would have a great effect in my opinion. On the snow, the bipod would sink from vibration and heat, causing major adjustments to be made at every burst. And after many bursts the melting snow from the heat would cause other problems for the operator to aim accurately."

A few quick points here. Just because there is six inches snow on the ground doesn't mean there aren't shallow parts, or that there aren't logs, rocks etc ets. The Machinegun has telescoping bipod whcih means you could make it any length from 6" to almost 12". Nor does the bipod itself get hot enough to melt anything. More over, soldiers are no more stupider than anyone else, they would prepare their firing position, hastily at first, with more detail the longer they stayed there, to ensure that their weapons woudld continue to function.

And yes you are very correct that a tripod increase range and accuracy. (more table better optics (in the German model that is).

By the way the problem youmention with sinking is actually a bigger porblem for the mortar since the more you fire it, thedeeper it sinks into the ground until it occassionally becomes unfirable since the bipod won't function. Then you have to dig the thing out and start over. Plus teh sinking effect (especially in soft terrain), throws of your solution to the aiming stakes and degrades accuracy, but it's suppression your really after anyway.

Cheers...

Los

[dano6]

One last question for your opinion, LOS:

As for the spotting of tracer rounds by the assistant gunner. Wouldn't the snow be kicked up by the muzzle blast from firing of bursts. I have never laid in snow and fired any of my weapons, too damn cold, but I would think that the muzzle blast would kick up a huge amount of snow on the initial bursts with it diminishing over time. I think this and the tracers would pinpoint the MG to any enemy that would want to fire at it. And since the assistant has to be close to the gunner in order to help the gunner because of the noise, I would think that this cloud might obscure some of the spotting for the MG.

Anyways any opinion would be appreciated.

dano6

[Guest Big Time Software]

Actually CM does check for tank commanders to button up when they're fired upon. But if that first burst happens to hit, well then there wasn't enough warning...

I think our function for determining hits on unbuttoned commanders is a little too high though, so after this current test game I'm going to tone it down.

Charles

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, couple more answers here...

Mike, the reinforcement conditions are quite simplistic (on purpose). There are 5 slots for each side, along with a corrisponding marker for the map. Any number of units can be put into each slot. The slot has a turn to come into play and a percentage chance of that happening. That is about it. We didn't want to make it more involved because that would be unrealistic at CM's scale. If you had support it would either show up or not. Unlike TOAW (more strategic level) there is no time at CM's level to have variable forces come in due to variable situations.

Dano6, whatever whacked the commanders of Fionn's tanks, they weren't LMGs. The US doesn't have any. So we are talking tripods. These are team weapons, with a designated team leader. The team leader does have binoculars and sometimes special range finding equipment (not for MMGs I would think). So this means stability and good spotting for taking out a commander. As LOS stated, spotting and shooting at an unbuttoned tank is very easy to do, even for a moderately skilled team. Tanks will button up if they feel the danger is too great, but it looks like Fionn's guys ducked a little too late (and the variable for a hit was probably a tad too high as well).

LOS, to add to your comments about firing in the snow... I know I have seen pics of guys fring on top of backpacks and anything else that might be handy. Whatever works

Dano6, actually dusty ground would be FAR worse than snow. Even with mats underneath their guns, the ones we saw last month kicked up a LOT of dust. Snow would have to be VERY powdery to get kicked up, and since the snow crystals would have connected to others, they would fall back to earth faster than dust IMHO.

Steve