add-on to "questions re. CM"

[M Hofbauer]

ok, since the last thread was closed due to size (not the least because of OSCAR's contributions) before I had a chance to answer, I am taking the liberty to continue here, hope that's ok with you. Not trying to offend here but I suggest to OSCAR to start a thread of his own on his subject (and can call it "CM critique" or "CM bashing" or whatever) and take his problems there where I am sure most ppl will ignore it. Not trying to flame here but I think there's a point about this general critique not really belonging into threads dealing with specific game aspects; as my personal opinon I suggest this critique be reserved for *after* we have seen at least the demo, any posts made to that general 3d critique thing made before that are devoid of sunstance and sense; it makes sense to talk about features etc. during this phase (=before demo release) because it could influence the game but to make posts about "I haven't seen it but I think I will see that..." have no point at this stage. Enough of this.

#3) first, two pictures from the Panzerfuast-page in support of the "no-trail but backblast" - suggestion (formerly #3 and as proposed by Mr Oberst and Mr Galanti): they show the firing of a Panzerfaust - notice the backblast and the absence of a smoke-trail

I did of course notice that you (BTS ) said you were going to take a look into this but I figured the images will help to tip the scale in your considerations towards "more effort but also more realism" ;o)

#5)BTS/Steve wrote:

"#5 - The sandbags increased standoff range of impact, thus actually INCREASING the optimal penetration range for something like a PF. Unlike skirt or spaced armor, which has air inbetween it and the main armor, the sandbags are a solid mass, which acts to funnel all the energy of the explosion towards the main armor. In other words, it acts in the exact oppoiste way skirt/spaced armor works. In one of the threads we had an engineer with a high degree of understanding on this issue explain it in even more detail. In any case, IIRC only one division outfitted their tanks with sandbags to any great degree (11th Armored?)"

Your arguing does sound reasonable to me. still I am not sure I am inclined towards it. Even after your arguing it does not work "exactly the opposite" spaced armor works, because even if the sandbags worked to tunnel (I am skeptical of the Funnel) it, a shaped charge was designed with the warhead cap so that it detonated at the optimum distance. The plasma jet unfocusses rapidly after that optimum distance. The tunneling would help to prevent the unfocussing of the jet yet he wouldn't prevent the jet to lose power rapidly after the point of optimum distance. After your theory, even the cast-on concrete (as many shermans featured) or even add-on armor would help to *increase* the effectiveness of the shaped chargem which it obviously didn't: any obstacle in the path of the jet that has to be consumed takes away from the energy. Sand, silicium crystals, are a great way to absorb energy in the process of having to be molten out of the way. Nevertheless, your arguing does have points, but there's another reason why I am not sure how to see this: Why after your theory *did* sandbags in reality stop Panzerfaust warheads that would have otherwise penetrated that Sherman armor at that spot?

AFAIK, and I have seen many pictures to tat effect, extensive sandbagging wasn't limited to the 11th. 14th Armored Div, especially it's 25th Battallion,was rather renowned for using sandbagging. Other units that made widespread use of all-around sandbagging were e.g. the 781st tank batallion, atached to the 100th ID.

#7) sidenote to rwcanuck, JonS and Steve(BTS): Yes I've seen "Die Brücke". Still IMO one of the best movies to bring home on you the tragic etc. of war best.

re. the below-5m-firing of a Panzerfaust: the Panzerfaust warhead itself armed only after a flight of 3 meters.

#12) crews armed with infantry weapons (SMGs); not sure why you took them out after they were initially in. Being armed only with pistols, I don't see what use they aould have in the game, you could for gameplay purposes let them be destroyed with their tank. All they can be used for is reconning/wasting them, which is very gamey as in real life tank crews probably would not have been very eager to play bait. I do take your points that A) those weapons were mostly meant for securing the vehicle when bivouacing etc and that that Sherman crews had too little time in early Shermans to unstrap their Thompson. But I guess you won't dispute that these weapons were just as handy when a crew had to leave the vehicle in battle due to damage. Also, I think it's invalid to generalize such a trait onto all vehicles. Most vehicles did *not* immediately brew up. Often tanks/AFVs became battleunworthy for a veriety of damage and the crews had to leave them.

As a *side* point (and one that I am not so sure of), it would be a compromise re. the picking-up/scavenging of weapons lying around somewhere everywhere where a battle is. The crew would - if it was unable to take the vehicles' weapons with them and had to remain in the FEBA for any length of time - surely look out actively for equipping themselves with any weapon they could (and surely would in a lively battle) find. Now of course you would have to consider the unrealism of having a crew exit the vehicle readily equipped qith weapons they are supposed to find some time later on the field vs the unrealism of not having weapons ly around and therefore have them not carry any weapons at all (we'll forget about the pistols for the purpose of this thread, I think you will agree). Now if you add in that they would be not unlikely to have their vehicle-supplied crew weapons with them (it's not a StuG's crew fault that Shermans brew up easily) and that for gameplay purposes there wouldn't be any realistic use to them anymore if they are unarmed, then I think the scale of this consideration tips in favor of them having some sort of SMG (Thompson for americans, MP-40 for germans or so). But of yourse it's your game and hence it's your call.

Related question #12a): are vehiocle crews that had to jump from their destroyed vehicle generally rather shaken/unwilling to follow orders/likely to panic/rout/surrender for the rest of the battle? I guess they should, accounting for the terror of having survived a catastrophic hit in your vehicle and the basic/inherent uneasiness crews feel outside their vehicle (talk to an Abrams crew having to do a battle outside their shell!)

#13) I like the idea Bil Hardenberger and John Maragoudakis re. being notified of your reinforcements' arrival. I want to add that in your idea you are neglecting the enemy a litle bit. He, too, should be able to see the enemy advancing into the map, when that pop-up is amongst his troops.

I also wanted to comment on the "map as a universe" - subject, which we have already talked about (and, to my understanding, you have talked about in length before). Again, as with other topics, I don't think it's essential for CM to have this, but I want to give a general idea/vision.

BTS wrote:

" So far there have been lots of ideas, but they generally involve "scope creep", and that is a no-no"

and

" The end result was nobody had any good ideas on how to do things differently without creating a game within a game. This sort of "scope creep" is an automatic death sentance. "

what is wrong with a "game within a game"? and what is "scope creep" ??

Ssnake wrote:

"I dunno if that approach would work for you, too - but if you have a good strat AI for RED,

why not have some AI controlled BLUE units, too. You create an "envelope of friendlies",

and stop the scope from creeping."

(again this reference to scope creeping...what is that?)

Basically, my idea is similar. let's assume a CM map has (arbitrary numbers) a map 2km wide and 6 km deep. Now, imagine also showing the neighbouring upper and lower (northern/southern) (if we are talking a west-east confrontation along a generally north-south frontline) maps, too, making for another 2km north and another 2km south. In these adjacent maps, place AI-controlled enemy and friendly units. see this sketch:

BTS wrote:

"This sort of "scope creep" is an automatic death sentance. It is just not possible to develop such a game, even if it were more realistic (who is watching the flanks of the guys coming in on the flanks? That is just the TIP of the iceberg)."

I think "the flank of the guys on the flank" is not an unsolvable problem. You yourself later in a reply to Ssnake wrote."

"I have forces, controlled by the AI, on my left flank. Great, but who is attacking them and who is on their left flank?"

It doesn't matter, we don't see to their far edge. The neighbour forces are abstracized.

"Is someone else attacking them, or do they sit idle?"

doesn't matter, they could just sit idle.

"And how is all this simulated It is an abstraction just as much as what we have now, but it involves a lot more work out of us and the CPU/Graphics card."

I agree it is an abstraction and that it requires more work and strain on the CPU (and currently I am not asking for this, it's juts that a man's gotta have ideals), but I really disagree that it is "an abstraction just as much as what we have now". You yourself (see above) once contemplated "even if it were more realistic". Sorry, really don't wnat to offend you, but this arguing goes along the same lines Oscar uses, "if something won't work 100%, don't do it at all." Yes it is not perfect but it is less worse an abstraction than the map univers with no outside forces *at all* is. I hope you see what I am getting at. And I really don't say CM HAS to have that (and I do admit that scenario design does a lot already in the current model to alleviate the mapuniverse problem). I just want you to understand my idea.

now, the northern and southern maps in terms of units and terrain can be less detailed, more abstracted etc. To the far (northern or southern) edge the neighbour map "dithers" / "fades" away (not sure of the right words here but I guess you know what I'm getting at). The borderbetween maps could either be fixed (no unit can pass it) - a little bit more unrealistic but much easier to implement - or it can be passed with units being less and less willing / likely to advance further into the neighbour map the further they get into it. Units in the neighbouring maps are assumed to be under a different commanders command. As regards the problem of "what do I do when the enemy troops in the north are advancing so that they are *beside me* in the neighbour map - two answers:

1) you could either prevent this by roughly connecting the advance of the neighbour-maps to the general advance/movement of the frontline in the played map

2) or leave it - hell, in real life that's just what happened often enough. you would just have to make provisons for this by having to protect your flanks against the north/south (after all, that's part of why the usual map-as-a-universe is criticised)

If you do this neighbor-map approach, it enables nice things / options:

* you could request vehicles from the neighbor commander or have to answer to requests from him for units (you'ld get point bonusses/penalties for giving away units to requests / requesting units from neighbor command)

*and - now this is the real vision- you could take other human players take over their neighbour maps. This is something only thinkable given CM's approach of non-realtime (rt play for a minute but non-rt ordering phase). Since each computer/battle would only have to calculate/interpret things going on in his and the two neighbouring maps (but not the maps neighbouring those maps) (there would have to be a function allocating the calculation of different cross-border firing to either computer of the two maps) while coordinating with the neighbour computers/battles, this would be possible. And the size of the battle would only be limited by the numbers of players you can get together - you could simulate a whole stretch of front in a big multiplay!

of course, this is just a *vision*, and I do realize this is not feasible for CM (especially given that it's battles are rather short in game-time terms (30-60mins)), but I like it.... I have a dream...I have a dream,..that one day, thousands and thousands of little, individually represented and modelled soldiers, along a whole sector, will be battling a HUGE multiplayer CM-style game payed by hundreds of human players....

Lastly, thanks to BTS and all you others for the satifying answers to the points I did not elaborate on anymore. Now I am really getting anxious to see the game!

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Guest PeterNZ]

Scope Creep:

As i understand it scope creep means a situation where you keep strapping on new bits and adding things till teh essential elements of the game are lost.

eg. say they add a kind of side map, well then you have to add code to organise the units to walk onto the map (instead of appear).. maybe calcuate if there are nearby units that would affect the incoming reinfotcements, (say the units come in further away, more spread out, buttoned down).. and so on..

The result is a game that can get muddied with options, qualifiers and so on. I can see the point of simply saying "reinforcements arrive here", since it's a concept everyone understands, can be coded easily and although not perfect, gets the job done without too much hassle.

Oh, on the PF issue, i quite like the little smoke trail.. gives one a sense of what's going on, ie. a zook or other attack, rather than an artillery shell or wotnot.

ok ok I admit it, i'm only half slightly grog.. maybe from the knees down.

PeterNZ

[Harold Jones]

M. Hofbauer said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a shaped charge was designed with the warhead cap so that it detonated at the optimum distance. The plasma jet unfocusses rapidly after that optimum distance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the things about shaped charge weapons (especially man portable ones) is that building the warhead for optimum standoff distance is not always possible due to handling constraints. What happens is that in order to reduce overall length and or weight of the round, the standoff distance provided by the construction of the warhead may be less than the distance needed for maximum penetration. Therefore increasing the distance from the armor the warhead detonates (with sandbags or any other field expedient) may actually improve the performance of the warhead.

[This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 10-21-99).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I have a question/comment regarding vech. crews.

When they are destroyed do they yeild the same number of victory points as a like-sized infantry squad?

I would think they would be priced much higher frankly. And if they are, I am also of the mind that they should be armed with SMGs and whatever they ACTUALLY had. With the possible exception of the Sherman due to the extremely limited time they had to exit...but what about the Shermans with the wet stowage (M4a3's I think)?

Ooops forgot to mention...if vech cres are the same amount of victory points as same-sized infantry squads then by all means keep the SMGs OUT of the game. It will result in way too much gamey behavior otherwise.

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 10-21-99).]

[Moon]

M Hofbauer, I pick out a few points from your post which I can answer/clarify.

Strange, but to me the picture look more like the firing of a rifle grenade than the firing of a Panzerfaust. Not only can I not see the Panzerfaust tube on that guys shoulder, the trajectory of the projectile seems too steep, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Being armed only with pistols, I don't see what use they aould have in the game, you could for gameplay purposes let them be destroyed with their tank. All they can be used for is reconning/wasting them, which is very gamey as in real life tank crews probably would not have been very eager to play bait<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have said it yourself, although you drew the wrong conclusions - tank crews armed with pistols only are basically useless for the player. If you don't want to waste them (and lose points) you better move them back or even off-map asap. That's realistic as you said yourself, since tank crews would do anything but hang around the front lines for too long.

Arming them with SMGs would, however, raise their combat effectiveness and lead to unrealistic (gamey) tank crew-infantry actions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>are vehiocle crews that had to jump from their destroyed vehicle generally rather shaken/unwilling to follow orders/likely to panic/rout/surrender for the rest of the battle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Some might run away in panic once the bailed out, some might crawl into next cover and stay pinned for some time. They might also (like any other unit which suffered heavy losses) become so rattled, that they will be less efective and more prone to panic for the remainder of the game. This is shown in the game by an "!" in the unit window.

Re: scope creep.

I had the feeling that when you started writing your thoughts, you were pretty convinced that this is not a big deal, but somewhere towards the end you conclude "I have a dream" and seemed to realise yourself that one step leads to another. BTW, when you think that the neighboring maps can be static, abstracted and the map broder cannot be crossed etc. - well, why not leave it out completely anyway? From what I can see, this is basically the same (or very similar) result without tons of stuff to code up. BTW, you might not know this, but map edges in CM can be designated as "owned" by one side or the other. If you exit your guys off an enemy map edge, they're lost. So in a way, the neighboring terrain is simulated.

[Los]

To me that picture looks like a panzerfaust. Keep in mind that the standard firing of a panzerfaust was often under the arm not on the shoulder like a modern LAW and I have seen plenty of pictures of it being fired that way. The round itself is way to small for a rifle grenade nor would a rifle grenade cause a backblast like you are seeing. Also if you look closely in the second picture you can see the tail of the panzerfaust sticking out from under the guys arm. As for the trajectory of that particular shot, hell the guy could be just ****ing around or the just firing one off for the camera or firing one in combat at something at a higher elevation. I think Mr. H has done a good job on that.

Los one.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The round itself is way to small for a rifle grenade<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got it reversed. Panzerfaust warheads are considerably larger than rifle grenades. They're huge bulbous things, except for the PF150 which was a slightly-less huge but pointy thing.

The shape of the projectile in the photo above does look an awful lot like a rifle grenade to me...

Charles

[Guest Big Time Software]

Could be a PF30. Those warheads were quite a bit smaller than the 60+. Plus that is a LOT of smoke for some sort of grenade. Also, the guy's position looks like he is firing the PF from under his right arm, which was a standard firing position.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

#5 - note that this is not *MY* argument, but the conclusions of a long thread that had engineers and others weigh in on the matter. Do a search to find the details, but here are some counter points:

The PF did not have optimal standoff range as is. The force of a PF 60 was great, and the Allied armor thin enough, that there was so much extra power that any absorbing effect the sandbags might have would not make a hill of beans difference. Allies, and Germans, put LOTS of things on their vehicles that simply were not effective, but did make their crews *feel* safer. Since perception is often more important than fact...

#7 - I bought my copy several years ago when it first was rereleased here in the US. Great movie, right up there with All's Quiet on the Western Front.

#12 - I think Moon got this one pretty well, but stress that "simulated human life" has value in CM. You are supposed to get your crews to safety. In a campaign this can even lead to you getting a replacement vehicle for the next battle. The problem with arming the crews with weapons off the battlefield is that then we would have to simulate this, it would then lead to gamey use of crews, and is therefore not worthy of our time.

#13 - The problem with "scope creep" and "game within a game" is that this basically means we are making TWO games at the same time. If you have ever tried to make ONE you would understand that this is NOT possible to do. We have been working 2.5 years to make Combat Mission the way it is. Adding anything even remotely as complex as you suggest could add another 6 months to a year to the project. And it might very well not work as inteneded, or the CPU might barf on the calculation load, and therefore be a total waste of time. The other problem is when you keep tossing in things that go beyond the imediate goals (i.e. a small scale tactical battle having strategic overtones) you tend to muddle things and "lose" the gamer in the mess. There is a reason why the majority of scope creep games fail to even be released, or if released, suck.

Your illusion to us having "Oscar Syndrome" is not well founded. Above I have just described why it is PRACTICALLY impossible, and not even desirable from a game design standpoint, to do this sort of game within a game. Therefore, since it adds little to the realism AND has all these problems inherent, including up to a year of our time (even if it were 3 months it would be TOO much), it simply isn't worth doing. It has nothing to do with Oscar like logic of "if it isn't 100% it isn't worth doing". My point is that to get small amount of extra realism we would have to add 25%-50% to our development schedule, and risk screwing up the REALLY important parts of the game, is a bad idea from the outset. See the HUGE difference? We aren't doing something like what you described because it is not practical and is itself flawed in terms of realism. Those are not small strikes against the idea, no matter how good it might seem to be in theory. Reality has a habit of making short work of dreams

Glad you are looking forward to CM. Lots of hard work and detail in there.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-21-99).]

[Guest Bobb]

Regardless of what the round may or may not look like, there is way too much smoke around the soldier for a rifle granade which were fired by a rifle round modified for the purpose. The soldiers position is more consistant with an under the arm position. I don't know the German doctrine for firing positions for either type, but it does not fit with what I was shown as proper for either standing or kneeling positions for the rifle granade. And when I fired the rifle granade there was no cloud of smoke around or behind me.

It is my opinion that if this and that in realistic elements are worth having, then so is a PF without a smoke trail. If consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, then I have a little mind. We have had "cool" (ugh!) features struck down due to being unrealistic elsewhere, so why throw it in here.

Is one "Cool" but unrealistic element arbitrarily any better than another? Is this DEFECT necessary to game play or merely eye candy? Does it violate the intention to have the most realistic game possible?

Is the smoketrail a necessary accomidation to indicate the origin of the round as would a backblast smoke clowd, that may be difficult to put into the game due to one technicality or another. This is the only reason for compromising I can see, that is consistant with making CM as realistic as possible.

[Guest Bobb]

One possibility for handling flank units out of the chain of player command is to put them under a different AI simular to the enemy units. This notion was suggested previously. It seems simpler than having sub edges on the map. They would be placed by the desgner. They could either be static or given missions of their own by the designer.

Maps would have to be made larger than just that portion needed for the scenario's missions to accomidate this feature.

As with all design elements this could be mishandled in design.

This approaches a game within a game, which may make it prohibitively complicated for coding and too large for computers. Then perhaps it would be easier than it appears. Just take them out of the orders loop, and put them under the compurer AIs and perhaps linking them to specific mission elements no different from those already included.

I don't know; I ain't a coder. But it is to me an intriging thought. It could add a great element of realism, the designers choice of whether, how and when to put such designated units in and their missions and the player's concern as to how secure his flanks are. Also a possible route for reinforcements. Such units could even be set up to the rear of your positions. Perhaps even releasable for reassignment to your command. Yes! I would love it.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Have to put my vote in for NO smoke trail here. Realism first...

Adding the backblast would give the player the required information.

BTW I definately see a heavily blurred (i.e. slow shutter speed) PF round in M.Hofbauer's photos.

[This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 10-21-99).]

[Mike D]

Dohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It looks like I've lost my crown of being the king of the diatribe. I do hearby bequeth this honor onto Herr Hofbauer. Congratulations sir. All hail to the new king of the diatribe! Anyway, I'm sure I can come up w/ any number of other ways to make myself infamous.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

PS: Some really good posts too by the way Mr. Hofbauer. You've made quite a few good points along the way. Keep up the good work, it makes for a good discussion on the game.

[Rod]

Regarding the Panzerfaust photo above. I'm thinking that I saw a movie that this comes from. It could be in the weapons description section in, I believe, CC2. I'm at work now so I can't check. It might be a different movie but I think it showed the trajectory fairly well.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bobb, I don't even know where to start with that one Last time it was raised it got shot down as "not a good idea". Can't remember the specifics, but handing on map units over to the AI, but expecting them to work towards the same goals as you at the same time, isn't going to happen. And we are talking about a layer of complexity (at least code wise, but also gameplay wise) that is far in excess of the possible (and I mean possible) increase in realism. Certainly detracts from the game, even if it isn't intended too. In short -> "scope creep" and therefore it is not going to happen

Steve

[Fionn]

It comes from a German propaganda movie made to purport fighting during the Bulge.

A sequence of shots from the movie is deconstructed in "Panzers in the Bulge: Then and Now" Good book BTW

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest R Cunningham]

Thge pictures cannot be of a rifle grenade because rifle grenades are fired using special ammunition and a grenade launching adapter on the muzzle. There is no rocket propulsion to cause the backblast so clearly visible.

The underarm grip and high angle are for longer range attempts. Closer target could be engaged using the over the shoulder technique with a corresponding lower angle of launch.

I won't comment on the map as universe discussion since I'm a certified map edge creeper.

[Ben Galanti]

Just as a quick follow up, for anyone who has CC2, you can see a brief clip from wich the two shots at the top of the thread are taken. In the Mac version, it's under the Videos folder, and is called hfaust (it's a quicktime movie) I assume it's in a similar place on PC installs of the game. It's definatly a Panzerfaust. There is also a quick clip later in the same movie showing another firing. I have a question though, if anyone takes a look at that movie. In the very beginning, there are two soldiers walking by with panzerfausts. One of the PFs has a much larger warhead then the other. Is this just a difference between the older and newer versions?

[Brian Rock]

Another voice from the gallery about Panzerfausts and smoke trails. If they don't have them I'd prefer to leave them out.

The backblast would be cool, but I'm sure that's more programming trouble than it's worth.

[Apocal]

Id have to say that I prefer no smoke trail. Why? Because a good deal of the art of command is deception and paranoia. Was it a Panzerfaust (a one-shot affair),or possibly a PanzerSchreck, or maybe even an 88? These are the types of questions that run through my mind during a good wargame (or any game for that matter).

------------------

"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."

Sir Winston Churchill

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Graphics are good if the game can 'afford' it and it was there in reality.However, if it wasn't there in reality, it shouldn't be in CM. Realism first.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 10-22-99).]

[Guest PeterNZ]

I watched the same vid from CC2 and concur that it's a panzerfaust.

What's interesting is at the end the guy who fires doesn't have the PF over his shoulder or even under his arm, he seems to hold it almost like a knight would hold a lance with the stock part down the side of his arm, quite odd!

Also interested that in one shot, the inf. in the vid were using a PF against a bld. Were they used on assault much? Would make german infantry even tougher opponents i would guess.

PeterNZ

[M Hofbauer]

Moon,

I don't mean to smartass you but ... Iposted the picture just to give some visual treat/eyecandy for discussion I couldn't imagine someone questioning it...the "strangeness" of the guy not holding the PzF over his shoulder as you suggest merely shows us that this picture must be from the firing with a pre-Panzerfaust 60 type firing mechanism, id est, it's either a Faustpatrone (aka Faustpatrone 1 or klein) or a Panzerfaust 30 (aka Faustpatrone 2 or gross). Judging from the size of the warhead, the wepaon fired can be fairly sure identified with probability bordering on certainty as a Panzerfaust 30. As for the too steep trajectory: The angle might seem a little steep but not unrealistically so; after all, this was my initial point, namely that the firing arc in CM is not represented realistically - now you turn this argument around and argue from the result by saying the original weapon is not realistic because it doesn't behave like it does in CM ..? Panzerfausts regularly were shot at angles of 15 - 20° when fired at maximum range; they were fired at very slow Vo (barely 30m/s for the type in question) which required for a highly ballistic trajectory on the way to the target if you wanted to achieve maximum range. Hope that explains it no offense meant.

Ben Galanti,

the other Panzerfaust-weapon you ask for is the small brother of the Panzerfaust, the Faustpatrone. They are all explained on the Panzerfaust Page.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Marcus,

Can we get link to your PF page?

Sorry if it has been posted already and I just missed it.

[Rod]

FWIW I checked the CC2 weapons decription section and the movie that goes with the panzerfaust description is the same as the pictures above. If you step through it you can find a pre-firing shot and it is most definately a panzerfaust.