Battlefront.com Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 21 minutes ago, John Kettler said: No idea who did the art! In any event, does the CMx2 engine treat the shield for the MG the same way it does for a separate ATG on the ground? Not sure what you mean. It's an armored surface that is simulated 1:1 in both cases, so I guess the answer is yes. 21 minutes ago, John Kettler said: Either way you slice it, it appears to me there's a lot of GI to shoot at. At 100m there really isn't. Someone can do the math but I'd guess straight on prone is about 10%-25% of what a straight on standing man is. Which is why the first thing they teach you in even the crappiest infantry training course is to "hit the dirt". Now that better weather is coming around to the northern part of the world, anybody that wants to test this out can go to an American Football field or a Soccer pitch and have a friend lie down on one extreme side (end zone/goal) facing the other side. Then you go to the opposite side, kneel, and see how much there is to hit. However, keep it safe and don't start shooting at your friend Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Steve, The remark I made wasn't about the in-game modeling for the 251, but the source of the artwork I provided as a reference. As for the second part, I don't know what the numbers work out to in terms of PA for man Prone vs TC Unbuttoned. All I was saying is that there's more potential target for a prone man than merely the head and shoulders someone mentioned. Now, if you wish to argue Pk given a hit, then clearly the unbuttoned TC is at bigger risk, given all the vital organs exposed to fire, as opposed to the prone infantryman, who has numerous potential nonlethal strike zones. I am in no way disputing the value of going prone. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) Might be that, John, is wondering if the ATG Shield works off the same principles as the HT MG Shield, where directed Small Arms will focus first on the Center of Main Body or Shield itself, then towards the slightly exposed personal (on top or sides). Which brings us to another off topic ( but not really ) question: If the above is correct, then I wonder if this same logic also applies to Personal in Buildings, behind Walls/Hedges, etc...Where Small Arms fire is first directed against an Intervening Object, then focuses towards the personal behind it ( basically, suppressing object before trying to kill it) Oh, this could be interesting...Now, I wonder how this would play out (using same Test Principles as Rokko) if the same MG bearer fires against Personal in Open, then vs Personal behind Stone Wall/Hedge. After all the Test Runs, would the Personal behind the Stone Wall have a better chance of survival then the one in the Open (as one would expect). Edited April 13, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, John Kettler said: Steve, The remark I made wasn't about the in-game modeling for the 251, but the source of the artwork I provided as a reference. As for the second part, I don't know what the numbers work out to in terms of PA for man Prone vs TC Unbuttoned. All I was saying is that there's more potential target for a prone man than merely the head and shoulders someone mentioned. Now, if you wish to argue Pk given a hit, then clearly the unbuttoned TC is at bigger risk, given all the vital organs exposed to fire, as opposed to the prone infantryman, who has numerous potential nonlethal strike zones. I am in no way disputing the value of going prone. Regards, John Kettler Oh, I actually disagree to that last part...If you are Hit while Prone I think it's far more dangerous...Now, of course, on average ( depending on circumstances ) I would rather be Prone vs Upright/kneel when firing or fired upon. Now, that I think about it, I wonder how CM Models Prone Personal vs others when hit...Does the Prone Personal have a greater or same chance of becoming Heavily Wounded ( or is it just random )? Edited April 13, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, JoMc67 said: Might be that, John, is wondering if the ATG Shield works off the same principles as the HT MG Shield, where directed Small Arms will focus first on the Center of Main Body or Shield itself, then towards the slightly exposed personal (on top or sides). Which brings us to another off topic ( but not really ) question: If the above is correct, then I wonder if this same logic also applies to Personal in Buildings, behind Walls/Hedges, etc...Where Small Arms fire is first directed against an Intervening Object, then focuses towards the personal behind it ( basically, suppressing object before trying to kill it) Oh, this could be interesting...Now, I wonder how this would play out (using same Test Principles as Rokko) if the same MG bearer fires against Personal in Open, then vs Personal behind Stone Wall/Hedge. After all the Test Runs, would the Personal behind the Stone Wall have a better chance of survival then the one in the Open (as one would expect). Then again, CM might only model this Small Arms ( or Direct Fire ) Progression effect against Vehicles, Field Pieces, etc, and not Map Objects ( basically, anything that's in the Map Editor ), such as Buildings, Walls, and all other Terrain Elements. Edited April 13, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) JoMc67, My questions about the gun shield for the MG had nothing to do with aimpoint, but instead were focused on learning how the game treated the effective shield thickness problem. Restated, was the game treating the shield in the same manner as the game treats potential projectile penetrations on the body proper of an AFV? If it wasn't, I was suggesting that the effective thickness was likely considerably higher than the 10 mm cited. Regards, John Kettler Edited April 13, 2016 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, John Kettler said: JoMC67, My questions about the gun shield for the MG had nothing to do with aimpoint, but instead were focused on learning how the game treated the effective shield thickness problem. Restated, was the game treating the shield in the same manner as the game treats potential projectile penetrations on the body proper of an AFV? If it wasn't, I was suggesting that the effective thickness was likely considerably higher than the 10 mm cited. Regards, John Kettler Ok, got it, and I was over thinking my response abit. I think the Stug-Halftrack type Gun Shields are made from the same plates as the Armor Side-Skirts (around 10 mm), and AT Gun Shields had a little more protection (15 to 25 mm). The reason I say the above is that I use to visit Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD a few times in the past (70's to 90s), and remember using a Tape Measure to measure the thickness of different Armor and Plates, etc, to use with a set of rules called 'Tractics' for HO, and WRG 1925-50...Ahh, The Good Ole' Days of Miniature Gaming. Edited April 13, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 JoMc67, You've been to APG? Wish I could say the same! I remember reading accounts from diehard AFV model builders about getting the underside hatch details right--only to be eaten alive by chiggers for their painstaking photographic documentation! I played Tractics extensively long ago with my brothers and friends, first with Roco and Roskopf HO scale and later with Micro Armour™ on our 4' x 8' sand table. I wish many of the capabilities in Tractics were in CMx2. Recently, while visiting one brother and family,I played a hybrid of Bolt Action and the Fast Rules which preceded Tractics. Loads of fun, though my guys in the AD point would've certainly disagreed! Pics on my FB. Was unaware the MG shields were thicker than the side skirts. Do you have a source? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, John Kettler said: JoMc67, You've been to APG? Wish I could say the same! I remember reading accounts from diehard AFV model builders about getting the underside hatch details right--only to be eaten alive by chiggers for their painstaking photographic documentation! I played Tractics extensively long ago with my brothers and friends, first with Roco and Roskopf HO scale and later with Micro Armour™ on our 4' x 8' sand table. I wish many of the capabilities in Tractics were in CMx2. Recently, while visiting one brother and family,I played a hybrid of Bolt Action and the Fast Rules which preceded Tractics. Loads of fun, though my guys in the AD point would've certainly disagreed! Pics on my FB. Was unaware the MG shields were thicker than the side skirts. Do you have a source? Regards, John Kettler Yes, been to APG several times over the years. Ok, I always thought the Side Skirts were around 10mm making it the same as the Gun Shield...Hmm, maybe the Side Skirts were only 5 mm then ( making the 10 mm MG Shield better protected ) ? And a Small Wold after all...Indeed, I also played with ROCO, & Roskopf (1:87-1:90 scale...Roskopf had many of the WWII Russian Vehicles that ROCO lacked) on a makeshift Terrain Table using Tractics, then switched over to Micro-Armor using WRG, Combined Arms Fast Rules (fast version of Tractics), etc...What's AD ? (not Dungeons & Dragons...I hope). I still remember when Me & Dad went to the local Gaming Conventions (Va, MD, PA area) once or twice a year to look at the different Rules, and Terrain Tables, etc (Historicon, HMGS, Cold Wars, etc). Back then, we also visited Hobby Shops, one called 'Squadron' (Model Shop), and 'The Little Soldier' (Miniatures Shop) somewhere in Maryland, or Alexandria, Va. I give all the Credit to my Dad, since he brought me up on this stuff... 'Lions & Tigers & Bears...Oh, My' ! Anyways, sorry for being 'Off Topic'...Sometimes my Passion for Gaming gets in the way, and I reminisce the days of old. Edited April 14, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 AD. Armored Division. Had a considerably weaker version of the actual one I described in a different post. How great to have a dad who taught you to wargame! Have unfortunately been to none of the named game cons, either, though I have been to others of somewhat less renown. Sigh. Squadron was something I read in magazine ads for it and in their wonderful house magazine, but never got to that modeler's Shangri-La. Little Soldier was another place I dreamt of, along with ALNAVCO and Model Shipways. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 OK, I think this thread has run its course. You guys can keep chatting if you like but I'm ducking out If there's any new information from ingame tests I suggest starting a new thread and referencing this one. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) I think, Steve, is trying to say; "Ok, You Two, Get a Room Already", or something to that effect Anyways, and on that note, we might continue this 'After Thought' discussion with a new Thread in the 'General Discussion' Forum... Edited April 14, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.