CM2 Oddities and Weird Phenomena

[Codreanu]

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Six-Pounder Valentine in Mountains of the Moon. They do better than the T34/85 or at least on par. Oh, I forgot about the ISU152's they are the underdog in the accuracy department in that game. Bugs like these are not reported I suppose at least if you play Russian. If you find the Six-Pounder Valentine superior than the ISU152 something is odd. I let the TacAI doing 90% of the work they react on full contact, the Valentine's at times spot as well as infantry. 

I was amazed how good the Valentines were as well, great spotting and the 6-pdr had laser beam accuracy and good HE damage. Personally I hate all the vehicles with the 152mm, so many times I've had them fire into the dirt and vaporize half a squad of friendly troops.

[chuckdyke]

My opinion only, the game is biased towards Lend and Lease equipment it seems. The M4 Sherman have smoke Soviet tanks don't in regards to the Valentine I wonder why the British purchased the M4 and send their Valentines to the Soviet Union. Yes, with the magic six-pounder you don't need machine guns. 

[dbsapp]

The list (not full, only which I aware of) of the Russian equipment that exist in CM only as a impotent and blind dummy for Blue forces:

Khrisantema 

Shturm 

all BRDMs with ATGMs 

ISU152

ISU100

ISU12O 

"Hey, mommy, look I shot Khrisantema"!

Edited September 1, 2021 by dbsapp

[chuckdyke]

12 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

The list (not full, only which I aware of) of the Russian equipment that exist in CM only as a impotent and blind dummy for Blue forces:

SF2 is the first and last modern era game I bought for that reason I think about uninstalling it. They should stay out of silly politics enough of ranting for the time being. The biggest issue I have with SF2 is the AI behaviour doing silly things which at times are contrary of the orders you place. IED's seems to work as intended when you play RTS not when you play WEGO. My favourite games are FB and Battle for Normandy RT and FR if it was more historically accurate. The original RT is better. 

[z1812]

OK, so we know there are problems.....................what to do about them? 

 

[dbsapp]

22 minutes ago, z1812 said:

OK, so we know there are problems.....................what to do about them? 

 

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, z1812 said:

OK, so we know there are problems.....................what to do about them? 

 

Write them down on this forum. Hope they listen to the customers for a change. I just don't accept that the Valentine is on par with the ISU152 or the T34/85 when it deals with infantry. My experience with Fire and Rubble. The 57 mm aka the Six-Pounder is a fine AT-Gun but as a He-Gun not on par with the 75mm on the Sherman or T34/76. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Yeah, the HE round from the SU-152/ISU-152 is not incomparible with the sort of thing used by a Destroyer!

The 6pdr was more comparable with the armament of a moderately large MGB.

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

SU-152/ISU-152 is not incomparible with the sort of thing used by a Destroyer

The 100 mm on the SU100 and T54-55 started as a naval gun. I like the Soviet philosophy: We have a lot of 122 and 152mm field guns let's design an AFV around them. They didn't have too many 100mm then the IS2 would have been a lot better, I think.  

[dbsapp]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Write them down on this forum. Hope they listen to the customers for a change. I just don't accept that the Valentine is on par with the ISU152 or the T34/85 when it deals with infantry. My experience with Fire and Rubble. The 57 mm aka the Six-Pounder is a fine AT-Gun but as a He-Gun not on par with the 75mm on the Sherman or T34/76. 

I really doubt that they care too much about this (un)dead forum.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, dbsapp said:

this (un)dead forum.

Yes, not much going on, you need to be an editor.  With SF2 I just got cheesed off about Urban Warfare it is not developed enough. Marksmen go on the balcony's trooper take the main entrance instead of the backdoor. Even for WW2 you need cellars and tunnels. 

[Lethaface]

On 8/31/2021 at 10:44 PM, Codreanu said:

I was amazed how good the Valentines were as well, great spotting and the 6-pdr had laser beam accuracy and good HE damage. Personally I hate all the vehicles with the 152mm, so many times I've had them fire into the dirt and vaporize half a squad of friendly troops.

Well I don't think it should be a surprise that the 57mm is more accurate compared to the 152mm. However obviously the HE should be MUCH more potent for the 152. 

If you position infantry in the firing line of a big howitzer using direct firing, you can expect some casualties. In RL they'd also not be healthy standing in front of a big gun firing (overpressure), even if it doesn't it the dirt (but that isn't modeled in CM). The Sherman 105mm will give you the same issues, especially if there are trees in the way as well.

I don't know if the 57mm is too accurate or 152mm too inaccurate (or if there is no issue), but just stating that the 57mm is more accurate doesn't prove any problem and is actually to be expected imo.

[chuckdyke]

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

the 57mm

Is or was a fine anti-tank gun but the HE was not very effective. In the game it is a very effective tank on par with T34/85 and the ISU 152. The HE lobs neatly in the foxholes. I carry on with the game would be better if I had T34/76 in this scenario just for the sake of realism.

 

[Redwolf]

On 8/31/2021 at 4:44 PM, Codreanu said:

I was amazed how good the Valentines were as well, great spotting and the 6-pdr had laser beam accuracy and good HE damage. Personally I hate all the vehicles with the 152mm, so many times I've had them fire into the dirt and vaporize half a squad of friendly troops.

60mm mortars are also very deadly in CMx2. Too deadly for my taste, if it had been that effective in real life I wouldn't bother with real artillery at all. There is something about small HE in CMx2 that is a bit overblown.  ETA: canned test scenario available

How can I test APHE? Which vehicle has it?

Edited September 2, 2021 by Redwolf

[Codreanu]

3 hours ago, Redwolf said:

How can I test APHE? Which vehicle has it?

I suppose the best way would be to set up a very long range map and have one tank shoot at another with infantry around it, the rounds that miss should cause splash damage to the surrounding infantry. Virtually every tank in the WW2 games is firing APHE unless it's British so a Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, Panther, etc all should work.

[Larsen]

11 hours ago, Redwolf said:

60mm mortars are also very deadly in CMx2. Too deadly for my taste, if it had been that effective in real life I wouldn't bother with real artillery at all. There is something about small HE in CMx2 that is a bit overblown.  ETA: canned test scenario available

How can I test APHE? Which vehicle has it?

It's not even that they are that deadly (well, they are) but the way moral is SIMULATED (CM2 is a simulation, not a game, right?) the small caliber mortars are the weapon of choice for anti infantry action - cheap, fast, no delay in firing, cause casualties. In fact the British 2lb and Italian Brexia - you don't even need to deploy them, it's automatic. And for CM2 casualties cause the permanent morale hit.

Also if your target hides behind a wall for example, you can't order MG to suppress them - you will get no target marker(no LOS == no target). With mortars it's no problem - they will hit around the target and cause suppression and casualties.

The more I play CM2 the more I come to a conclusion that from a simulation view point CM1 was a better game. If one could remove the Borg spotting from it - CM1 would be better than CM2. That is such a shame.

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by Larsen

[chuckdyke]

53 minutes ago, Larsen said:

If one could remove the Borg spotting from it

CM2 can't also get rid of it. It depends on the player. Infantry out of contact spots AT gun the map automatically updates, and the AT gun's sandbags, trenches or foxholes become visible. Big deal that the FO out of contact with the spotting units can't sight the AT-Gun itself. BF should stop to sell the game as a simulation which it is not. To make it a simulation depends on you the player. Regretfully I noticed a bias against Soviet equipment especially in F&R in which Lend &Lease Valentines are just about as effective if not more than ISU152 and T34/85's. I am not only who noticed this. In the Campaign Lend & Lease Shermans can use smoke shells the Soviet tanks can't. Sorry I see it as silly politics. 

[Codreanu]

44 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

In the Campaign Lend & Lease Shermans can use smoke shells the Soviet tanks can't. Sorry I see it as silly politics. 

Funnily enough the SU-76M does have two smoke shells even though the T-34/76s do not. I guess it could be a doctrinal thing where only SPGs were supplied with smoke shells but tanks weren't, but there's no actual reason why a T-34/76 would not be able to fire a smoke shell.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Codreanu

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Funnily enough the SU-76M does have two smoke shells even though the T-34/76s do not.

The SU-76M could also be used as conventional artillery in other words indirect fire and used by an FO in that role. A little like the German Wespe but with a smaller caliber.