Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Hi guys; I'm new to posting in this forum tho I've been lurking for some time. Now, some thoughts. Bunkers are still immune to artillery... or very close to it anyway. I seem to remember this problem being patched away, and I could've sworn I'd taken out bunkers with high caliber shells, but after a test I performed yesterday, I've found that they are once again too resilient. The test involved placing concrete pillboxes over a large area close enough to each other that there was no open space, and then shelling said area with arty from 6 14 inch FOs... every shell hit with a pillbox, and not a single one was knocked out. Now I'll raise a related point... (but one that did not arrise from the aforementioned test) does anyone else find it strange that large caliber arty can impact next to a bunker, carving out a crater that extends beyond the position the bunker is located in... without affecting it? Yeah, the shell didn't hit the actual concrete but jeez, the pillbox is sitting IN a huge crater. Heck, it wouldn't even have LOS on anything thru the slits anymore in RL; that is, if anyone were still alive in it. (unless the foundations of such pillboxes went down much deeper than I thought) Why do StuG IVs cost more than StuG III Gs? I believe the StuG IV has slightly better ground pressure, but it is slower, has worse armor and one less machine gun! (no other differences if I remember correctly, excluding weight and perhaps silhouette) Also, why do German Flamethrowers (infantry) have more ammo than the infantry flamethrowers of other nations, with a BETTER movement rate? And at the same price as those of the Allies? (German Flamethrowers have 150% the ammo of Allied versions, a large advantage, and medium speed compared to slow is certainly a large advantage as well) Lastly, how does one see the damage of a building other than by looking at the asterisks in the name of the terrain when looking at a unit placed in a building, or when using the LOS tool? As I understand, there is a toggle somewhere to see "damaged" or "heavily damaged," that is, if I read the readme correctly. My question is, where? All readers of this post please understand that I love this game and only wish to help; this is the first war game that I've been able to stand, and amazingly, not only stand but truly ENJOY. It is refreshing indeed how much support it has been given, and the quantity of *passionate* work that had been put into the initial release. Now, I'd appreciate it if noone tells me I've phrased my post rudely or some such and demands apologies. (seeing this oft happen is one of the reasons I'd been reluctant to enter this community before now... but don't get me wrong, I'm not too meek to bear it nor am I lumping the entire community in with the "offenders") Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KarlXII Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I can at least tell you that the damage labels are turned on with the rest of the lables which IIRC is shift-G. Check the hotkeys otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Author Share Posted September 3, 2000 Thanks KarlXII! I thought I had that on already... might I ask what other labels appear with that option turned on? Can't play CM at this moment, and I'm curious as to what I've been missing with that turned off. Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Bunkers are still immune to artillery... or very close to it anyway. that's fine. Now - where's the problem? I've found that they are once again too resilient. ahh, now I get it. you want bunkers to blow up in spontaneous self-combustion if a 75mm FO sneezes at them from 1.5km afar? as regards concrete bunkers to be too immune to artillery, I've got one word for you: CONCRETE. yes. why do you think concrete bunkers were not built with an open top? yep, that's correct, so they wouldn't have to look at the birds flying overhead. as a basic design principle a regular german 08/15 concrete bunker (actually, the type 630, 677 or 685 gun emplacement bunkers) had a standard wall (includes ceiling) thickness of 2 meters. for you nonmetric angloamericans, that's roughly 2 yards or 6 feet or something similarly weird. that's like 200cm or 2000mm of steel reinforced concrete. standard bunkers were made of 2m concrete slabs/walls. now I am not sure which type of bunker exactly the one in CM is supposed to represent, but considering that it carries a 75mm or 88m AT gun it is probably a type somewhere in the range we are talking about here. there have been threads on the type of bunkers. you might want to try a search Why do StuG IVs cost more than StuG III Gs? I believe the StuG IV has slightly better ground pressure, but it is slower, has worse armor and one less machine gun! (no other differences if I remember correctly, excluding weight and perhaps silhouette) you are free to buy the StuG III Ausf. G if you think it's a better bargain. Now, I'd appreciate it if noone tells me I've phrased my post rudely or some such and demands apologies. Ataru, you've phrased your post rudely or some such and I demand some weird sort of apology. AND...you're a hamster. Wax that. Lierally. yours, M.Hofbauer btw: clarification: that last line was a joke, smilie and all. notice: no animals, whatever small, were hurt in the process of creating this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Author Share Posted September 3, 2000 M Hofbauer, BTS feels that concrete pillboxes are not in fact invincible, or they wouldn't have said they "fixed" the problem of their being too resilient in the past. The concrete of CM's bunkers is 500 mms thick IIRC... and I did test with the <*~14 inchers~*>... tho I'd thought somewhat less powerful shells should penetrate as well, I wasn't about to suggest bunkers cave in to measly 75 mm arty bombardments. As for why I brought up the StuG and Flamethrower prices, once again, AS I UNDERSTAND, (could certainly be wrong) CM unit prices are based purely on performance. And purely based on performance, the StuG prices are all outta whack with eachother, as are infantry flamethrower prices. I'm not here to say this is all wrong, but to let the people who might think it is (BTS or anyone who feels like having BTS make balance point adjustments) know. And I curse thee for telling me to search. Pleased at having received a *cough* polite *cough* and humorous reply, if a not exactly anticipated one, Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M18 Hellcat Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 In the game, there are two disctint types of enclosures for fixed positions, the Pillbox which is the concrete emplacement for the mg, 75mm and 88mm guns. Then there is the MG Bunker made from wood, I beleive that it is this bunker that BTS is refering to, as before the patch these wooden emplacements were taking naval gunfire direct hits and shruging it off, and after the patch I have seen several of these wooden *BUNKERS* knocked out by artillery of various calibers down to 155mm. You have to remember that there is a distint difference in a pillbox and a bunker in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Author Share Posted September 3, 2000 I believe they're both called pillboxes in the game. If so, there isn't a distinct difference between bunkers and pillboxes in the game. (hehe, because bunkers wouldn't exist) I admit that I've been considering pillboxes bunkers... is this wrong guys? Anyway, I don't THINK BTS was referring to the wooden variety, but what do I know? Anyone care to cut and paste from a handy readme? (I'm not on my CM comp ATM) If you're right M18, well, that's that. But I still wonder how a pillbox can have a huge crater carved around it with no ill effects. Not to mention how a huge arty shell can go off right in front of a pillbox without even shocking it, when infantry squads happily (hehe, well not really *happily*) plink pillbox crews with small arms fire at much longer distances. Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The CM Borg Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ataru *~: Hi guys; I'm new to posting in this forum tho I've been lurking for some time. Now, some thoughts.All readers of this post please understand that I love this game and only wish to help; this is the first war game that I've been able to stand, and amazingly, not only stand but truly ENJOY. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ataru is assimilated ------------------ Resistance is Futile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 dear asterisk-snake lover, just for you I personally took a look at the StuG III and IV. I admit they are very similar, as you stated. However, the point value isn't so much different, 92 or 97 resp. to 99 on regular. I can only attribute the slightly higher cost for the IV to the fact that it has a larger ammo loadaout, a maximum of 63 rounds as compared to the III's 54 rounds. The value of this additional ammo should not be underestimated, because in prolonged engagements my StuG IIs often run out of ammo, so that almost 10 more rounds really does make a practical difference. just my two (old) Zloty yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer btw: ok I give up you beat me in smilies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Hey, Ataru, totally unrelated comment, what's with the symbols in the handle? It almost looks like you're trying to stylize an 'eye of Isis'. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 hmm I think the eye of isis looks a bit different, that's why I thought he is just your ordinary off-the-hook asterisk-snake fetishist, but if he's an egyptian deity / pharaoh - cool - he's a prime candidate for THE THREAD. hmmm....lots of interesting people you can meet on the CM forum..it never ceases to amaze me... [not edited. not not not] [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Author Share Posted September 3, 2000 More ammo eh? Not that much more tho. One has to consider that those 9 rounds could be HE, AP or smoke... Let's pretend ya get 3 more HE, 5 more AP and 1 more smoke round. Because StuGs I believe are given a larger amount of AP than HE. How often do you run out of AP with StuGs? C'mon now, tell the truth. If they die quickly, no chance of using all that ammo... if they survive for a long time, they or other tanks tend to have taken out all tank opposition, or the other tanks are hiding. In either case, the AP that's left is of *very* little value. In this case more HE is nice... but 3 rounds? Against infantry, wouldja rather have 3 more rounds of infantry or a second machine gun? (with plenty of extra bullets) 1 smoke round extra.. well, that doesn't make me jump out of my seat. I daresay the thicker armor of the StuG III G is more valuable vs. tanks than the extra AP of the StuG IV, and the extra machine gun more useful against infantry than 3-5 HE shells extra. Throw in that 1 MPH speed advantage and who's gonna want a StuG IV? I'd say if the StuG III G isn't made more expensive, the prices should at least be equalized, if in fact the prices are based purely on effectiveness. But the whole StuG example isn't nearly as pronounced as the flamethrower one. I'd say a German flamethrower team is worth nearly twice as much as an American one. Others may disagree... but who wants to argue that it's worth the same amount? And hey, I like asterisks. But there's a reason for the asterisk and tilde in my nick... I doubt anyone here would know what it is, but that's ok. Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Ataru *~ wrote: > Bunkers are still immune to artillery... or very close to it anyway. I seem to remember this problem being patched away Pillboxes were made more resistant to artillery. In the Gold Demo they were being taken out too easily. > large caliber arty can impact next to a bunker, carving out a crater that extends beyond the position the bunker is located in... without affecting it? Yeah, the shell didn't hit the actual concrete but jeez, the pillbox is sitting IN a huge crater. This is just a graphical representation. In reality the crater wouldn't go under the pillbox. > Lastly, how does one see the damage of a building other than by looking at the asterisks in the name of the terrain when looking at a unit placed in a building, or when using the LOS tool? Normally you don't, although there is a function which puts labels on everything. We might get damaged building graphics in CM2. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Author Share Posted September 3, 2000 Hehe, that last line was written before you guys asked what the symbols meant; wasn't trying to taunt anyone. Alright, it's actually an anime reference. Ataru Moroboshi is the name of a character from a certain old anime called Urusei Yatsura...(incidentally it began in the year I was born, and is my favorite series) Ataru means hit and Moroboshi basically means shooting star. A pun when read knowing the character's circumstances. The asterisk with tilde is supposed to look somewhat like a shooting star. Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 first of all, as I have stated repeatedly in the past, StuGs should not have ANY smoke ammo as part of their regular loadout. They were only issued when the upcoming mission asked for it, and then of course they would have more than what they are currently modeled with. believe it or not, I _regularly_ run out of StuG III ammo. Of course it depends on what you kind of battles you play. If you do many points many armor small map QB's of course it's a short but bloody tankfest. I prefer larger games, preferrably operations, with maps of several kilometers in distances, where engagements can take place at many hundreds of meters, and they keep banging away for quite a bit sometimes. or a second machine gun? (with plenty of extra bullets) and this, my asterisk friend, is where you are wrong. They both have 24 units of ammo for the machineguns. Id est, the IIIG (late) dioes not have one measly little Mauser 7.92mm round more for it's second machine gun. And since they are so short on MG ammo anyhow - those 24 MG units are used up faster than you can say tomato - it doesn't really matter if you have one or two useless because empty machine guns. ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: carving out a crater that extends beyond the position the bunker is located in... without affecting it? Yeah, the shell didn't hit the actual concrete but jeez, the pillbox is sitting IN a huge crater. This is just a graphical representation. In reality the crater wouldn't go under the pillbox. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sheesh, everybody in it would be dead from the air pressure blast. The boxes were made more resistant after the demo, but if I remember correctly, they were made less resistant afterwards, as there were many complaints and long threads. Maybe somethings accidentally switched again. A pillbox shouldn't survive a 14" hit. Nothing would. Jarmo ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 Alright, no more assailing of pillboxes with 14 inchers then, thx David. As for the the crater thing, I understand that it wouldn't happen quite like than in real life, but would the crater not be carved as deep? Would it not still blast thru the dirt under and around the pillbox? Or do pillboxes go deep into the earth? If not I don't see how a shell capable of plowing a 20+ meter diameter crater thru the earth could fail to, well, mess one up should it land next to it. M Hofbauer- well, ya got me on the MG ammo thing then. But your argument that StuG's often run out of ammo doesn't change the fact that extra AP rounds on a StuG are practically useless and that ya don't get all that much out of a few extra HE rounds. More than out of a second MG without additional ammo perhaps, tho. Hehe, I tend to be a stat junky normally, but sadly I'm away from CM ATM and thus must rely on my faulty memory of CM's StuG loadout... oh, the humanity. I still have ya on the additional armor and 1 mph difference tho. *evil grin* BTW I play mainly small infantry heavy engagements, but I still run out of AFV ammo quite often. Just not AP, and rarely HE with StuGs. Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 Uh oh, someone agrees with my original stance right after I change my mind. Ok, put me down as confused and undecided. *chuckles* Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Was I the only one to notice the Borg's smilie? Or did I miss it earlier. In any case, very nice Borg, well done. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Jarmo wrote: > A pillbox shouldn't survive a 14" hit. Nothing would. Define "nothing". David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 To quote the relevant parts of the Readme file... *****ver 1.01***** Pillboxes are slightly harder to spot (if in cover), and can 'hide' (which helps save ammo). Also, they are now far more resistant to artillery. then... ******ver 1.03***** v1.01 made pillboxes just a little bit too resistant to artillery. This resistance has been toned down slightly. Well, I ran a test pretty much like Mr *~ did.. I set up 35 88mm Pillboxes in a square patter with little/no space between them. I then lined up 10 elite 240mm FO's against them, hidden in woods. After all was said an done, and the final hell fell, what was the result? Not one of the pillboxes was "knocked out". So my final conclusion is... Pillboxes are NOT immune to artillery fire... Yep, not immune. How can I say this, considering I couldn't "knock out" any of the pillboxes? Well, after the 1st minute of the rounds falling on top of the pillboxes, I had 10 rounds that either hit (no serious damage), or were near misses. Those 10 "effective rounds" as I'll call em, caused 9 of the 35 pillboxes to be abandoned at that point. So they are far from immune. While I don't know the physics behind it, as a layman, I would think that I would get an occasional "knock out", I can't back up this laymans guess. But for sure artillery can force the crews to abandon thier posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 I don't really think you need the definition of "nothing," David. Actually, Jarmo said that pillboxes can't "survive" contact with 14 inch shells, but I hope you're not going to try to tell him he's wrong because pillboxes aren't alive. A certain amount of assumption can be made in a friendly debate... one can tell it's getting nasty however when words are minced. Let's not let this turn into that. It's easier if people state their points and let reason do the fighting. Now I'm off to watch Iron Chef. (bah, NM. Rerun. ) Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 It's my understanding that, during the Normandy landings, many German bunkers did in fact survive direct hits from ship's guns. I believe that indirect fire proved surprisingly ineffective against reinforced concrete. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 Well Mikeydz, I used bigger guns and got more hits, but had not a single gun abandoned in any round. What can I say... I'll test some more. BTW, call me Ataru if you wish to abbreviate. Or if ya really want to, *~... but without the Mr. *evil grins* Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 David you sharpwit and wordtwister, "nothing" yes that is a very philosophic question. everything is nothing, eventually. Would nothing exist without something? Could anything exist if everything was something and there wouldn't be nothing to define it against?... on a more practical note, atari is right, if the concrete bunkers in CM are max. 50cm of concrete, then they should not do too well under close 14" scrutiny. and this even has a remote relation to my beloved signature! ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts