BTS: Gaps in the CM Manual--Grenades plus some Panzerfaust questions

[John Kettler]

In hunting the other day through the CM manual, I discovered a curious set of omissions concerning grenades. The index has no entry for "grenades," no entry for "hand grenades," but it does have one for "rifle grenades" (See "Special Equipment.")

Recourse to page 43 (Special Equipment) told me that rifle grenades are basically for killing tanks, but it failed to tell me how much armor rifle grenades could pierce and how far away they could effectively be shot. Nor could I find this vital info in the unit screen. Please provide this info to the player.

I launched several searches under logical keywords and finally found a rifle grenade thread. If I properly understood it, the U.S. rifle grenade can be fired some 200 meters, but that same thread also said something about the AI deciding what the grenade type was and when to fire.

This leaves me confused. The unit screen graphic for a rifle grenade is clearly an M9 type AT rifle grenade, which is wholly consistent with what the manual says. Your reply, though. indicates that just because the graphic looks like an AT grenade it may not be one. Apparently, it might be antipersonnel.

Which is correct? If the rifle grenade graphic is in fact generic, would it be possible to either caption it as to type or maybe produce a modified second graphic to show a gun launched hand grenade, so the player knows his weapon inventory ahead of time?

Now for my Panzerfaust questions. Given the ubiquity of this weapon in the time period of the game, why is it that the scales of issue are so minuscule, the weapons themselves usually the weaker versions (the kleine and such), even relatively late in the war, and why do platoon (and higher) HQs have none at all?

I've seen lots of footage where virtually every man in squad after squad has one (sometimes mixed types within a squad) and stills of dug-in infantry where each man has several immediately in front of his foxhole.

But somehow when I play CM I consistently see fresh squads armed with only one or two Panzerfausts. I'm not sure I've even seen a Panzerfaust 100; usually, even in a certain highly fortified scenario, it's the confounded kleine, which has such poor range as to be almost useless in all but very close terrain.

As for the HQs, they face the same threat as the line squads, are usually preferentially targeted, but are practically helpless against armor attack. Frankly, I can't imagine any sane commander who wouldn't insist on having at least one Panzerfaust in his command group--just in case. I know I'd insist on having at least one at HQ if I were in charge.

I look forward to your responses.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[Fionn]

Figure on about 60mm of penetration and only hitting things within 100 metres.. That's a rough "user's guide" estimate.

As for grenades. ALL grenades graphically represented on the unit screen are AT grenades. ( Or gammon bombs.. AP grenades are NOT shown)

Scales of issue so miniscule??? 1 or 2 per squad is a miniscule scale of issue? Hell, this makes them as ubiquitous as the MG42 in many units... I suggest you check Markus Hofbauer's site to check out the rates of production etc.. Your answer lies there.

Propaganda footage rarely showed ill-equipped units for obvious reasons.

[David Aitken]

I assume you're highlighting the absence of a "hand grenade" listing in the index, rather than the manual itself. There's stuff in about hand grenades (just making sure). =)

P.S. BTS are constantly updating the manual, 'cause Charles keeps updating the game. =) They've said in their announcements that with each new run of CDs the manual gets updated, to correct errors as well as cover new features.

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Guest Chris B]

>P.S. BTS are constantly updating the manual,

Is there a link to somewhere where owners of the game can find these changes listed?

Personally I am interested in the difference between Assault, Attack and Probe.

[Guest Germanboy]

John, rifle grenades have no problem taking out HTs and Panzer IVs. Haven't seen anything on the larger German tanks yet. The AI decides to use them, like it does with the Panzerfaust and the Gammon bomb or demo charge.

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

Andreas

[Thrash]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris B:

>

Personally I am interested in the difference between Assault, Attack and Probe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assault is to take a position, attack is to attempt a breakthrough, and probe's are to look for a weakness and to gauge enemy strength, basically I've found in the game that you do the same thing for all 3 things when you play and thats blow the sh*t out of the other side till they get down on their knee's begging for mercy.

Ofcourse I could be completely wrong here I am a wealth of disinformation....

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

"Gallant fellows, these soldiers; they always go for the thickest place in the fence." - Admiral De Robeck

[This message has been edited by Thrash (edited 08-13-2000).]

[David Aitken]

The attacker gets lots of extra points in Assault, a few extra in Attack... and I'm not sure whether Probe is more or equal or less.

David

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Now for my Panzerfaust questions. Given the ubiquity of this weapon in the time period of the game, why is it that the scales of issue are so minuscule, the weapons themselves usually the weaker versions (the kleine and such), even relatively late in the war, and why do platoon (and higher) HQs have none at all?

I've seen lots of footage where virtually every man in squad after squad has one (sometimes mixed types within a squad) and stills of dug-in infantry where each man has several immediately in front of his foxhole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Troops on the move are limited in what they can carry. Nearly everybody in the squad is carrying a belt of ammo for the LMG already. Whaddaya want, fer cryin' out loud?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure I've even seen a Panzerfaust 100; usually, even in a certain highly fortified scenario, it's the confounded kleine, which has such poor range as to be almost useless in all but very close terrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the apparent disparity of types is due to the quantity actually available at the front. The shorter-ranged types were in production longer and hence were made in greater numbers and had been in the pipeline longer. Plus, I expect the Eastern Front had a higher priority for the better types.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the HQs, they face the same threat as the line squads, are usually preferentially targeted, but are practically helpless against armor attack. Frankly, I can't imagine any sane commander who wouldn't insist on having at least one Panzerfaust in his command group--just in case. I know I'd insist on having at least one at HQ if I were in charge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am inclined to agree with you here.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Regarding the HQs and LATWs. I think that has been discussed at length before, and IIRC, there is an issue that HQs are somewhat abstracted in CM, particularly platoon HQs. The issue may be different for Coy and BN HQs. I think their job is not to be a sort of back-up team that you shove in the line when needed (or not), but you should keep them out of the fire-line as long as possible, and using them to deal with tanks (except in dire straits) is a huge gamble that most likely will not come off. Their real ability is C&C, and they should be used as such. Once you have lost all your squads, I doubt there will be much difference to the outcome, whether they have a faust or not.

Just my £0.02

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

Andreas

[fatherof6]

Ratio (attacker points/defender points)

Assualt (2 / 1)

Attack (1.6 / 1)

Probe (1.35 / 1)

Meet. Engagement (1 / 1)

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Regarding the HQs and LATWs. I think that has been discussed at length before, and IIRC, there is an issue that HQs are somewhat abstracted in CM, particularly platoon HQs. The issue may be different for Coy and BN HQs. I think their job is not to be a sort of back-up team that you shove in the line when needed (or not), but you should keep them out of the fire-line as long as possible, and using them to deal with tanks (except in dire straits) is a huge gamble that most likely will not come off. Their real ability is C&C, and they should be used as such. Once you have lost all your squads, I doubt there will be much difference to the outcome, whether they have a faust or not.

Just my £0.02

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been discussed but I wouldnt give a penny for your two cents. HQs up to the regimental level were responsible for AT defense. Ive read too many accounts of guys like Pieper grabbing a faust himself.

Platoon HQs are abstracted how? They represent the actual number of personnel and their weapons. Where is the abstraction? Whats abstraction MEAN to you?

IF ANYONE WOULD BE TOTING A FAUST IT WOULD BE A PLATOON HQ!!!! It would be in the hands of the experienced people first also, NCOs in particular.

Lewis

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

This has been discussed but I wouldnt give a penny for your two cents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know Lewis, it is always nice to see that common courtesy and good manners are not dead yet in this world. You have just made sure that so far as I am concerned the next time you need a German translation, you can pull it out of the place where you pulled this post.

As for convertibility rates, at least you understand those, I would not give a cent for tuppens either.

Have a nice day.

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

Andreas

[:USERNAME:]

Who says Germans have no sense of humor?

[Guest Chris B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fatherof6:

Ratio (attacker points/defender points)

Assualt (2 / 1)

Attack (1.6 / 1)

Probe (1.35 / 1)

Meet. Engagement (1 / 1)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Father.

I have noticed there seem to be more flags in Assault also, but have yet to see the pattern.

[TexasToast]

One more manual-type clarification - what is the effective range of the Gammon bomb? I'm about to rush some armor and I would like to know how close I have to get (well not me personally, but you get the idea).

[David Aitken]

I think the Gammon Bomb can only be used as part of a close assault, so we're not really talking about range here. Close assaults tend to happen at around ten metres (in gaming terms - in reality it'd obviously be zero).

David

[Geier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

HQs up to the regimental level were responsible for AT defense.

IF ANYONE WOULD BE TOTING A FAUST IT WOULD BE A PLATOON HQ!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh really, I thought that HQ's were responsible for all elements of the unit they command. But AT-defense was their primary role I see.

Given your logic, the HQ´s should have some HMG's (they are responsible for infantry defense too, I take it?), all AT-guns in the unit (they are responsible) yadda yadda.

But it was just a joke, wasn't it?

Good one. Not very.

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

Johan

"The succesful execution of a well devised plan often looks like luck to saps."

Dashiell Hammett

[David Aitken]

:USERNAME: wrote:

> Platoon HQs are abstracted how? They represent the actual number of personnel and their weapons. Where is the abstraction? Whats abstraction MEAN to you?

In my understanding, Combat Mission depicts separate units which, in reality, wouldn't be separate. Support weapons in CM have men devoted to them (light mortars, bazookas), when in reality such weapons would just be carried by a rifleman with special training.

The same goes for HQs, as far as I know - rather than just have a lieutenant, there is a whole HQ unit. This isn't supposed to be a unit in its own right, it's just there for gameplay purposes. So it's gamey to use your HQ as a tank killer or whatever, because in reality he'd be useless without his squads.

David

[Holman]

I always assume that the platoon HQ unit in CM consists of the Lieutenant, the sergeant who's telling the Lt. how to run the platoon, the radioman, maybe a medic, and one or two other soldiers whose main duties involve running orders or carrying stretchers (when things have gotten bad). In other words, the HQ team is everyone who shouldn't be firing weapons except under extraordinary (i.e. defensive) circumstances.

[Mark IV]

John, I think you will find more Panzerfaust-100s in the later-dated scenarios. I've had them and used them.

I remember squawking about Sturmkompanies having flamethrowers, and someone said they didn't (mine did!)... probably the same issue. The time frame selected and perhaps some randomness have a lot to do with the available equipment.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geier:

Originally posted by :USERNAME::

HQs up to the regimental level were responsible for AT defense.

IF ANYONE WOULD BE TOTING A FAUST IT WOULD BE A PLATOON HQ!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh really, I thought that HQ's were responsible for all elements of the unit they command. But AT-defense was their primary role I see.

Given your logic, the HQ´s should have some HMG's (they are responsible for infantry defense too, I take it?), all AT-guns in the unit (they are responsible) yadda yadda

I didnt say primary but in the event of a tank it became a priority. My logic would say that HMGs should have one as well as other units.