Jeff Heidman Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 It seems that in the case of some special equipment, CM over-generalizes its availability. On some things, like Schuerzen or gyrostabilizers, this is just mildly irritating. It is certainly the case that (depending on date) only a fraction of the eligible vehicles would have these items. My big pet peeve is the hedgerow devices. Saying that ALL Allied armor is equipped with a Cullin device is borderline ludicrous! That just is not even remotely the case. Further, the way the hedgerow devices are modelled is downright gamey. Here is this big attachment that cuts through hedgerows, and it is modeleld by allowing all Allied armor to magically move through bocage, and yet not punching holes in the bocage in the process. Its like modelling assault boats by allowing units to walk on water. That is as gamey as you could ask for. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paullus Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 A significant fraction of the Allied units in Normandy were equipped with Rhino attachments once they became available. There was so much left over steel from the beach obstacles that every vehicle that wanted one could have one. Also, many vehicles left them on, even after their units moved out of the bocage and into open country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted July 18, 2000 Author Share Posted July 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paullus: A significant fraction of the Allied units in Normandy were equipped with Rhino attachments once they became available. There was so much left over steel from the beach obstacles that every vehicle that wanted one could have one. Also, many vehicles left them on, even after their units moved out of the bocage and into open country.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have never heard anything like that. I know they were available, but not that available. There was more to a hedgerow shredder than finding some scrap steel and attaching it to the hull, much less the time and effort it would take to equip several thousands of AFV with them. Just take a look at any pictures from the time in question. Most tanks did not have them. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 I think Doubler in 'Closing with the Enemy' sheds some light. Unfortunately our library is closed at the moment. Anyone with the book cares to comment? ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielh Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Jeff, On photographs one can very seldom see one, most probable only 1 or 2 vehicles per bigger unit were equipped with them. I think here some sort of magic paves the way for allied victory, maybe to augment the absence of ULTRA ? In Villers Bocage i had Phantom tanks crossing a broad paved street in front of my tanks about 100 - 200 m coming from nowhere going to nowhere...., i think they had some sort of special camouflage in addition to the hedgehogs too. Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Jeff, With all due respect. Do you ever post to this board when something isn't wrong? Just seems everytime I see a thread from you I know it is going to be a complaint. As for the Rinos, Yes I agree that CM making them a part of every allied tank is an abstarction. BUT. I'm very happy with the game as it is. I did not, and I do not want BTS to take time to code and model another 50 or so vehicles just to work around bocage. To me at least, that isn't a feture that merets BTS taking a couple of months to do. Lorak ------------------ "someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati * http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 From what I understand the creation and modelling of the 3d models and stats for the vehicles was a MAJOR undertaking. So adding more varity as you would like (as we all would) would surely have delayed the release of the game, something nobody would have liked. Steve has commented numerous times about how he dreads all the models in CM2 (Eastern Front). Considering that a fair number of the German post '43 models are already done speaks volumes IMO. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Couldn't the Rhino attachment be listed in the tank equipment such as "Gyrostabilizer, Burns Easily, Rhino" on SOME of the allied tanks. Then, those that had it could plow through the hedgerows, while those that did not couldn't. That would make more sense and seem like the easiest fix. No need for new modeling unless a very simple 2D or 3D graphical representation could be added. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 07-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think Doubler in 'Closing with the Enemy' sheds some light. Unfortunately our library is closed at the moment. Anyone with the book cares to comment? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Page 46, Doubler, Michael D, "Closing With the Enemy"..... "The First Army Ordnance Section Assembled all available welders and welding equipment to complete the project and used scrap metal from the German beach obstacles to construct most of the hedgerow cutters. In a prodigioius effort between 14-25 July, First Army welding teams produced over 500 hedgerow cutters and distributed them to subordinate commands for installation. By late July, 60 percent of First Army's Shermans were mounted with the device." QED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 There you go, Jeff's right: 60% isn't even "remotely" like "ALL". Of course in areas of heavy bocage they wouldn't have almost exclusively used rhino equipped tanks would they? No, they would have correctly sampled the total tank numbers so that in a bocage type battle there would have been a 60/40 mix and in a more open area they would have used a 60/40 mix too. ------------------ "Pink Floyd, a load of old twaddle"-John Lydon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 "There was more to a hedgerow shredder than finding some scrap steel and attaching it to the hull, much less the time and effort it would take to equip several thousands of AFV with them." Actually no there isn't more to it, you basically welded a number of scrap metal teeth onto the front of your tank. Simple enough to do, no real mechanical mechanism to construct though there were certainly variations on the basic design by those more inclined to creative. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Scott is correct about the time needed to make the models. About 1 man year was invested into the models and, as it was, was partially responsible for CM taking much longer than we expected to see the light of day. Trying to simulate a half dozen different vehicle variations is simply not possible from a development standpoint. I also think the lack of finite control is not a big deal. Most people won't use most of what we have included already As for the Rhino attachments... they were that simple to make and were employed in huge numbers within a short period of time. As Doubler states, this percentage wasn't 100%. However, to make it anything less than that would require so many extra models of tanks that it simply isn't practical to do. PERHAPS that gives a particular US force an advantage in a particular scenario, but besides Simon's conjecture (which doesn't seem unreasonable) no evidence has been produced to show our treatment as a serious error. Just keep in mind folks that EVERYTHING you ask for takes us time to put into the game. Nothing comes out of thin air. So since our time is limited, and there are about a million things to simulate, people should grasp onto reality hard and get priorities in line with reality. We could spend 2 months making some more vehicles that wouldn't be used all that often, and wouldn't add that much to the level of realism, or we could instead do something more important. Life is all about choices Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Hmmm, to me it seems more of a concern that there is no breach in the bocage. Once the allied armor makes one, it should be there for others to use. Hmm, brings up a question, what do halftracks do? I haven't played a bocage scenario yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Life is all about choices Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve, welcome back. Hope you enjoyed your holiday and are now really busy working on the order backlog. WRT to your post, methinks a lot of people could benefit majorly by getting an Economics 101 textbook and reading up on the concept of opportunity cost. Just my £0.02. Now where are those Buffalo and Weasel models, eh? And the allied armoured SP AA vehicles. Gimme gimme gimme!!! All in a free upgrade, of course! ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH: Couldn't the Rhino attachment be listed in the tank equipment such as "Gyrostabilizer, Burns Easily, Rhino" on SOME of the allied tanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then you'd need two versions of each tank for the vechile list. One with, and one wihout. Or if it was a purchaseable extra youd need code for that too. And how much more should a Sherman cost with a cutter? How about Stuart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just keep in mind folks that EVERYTHING you ask for takes us time to put into the game. Nothing comes out of thin air. So since our time is limited, and there are about a million things to simulate, people should grasp onto reality hard and get priorities in line with reality. We could spend 2 months making some more vehicles that wouldn't be used all that often, and wouldn't add that much to the level of realism, or we could instead do something more important. Life is all about choices Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, oh how I long for the good old days of Panzerblitz when all German tanks were Tigers or Panthers and all tank cannons were 88 mm! Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Beyond the hedgerow cutting devices, I think that Jeff's original charge on gyrostabilizers does have a note of merit. My prior basic references had suggested that gyros were used on a MINORITY of the Shermans; in fact, it's been further reported that many Shermans with installed gyros had the gyros "disconnected" in the field by the tank crews as they considered the gun breech "bounce" a bit of a safety hazard while moving over rolling or choppy ground. Proper operation of the gyro was also a challenge to inexperienced tank crews. I have to say, however, Jeff, that in your initial posts to bring these matters to attention, I would rather for you to choose some of your terms more carefully. Sometimes the BTS crew may have opted for an abstraction to a certain routine or combat resolution as a DESIGN decision, but that doesn't automatically make for a "gamey" result. If the AVERAGE result of the abstracted effect is close to historical results, then the abstraction can be acceptable. Sometimes an abstraction is chosen if the overall effect to gameplay is minor, but that a more detailed routine would otherwise drag down the computer processing speed or memory. To me, the abstraction of letting ALL Allied tracked vehicles cross bocage (after Jun '44) is a bit much. I recently discovered that British Universal Carriers are among those that can do so. I'm pretty firm in my view now that even with a cutter attached, a Carrier does NOT have the raw power or power/weight to push through bocage. But does this kill CM to me for playing bocage settings? No. In scenario design, I can either leave out Carriers or set the month to Jun'44 if ONLY Carriers are around as armored vehicles for the Allies in the scenario. I always look for workarounds. The bottom line, Jeff, is that if you want BTS and other posters to respond politely to your inquiries, then you need to avoid using language that has inference and accusation attached to it. Or other people here will start to wonder about the sincerity to your questions. As to Allied SP AA vehicles----yeah, I'd like to see those too, just like Andreas stated. [This message has been edited by Spook (edited 07-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Schalburg Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Why do we see the Wesp and Hummel, not very usefull. Why not the Sturmpanzer IV "Brummbär", it saw service from 1944 with heavy infantry gun companies of panzergrenadier regiments and armoured infantry battalions as well as with army tank battalions. Or the Sturmpanzer IV "Sturmtiger" also saw service from 1944. With it's 38 cm gun it would be something different. The Sd Kfz 251/1 with 28 cm rocket launchers (Wurfrahmen) also a fun vehicle. The 15 cm sIG 33/1, saw service from 1943 with heavy infantry gun companies of panzergrenadier regiments. The 15 cm NbW 42 auf 2 ton "Maultier" another rocket vehicle. In service from 1944 with panzerwerferbattalions. Damn, can't stop. Well one has the right to dream. I'm on mission in Bosnia and waithing for my game to arrive, can't wait. Can't play it down here, but to read the manuel and read about it here is almost as good. Can't wait to get home, 28 days left. ------------------ In god we trust, the rest we monitor... von Schalburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted July 19, 2000 Author Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: Jeff, With all due respect. Do you ever post to this board when something isn't wrong? Just seems everytime I see a thread from you I know it is going to be a complaint. As for the Rinos, Yes I agree that CM making them a part of every allied tank is an abstarction. BUT. I'm very happy with the game as it is. I did not, and I do not want BTS to take time to code and model another 50 or so vehicles just to work around bocage. To me at least, that isn't a feture that merets BTS taking a couple of months to do. Lorak <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lorak, with all due repsect, you should read some more threads. I post when I see something I find interesting, or have an opinion on. I have posted a LOT of messages that were not attempts at constructive criticism. The Rhino thing is just an example. Whether or not BTS feels it is worth their time to model is up to them I suppose. But the entire appeal of a game like this is the attention to detail and realism. I think the way bocage is modeled in general is jsut plain broken. If every single allied AFV was able to stomp through bocage at will, then it would not have been the excellent defensive terrain that it was. I am also very happy with the game as is. That does not translate into an inability or unwillingness to see flaws however. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If every single allied AFV was able to stomp through bocage at will,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, They can't, IIRC all allied tanks are only assumed to have rhinos after a certain date, when they were widely available and the bocage did become a far less daunting proposition for the attacker. I agree with your basic point that the bocage terrain and the nature of the fighting in it could be more accurately modelled. However it seems to me that this is a particularly difficult task the details of which you have not gone to the trouble to ascertain. Certainly it would be nice if the rhino equipped tanks left a gap in the bocage, perhaps you might ask why they don't. Of course perhaps Steve and Charles wanted CM to be so 'gamey' that they couldn't be bothered? That hardly seems consistent with the realism inherent in most of the rest of the game does it? I am sure from reading your posts that you do have something to contribute to discussions here from your knowledge and personal experience. But you have completely misinterpreted peoples attitude to your posts about the "flaws" you perceive in the game. CM is not considered to be set upon some pedestal free from imperfection and I and many others would be happy to discuss your concerns about various aspects of the game and how they might relate to historical and practical evidence. What does seem to annoy people is tha tactless and opinionated way you express those concerns. As a consequence you get a variety of responses. No one expects the humble obsequiousness of the supplicant, though I note with amusement that some 'newbies' have adopted this approach recently. You may think you are being polite but perhaps you may like to consider that the response you are getting is not merely due to arrogance on the part of others. Spook I am not so sure what his original point is but it might be worth your while to do a search on this one before you dig yourself int a hole since IIRC stabilisers are not modelled. The vehicle specs are just that: specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Spook I am not so sure what his original point is but it might be worth your while to do a search on this one before you dig yourself int a hole since IIRC stabilisers are not modelled. The vehicle specs are just that: specs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess the question here now is who has dug himself into the bigger hole, Simon. In the spirit of your suggestion, I did perform a search a got a limited number of commentary posts. A comment of Fionn's on 10 Nov 99: I think it was decided that gyrostabilisers would all be presumed to be non-active since most stuff I've seen says crews didn't like them. I wouldn't bet my house that that was what was decided but its what I remember. This was at least 4 months ago that we discussed gyrostabilisers. But on that same topic thread, the following comment from Steve (BTS): Yes, we did factor that in. It was something that is more quantifiable. So Allied tanks that had this great little device do get an accuracy bonus when firing on the move. Both of these are in the same timeframe, and I'm a bit more inclined to take the word of Steve when strictly comparing between these two quotes. So the working premise we have here is that gyros ARE included in CM and applying some "effect" while firing on the move. Mentioning a "spec" (the listing of "gyrostabilizer" in the info box of certain Allied AFV's) without making some POSSIBLE application of this spec in the CM routines would seem kind of pointless, wouldn't it? But everything beyond this tails off into speculation. Just because the gyro spec is there doesn't imply that ALL Allied tanks in a CM scenario, listed as gyrostabilizer-mounting, are all using some "gyro effect" in that scenario. Furthermore, we as gamers can't QUANTIFY this effect in regards to "making moving fire more accurate" even when it does apply. Well, at this time, I think it best to defer to a response from BTS on gyrostabilizers if they are so inclined. [This message has been edited by Spook (edited 07-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore, we as gamers can't QUANTIFY this effect in regards to "making moving fire more accurate" even when it does apply. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And there we have the biggest brawback of computer wargames: the guts are not open to display. In a boardgame since you are the "CPU" processing the "code" you can see exactly what sort of benefit it provides, if any. CM is not alone in this, so this isn't a dig at CM directly. Your tank has a gyro. Whoopee. How much does it help? Do they have it on? How do I want to adjust my tactics to account for this thing? NO answers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Now why didn't the germans put on devices similar to rhinos.. Also, when allied rhino equipped AFVs go through the hedgrows, do they suffer a movement penalty, do they have an increased chance of breaking down? or getting stuck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now why didn't the germans put on devices similar to rhinos..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because the Germans weren't trying to make big holes in major defensive obstacles. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted July 21, 2000 Share Posted July 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess the question here now is who has dug himself into the bigger hole, Simon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hehe, my phraseology was carefully chosen to ensure I did not dig myself into a hole. My recollection is pretty much the same as the Fionn quote you gave but I definitely wouldn't "bet my house on it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts