Dr. Brian Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 This is from the Bunker Bug thread… and I thought it deserved it's own thread. Thanks for all those about to participate in this. Quoting John Kettler from the Bunker thread: quote: As it is, smoke is more powerful and prevalent in CM than in real life, since it lands, billows up and stays put, without regard to eddies or even high winds. There are no restrictions on its use, yet routine defensive techniques which somewhat offset smoke and degraded visibility are simply not modeled, therefore are unavailable to the defender in CM. This has the net effect of simultaneously weakening the defense while strengthening the attacker. This to me seems neither fair nor realistic. All I can say is wow. That is so on the money. I'm playing a scenario right now. The briefing said it has been raining for days, the ground is all mud, it is still raining, and there is no restriction on SMOKE usage. My oppneoent and I are using it just like it was a dry, calm day with no winds. When it's raining heavily, ground filled with mud, etc., doesn't it make sense that the effects of SMOKE are negligible? Smoke rounds would not last as long as on a dry sunny day, let alone be used. CM does lack weather effects, and SMOKE being used in heavy rains, is (I hate to say it) ahistorical. Thoughts appreciated. Also, what are your thoughts about arty damage in mud conditions? I've noticed that arty is still as destructive to ground troops. Shouldn't mud "muffle" and soak up some of those explosions? This should be true for marsh as well, which is soft ground. Soft ground helps ground troops vs. artillery, that is a known fact. I can't seem to get CM to model this. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Well I don't know what sort of coding would be needed (major or not), or what type of additional resource requirement it would put on the AI (if any), but I would certainly second a desire to see wind modeled on the field. In addition to degrading smoke, as would be realistic, it could/should also effect fires, potentially causing them to spread. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goofy Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 As I posted earlier today I have seen smoke rounds hit, splash in the ground and never ignite. I was watching the firing vehicle (SPA) and watched 3 smoke rounds be depleted, saw them hit but not explode, just make a splash effect, and never make smoke. Also I've noticed that smoke doesn't seem to last as long when it's raining (or at least it seems that way when I need the smoke). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 "As it is, smoke is more powerful and prevalent in CM than in real life." Patently 100% untrue. Smoke is not near effective enough in CM as it should be if it's to model Real Life. Far too many sources to refer to. Check out the articles on my 'Period Document' sites that have the word smoke in them. Many sources mention smoke that don't have the word in the title. From memory: references to smoke screens being maintained for days to cover a bridging operation. references to wanting (and achieving) a haze over an entire battlefield. references to having a knocked-out Stug being hidden by smoke until it could be towed to safety. CM lacks the smoke pots (or candles as the Germans seemed to call them) - so giving the impression that the only source of smoke is an artillery shell. Yea - now get me started about white phosphorus why don't you? (pant, pant, pant) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 I'd suggest "Chemical Warfare in the European Theater of Operations" on the 'Spaceports' site for people interested in this sort of thing. Very interesting mention of flamethrowers as well. Like - squirt the fuel first. Then fire a few flame brusts to ignite it. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-06-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted February 6, 2001 Author Share Posted February 6, 2001 Jasper, I'm all for bringing Willy Pete into the realm of arty and gun rounds. You analysis on the effectiveness of the smoke is impressive, however, I'd like to see the smoke effected by the weather. That is rain, mud, wind, etc. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 The Germans were extremely vexed by smoke. The 75mm AP shell couldn't scrath their Tigers and Panthers but the 75mm HC 'American smoke' round was accurate, plentiful, and made life very uncomfortable. By the end of the war it wasn't uncommon to find as many smoke rounds stowed in the Sherman's ready rack as AP. If you find smoke annoyingly effective during gameplay, well... so did the Germans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roborat Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 As for the point about the rounds being muffled by the mud. Weren't WWII rounds point detonating?, they wouldn't be affected all that much by mud if they were. If your memory of arty is those old WWI films showing huge gouts of dirt being tossed up in the air, don't forget that WWI arty rounds were base detonating, triggered by the round flattening enough to trigger the charge on the back of the round. For point detonating, with the fuse in the nose, it wouldn't be affected (..."much"...) by the ground being a little softer, the fuse is pretty sensitive, at the speed the round is travelling, it doen't even discriminate between ground and water, remember those naval films, rounds hitting the water still explode, don't they?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted February 7, 2001 Author Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Roborat: As for the point about the rounds being muffled by the mud. Weren't WWII rounds point detonating?, they wouldn't be affected all that much by mud if they were. They were not as effective. There was of course some effect, but what it comes down to, is softer ground does lessen the blast radius. Marsh, soft sand, mud, will lessen the damage. That's my thoughts. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts