Pascal DI FOLCO Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by KwazyDog: Well, I think to refer to it as a bug is a little incorrect to be honest, as the code for close assults hasnt been changed for some time. What you are seeing guys is the way it has been for some time, and hasnt been changed in 1.12. I am still investigating the matter, though I am beginning to wonder what we are defing as a close assult here. From 10-15 meters the Half Tracks are knocked out easily, and this is easy to replicate. Now from 20-25 meters is does indeed become harder...but the question is, is this wrong? The 10-15 meter range represent true close assults with guys running up, firing smg's and maybe tossing a grenade over the edge into the vehicle. But from 20-25 meters, this is not as easy, and the grenades being thrown are basically just represent that, grenades being thrown from a distance. Im not saying that there isnt some tweaking require here, but I am just offering some food for thought. I am wondering if maybe some are over estimating what a close assult is, and what it represents in CM. Also from the other perspective, maybe CM currently underestimates how difficult it is to through a grenade into a vehicle from a distance. Testing continues... Dan Kwazy, I agree with you as for effect of Grenades, it's a feat to lob one in a vehicle from 25m range !! In the very small test I ran, I remarked this also, but what surprised me is that at that range small arms fire had really no effect...Should'nt a HT fired from 25 m by say a LMG, 5 rifles, 2 SMG be somewhat dead ? I mean there would surely have been bullets through windshields, some mechanical part would have been broken, internal ricochets will have injured crewmen ? And THIS didn't happen, it seems...Only grenades did the job, and they did it at 1-less than 15m 2- when HT was kind enough to be immobile - not much often in a game where they arent stuck on an island ! Perhaps it ain't a bug, just a feature ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I ran a number of tests on 1.12 last night. Setup: 1 Reg SPW 251/1 1 Reg Brit Pltn HQ 1 Reg Brit Squad, split in two teams 20x20m square, surrounded by woods. The teams are at opposite ends of the square. They are ordered to target the HT. In all but one of the five or six tests, the HT has a crew casualty and buttons in turn one (one test early turn two). It then moves around. It dies within three turns (one outlier), getting immobilised first. Sometimes abandoned, sometimes knocked out. British casualties were 0-2 guys. I have no problems with these results. The results with the heavy casualties - have you guys ordered the units to target the HT? ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Beavis Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Interesting posts. I have to say that some of the tests that support the argument that HTs are much more difficult to kill in 1.12 than in earlier versions are rather convincing. I'm tempted to make a test myself and see what happens Havent yet experimented with the game that way, but I think I will soon. Anyway, carry on. I shall read the posts as the appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: The results with the heavy casualties - have you guys ordered the units to target the HT? I did mean to meantion that myself, as it does make quite a difference. That extra little time it takes for your infantry to target the half tracks themselves can make quite a difference. Guys, keep experimenting, and keep posting your results. Chup, please do send in the sample scenario you have where you feel you are seeing a problem, though send it through to Matt if you could as Steve suggested elsewhere. Ive got to spend the weekend catching up on modelling I had scheduled to do over the last couple of days Ive been testing this close combat stuff Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I forgot to add: the key result I took away from my test was that except for one time, it took less than 20 secs to render the HT inoperable. With a crew casualty it is no longer a concern of mine, since it is no longer a weapon, but nothing than a glorified truck. In a game I would just take my infantry away and have them do something useful at that stage. With FOW on you still notice that the HT crew took a casualty, because at the distance involved you hear the 'Mein Bein' shout, and notice that it stops firing. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Actually, Germanboy....... In my test scenario, I had inadvertantly used M3A1's instead of M3's. (That may not make a difference) Anyway, when the M3A1 HT took a casualty, it did not become a "glorified truck." It manned its weapon again, but only after being ordered to "unbutton." Otherwise, it stays buttoned and thus non-lethal. My further results so far are inconclusive, although I have seen multiple occasions on these "islands" where the HT's would wipe out the surrounding eneny infantry instead, particularly with the M3A1's. One other oddity though........ As a lark, I wanted next to try a weapon with "moderate lethality" against a HT that would indeed work as ordnance to a degree. As you all might guess, I am talking about the Ma Deuce, the M2 .50-caliber HMG. On another test iteration (where I have three 40X40 islands with three German HT's), I put a .50-caliber HMG crew IN ADDITION to Allied infantry platoon units. I figured that would speed up the likelihood of bagging the German HT's. It was tested only once last night, but surprisingly, none of the .50's seemed to be helping out in getting kills on the HT's (And yes, they were targeted against the HT in each case.) Within that range, I would normally figure that a .50 HMG would certainly score multiple hits (with a penetration chance per hit) per 1-minute turn. Only one of the three German HT's were killed in a minute's time, and only by a grenade. It was only one test, so this finding is inconclusive. But nonetheless, a curious result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Spook, A .50 cal should make swiss cheese of an HT from 40 meters away. I'll have to do some tests.... ------------------ expert \'ek-,spert'\ n : someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 16, 2001 Author Share Posted February 16, 2001 The issue of vulnerability os key. *If* we posit that it is perfectly reasonable to see a *single* squad assault and kill an unsupported Tiger or Pershing, than I think it follows that a *single* squad should have an even easier time doing the same to ANY halftrack. Considering how often we have heard the mantra of not leaving your tanks unsupported due to their vulnerability to close assault, I think the same must be true for halftracks, except to a much larger extent. We keep running test were we are putting entire platoons of infantry up against a single halftrack, and the thing is surviving! While odd things happen in battle, there is a limit to how often odd things can happen and still maintain some idea of creibility. I mean, we are testing *extreme* examples, so extreme that they would never happen in a real fight. We are massively stacking the deck against the tracks, and they are still manageing to actually win some of these encounters! What is the expected mean time for a halftrack to live when attacked at close range by one single good order squad when the track cannot escape? I would claim it *should* be on the order of tens of seconds, at best. Right now we are seing a single track manage to stay alive for minutes while under attack from an entire platoon!! Sure, not every time, and every once in a while it even dies as quickly as expected. But those cases would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I guess, in the end, I am going to need some convincing if someone wants me to believe that halftracks routinely survived close assaults from infantry during WW2 under these kinds of circumstances. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 You people say you have problems killing HTs with small amrs / close assaults...well you aint seen nothing yet... I've long given up hope, have you ever tried killing infantry etc. with the Humber AC's 40mm gun? I had four Humbers surround a german 8cm mortar crew, from 10m away, they kept pumping round after round into that crew, but that mortar was totally unafected, and walked away unscathed after a couple of turns. Same thing with a HMG crew. They don't even bother the fat-dumb-happy 40mm main gun right under their noses. Can't say I blame them, it appears that the AC's are not firing AP projectiles but cotton candy balls of 40mm diameter. ASnd that is besides the fact that the Humber should be able to just run those teams over physically in the first place. Grrrrrrr...sorry I'm in a bad mood today :-( ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 16, 2001 Author Share Posted February 16, 2001 Doesn't the Humbar only carry AP rounds? It is no surprise that a big, single shot pistol (essentially) is going to have trouble effecting a bunch of men in cover. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Just wanted to add that of course I know how the game works, and that the Humber's 40mm only fires solid AP rounds, and with their minimal blast these results are to be predicted...still in reality things would look a lot different. And that's what it's all about. Sometimes I am just very frustrated with the limitations. ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: I've long given up hope, have you ever tried killing infantry etc. with the Humber AC's 40mm gun? From what I have read about the war in North Africa, the biggest drawback of the 40mm was that it was incapable of harming gun crews, due to the lack of HE ammo. So I find that quite realistic. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Get real Andreas. I bet when a Humber parked in front of you, couple of meters away, leveling the 40mm gun right between your eyes, you would sit there happily beside your mortar, hand in hand with your comrades from the rest of the crew, and sing "neener neener, can't hurt us, doesn't have HE, only AP, 40mm AP doesn't hurt us, we wear helmets...." ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 16, 2001 Author Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: Get real Andreas. I bet when a Humber parked in front of you, couple of meters away, leveling the 40mm gun right between your eyes, you would sit there happily beside your mortar, hand in hand with your comrades from the rest of the crew, and sing "neener neener, can't hurt us, doesn't have HE, only AP, 40mm AP doesn't hurt us, we wear helmets...." What in the world makes you think that crew was just sitting there, out in the open laughing at 40mm solid shot coming their way? I am sure they were all trying to keep their head down and avoid the guns. Which is not that hard to do when you know that if the gun misses by just an inch, you are fine. The best evidence of a problem I see is that one of thsoe crewmen didn't stroll over to that Humbar and shove a machine pistol into the nearest available opening. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: Get real Andreas. I am sorry but I totally disagree with you. As Jeff so kindly pointed out, IRL the crew would dispatch the SC themselves with no trouble at all. They most likely would have a PF lying around, or some grenades (let's not go there), or guns or whatevers. IRL the SC would never get as close to them. So please do not lecture me on getting real with an example that is entirely unrealistic to start with, but only possible because of a limitation of the game engine to prevent gamey behaviour. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Well, Jeff, you ask what makes me think they were sitting in the open fat dumb happy? Because they were sitting IN THE OPEN, dammit, NO FOXHOLE, and kept firing their goldurn MOWTAH all the time while FOUR Humbers were parked around them in a star-like fashion at minimal range (8-20m), firing at them like mad with their 40mm guns (and even a pistol, as you like to call the 40mm main gun, would nail the crew at that range). Even then, explain to me, even if a 40mm solid projectile is discarded by you as being unable to harm neither man nor equipment, a heavy, armored car can't just run them over, eh? If I were a scout car commander, and raided germans that were walking around with theit mortar or HMG equipment, I'ld just run them over. CM's credo was always something like "what works in real life will work in the game". Well, it doesn't. Not always, at least. I can live with it. Every game MUST habve abstratcionms and shortcomings due to modeling SOME where. But I can't take this excusionist BS, trying to talk away something. sorry. Like I said, not my day. Damn. ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Pardon me if this has been brought up earlier, but has anyone tested other open topped vehicles as well? There could be a possibility that it's not a halftrack issue but rather a close assault issue. I'd do the test myself but I'm stuck at work. Can someone run the test again, but this time use Marders, White scout cars, Priests, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by KwazyDog: Now from 20-25 meters is does indeed become harder...but the question is, is this wrong? That's roughly 60-75 feet. It's obviously possible to throw a grenade that far, but to get it to land inside a moving vehicle under battlefield conditions is a little different. I don't think this really needs tweaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I did a little real life test of this issue. I used a practice grenade I picked up for halloween & an empty dumpster to represent the HT. From 15 feet away, from a prone position, I managed to land only three of 15 throws in the dumpster, which I might add is significantly larger than a halftrack. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: They most likely would have a PF lying around, or some grenades (let's not go there), or guns or whatevers. Let's do go there. Why would a mortar crew be issued grenades and anti-tank weapons? They set up far behind the line of contact, usually underground so they couldn't be spotted. Of all the photos of 81 mm or 3-inch mortars I've ever seen, I've yet to spot a rifle, much less a grenade or anti-tank weapon. No doubt they had rifles, but they were usually kept on the truck. A friend of mine served as a 81 mm mortar gunner in the South African Army in the 1970s. Even when fighting guerillas in neighbouring countries - and he showed me the photos of his crew - they were located well away from the fighting, and their rifles were NEATLY STACKED many yards away. (In this case, FN SLR's stacked pyramid style with the stacking swivel - something you don't see much of these days). Let's not start throwing out wild supposition as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Let's not start throwing out wild supposition as fact. Well, I did not do that but said 'most likely'. Anyway, as you have said they would have some means of self-defense (rifles) which they do not have in CM (for understandable reasons). Whether a German WW2 mortar team would pick up a PF if they can get their hands on it, or grenades is something I would not base on 1970s South African Army experience, one way or the other. I am also not talking about 'issued as part of TO&E' but 'grabbed on the way out because they could'. I have not looked at pictures, so I take your point. Again - IRL they would have had a means of self-defense, so the situation would not have developed as the one M Hofbauer described in the first place. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 16, 2001 Author Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Pak40: That's roughly 60-75 feet. It's obviously possible to throw a grenade that far, but to get it to land inside a moving vehicle under battlefield conditions is a little different. I don't think this really needs tweaking. This has been said before, many, many times. The grenade graphics is not meant to actually mean a unit is throwing a grenade. It is their to represent a close assualt. That means throwing grenades, firing weapons, etc., etc. Also, a squad a 10 men are not all siting on a single pixel, they are going to be spread out over a large area. If the center of the indicator is 25m away from the track, there very well could be men much, much closer. At short ranges any AFV, much less a halftrack, is susceptible to infantry taking them out in any number of ways. Grenades thrown into the back, grenade bundles strapped onto vulnerable spots, molotovs, etc., etc. A halftracks armor at that range could not even stop a rifle round, much less the light MGs every squad is toting. Halftracks are NOT Infantry Fighting Vehicles! They are armored transportation, not tanks! They should die quickly and spectacularly when brought under short ranged infantry firepower. Running your halftracks through enemy infantry lines should not be a valid tactic. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaberfellner Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I have a dumb question and I'm kind of shaky on the facts so please forgive me if I've got wrong. Wasn't one of the changes for 1.12 tougher pillboxes? Aren't pillboxes modeled as stationary vehicles? Maybe the problem occured as a result of this change and not a change to the close assault code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by wwb_99: I did a little real life test of this issue. I used a practice grenade I picked up for halloween & an empty dumpster to represent the HT. From 15 feet away, from a prone position, I managed to land only three of 15 throws in the dumpster, which I might add is significantly larger than a halftrack. WWB OK Now we are getting somewhere. I think that is a good real life test. BUT I would like to add that if it was a half track, any grenade that rolled under the engine compartment that "should" immobolize it. And yes in CM grenades can immobolize HT's. I still feel that the HT is "a little" too resistant to the close assualt and too resistant to grenades. If the HT is Shocked and is not firing back then 8-10 infantry soldiers with grenades and small arms close assulting at less than 10 meters "should" be able to at least immobilize the thing within a minute 80- 95% of the time and I would say there should be a 90% chance of knocking it out within 2 minutes. So again 8-10 guys with only grenandes and small arms close assaulting an HT that is not shooting back (shocked or buttoned) within 10 meters should have about a 90% chance to KO that HT within 2 minutes. Maybe I'm wrong here, in some of my assumptions but in my tests, many more than 8-10 guys have swarmed US HTs and at less than 10 meters and those targeted HT's have lived longer than 2-3 minutes, although I admit in my tests of US HTs against overwheling odds (all grenades and small arms) they WILL all die at some point but it usually takes longer than 3 minutes.( all HT finally got KO'd under this swarming activity in 4-5 minutes of constant close assualt.) MaddMAtt and Kwazy Dog have been sent these files. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 16, 2001 Author Share Posted February 16, 2001 Speaking of grenades, you would not even have to toss it into the back of the track to begin with. The shrapnel would slice through most of the armor quite nicely. Is the fuel tank on a halftrack armored? Exhaust? Windshield? Radiator? Tires? Undercarriage? Did they have hatches, or just doors to the drivers compartment? What is to stop me from walking up to one and blowing the door off with a Thompson??? I can't believe I am actually arguing with people who apparently think that a halftrack is and should be nearly impervious to small arms fire at short ranges. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts