I hate to say this, but I think I found a bug... A BIG bug...

[Michael Dorosh]

Herr Hofbaeur - with all due respect, if your mortar was in a foxhole and still firing it, you can presume they were keeping their heads down and continuing to perform their primary job - supporting the infantry - by firing their weapon, secure in the knowledge they were safely dug in.

How close did your ACs get?

As has been pointed out, "bugs" will always exist, but if the game doesn't let you practice ahistorical tactics, I don't think they are bugs. An AC and an 81 mm mortar, dug in, were not often found locked in close combat - the 8.1 was just not a front line weapon, and an AP shell was not designed for use on infantry.

You know very well that entrenched infantry that keep their heads are immune from physical overrun - the vehicle will just pass harmlessly overhead as the infantry crouch in their holes.

Also, I pointed out in the other thread and will point out here - and good point about the dumpster, good initiative - the infantry unit I am in trains on grenades annually, and it is indeed a lot more difficult to throw one with accuracy, even on a range by trained infantry with no one shooting at them, than people might think.

[Teutonicc]

Bts, Madmatt, Kwazy,

Just a suggestion. How about posting parameters for testing(map setup and how many tests) and letting us run the tests for you. I am sure there would be plenty of volunteers . It would give us something to do instead of posting about it and let you get back to work on CM2.

Teutonicc

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Also, I pointed out in the other thread and will point out here - and good point about the dumpster, good initiative - the infantry unit I am in trains on grenades annually, and it is indeed a lot more difficult to throw one with accuracy, even on a range by trained infantry with no one shooting at them, than people might think.

OK. Lets quit with the grenades. The grenade you see being thrown is merely the graphical representation of a close assault, which includes many things, not just grenades.

The contention that it is hard to throw a greande into a dumpster and/or a halftrack is distracting from the issue.

This issue has nothing to do with grenades!!!

Jeff Heidman

[Doug Williams]

I agree with Jeff. In one of the three tests I did last night on a 40x40 island. One lone regular SPW 251/1 killed/captured an entire regular American rifle platoon. That's 40 men, with combat experience, carrying Garands, BARs, grenades, etc. And yes, I did order the squads and the HQ units to close with and target the HT. This doesn't seem within the realm of reality to me.

-Doug

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

expert \'ek-,spert'\ n : someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing

[M Hofbauer]

1) how much more clear can I make this? Am I typing in russian? read again:

"Because they were sitting IN THE OPEN, dammit, NO FOXHOLE"

open ground, you know, as in open, O P E N, _NO_ Foxhole, you know, like, flat earth, a little grass n stuff. No hole. No shelter. Imagine a cow on a lawn. Figure the cow is a mortar crew. Forget it - it might also continue to bve a cow, cause the AC still couldn't harm it.

As for overrun, M.Dorosh, now the terrain etc doesn't matter since that doesn't work on paved road either in CM. A no-can-do in CM. Ever had a platoon of Jagdpanzer that ran outta ammo being chased around the open map by infantry?

2) well, Andreas, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one I guess, you can stick to your Panzerfaust-equipped timewarp Afrika Korps mortar crews in the desert warfare, and that scout cars raiding the Hinterland never encountered mortars there, and that 40mm guns don't harm infantry, not from 100m and not from 10m, and that scout cars never engaged behind the MLR (Long Range Desert Patrol etc never happened, and scouts are for own rear-area security I suppose), and since these scouts kept to the own rear area they never encountered enemy vehicles and crews in the enemy rear area. Using scout cars for reconnaisance in force therefore is gamey. Uh-huh.

Again, sorry for my bad mood and lack of tolerance, but I'm outta thisone.

Have a nice day Andreas and Michael Dorosh,

sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

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

"Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ)

[pritzl]

I think it's pretty obvious that something is amiss. I'm routinely getting very unrealistic results.

Yet another example...

People have been talking about how these tests are under extreme circumstances where an entire, full strength platoon is attacking a lone, trapped halftrack, and it's still surviving for minutes at a time. That's rediculous.

With that in mind, I just set up a test where a single German squad (regular, 44 pattern rifle squad with no AT weapons) started out in a foxhole in woods, exactly 4 meters away from an M3A1 halftrack in the open. They were ordered to target the HT at the beginning of turn 1.

The HT obliged the squad by not moving at all for the first 3 minutes (I assume crew shock from the losing their gunner almost immediately). It that time, the German squad did nothing but close assault the HT (which was also carrying two mortar squads). Neither the crew or passengers suffered any additional casualties at all. Finally, the HT started to move and never got more than 25 meters away from the squad which then spent the next several turns being ordered to chase the HT around in an attempt to remain no further than 5 meters away and continuously close assaulting it.

After 9 minutes and 47 seconds, the HT was finally destroyed. How is that remotely close to realistic? These were fully armed, regular combat troops, not under any fire at all. Given that amount of time, I think I could disable the thing by myself with a jack and lug wrench let alone machine guns and hand grenades.

Also, until it's destroyed, a halftrack appears safer for passengers than a concrete bunker.

[SirOscar]

WWB_99

Great thinking on trying it out yourself!! However you have to keep in mind that the grenade graphic when assaulting a HT, is just that a graphic. It represents a close assault which can imply all sorts of tactics. Also the armor on a WWII HT was just not that good, just picture 30 to 40 men, 15M or less from the HT assaulting a lone HT, that for what ever reason can not get away quickly. I give that HT less then 10 seconds before its a burning pile of melting metal, grenades inside the HT or not.

[This message has been edited by SirOscar (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Spook]

Geez, since the last time I've checked, it seems that there's far more "heat" being generated here than the "light" that we actually need.

Anyway, Jeff makes a good point in one regard. When we watch the anti-HT attack resolutions, we see the graphic of a grenade being lobbed, we see it explode, and it's usually at the time of explosion that some "effect" (or a miss) is seen for the HT. Thus we might presume we're seeing the result of a SINGLE grenade.

But Jeff is probably right. This is still probably an abstraction, and isn't supposed to be a 1:1 representation of a grenade toss, considering that it comes from a UNIT (squad, half-squad, HQ) instead of any specific single man.

What we do see is that infantry "close assaults" CAN destroy HT's. The question still remains though: Has HT "vulnerability" been inadvertantly reduced?

Let's step back a bit and look at it from the SUSCEPTIBILITY aspect. This means: has the chance to "HIT" the vehicle at close ranges been inadvertantly reduced instead? You can't destroy what you can't "hit" (allowing that near-misses of HE-type weapons might still qualify as hits).

Recall further my one test case using the .50-caliber MG. I used three of these on three islands, and in one minute's time, NONE of these seemed to score a "hit" on an enemy HT. But it was only one test, and with only three "samples." Not enough yet for me to render an opinion.

So for any of you who can do so now, set up a "HT test scenario" with 40X40 islands using more HT-islands, and with each HT being targeting by an enemy HMG. What would be preferable would be German halftracks against US .50's. Add in foot infantry too to support the HMG's, so that the HT's aren't able to easily target and destroy the HMG teams prematurely.

Let's see how that goes. And be sure to note how many HT's are KO'ed by infantry and how many by the HMG's.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by SirOscar:

WWB_99

Great thinking on trying it out yourself!! However you have to keep in mind that the grenade graphic when assaulting a HT, is just that a graphic. [This message has been edited by SirOscar (edited 02-16-2001).]

To Wyatt's (WWB_99) neighbors, the sight of him laying prone in front of a dumpster, tossing in a grenade and then climbing in to retrieve it is a graphical representation of a man who has too much time on his hands

BTW, is that a Jagdtiger I hear sinking into the mud?

[Jeff Heidman]

LOL.

I can just see it...

"Uhhhh, honey, there is a man outside close assaulting the dumpster..."

Jeff Heidman

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by Spook:

Geez, since the last time I've checked, it seems that there's far more "heat" being generated here than the "light" that we actually need.

Anyway, Jeff makes a good point in one regard. When we watch the anti-HT attack resolutions, we see the graphic of a grenade being lobbed, we see it explode, and it's usually at the time of explosion that some "effect" (or a miss) is seen for the HT. Thus we might presume we're seeing the result of a SINGLE grenade.

But Jeff is probably right. This is still probably an abstraction, and isn't supposed to be a 1:1 representation of a grenade toss, considering that it comes from a UNIT (squad, half-squad, HQ) instead of any specific single man.

What we do see is that infantry "close assaults" CAN destroy HT's. The question still remains though: Has HT "vulnerability" been inadvertantly reduced?

Let's step back a bit and look at it from the SUSCEPTIBILITY aspect. This means: has the chance to "HIT" the vehicle at close ranges been inadvertantly reduced instead? You can't destroy what you can't "hit" (allowing that near-misses of HE-type weapons might still qualify as hits).

Recall further my one test case using the .50-caliber MG. I used three of these on three islands, and in one minute's time, NONE of these seemed to score a "hit" on an enemy HT. But it was only one test, and with only three "samples." Not enough yet for me to render an opinion.

So for any of you who can do so now, set up a "HT test scenario" with 40X40 islands using more HT-islands, and with each HT being targeting by an enemy HMG. What would be preferable would be German halftracks against US .50's. Add in foot infantry too to support the HMG's, so that the HT's aren't able to easily target and destroy the HMG teams prematurely.

Let's see how that goes. And be sure to note how many HT's are KO'ed by infantry and how many by the HMG's.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 02-16-2001).]

I was curious also so setup 10 islands with 60m of open tiles surrounded by rough tiles. One .50cal MG, one HQ(+2Morale&Command) and one US Rifle squad w/grenades only versus one 251/1 HT, all Regulars. At start, average range for HMG was 63m, for the Rifle squad about 16m. I ran it 5 times.

.50cal - 47 kills

Rifle Squad - 1 kill

HQ - 1 kill

251/1 survived once

Six times the engagement lasted longer than one minute, but never longer than two minutes(except for the lone 251/1 victor). Usually it was all over in less than 30s. More samples would be needed I think especially in light of your case which appears exceptional.

[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

Yes, I am well aware that the close assault graphic represents much more than throwing a grenade. But my point still stands, getting a grenade into a HT is a lot harder than it looks. And no one was shooting at me when I did it.

Regarding my neighbors, I did it at midnight, so I don't think anyone saw. But they already think I am nuts anyways, so tossing a grenade around will not hurt my reputation.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Mr. Clark]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

To Wyatt's (WWB_99) neighbors, the sight of him laying prone in front of a dumpster, tossing in a grenade and then climbing in to retrieve it is a graphical representation of a man who has too much time on his hands

I sure hope he was wearing a helmet and a camo jacket, with a rifle slung on his back... 'cause that's how I pictured it.

[Mr. Clark]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

And no one was shooting at me when I did it.

Perhaps they were just poor marksmen w/ silencers... I think more testing is in order...

[jshandorf]

Hmmm.... What do you people think close assault means? It certainly doesn't mean attacking a HT from 25+ meters away. When I close assault I am usually within 10-15 meters at most and I usually get the results I expect. Any successful assault beyond that range be it Grenade chucking or sticking guns in view ports is rare at best.

Jeff

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Hmmm.... What do you people think close assault means? It certainly doesn't mean attacking a HT from 25+ meters away. When I close assault I am usually within 10-15 meters at most and I usually get the results I expect. Any successful assault beyond that range be it Grenade chucking or sticking guns in view ports is rare at best.

Jeff

Jeff,

Picture 40 guys blazing away with rifles, SMGs, and LMGs (in addition to grenades)on a lone HT for 60 seconds. Now picture that HT rolling away after that. Some guys had the HTs not only survive but kill most of the platoon in the process. That's what everyone is talking about.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just a quick note here then it's back to CM2.

Close combat vs. vehicles is something of an abstraction in CM. So the closer you are to the vehicle the better. Distance makes a big difference. When you're more than 20m away it's a "longshot" to nail the vehicle, but the grenade throwing shows that your guys are at least *trying*. The grenades also represent other ways of attacking the vehicle (jamming things into the running gear, etc.) but we just show it as grenades. For CM2 we're likely going to add some ways to make attacking infantry more capable of closing the distance automatically so it'll be a little easier (though not too much).

Charles

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

1) how much more clear can I make this? Am I typing in russian? read again:

"Because they were sitting IN THE OPEN, dammit, NO FOXHOLE"

open ground, you know, as in open, O P E N, _NO_ Foxhole, you know, like, flat earth, a little grass n stuff. No hole. No shelter. Imagine a cow on a lawn. Figure the cow is a mortar crew. Forget it - it might also continue to bve a cow, cause the AC still couldn't harm it.

As for overrun, M.Dorosh, now the terrain etc doesn't matter since that doesn't work on paved road either in CM. A no-can-do in CM. Ever had a platoon of Jagdpanzer that ran outta ammo being chased around the open map by infantry?

2) well, Andreas, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one I guess, you can stick to your Panzerfaust-equipped timewarp Afrika Korps mortar crews in the desert warfare, and that scout cars raiding the Hinterland never encountered mortars there, and that 40mm guns don't harm infantry, not from 100m and not from 10m, and that scout cars never engaged behind the MLR (Long Range Desert Patrol etc never happened, and scouts are for own rear-area security I suppose), and since these scouts kept to the own rear area they never encountered enemy vehicles and crews in the enemy rear area. Using scout cars for reconnaisance in force therefore is gamey. Uh-huh.

Again, sorry for my bad mood and lack of tolerance, but I'm outta thisone.

Have a nice day Andreas and Michael Dorosh,

sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

Sorry, M. - posting from work with the boss lurking about. heehee

Don't mean to raise your blood pressure.

Have you considered the possiblity that this is a bug?

Actually I think I am muddying the waters unnecessarily here so I will retreat - Jeff Heidman, if the issue is merely rifle squads, I don't see that any other weapon beside a grenade would do much from 35 metres, though I see that others are talking about .50 cals so I will leave you all to it. Sorry to be a pest! Hopefully something good will come of all this, even if it is a BTS decaration saying there is no bug and providing a rationale we can all live with.

Wouldn't want to be reduced to selling my disc on ebay - with the new stock in, I think the value of my CD just went down.....

[SirOscar]

WWB_99

Yep I understand what you are saying, that's why it is easier to get a kill form higher elevation, such as dropping a grenade from a window into a passing HT, and I commend you for your "hands on" experiment. Now picture yourself with 30 friends, all with live grenades, all tossing them at that same dumpster. Even if no grenades make it into that dumpster I don't think there would be much left of the dumpster, or for that matter a real WWII HT. Please don't try this for real I don't think your neighbors would be very happy about not having a dumpster and the trash company might want you pay for that dumpster you just destroyed

[Mr. Clark]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Just a quick note here then it's back to CM2.

Close combat vs. vehicles is something of an abstraction in CM. So the closer you are to the vehicle the better. Distance makes a big difference. When you're more than 20m away it's a "longshot" to nail the vehicle, but the grenade throwing shows that your guys are at least *trying*. The grenades also represent other ways of attacking the vehicle (jamming things into the running gear, etc.) but we just show it as grenades. For CM2 we're likely going to add some ways to make attacking infantry more capable of closing the distance automatically so it'll be a little easier (though not too much).

Charles

Does that mean "Not a bug!" ?

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Just a quick note here then it's back to CM2.

Close combat vs. vehicles is something of an abstraction in CM. So the closer you are to the vehicle the better. Distance makes a big difference. When you're more than 20m away it's a "longshot" to nail the vehicle, but the grenade throwing shows that your guys are at least *trying*. The grenades also represent other ways of attacking the vehicle (jamming things into the running gear, etc.) but we just show it as grenades. For CM2 we're likely going to add some ways to make attacking infantry more capable of closing the distance automatically so it'll be a little easier (though not too much).

Charles

hey, i think killing vehicles with organic infantry should be ahrd, but mainly because the vehicles should not oblige you by letting you get close.

But when you do let infantry get close, you should pay the price. If you let infantry get clsoe to your freaking halftracks... well then, the result should be as near to inevitable as anything gets in war.

Jeff Heidman

[WolfLord]

I also ran a couple of tests concerning this last night with ver. 1.05 vs 1.12. Keep in mind that I use the term "grenade" to symbolise the close assault graphic. Regarding the "grenade tossing graphics"...in 1.05 when a "grenade" landed under/in the haltrack, an immediate KO resulted in all 15 tests. A near miss of the "grenade" would not result in a KO. However, in ver 1.12 "grenades" landing under/in a HT VERY RARELY resulted in a KO. It is also interesting to note that MG 42's and .30 Cal. MGs have become my "close assault" weapons of choice against HTs, as these weapons seem to be very effective against them in ver 1.12. Played a QB last night in which a MG 42 pillbox KO'ed 4 US HTs w/in 2 turns.

Not sure if everyone else has noticed this but decided to post my findings anyway. BTS, aside from this small "anomalous behavior", I love the 1.12 patch...havent had this much fun w/ CM in awhile. Gotta love those random unrestricted battles for the sheer "weirdness" factor alone

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Just a quick note here then it's back to CM2.

Close combat vs. vehicles is something of an abstraction in CM. So the closer you are to the vehicle the better. Distance makes a big difference. When you're more than 20m away it's a "longshot" to nail the vehicle, but the grenade throwing shows that your guys are at least *trying*. The grenades also represent other ways of attacking the vehicle (jamming things into the running gear, etc.) but we just show it as grenades. For CM2 we're likely going to add some ways to make attacking infantry more capable of closing the distance automatically so it'll be a little easier (though not too much).

Charles

OK....

Does that mean we are to understand that the v1.12 code stays as is and all is fine?

so basically just get as close as you can to that vehicle and roll the virutal cm dice?

I would guess this line "Just a quick note here then it's back to CM2. " means there is not going to be any change or update to the v1.12 code?

What do you folks think?

-tom w

[Doug Williams]

Let's put to rest the issue of the .50 cals.

I just did another test.

Parameters: 60x60 island - flat grass except for two squares of woods on opposite corners of the southern side of the island - 1 SPW 251/1 starting in the center of the northern edge of the island, facing south - 2 .50 cal MGs starting in foxholes in the woods squares on the southern side of the island, facing north - MGs told to target the HT on the first turn

Expected results: HT should be quickly turned into swiss cheese

Actual results:

1st test: HT knocked out in 33 seconds

2nd test: HT knocked out in 3 seconds

3rd test: HT knocked out in 25 seconds

4th test: HT knocked out in 2 seconds

5th test: HT knocked out in 17 seconds

I stopped after the fifth test because I was convinced that the HT was properly vulnerable to .50 cal MG fire.

The only question that remains in my mind is why it is so hard for a platoon of combat infantrymen to disable a HT via close assault.

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

expert \'ek-,spert'\ n : someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing

[Spook]

I'll try out more of my own tests later tonite, but it does seem that the .50 has sufficient "lethality."

My reason for floating it was to see if others were getting results of few kills with .50's. If that were the case, then I would think it POSSIBLE that the "chance to hit" at close range (for both infantry & MG's against vehicles) might had been inadvertantly "shifted."

If the .50's are killing HT's, then they are hitting first, as would be expected at closer ranges.