Bone_Vulture Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Actually, the Panther is vulnerable to ATR fire at close range and the side - it's as thin as 30mm there. :confused: My chart states that the Panther series has a minimum armor of 40mm on the sides? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 when doing a test in response to questions about top penetrations i had a russian ATR firing straight down at a PZIV. I let it fire until it ran out of ammo. Some how it didnt get any kills. any explinations? I dont see how 75 penetrations wouldent kill someone in a tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 How exactly was your ATR firing straight down? From a building? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probert Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Best use is to demotorise any infantry riding in soft skins. It demoralizes the enemy and throws off his timing. Also long range sniping attacks against gun crews. I have not had good luck against anything remotely armored. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: Actually, the Panther is vulnerable to ATR fire at close range and the side - it's as thin as 30mm there. :confused: My chart states that the Panther series has a minimum armor of 40mm on the sides? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 oh sorry, didnt mean to leave it unclear. yes, it was firing down from the second story of the building onto a PZIV that was right up against it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 The problem with AT rifles, when used in abundance, is Borg spotting. They can really aggravate that problem. They're cheap, and they have binos. With too many on the map, you are, in effect, playing with partial FOW. Killing armored cars is not the REAL threat posed by ATRs, it's their ability to monitor enemy activity. So, I believe historical use of ATRs is often GAMEY. The game engine can't handle the historical use of these units. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Let me rephrase my last comment above. The game engine cannot handle the ahistorical use of the historical numbers of ATRs. IOW, if ATRs were kept in fairly close proximity to their platoons, there wouldn't be much of a Borg problem. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveR Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 One good use of AT rifles is to lure enemy armour into a killing zone. In one battle I've just finished, I identifies a nice sweet spot to set up as a killing zone. But it was a wee bit out of the way of the route I expected my opponant to use. So I set up several ATR's along the path I expected him to take. Sure enought, as his armour started taking lots of hits from the ATR's they swung into the killing zone and my ATG's was able to hit him hard before he could extract them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monwar Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Great tips. I always thought that AT rifles were worthless, but now I'm gonna use them more! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 "when doing a test in response to questions about top penetrations i had a russian ATR firing straight down at a PZIV. I let it fire until it ran out of ammo. Some how it didnt get any kills. any explinations? I dont see how 75 penetrations wouldent kill someone in a tank." It was from the second story of a building. I need someone to explain this or my head will explode from it driving me too crazy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 oops double post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by cool breeze: I need someone to explain this or my head will explode from it driving me too crazy. Sure. Top penetrations are only modelled for ground attack planes and ballistic artillery. (And for a few ****ty "thrown" AT weapons...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 No, top penetrations for direct fire weapons have been modelled, just recently tested it. This wasn't the case with CMBO, but has been added in CMBB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Sergei: No, top penetrations for direct fire weapons have been modelled, just recently tested it. This wasn't the case with CMBO, but has been added in CMBB. Damn it, it'd be too easy if you could shoot at the top armor of tanks from buildings. (Reminds me of the time I took out a Panther with a top penetration in SP:WAW with a Soviet 12.7mm HMG...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Not all anti-tank rifles in the game are created equal. That German taper-bore heavy AT rifle (actually a very small field gun) has the benefit of pretty decent (better than 37mm) penetration combined with AT rifle stealth. On the minus side is the mobility hit you take over smaller AT rifles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 right, but how did i get 75 penetrations and no crew kills? to me that doesnt make any sense 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 right, but how did i get 75 penetrations and no crew kills? to me that doesnt make any sense 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 some how did a triple post. are they from messing with the back to previous page button? [ March 08, 2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: cool breeze ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidewinder Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 In my last attack/defense quickbattle I was defending. When I clicked go there sat a marder III, 700m away. Hmm, I says, whats got LOS to that? Turns out it was my ATR laying in wait in the rocks. He gets 3 shots off and gets a penetration, and takes it out. I won that game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Phosphorus Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by cool breeze: right, but how did i get 75 penetrations and no crew kills? to me that doesnt make any sense I think the design team seriously went overboard with the whole "one penetration kills are unrealistic" thing that Close Combat series suffered from. There a single ATR penetration (well any penetration) resulted in a catastrophic explosion. In CMBB however, in one scenario I had a Soviet MG only T-26 pounded with a German ATR at 200 meters for turns on end, without doing any damage. By the time I took out that riffle the front hull must've looked like a wiremesh. The crew should've started aiming and vision slits at that point anyways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I think the root problem of what White Phosphorus mentions is that the game doesn't presently model the effects of progressive minor damage. IMHO, the percentage chance of any one isolated ATR round KOing a tank or wounding a crew member is about right. However, at some point the cumulative effects large numbers of hits would begin to add up. Just one example, one small hole in the oil pan isn't going to stop a vehicle, at least not right away - it will take quite some time for enough oil to leak out and cause the engine to sieze. However, half a dozen holes in the oil pan and lines will probably cause fairly rapid overheating and engine failure. Eventually, the way to deal with this might be to create more variety in the ways AFVs can be damaged, especially by small AT rounds. For example, game could allow AP rounds to cause minor damage such as "Vision Slit Glass Cracked - Spotting Ability Reduced", "Gunsight Damaged - Main Gun Accuracy Reduced", "Minor Engine/Drivetrain damage - Speed and Acceleration reduced", "Bow MG hit - MG Knocked Out", etc. In this way, the progressive "death by 1,000 pinpricks" kind of thing that heavy, sustained ATR fire might cause could be modeled. The likelihood of an individual ATR round causing at least *some* damage would be increased, but the chance of any one round causing catastrophic damage would still be very small. Eventually, though, multiple minor damage hits could result in a vehicle no longer capable of fighting. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Yes, top penetrations are modelled for everything, to test it I just made a Js-III (III!) catch fire! I just made a huge pillar of earth, used 5m terrain, pillar elevation 18, and I set the rest of the earth to 0. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abteilung Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Top penetrations? In a battle against the AI, I had one of my T-34/85 blown to kibbles and bits by a Sturmtiger who was playing a rather extended game of cat and mouse from the crest of a hill. I thought he would get away and be safely behind the hill, but the ST nailed him on the move while going down a steep grade. The infantry riders were wiped out, too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by YankeeDog: Eventually, the way to deal with this might be to create more variety in the ways AFVs can be damaged, especially by small AT rounds. For example, game could allow AP rounds to cause minor damage such as "Vision Slit Glass Cracked - Spotting Ability Reduced", "Gunsight Damaged - Main Gun Accuracy Reduced", "Minor Engine/Drivetrain damage - Speed and Acceleration reduced", "Bow MG hit - MG Knocked Out", etc. In this way, the progressive "death by 1,000 pinpricks" kind of thing that heavy, sustained ATR fire might cause could be modeled. Interesting idea Yankeedog. It reminds me alot of thet classic Avalon Hill wargame "Richtofens War" where you could get critical hits on enemy airplanes even with a low firepower attack. These critical hits could be Rudder Jammed or Oil Line hit which had nasty consequences not necessarily straight away but perhaps down the track as well. A similar concept it seems to me and well worth looking at if the guys at BFC can incorporate the extra complexity into their new CM engine. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.