Some advices on furure patches

[Peter Sikachev]

Hello!

I have been playing in CM series from CMBO to CMAK and I appreciate very much this game. But I have some remarks for CMBB (being my favorite game from all of them since I live in Russia;)):

1. Weapon of crew

Crews of abandoned vehicles and guns are armed only with pistols.

I know exactly that soviet artillerimen and drivers were equiped with carabines or rifles

and german tankers had MP-40 (radioman in case of emergence exit should take a mashingun).

2. Heavy MG

I talked to some russian veterans, they sad that Maxim mashingun team consisted only

of 3 members (6 in CMBB). The same thing with MG-34/42 (see any photoes of heavy MG).

Russian BA-10 can be destroyed by fire of heavy MG-42 at distance apr. 400 m. I think

7,92 mm bullets cannot penetrate 10 mm armor at such distances.

3. Antiank weapon of infantry

Russian infantry doesn't have granade bundles. But in reality it was as usual as Molotov

Coctail (MC).

MC are uneffective against any vehicles (even open-topped!) I've played almost all

single missions several times and a lot of multiplayer battles, but can recall only

3-4 (1XSdKfz 222, 2XSdKfz 251 and something else) vehicles destroyed by MC used by

infantry squads. In fact Frag Granades are much more effective against light and medium tanks

and other vehicles. I think if in reality things were the same, no one wold have used MC.

I've never saw in russian historical literature or video ampulomets. I think it's the

authours fancy. I can't imagine such a mashine to be so effective.

IMHO flamethrowers are enormously effective against tanks. I think to completely destroy

a tank FF must fire from rear or top. Frontal attack can only injure driver, crash

optics but not to blow up such well-armored tank as T-34.

German Tankhunters have Panzerwurfmine L in june 1941 (!). I think it's incorrect.

Russian infantry don't have rifle granades. They were used in small quantity in 1941.

(I can send you photoes made near Kiev).

4.There are few captured small arms. Partisans used very actively german MP-40 and other

weapons. Also german Sub-Mashineguns were very popular among russian scouts.

5.There is no bikes in the game! Germsns used them very actively in 1941-1942.

6.I recognise no principle difference between recon and rifle units. Recon squads must be

more independent and silent.

7.Frag Grenades are very uneffective against infantry. In fact I saw a man was killed by

an explosion of granade only twice. May be explosions are symbolizing close combat?

8. Snipers are almost uneffective. Once In "Pavlov's House" veteran sniper spent 10 "rounds"

(I think ammo points are symbolizing chargers) but killed noone. It's unrealistic.

Thanks for your attention.

[David I]

Peter,

You're too late man. No further patches for CMBB are forthcoming.

DavidI

[Pzman]

Yes the current CM game engine is effectivly dead meat... CMX2 is the next step.

[MeatEtr]

Kool, haven't seen a list like this for years, not since the release of CMBB. All kinds of things like this were brought up. But as the previous posters have said, it's too late for CMBB.

[Peter Sikachev]

Originally posted by David I:

Peter,

You're too late man. No further patches for CMBB are forthcoming.

DavidI

I thought that situation is like this. But what is CMX2 and what are the rumors about future continuation of this wargame?

[Bigduke6]

Peter,

Welcome, and "dobro pozhalovat'!" I agree with almost all of your comments.

CMX2 is the next generation game for Combat Mission. The designers say they are working on it now, and that when it's complete it will be the best computer wargame in the world. I believe them.

However, the designers will not say:

1. When the game is coming out

2. What time period will it cover

In recent weeks they have announced plans to do a "CMAK Special", which to me means they will be more busy with CMAK Special for the next few months, than CMX2.

My personal opinion is that it will be some time before we see CM2. Probably a year or more. That's just my guess, and there are other guesses from other people.

Again, welcome to the forum!

[flamingknives]

I'm going to pick and choose at this one:

Originally posted by Peter Sikachev:

Hello!

I have been playing in CM series from CMBO to CMAK and I appreciate very much this game. But I have some remarks for CMBB (being my favorite game from all of them since I live in Russia;)):

1. Weapon of crew

Crews of abandoned vehicles and guns are armed only with pistols.

I know exactly that soviet artillerimen and drivers were equiped with carabines or rifles

and german tankers had MP-40 (radioman in case of emergence exit should take a mashingun).

I think the rationale behind this was to avoid people using gun crews offensively.

2. Heavy MG

I talked to some russian veterans, they sad that Maxim mashingun team consisted only

of 3 members (6 in CMBB). The same thing with MG-34/42 (see any photoes of heavy MG).

the other 3 may be lurking about carrying the extra ammunition?

Russian BA-10 can be destroyed by fire of heavy MG-42 at distance apr. 400 m. I think

7,92 mm bullets cannot penetrate 10 mm armor at such distances.

The ball round might not, but the Germans used AP bullets sMK

Spitzgeschoss mit Kern, a steel cored rifle bullet designed to be fired from a standard Mauser infantry rifle. It was the German answer to the tank in World War I. At the time, British tanks sported 8 mm of face hardened armour all round, and the "K" bullet could penetrate a maximum of 12-13 mm at 0 to 100 metres (0 Degrees inclination).

Although it's not stated in the infrmation screens, not all armour is equal. Some will not be as hard as others.

I've never saw in russian historical literature or video ampulomets. I think it's the

authours fancy. I can't imagine such a mashine to be so effective.

Effective or not, it did exist. I posted a picture of one a while ago but now I can't find it.

8. Snipers are almost uneffective. Once In "Pavlov's House" veteran sniper spent 10 "rounds"

(I think ammo points are symbolizing chargers) but killed noone. It's unrealistic.

Ah, but they're not snipers, they're sharpshooters. Even regular ones can savage tank commanders and mess up support teams. If you're shooting at squad infantry, your misusing them.

[Other Means]

1 - tank crews are given only pistols to stop players using them as recon when the tank is destroyed, as this is not historical.

2 - Heavy MG's have 3 crew directly serving the weapon but the other 3 are fetching ammo etc.

3 - Completely agree about the MC. The Hungarian uprising is a good demonstration of tanks being destroyed with MC's. I have no knowledge of the Panzerwurfmine.

4 - Captured small arms where used on an ad-hoc basis and as such their distribution cannot be built into the game.

5 - Bikes, motorbikes, horses. The argument for and against them went on so long it became a running joke on this board. The basic argument being any of them would not be used in the actual battle as the infantry fought dismounted.

6 - Recon units were used differently by the different sides and there area of operations isn't really relevant to CM. CM assumes all recon etc has been done and the troops are just being used as line infantry. Giving them extra stealth wouldn't help as they are not fulfilling their usual role.

7 - Grenades are *very* effective if used correctly. Your men must be unsuppressed and the enemy suppressed. Then grenade combat < 30m makes a lot of casualties.

8 - Snipers in the game are not the well trained guys {and girls for the Russians } you are thinking of, more a guy with a scoped rifle. However they can still be very effective. Use them to hunt down enemy artillery spotters, scout and most of all - kill tank commanders. They are one of the most useful units in the game.

It is doubtful BFC will ever release CM as open-source as there is so much research gone into it.

So yes, there will be no more patches and welcome to the forum.

[Other Means]

Dammit.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Other Means:

3 - Completely agree about the MC. The Hungarian uprising is a good demonstration of tanks being destroyed with MC's.

While an American colonel evaluating the MC as a weapon in 1940 found it to be completely useless.

Source: 'A Colonel in the Armored Divisions'

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

3 - Completely agree about the MC. The Hungarian uprising is a good demonstration of tanks being destroyed with MC's.

While an American colonel evaluating the MC as a weapon in 1940 found it to be completely useless.

Source: 'A Colonel in the Armored Divisions' </font>

[Andreas]

Well, I have several accounts of being successful with them in CMBB. Against open-topped and fully armoured vehicles.

They are not ineffective, David's point is not correct. They are however no wonderweapon that destroys every tank, every time, they are used against one.

We can discuss the degree, and whether CMBB makes them less effective than they should be, but the original statement by David, and your complete agreement with it are simply incorrect. As anyone with a bit of CMBB time under their belts will know. End of story.

Edited to add - after checking, I realise that they may legitemately be considered ineffective, if you have completely unrealistic expectations.

I am also wondering if David realises that under full fog of war you will not notice enemy casualties?

[ July 09, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Other Means]

Actually, I do have a fair amount of CMBB playing under my belt and have *never* seen a closed top AFV destroyed with one. Maybe my experiance is an outlier but from discussion here in the forum I don't believe so. So ineffective they are. They have had zero effect in the game vs recorded effect in real life. And so I stand behind the statement.

[JasonC]

All infantry AT is more effective in CM than it was in real life. The objects that had to be hand placed are probably given the largest boost. Fausts were truly effective infantry AT but were the first of the war. Magnetic mines were not (effective if they were placed but too hard to place - demo charges were a similar story). Rifle grenades and the like were quite ineffective.

In CM, a unit without Molotovs is far more likely to kill a tank than one with them, which is wrong historically. They are depicted "throwing" "grenades" but the actual thing being resolved is some abstracted close assault (a real grenade won't do a darn thing to a buttoned tank). Of the two, it is arguably the close assault that is overmodeled.

Flame weapons were effective against tanks, sometimes more effective than commanders supposed - though a molotov was a comparatively ineffective way to deliver an inadequate amount of burning fluid. They worked when they worked by igniting parts of the tank - engine, hoses, rubber this and that - and the resulting smoke flooding the fighting compartments. The crew could not breath and bailed out if they could. The fire would immobilize the tank anyway by rendering the engine non-functional, even if the crew managed to stay.

There is a famous operational research study about tanks taken out by napalm attacks in Korea, that showed almost all the tanks KOed from the air were from napalm hits, while most of the claimed kills came from other weapons that actually had not been effective. That was mostly a point about inaccurate air to ground kill claims, and obviously a napalm canister delivers far more payload than a few bottles of gasoline. But it certainly shows in passing that flame KOs full tanks, when enough is delivered.

Molotovs got their name from the success the Finns had with them against relatively primitive Russian lights in wooded terrain (Molotov was Russian foreign minister at the time, and the Finns were said to be welcoming his war with a new toast). I think you'd find it hard to reproduce that outcome in CM. The Finns would do a better job with "hand grenades".

In game terms, the Russians start getting some tank hunters with RPGs in the second half of 1943 and they are reasonably common later in the war. Before those, the tank hunters are useless because they only have molotovs, which are worse than nothing. The only effective Russian infantry AT before then, and the most effective in my opinion throughout the war, are the pioneers with their demo charges. The other way Russian infantry forces deal with tanks is to use hidden AT minefields.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I think you'd find it hard to reproduce that outcome in CM. The Finns would do a better job with "hand grenades".

Or satchel charges.

Considering the rest of the molotov discussion, I think the only way to actually witness an MC taking out a tank is to duel against an opponent who tends to make very brash armor maneuvers - it'll likely take a panzer spearheading through urban terrain to have enough Soviet infantry squads in vicinity to attempt and perhaps succeed with molotov assaults.

[Peter Sikachev]

Originally posted by Other Means:

1 - tank crews are given only pistols to stop players using them as recon when the tank is destroyed, as this is not historical.

2 - Heavy MG's have 3 crew directly serving the weapon but the other 3 are fetching ammo etc.

3 - Completely agree about the MC. The Hungarian uprising is a good demonstration of tanks being destroyed with MC's. I have no knowledge of the Panzerwurfmine.

4 - Captured small arms where used on an ad-hoc basis and as such their distribution cannot be built into the game.

5 - Bikes, motorbikes, horses. The argument for and against them went on so long it became a running joke on this board. The basic argument being any of them would not be used in the actual battle as the infantry fought dismounted.

6 - Recon units were used differently by the different sides and there area of operations isn't really relevant to CM. CM assumes all recon etc has been done and the troops are just being used as line infantry. Giving them extra stealth wouldn't help as they are not fulfilling their usual role.

7 - Grenades are *very* effective if used correctly. Your men must be unsuppressed and the enemy suppressed. Then grenade combat < 30m makes a lot of casualties.

8 - Snipers in the game are not the well trained guys {and girls for the Russians } you are thinking of, more a guy with a scoped rifle. However they can still be very effective. Use them to hunt down enemy artillery spotters, scout and most of all - kill tank commanders. They are one of the most useful units in the game.

1. IMHO, perfect solution is to give only "withdraw" possible orders to crews.

2. 5 men to carry ammo?

3. Check any Wermacht Weapon guide. They first appeared in 1943.

4.You didn't understand me - German MP-40 widely used by partisans and even state troops. I didn't mean weapon capture.

7. They cannot kill any man - thay are very smilar to Warhammer 40K grenades (if you played in the table-top version;))

8. But even elite snipers do not kill or hurt enemies on even each third shot.

About ampulomets - I saw them only in Polish Weapon guide, I didn't see photoes where Russians really used them.

Are there any screenshots of the new game engine?

Thanks for your attention:)

[flamingknives]

In reverse order:

No screenshots of CMX2.

There aren't that many surviving photos where you would see Russian soldiers using ampulomets

Elite sharpshooters slaughter tank commanders and can easily render support weapons ineffective. Furthermore they are very hard to spot so they can hold up an entire advance since troops are easily pinned by fire if they don't know where it is coming from. In a recent game vs a human player, five or six regular sharpshooters killed almost every tank commander in five platoons of tanks. Not one sharpshooter was killed in returned and the distraction allowed my anti-tank assets to dispose of more tanks that would otherwise have been possible.

I've seen grenades kill men and knock out guns, not to mention vehicles. That said, in Vietnam, only 1 out of 10,000 bullets fired ever actually hit someone, so by the same logic small arms are harmless.

5 men to carry ammo? No. One man to fire, one to feed and one to spot. That's three, two of whom are at the gun and the third is nearby. Then, you've got to carry a couple of thousand rounds of 7.92mm ammunition, which is neither small nor light, and a couple of spare barrels to stop the gun overheating. When moving, you need one man to carry the gun, one for the tripod and then a whole bunch for the ammunition and barrels. Maxims need to have enough spare hands to lug water for the cooling jacket too, but then spare barrels aren't needed. On top of the gear for the gun. everyone is carrying personal kit and some will have personal weapons too. The latter are abstracted out to stop MG teams being too uber.

[stikkypixie]

Also remember that when you see a grenade land at the feet "the three men that you see", that it doesn't mean that a grenade actually lands at the feet of your men. The graphics you see only mean that a grenade has been thrown in that direction, where it actually lands only the computer knows, it could be next to your guys it could be 20m away.

[yuvuphys]

I lost a PZIII to a MC the other day...had just finished hitting a Russian tank, and was on it's way out of dodge as fast as it could go. The TC decided not to fire his MG or main gun for about 30 seconds while infantry ran towards the tank, despite a targeting order and the main gun pointed straight at the lead squad the whole time...and a few seconds later "top penetration knocked out"...gah!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Peter Sikachev]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Maxims need to have enough spare hands to lug water for the cooling jacket too, but then spare barrels aren't needed. On top of the gear for the gun. everyone is carrying personal kit and some will have personal weapons too. The latter are abstracted out to stop MG teams being too uber.

Look, I spoke with a real veteran who was in Maxim crew. He said that it really consisted of three men.

[flamingknives]

Was that his team, all the teams in his unit or all the teams in the army? Was it a doctrinal setup or was it a function of needing people for squad infantry?

Does it really make much difference in the game?

[Sergei]

It is possible that the MG squad was divided into two sections and that the veteran was talking about the first one, consisting of the sergeant, machinegunner and loader. If the MG didn't have another section who carried ammunition, then the Maxim would have been quite useless in any other than totally static operations (they couldn't carry effective amounts of ammunition when they needed to change position).

[Glider]

Originally posted by Other Means:

Actually, I do have a fair amount of CMBB playing under my belt and have *never* seen a closed top AFV destroyed with one...

I've had Hetzers destroyed by 12.7mm HMG fire. Not sure if it was CMBB though.

[Glider]

Yeah they do. Just ran a test with 6 x 12.7mm Russian HMG teams deployed in circle around 4 x Hetzers. All 4 Hetzers were destroyed by the end of the turn one.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

Actually, I do have a fair amount of CMBB playing under my belt and have *never* seen a closed top AFV destroyed with one...

I've had Hetzers destroyed by 12.7mm HMG fire. Not sure if it was CMBB though. </font>