An Idiot's Guide to Vehicles and Weapons

[beady]

Is there such a thing? I don't have much luck with columns and rows of numbers; what I need is a plain-text explanation, such as "Use this tank to support your infantry," or "This is a good anti-tank weapon if you're within xxx yards." I think the original Steel Panthers took this kind of approach, and I found it a lot easier to combine my weapons systems effectively.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by beady:

Is there such a thing? I don't have much luck with columns and rows of numbers; what I need is a plain-text explanation, such as "Use this tank to support your infantry," or "This is a good anti-tank weapon if you're within xxx yards." I think the original Steel Panthers took this kind of approach, and I found it a lot easier to combine my weapons systems effectively.

Steel Panthers had armor ratings just like CM. The bigger the armor, the better.

The bigger the blast value (usually the most important factor is the barrel diameter) and the more MGs plus MG ammo, the better the effect vs infantry. If the tank has "C"anister ammo, it has devastating short range (<200m) effects vs infantry.

A tank is good vs armor if it has good penetration ratings. These ratings are colored. Blue = great, dark green = good, light green = ok, yellow = weak, red = weakest.

The armor uses the same color code. Click a vehicle. In the panel you can see several colored bars around the vehicle. If it has a turret, there are three bars to the front, three to the rear, one above and two below. front = frontal armor for turret, upper hull and lower hull. Rear... guess what... above=turret side, below = upper and lower hull.

Gruß

Joachim

[Moon]

Steel Panthers had armor ratings just like CM.

CM isn't using ratings, but the actual real-world data like thickness, slope etc (as good as can be researched at least) and a full-blown 3D ballistics engine. That's quite a bit more than "just like" Steel Panthers.

beady, unfortunately due to the complexity of the matter and the sheer amount of units included in CM, we've dropped the idea of including something like this in CM very early on. Even a most basic guideline of half a page per unit would have meant a game manual of 1000 pages or so...

Plus there are WAY better guides out there already than anything we could come up with. Basically your best "Idot's Guide to CM" will be any "Guide to WW2 Vehicles and Weapons" book you can find in your local bookstore.

Martin

[dieseltaylor]

Beady -

In a sense I think I should say read the frums or even better the Forums.

If you look in most you will find current discussions on how to kill Tigers, how to use flame throwers etc. You can do searches on whatever you like to be dug up from the archives.

Yuo can ask specific questions on the Forum - Tips and Techniques is good for this IF a search has not already answered the question for you.

I have been playing for 4? years and I learn at least one new thing a week at this site[some of it even relevant to the game] ; )

Part of the game is that you do not always get to chose your force so you have to develop some analytical powers!!!

For instance if I tell you the MarkIV is the German wonder tank of 1941 and will beat up virtually anything this is not the case in 1945.

What you can do is look at the gun - short barrel fairly useless against tanks, long barrel good, ammo load good, machine guns for infantry suppression etc etc.

Nashorn, enormous gun, open topped , skinny armour. So for the Nashorn you can say bad for it to be shelled, mortared, hates aircraft as it is a big target. And virtually anything will be able to shoot through its armour if close enough.

Like real war you have to learn the strength and weaknesses of things to get the best out of your assets - it takes time but that is how it is.

The other thing you will speedily learn is that even the strongest force if in the wrong terrain sucks - try running TigerII's around a small town crowded with bazzoka equipped infantry men ......

fun if you are not the Germans.

It is a great learning experience - and you can keep it simple to start with if you just learn to use American equipment as it is the most standardised in CMAK. ...... and then you learn what you hate most in the German line-up.

Have fun : )

[dieseltaylor]

p.s. And read the stickies at the top of the Tips and Techniques Forum .

Therein lies all good info for noobies and grogs alike.

[GreenAsJade]

Did you understand the description of the colours? If you don't want to read any other stuff, then understand the colours & blast value.

If you didn't understand what Joachim said about colors, let us know and we will re-phrase it...

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Moon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Steel Panthers had armor ratings just like CM.

CM isn't using ratings, but the actual real-world data like thickness, slope etc (as good as can be researched at least) and a full-blown 3D ballistics engine. That's quite a bit more than "just like" Steel Panthers.

beady, unfortunately due to the complexity of the matter and the sheer amount of units included in CM, we've dropped the idea of including something like this in CM very early on. Even a most basic guideline of half a page per unit would have meant a game manual of 1000 pages or so...

Plus there are WAY better guides out there already than anything we could come up with. Basically your best "Idot's Guide to CM" will be any "Guide to WW2 Vehicles and Weapons" book you can find in your local bookstore.

Martin </font>

[Frenchy]

This site may have the info you are looking for:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/

[BigDork]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Nashorn, enormous gun, open topped , skinny armour. So for the Nashorn you can say bad for it to be shelled, mortared, hates aircraft as it is a big target. And virtually anything will be able to shoot through its armour if close enough.

Gee, wonder where you thought of that example.

beady...

I would also suggest playing around with the editor some. Make a little test scenario with different tanks. While all the numbers and stuff are helpful nothing like acutally using the vehicles to get a feel for them.

[Kilroy Lurking]

dieseltaylor says...

"I have been playing for 4? years and I learn at least one new thing a week at this site[some of it even relevant to the game] ; )"

Absolutely! The best combat sim only gets better - but with reading the forums, playing around with 'Mods', checking out scenarios and reference books you wlll find that your actual gaming time can tend to be somewhat lacking. (esp if you have to 'boot into 9' every time.)

[MikeyD]

If you aren't a rabid armor grog it may be useful to do a simple vehicle lineup in the scenario editor. Pick a date (February 1945), then select every vehicle from all combatants in the unit editor. Go to the map editor and go one-by-one down the vehicle line comparing specs (hit 'return' to see selected unit specs.) You'll see this vehicle only fires armor piercing shot, that vehicle has thin armor but high speed, the other vehicle has no machineguns!

Just one lineup won't do. A vehicle lineup in Dec. 1940 looks very different than a lineup in July 1942, which looks different than a lineup in Oct. '43.

You may be a bit confused by some very similar vehicle types (all those 75mm gun Shermans for example). That was BFC being thorough. Since The U.S. produced Shermans with a V-8 diesel engine, and a V-8 petrol engine, and a multi-bank engine, as well as the original radial gas engine BFC put them all in the game (with noticeable horsepower differences).

Instead of searching out books and websites to round-out your weapons systems education you could instead use the game itself as a resource! I can't tell you how often I've needed a piece of reference on some vehicle so I start-up a CM game just to read the game's own spec sheet on the thing.

[ March 11, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[DaveR]

<snip>

Not if you are colour blind like me. Thankfully I have a good knowledge base to work on and don't need the colours

With the colour code you drop all complexity and reduce it so it is as easy as SP. Any idiot can use that colours. (Not every idiot may understand my phrasing, however )

Gruß

Joachim [/QB]

[Thermopylae]

Weapons Made Simple

Tanks

Yours: Explode and burn consistently, no matter how much armor you have on them.

Theirs: Only explode when you shoot them in the rear with 4-5 of the heaviest guns you have. (exception: ALL Allied tanks explode post '42)

Infantry:

Yours: Only have a generic weapons load of medium firepower, and break and run from irritated air molecules.

Theirs: Fight to the death, can massacre a squad at whatever range they just started shooting at you from, and use throwing knives when they run out of ammo.

Artillery:

Yours: Is slow and never has enough shells.

Theirs: Reacts instantly, and could cleanse the region by walking a barrage over the entire square kilometer, but can't due to their troops being in the way.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Thermopylae:

Weapons Made Simple

blaablaablaa

The explanation above made simple:

Your opponent plays with the Finns.

[Denwad]

or the russians bought the Kv-2 in 1941

[Abteilung]

Beady: I have an idea. Setup a quick battle for yourself and purchase your forces. Come back here and tell us the parameters for the battle (date, time, weather, terrain, total points, etc) and what units you bought. Then we can try and help you a little. Finding a good OOB and selecting the right force mix is half the fun, though, so I wouldn't expect any hard and fast rules to be established here.

=]

[Joachim]

Originally posted by DaveR:

<snip>

Not if you are colour blind like me. Thankfully I have a good knowledge base to work on and don't need the colours

With the colour code you drop all complexity and reduce it so it is as easy as SP. Any idiot can use that colours. (Not every idiot may understand my phrasing, however )

Gruß

Joachim

Well, obviously you aren't an idiot. If you were, you could you use the colours. Idiots like me can use them.

Sorry if I hit a mine there or hurt anyone. Usually you only recognize the value of your abilities once they are lacking.

Gruß

Joachim

[Derfel]

Here's a start:

The Byte Battler

Go to "Documents" and the look for "Derfel's Quick and Dirty AFV guide".

There's a similar thing on the CMAK pages with Italian and British AFVs.

-Derfel

[Scheer]

Originally posted by Derfel:

Here's a start:

The Byte Battler

Go to "Documents" and the look for "Derfel's Quick and Dirty AFV guide".

There's a similar thing on the CMAK pages with Italian and British AFVs.

-Derfel

Nice work, much appreciated.

[beady]

Thanks for the suggestions, gang, but I guess I'm not making myself clear. I went to the Byte Battler and downloaded all the documents; these seem partly what I'm after, However, even here, I encounter descriptions such as:

[sU76M] Based on the T-70 chassis and designed as a combination of assault gun and tank destroyer, the increase in German armour forced this vehicle into the infantry support role where it saw widespread use.

Looking at the charts doesn't tell me why it was forced into infantry support or why it apparently functioned well in that role. I'm guessing that the increased German armor necessitated a heavier(?) or more widespread(?) antitank capability for the Soviet infantry? If so, why was this particular AFV chosen for that role?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by beady:

Thanks for the suggestions, gang, but I guess I'm not making myself clear. I went to the Byte Battler and downloaded all the documents; these seem partly what I'm after, However, even here, I encounter descriptions such as:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />[sU76M] Based on the T-70 chassis and designed as a combination of assault gun and tank destroyer, the increase in German armour forced this vehicle into the infantry support role where it saw widespread use.

Looking at the charts doesn't tell me why it was forced into infantry support or why it apparently functioned well in that role. I'm guessing that the increased German armor necessitated a heavier(?) or more widespread(?) antitank capability for the Soviet infantry? If so, why was this particular AFV chosen for that role? </font>

[beady]

Originally posted by redwolf:

If you look for technical reasons why it was better then you won't find anything, apart from minor points like...

So, it sounds like there's no real reason why I couldn't use a King Tiger for "infantry support"? The impression I'm getting is that AFVs were assigned their primary, docrinal roles for reasons that have little to do with basic tactics, and more with considerations that are outside the scope of the game.

[CMFDR]

Here's a start:

The Byte Battler

Go to "Documents" and the look for "Derfel's Quick and Dirty AFV guide".

There's a similar thing on the CMAK pages with Italian and British AFVs.

-Derfel

Excellent work Derfel, very welcomed by the newcomer i am

By the way, in the Introduction DQDAFVG.pdf you said "American file is still under compilation and will be available soon".

Did you had the time to compile the American file yet?

PS: New url is http://www.kretsen.nu/bytebattler/

[John Kettler]

beady,

Don't know if you're a military history buff for this period or not, but if not, I recommend you become one. That way, you'll rapidly acquire an understanding of how things worked, how units were structured and used, what dominated when and why, etc. Given the Forum you're on, if you don't have the CMAK Guide, you need to get it and read it. Also, last week I saw an Osprey volume on desert tactics, which looked good to me and showed various AFV formations used in the Western Desert. Forum searches will reveal extensive threads on every pertinent topic imaginable, some running so long they had to be restarted several times lest they bring down the servers on the earlier boards!

The closest thing to what I think you're asking for lies in this compilation of CM tutorials

and tests (with graphic annotated presentation of the result) by a banned here member.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82672&highlight=poor+old+spike

These will teach you what to do and what not to do, as well as why, in CM.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tux]

So, it sounds like there's no real reason why I couldn't use a King Tiger for "infantry support"? The impression I'm getting is that AFVs were assigned their primary, docrinal roles for reasons that have little to do with basic tactics, and more with considerations that are outside the scope of the game.

Cost. In both real life and in-game you want to fulfill any given battlefield role at minimum cost. The King Tiger costs too much to be bought purely as an infantry support vehicle.

SU-76

1: It has thin, cheap armour on four sides. This is enough to shrug off enemy small-arms fire and protect the crew while they serve the vehicle's gun.

2: The gun and crew are mounted on a cheap, easily and quickly produced chassis, making them mobile and therefore preferable to an equivalent towed gun.

3: The cheap, readily-available 76.2mm gun fires substantial HE shells which are useful against enemy fortifications.

These three features are all that are required of an AFV in the infantry-support role. As it happened, particularly in its early days, the SU-76's gun was powerful enough to effectively combat full german AFVs. This led to its use in the dedicated tank-destroyer role, whereby it would serve as a cheap accompaniment to soviet tanks wherever german armour appeared, making good use of its gun's AT performance. As more potent and heavily-armoured german tanks became more widespread however, the SU found itself less able to reliably stand up to and destroy them. That was the cue for it to be 'relegated' to a more dedicated infantry support role - its HE performance was sufficient and it was less likely to encounter german armour which it couldn't handle.

King Tiger

1: It has exceptionally good armour protection. The King Tiger was burdened with the extra weight and expense of so much armour so that it could shrug off the most powerful enemy AT assets on the battlefield.

2: It has a very powerful, very expensive 88mm gun. The gun is outstandingly good at killing enemy tanks at all realistic combat ranges. For chucking HE shells (such as in an infantry support role) it is unnecessarily powerful and has less destructive potential than a lower-velocity, higher calibre weapon.

3: It has a heavily-armoured, powered turret. Once again this allows it to quickly and efficiently deal with mobile enemy armoured assets. In an infantry support role it is an unnecessary expense - the target is unlikely to be moving quickly or attempting to flank your vehicle.

These three features make the King Tiger an exceptional anti-armour asset, especially on a wide open battlefield. It is overkill as far as infantry support is concerned.