John Kettler Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 I know the game engine won't support dynamic cover, which is why troops get no benefit from moving behind the AFVs in CMBO and CMBB, when in reality, the practice was fairly common during World War II. What I'd like to know, though, is whether CMBB will depart from CMBO's unprotected flat plate engine deck model for tank carried infantry and at the very least provide such infantry with some sort of aggregated cover factor, even if the protection from the turret can't be directly represented? Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuma of Finland Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 I would like to hear some opinions (or even answers ) to John's questions. So BUMP! /kuma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 I have no answer to John's question, BUT...... At the moment I have a column of my enemy's stationary tanks under observed 81mm mortar fire and it doesn't sem to be doing the infantry on the back of them one bit of harm at all!! as far as I can see none have dismounted. There hasn't been an actual direct hit on a tank at all, but lots of near misses, and they are out in the open after all. If they were walking forward they'd all ahve run for some cover or hit the dirt long ago - they've had 2 full moves of bombardment so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 Mike, A possible explanation occurs to me. CMBO is fairly sophisticated in its treatment of shell fragmentation and blast, and tankborne infantry is above anything save a direct hit or a treeburst, which means that the body of the tank offers substantial protection from mortar bursts essentially landing downhill of or below the targeted infantry. We've seen numerous instances of troops being saved by terrain folds from even large caliber artillery, so it seems reasonable to me to posit that something similar may be occurring in the admittedly aggravating situation you describe. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 I don't think CMBO is THAT sophisticated!! lol However whatever the reason, my opponent got off his tanks (thenk you Alky!! ) and his infantry got hammered in the last turn! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Manuel Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 Originally posted by John Kettler: Mike, A possible explanation occurs to me. CMBO is fairly sophisticated in its treatment of shell fragmentation and blast, and tankborne infantry is above anything save a direct hit or a treeburst, which means that the body of the tank offers substantial protection from mortar bursts essentially landing downhill of or below the targeted infantry. We've seen numerous instances of troops being saved by terrain folds from even large caliber artillery, so it seems reasonable to me to posit that something similar may be occurring in the admittedly aggravating situation you describe. Regards, John KettlerI think it's actually quite the reverse. Example: if you have men on the reverse of a hill, and a 210mm shell comes in on the opposite side of the hill, your men may be hit or suppressed, because the blast model is strictly an abstract radius, regardless of intervening terrain...the only terrain that matters is the terrain that your unit is in. OTOH, who knows what they consider the "passenger on tank" 'terrain' to be...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts