Is CM Artillery too destructive?

[DRG]

The bottom line is there will be changes made to CM in the next release. There have been some code tweaks and the penetration values will be closer to reality. The changes will mainly affect newer high end MBT's. If you're T-55's get caught by "steel rain" though, they will be just as dead as before

Don

[Mustang]

If there are any really overpowered weapons in the game it's the infantry weapons, which are hundreds of times more effective than they are in real life if you take each turn to be 3 minutes worth of fire. I've come to learn that MBT doesn't obey Newtonian mechanics and time and space are relative to what's necessary to create a functioning game.

MBT is an abstraction, if you think that something is severely incorrect you can always play Combat Mission. And even if you were to nerf cluster munitions, that wouldn't fundamentally change gameplay, it just makes artillery cheaper to buy because in WinSPMBT exchange-value equates with use-value.

[DRG]

We are NOT going to "nerf cluster munitions" The will work just as they always did on soft targets and light armoured vehicle. The only change players will notice will be that tanks that have top protection to counter the affects of cluster bomblets will be far harder to kill and the bomblet penetration numbers will better reflect reality

As for "infantry weapons, which are hundreds of times more effective than they are in real life".....well , it's easy to log onto a forum and make a sweeping generalization like you actually know what you are talking about and it's another to prove the point.

So..... really ?? "hundreds of times more effective" based on what exactly ? US army ammo expenditures vs enemy dead ?

Don

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by DRG

We are NOT going to "nerf cluster munitions" The will work just as they always did on soft targets and light armoured vehicle. The only change players will notice will be that tanks that have top protection to counter the affects of cluster bomblets will be far harder to kill and the bomblet penetration numbers will better reflect reality.

I actually agree with the changes, I was just referring to the original post and its suggestion that CMs should be toned down. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I don't think there is any combat experience to examine regarding cluster munition effectiveness against modern armor so we just don't know how well ERA works against them.

As for "infantry weapons, which are hundreds of times more effective than they are in real life".....well , it's easy to log onto a forum and make a sweeping generalization like you actually know what you are talking about and it's another to prove the point.

So..... really ?? "hundreds of times more effective" based on what exactly ? US army ammo expenditures vs enemy dead ?

Don

Pretty much. In Afghanistan the US is expending 250,000 bullets per kill. Rifle ammo expenditure isn't much better. If you say that's 25,000 per casualty, and a typical section carries 10,000 rounds, then an entire rifle section should run out of ammo before getting a single hit. Either that or assume there's an ammo Humvee following it around.

Likewise during World War II before automatic rifles, ammo was spent a little more efficiently but it was still thousands of bullets per wounded. A US division spent tens of thousands of Garand rounds during a day of combat.

I'm no expert on this stuff but it doesn't seem to click with what I've heard when a typical MBT infantry section carries enough rifle ammo to kill/casualty 20 people (100 rounds at 20% hit chance).

However, it doesn't that much actual difference because of the morale system. If infantry weapons were significantly weakened then it would just be a matter of suppressing the target until their morale breaks and they "retreat off map". If you assume that most WinSPMBT "casualties" represent broken/demoralized/looking after wounded soldiers then I don't know, perhaps the mechanics are realistic. Either that or assume Z-fire is supposed to be used a lot more.

For what it's worth though I think armor and aircraft are two things the game simulates very well.

[Suhiir]

I seem to recall a study of wounds made during WW II by the US Army that concluded that 70% of combat wounds/kills were made by fragmentation type weapons (artillery, bombs, mortars, etc.).

So if anything I'd say the game under-rates indirect fire weapons.

*ducks for cover*

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I seem to recall a study of wounds made during WW II by the US Army that concluded that 70% of combat wounds/kills were made by fragmentation type weapons (artillery, bombs, mortars, etc.).

So if anything I'd say the game under-rates indirect fire weapons.

*ducks for cover*

That's what I thought as well until I've played Vietnam War scenarios and WinSPWW2. Plus in most Cold war scenarios tank rounds are the most common killing weapon (which is also explosive).

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

That's what I thought as well until I've played Vietnam War scenarios and WinSPWW2. Plus in most Cold war scenarios tank rounds are the most common killing weapon (which is also explosive).

For armor it's always been use another tank or some sort of anti-tank weapon, they're fairly invulnerable to fragmentation type weapons. That is rather the point of them after all.

Also till about the 1960's almost all armies had far more infantry in them then most "modern" armies do. Less infantry obviously means less infantry casualties.

A good example to look at is the Arab-Israeli Wars of the 60's and 70's. Much smaller highly mechanized forces vs considerably larger less mechanized ones, both armed with fairly similar technology.

[DRG]

A "casualty" in these games is assumed to be anything from an outright kill to a soldier cowing in a shellhole unable to function and everything in between. It represents "Non combat effective" so every man removed from an infantry unit in the game is NOT a "kill" .....that was THE FIRST thing I changed with a hex editor in 1998 when we produced SP2WW2 when a hex editor was the only way to change the EXE.

As well, NO other army expends ammunition like the US Army. They are the exception not the rule.

[Mustang]

A "casualty" in these games is assumed to be anything from an outright kill to a soldier cowing in a shellhole unable to function and everything in between. It represents "Non combat effective" so every man removed from an infantry unit in the game is NOT a "kill" .....that was THE FIRST thing I changed with a hex editor in 1998 when we produced SP2WW2 when a hex editor was the only way to change the EXE.

Important day in MBT history. Thanks for the fix.

As well, NO other army expends ammunition like the US Army. They are the exception not the rule.

Good point. I learned something.

At the same time the game underestimates just how bad some guerilla/insurgent type forces are. The Taliban and Northern Alliance soldiers often went into battle against each other with about five bullets in an AK magazine and nothing else.

It's a world of difference in ammunition expenditure, but perhaps if most armies are reasonably conservative with their ammo they reach ingame accuracy rates. Sorry again for my ignorance.

[Suhiir]

As a former US Marine even we found US Army logistic system almost unbelievable in both efficiency and size (mostly size *chuckles*). That's a part of the reason they expend ammo at prodigious rates, they can afford to.