Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

Weapon tests for Combat Mission

Maybe it's the spread - it goes against my intuition though that you should go farther away from target to score better results. It's not immediately apparent in the first plot but the SMG's (MP40 and Stens) actually score more kills per unit time at 192 m (max testing distance) than at 160 m, while using less ammo.

As for MP40 vs MP44... I have no idea how they should compare at close ranges... I only know how they do compare in CMBN :)
 
Drifter Man said:
Maybe it's the spread - it goes against my intuition though that you should go farther away from target to score better results. It's not immediately apparent in the first plot but the SMG's (MP40 and Stens) actually score more kills per unit time at 192 m (max testing distance) than at 160 m, while using less ammo.
Click to expand...

You don't think it could be the spread? A shotgun effect... Seems intuitive to me
 
I don't know, it's possible. Battlefront would have fixed it if they didn't want it - they did adjust SMG firepower. So I suppose they had a reason.
 
Drifter Man said:
I don't know, it's possible. Battlefront would have fixed it if they didn't want it - they did adjust SMG firepower. So I suppose they had a reason.
Click to expand...

I think they just don't care enough about it. Only very dedicated players even notice these things.
 
I mainly want to learn how to use different infantry units effectively - I can't judge which weapon is undermodelled or overmodelled. But I'll share what I find when I'm done, for use for whatever purpose.
 
Drifter Man said:
I mainly want to learn how to use different infantry units effectively - I can't judge which weapon is undermodelled or overmodelled. But I'll share what I find when I'm done, for use for whatever purpose.
Click to expand...

I know.. my questions were just me thinking aloud. I'm no military expert either. But I find it interesting what kind of performance I can expect from the various weapons at certain ranges. This is the key to CM, I find.
 
Hapless said:
Use them to find targets for tanks and artillery then mop up what's left ;)

The differences in individual small arms aren't going to matter that much if the enemy starts off shell-shocked.
Click to expand...

This is very true for the typical CM battle where both sides have lots of tanks and artillery. But I mainly play small battles with infantry focus, and in those cases, it's very useful to know one's tools :)
 
I'm still new to CMx2 - even though I bought it years ago - but I'm getting the impression that indeed tanks and artillery dominate in most situations.
However, there also are scenarios (which tend to have more infantry for the terrain than one would use in a quick battle) and you can also have close terrain quick battles with special rules (like "nothing on a tank chassis is allowed"). Then infantry makes more of a difference. And I think I'll be inclined to play this kind of stuff.
Finally, even mopping up can be done well :)
 
Drifter Man said:
I'm getting the impression that indeed tanks and artillery dominate in most situations.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's mostly the AFVs that dominate.. and the on-map mortars. Proper artillery is expensive in points, slow to call in, and the damage done is toned down compared to reality. I've seen stuff like a 150mm shell making a treeburst just above the heads of two scouts... one of them got yellow wounded, and the tree was still standing.
 
Bulletpoint said:
I'd say it's mostly the AFVs that dominate.. and the on-map mortars. Proper artillery is expensive in points, slow to call in, and the damage done is toned down compared to reality. I've seen stuff like a 150mm shell making a treeburst just above the heads of two scouts... one of them got yellow wounded, and the tree was still standing.
Click to expand...
While I agree that artillery is expensive and therefor often not viable in QBs, in my experience they can be rather deadly. Long ago I played a CMBS battle, forested map. I had a battalion of infantry with some vehicles and mortars iirc. I came under fire from a 203mm artillery barrage. I think it was on a very wide area strike, and my troops were properly dispersed along the map. But each incoming shell would make the whole map go blinking from my unit icons ;-).

So yes, often mortars are good enough for the task at hand but don't underestimate heavy artillery imo.
 
Lethaface said:
While I agree that artillery is expensive and therefor often not viable in QBs, in my experience they can be rather deadly. Long ago I played a CMBS battle, forested map. I had a battalion of infantry with some vehicles and mortars iirc. I came under fire from a 203mm artillery barrage. I think it was on a very wide area strike, and my troops were properly dispersed along the map. But each incoming shell would make the whole map go blinking from my unit icons ;-).

So yes, often mortars are good enough for the task at hand but don't underestimate heavy artillery imo.
Click to expand...

I never played the modern games, so I can't say anything about that. But it doesn't sound anything like the artillery in the WW2 titles.
 
Inspired by Kraut's shooting range post, and having a ton of free time during the lockdown, I ran my own test of tank gun accuracy.

Panther A as the shooter, Regular crew, +2 commander. Sherman M4A1 target, stationary, almost but not quite exactly facing directly towards the Panther. 625 meters. Sherman buttoned and immobile since I just wanted it to serve as the target, not shoot it out with the Panther. Panther hatch open to improve spotting. I ran the test 100 times.

This test was to determine how many shots it took the Panther to get a turret or hull hit. I counted wheel hits and "weapon" hits where the round hit the target's external machine gun mount as misses. There were only 3 or 4 of those in 100 tests.

Results were interesting. At 625 meters, against a stationary target, I would have thought the Panther's gun would put somewhere around 75 % of first-round shots on target, but not so.

First round hit: 57 %
Second round hit: 35 %
Third round hit: 7%
Fourth round hit: 1%

Even more interesting was the enormous variety of times required for the Panther to spot the Sherman. Honestly, I wish I had recorded the spotting times because it would be equally useful info. In some tests the Sherman was spotted and correctly identified in 2 seconds; in most cases I would guess between 8 and 20 seconds. In a handful of cases the Panther didn't spot the Sherman during the entire 60 seconds, despite the Sherman firing as many as 5 rounds and scoring hits on the Panther. In the most extreme case it took 1:38 for the generic "Tank?" icon to appear, 1:45 to identify it as a Sherman, and 2:05 to get a round on target.

And in one test, the Sherman got the notorious gun mantle deflection hit down into the Panther's crew compartment and wounded the Panther's driver.

002.png
 
jobu88 said:
And in one test, the Sherman got the notorious gun mantle deflection hit down into the Panther's crew compartment and wounded the Panther's driver.
Click to expand...

:shocknaz:

You should play the lottery. I played CM for 7 years and never saw that happen. Well, it often deflects down into the hull, which you can see by the hit decals, but I never saw the shot penetrate.
 
jobu88 said:
Even more interesting was the enormous variety of times required for the Panther to spot the Sherman
Click to expand...
I wish after all these years BF would just let us in on the secret way "spotting" works. I think I have seen a great number of people speculate several different theories but have never seen them confirm. Thanks for all this work guys this information is very interesting.
@jobu88 @Kraut @Drifter Man
 
jobu88 said:
Even more interesting was the enormous variety of times required for the Panther to spot the Sherman. Honestly, I wish I had recorded the spotting times because it would be equally useful info. In some tests the Sherman was spotted and correctly identified in 2 seconds; in most cases I would guess between 8 and 20 seconds. In a handful of cases the Panther didn't spot the Sherman during the entire 60 seconds, despite the Sherman firing as many as 5 rounds and scoring hits on the Panther. In the most extreme case it took 1:38 for the generic "Tank?" icon to appear, 1:45 to identify it as a Sherman, and 2:05 to get a round on target.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how often the buttoned Sherman spotted the unbuttoned Panther first? It should be at a big disadvantage while buttoned...
 
Bulletpoint said:
I'm wondering how often the buttoned Sherman spotted the unbuttoned Panther first? It should be at a big disadvantage while buttoned...
Click to expand...

There were at least 15 times the buttoned Sherman spotted the un-buttoned Panther first which adds to the mystery of the game engine's spotting logic. In one case the Sherman bounced 5 rounds off the Panther before the Panther spotted the Sherman. My all-time least favorite experience was a game in which my stationary, un-buttoned Pz IV behind a hedgerow was spotted first by a Sherman that was moving across the open field the Pz IV was covering. Sherman stopped, aimed, fired and knocked out the Pz IV without being spotted. I nearly renounced the game once and for all over that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top