Historical realism mod :)
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Gateway to Caen
#1: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:48 pm
    —
Hi all,

To sort out how the data files work in GTC before porting something big I've came to idea of making some kind of historical realism mod.
As I have all the numbers for the German units on the eve of Epsom it will be pretty easy to fix/adjust units/FPs for the Germans.
If anyone has some detailed information for the 8th Corps units on June 25th and would like to share it would be greatly appreciated.

The basic plan is :

1) Adjust most of the data for vehicles and weapons - done.
2) Adjust/fix FPs/units for both sides.
3) Make 21 slots always available - you decide what you take in battle.
4) Make alot of diversity for teams representing real employment of units.
5) Adressing vehicle speed - done.
6) Adressing poor aiming of tanks - hard coded - everyone should spam Matrix forum (politely as Cathartes mentioned Wink ).
7) Homing mortars - fixed.

Please advise what else would you be interested to change in vanilla GTC?

Last edited by Dima on Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:09 pm; edited 3 times in total
#2: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:43 pm
    —
If you change some of the BGs to 21 units, you will have to provide an unrealistic amount of troops to some of the forcepools, or significantly change how troops are organized (in an unrealistic or un-historic way) so be prepared to stretch your meaning of "fix"--especially if you intend to hold on to the battalion-level OOB for the British.

Also, in order to make sense of the dynamic evolution of the Epsom Battlefield, and the great mixing, rapid movement and dispersal of units that occurred (especially with the Germans), I will be very curious how you choose to make compromises and interpret the composition of battlegroups, especially in context with the adjacent Operation Dauntless and the way German troops and tanks moved between the two areas of fighting.  Maybe you can make a bunch of new maps and expand the area to include that area of fighting?  That was our original intent, but we never had time to do this.

Look forward to see what you rig up!
#3: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:10 pm
    —
Cathartes,

Thanks for your feedback!

Please don't tell me about ahistorical/unrealistic organizations as that's what we have for the Germans in GtC now, sorry to say. But that's alright, you still made a great game! First of re-releases I like Smile.
Well, probably I will see a problem soon....or I will have to split teams in more historical/realistic way Wink.

I still think about the brits...but I recall in 2010 they were all telling me it was wrong to have leMG for most of the German teams Wink.

Quote:
Also, in order to make sense of the dynamic evolution of the Epsom Battlefield, and the great mixing, rapid movement and dispersal of units that occurred (especially with the Germans), I will be very curious how you choose to make compromises and interpret the composition of battlegroups, especially in context with the adjacent Operation Dauntless and the way German troops and tanks moved between the two areas of fighting.  Maybe you can make a bunch of new maps and expand the area to include that area of fighting?  That was our original intent, but we never had time to do this.

unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge about Epsom and that's why I have to rely on your reseach.
So the mod will only adjust/fix BGs that are in the vanilla Epsom GC Smile.
#4: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: russ109,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:14 pm
    —
Interesting remarks Cathartes. So by the sound of it we could of had a much larger game with more maps? Only Matrix decided to get it out asap to rake in the cash and on to their next project!
#5: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:39 pm
    —
Just an example of how the units of same 25.PzGrR/12.SS-PzD were different on the eve of Epsom:

1) 1.Kp/1.Bt 80% manpower, 4 sMG, 29 leMG and 2 8cm.
2) 5.KP/2.Bt 80% manpower, 4 sMG, 12 leMG, 2 8cm.
3) 9.Kp/3.Bt 80% manpower, 4 sMG, 12 leMG, 2 8cm.

now let's look at 26.PzGrR:

1) 1.Kp/1.Bt. 50% manpower, 0 sMG, 0 leMG, 0 8cm.
2) 5.Kp/2.Bt. 100% manpower, 4 sMG, 18 leMG, 1 8cm.
3) 9.Kp/3.Bt. 100% manpower, 4 sMG, 28 leMg, 2 8cm

compare to GtC :)

edited: Oops, wrote the wrong manpower percentage for 1.Kp/1.Bt of 26.PzGrR Smile.

Last edited by Dima on Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:13 pm; edited 2 times in total
#6: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:01 pm
    —
I think the tanks move quite slower than the other games. (Not on the rainy days, also during normal days)  I don't think they could be so slow in reality (apart from churchill mark VII: crocodile). In GJS tanks could move at pretty decent speeds.

Also, tanks, ATGs, AT infantry seem to miss to often. They almost always miss the first shot, even if there is a command team nearby.

It would be nice if these things could be tweaked a bit in a mod.
#7: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:05 pm
    —
Quote:
I think the tanks move quite slower than the other games. (Not on the rainy days, also during normal days)  I don't think they could be so slow in reality (apart from churchill mark VII: crocodile). In GJS tanks could move at pretty decent speeds.

no problem adressing that.

Quote:
Also, tanks, ATGs, AT infantry seem to miss to often. They almost always miss the first shot, even if there is a command team nearby.

not sure but we'll see soon Smile.

updated topic.
#8: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:58 pm
    —
How do you change the force pools to make all 21 slots editable? I thought that was impossible.
#9: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:26 pm
    —
DoktorPaj wrote (View Post):
How do you change the force pools to make all 21 slots editable? I thought that was impossible.

Cathartes and Firefox suggested how to do it - BG needs to have at least 8 Companies to have all 21 slots available Smile.
#10: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:50 pm
    —
We'll start with II./26./12.SS-PzD (the first German BG in GC):

in GTC it has a composition of Typ 43 (gp) but in real life it was Typ 43 (mot) thus really different teams and different support Smile.
to make it have 21 units I'll add the following units (from 26 Regiment support):

1) Mot sIG Zug with 1 sIG33.
2) Mot Flak Zug with 2 Flak 38.
3) Armored Pionier Zug with 2 SdKfz 251/16, 3 Pio Gruppen, 2 SdKfz 251/7 and 1 SdKfz 251/7 (2.8cm).
#11: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Hesus,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:17 am
    —
7 men units would give a more intense feeling to the infantry battles.
#12: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:53 am
    —
Hesus wrote (View Post):
7 men units would give a more intense feeling to the infantry battles.

Typ 43 (mot) has 7+5men organization Smile.
#13: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Stwa,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:14 am
    —
Well, good luck with the historical Germans. I know this kind of stuff makes you happy.

But, it would drive me crazy. Here are all the Germany infantry I use from D-DAY to the end of the war. They are generally commanded by the AI.  Arrow
#14: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Hesus,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:40 am
    —
Well i can't wait to see this mod appear. Good luck with it. Smile
#15: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:32 am
    —
Dima,
How you feel about the nato icons vs images?
#16: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 5:58 pm
    —
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Dima,
How you feel about the nato icons vs images?

Stalk, of course I would definately like to use photos for BG screen and new icons (for easy navigation) only in battle like we made in BfC.
If you would like to help porting them (both photos and icons) from BfC, I appreciate this or will have to wait for Nikin Smile.
#17: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:03 pm
    —
Hey Dima,
I don't claim to be an expert on German troop composition, but I used PitF as the starting point (didn't you help Steve with PitF OOB?) but had to make a lot of adjustments because a lot of the 12SS units in Epsom were deployed as front-line infantry without all their support up front backing them--many of their halftracks where unavailable or previously destroyed.  Also, I had to make some adjustments to balance h2h play in some cases because the Germans were actually weaker (overall) than they currently are in GtC.

I do stand by what I said about British infantry/troop composition, and happy to discuss.

Tanks-- you can speed them up certainly, but there were a few factors in keeping tank movement slow overall:

1. British had terrible tank-infantry cooperation and there is no way to reflect this in game.
2. It was pretty muddy after the first morning.
3. It was not in anyone's armor doctrine to race around the battlefield without knowledge or cover.  Tanks moved methodically and cautiously in the presence of enemy, and only moved quickly if racing for cover/trying to avoid fire.  
4. Tanks moving faster will likely multiply inaccuracy with armor vs armor.
5. It will change the dynamic of the game making tanks a more dominating battlefield weapon than they currently are. If people want that trade off, you can have it.

Regarding infantry anti-tank weapons: they are actually more effective than in PitF, and arguably unhistorically so (if looking at data), but when adjusting data, historical accuracy doesn't exactly play historically accurate in the game--this engine is not like the older CC engines before LSA.
#18: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:07 pm
    —
Quote:
Interesting remarks Cathartes. So by the sound of it we could of had a much larger game with more maps? Only Matrix decided to get it out asap to rake in the cash and on to their next project!


well, we were give a timeline to work with and you can only do so much with that.  If we were able to work faster and it was a full-time job and a half, maybe we could have pulled it off.  This final cc game was not allowed to come out after the new close combat.   Wink
#19: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:52 pm
    —
Thanks a lot Cathartes for the useful replies!

I forgot to ask another very game-dominating thing: The Crocodile tank flame just single shots and destroys any tank in the game.  Is it realistic?

Tank fight against the croc goes like this currently:
1. Shoot from far, can't penetrate, black reticule.
2. Move closer, flank it. Shoot at it, miss the first shot.
3. Croc turns at you, shoots the cannon, can't penetrate. Flames your tank once: And you are BBQ!

I could understand if it immobilized or damaged the tanks, or maybe destroyed them in the 3rd, 4th shot. But so far, it always one shot me with flamer.
#20: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:29 pm
    —
And another thing:

Why does almost every infantry team have MGs? Even recon teams now have machine guns and it doesn't make much sense, since they should be lighter and more mobile teams. (Both the Allied and German side has this over-presence of MG situation)

Is there any historical background to this?  Because, now I find myself almost never picking heavy MG teams, which I used to do quite often in GJS or other mods.
#21: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:30 am
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):

I forgot to ask another very game-dominating thing: The Crocodile tank flame just single shots and destroys any tank in the game.  Is it realistic?
Tank fight against the croc goes like this currently:
1. Shoot from far, can't penetrate, black reticule.
2. Move closer, flank it. Shoot at it, miss the first shot.
3. Croc turns at you, shoots the cannon, can't penetrate. Flames your tank once: And you are BBQ!
I could understand if it immobilized or damaged the tanks, or maybe destroyed them in the 3rd, 4th shot. But so far, it always one shot me with flamer.

Of course that's not realistic as basing on experience from the Spanish war all the German tanks became flame protective from frontal projection. What flamethrower could do to a tank is to burn rubber bandages on wheels, melt engine radiator making a tank immobile or just force crew to bail out because of scare of beeing burned alive.
No worries, Crocs will be different after rework Wink.

Quote:
Why does almost every infantry team have MGs? Even recon teams now have machine guns and it doesn't make much sense, since they should be lighter and more mobile teams. (Both the Allied and German side has this over-presence of MG situation)
Is there any historical background to this?

There were different appraches on infantry combat in German Army and the British Army:
1) The Brits relied on bayonet/granade charge of Rifle Group with support of Gun Group (BREN). Example: of 10men Rifle section, 8 men had bayonets.
2) The Germans relied on leMG to deal with opposition where most of the riflemen were just acting as protection and ammo bearers for squad's leMG(s) and were taught to avoid close/hand-to-hand combat at all costs. Example: of 12men PzGren Gruppe (mot), only 6-7 had bayonets, of 10men PzGren Gruppe (gp), only 4-5 had bayonets.

So basicaly as a British player you have to utilize bayonet/grenade charge under cover of MGs as your main tactics while as the German player you have to rely on firefight where your superior leMGs and Rifle Grenades will help you winning with much less casualties. But in hand-to-hand combat the German teams will most always loose to the Brits.

Quote:
Because, now I find myself almost never picking heavy MG teams, which I used to do quite often in GJS or other mods.

you can't substitute sMG with leMG in most of key scenarios especially at long range engagements because of way better accuracy and possibility of long sustaining fire Smile.
#22: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:04 am
    —
Hi Cathartes,

Cathartes wrote (View Post):
Hey Dima,
I don't claim to be an expert on German troop composition, but I used PitF as the starting point (didn't you help Steve with PitF OOB?) but had to make a lot of adjustments because a lot of the 12SS units in Epsom were deployed as front-line infantry without all their support up front backing them--many of their halftracks where unavailable or previously destroyed.  Also, I had to make some adjustments to balance h2h play in some cases because the Germans were actually weaker (overall) than they currently are in GtC.

well, 3rd bat of 26.PzGrR was the only armoured battalion of 12.SS-PzD and on the eve of Epsom it had like 70-90% (depending on Company) of halftracks still intact Smile. But this battalion was defending west of GTC area against 49.ID.  
but if you are talking about PzPioBat.12 then yes, it had a very poor condition of it's armoured companies with only 251/7 (leMG) halftracks left.
But let's try to simulate all these and see how it goes Wink.

Quote:
I do stand by what I said about British infantry/troop composition, and happy to discuss.

sure, we will discuss them after the Germans Smile.

Quote:
Tanks-- you can speed them up certainly, but there were a few factors in keeping tank movement slow overall:


1. British had terrible tank-infantry cooperation and there is no way to reflect this in game. - IMO we are not reenacting the battle in CC but simulating the forces and let the players have their own tactics, battles and outcome.
2. It was pretty muddy after the first morning.
3. It was not in anyone's armor doctrine to race around the battlefield without knowledge or cover.  Tanks moved methodically and cautiously in the presence of enemy, and only moved quickly if racing for cover/trying to avoid fire. - same for experienced players in CC as any tank without infantry support can be destroyed or captured by a single infantry team. But now they can't race for cover due to slow speed at all time Wink  
4. Tanks moving faster will likely multiply inaccuracy with armor vs armor. - will try and see.
5. It will change the dynamic of the game making tanks a more dominating battlefield weapon than they currently are. If people want that trade off, you can have it. - tanks were/are dominating battlefields since 1916 Smile.

[qupte]Regarding infantry anti-tank weapons: they are actually more effective than in PitF, and arguably unhistorically so (if looking at data), but when adjusting data, historical accuracy doesn't exactly play historically accurate in the game--this engine is not like the older CC engines before LSA.[/quote]
no PzF/RPzB is listed in 12.SS reports till late July.
though they did have alot of GrBs...
#23: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:25 pm
    —
Quote:
no PzF/RPzB is listed in 12.SS reports till late July.

meaningless since there is account after account of PzF use in June in multiple sources on both sides of the battle
#24: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:33 pm
    —
Cathartes wrote (View Post):
Quote:
no PzF/RPzB is listed in 12.SS reports till late July.

meaningless since there is account after account of PzF use in June in multiple sources on both sides of the battle

with 12.SS? Could you please share?
As you should know there is a German report with tank kills claims dated June 29 and it shows only 23 claims by close combat weapon for 12.SS. Kind of low number for the unit that was heavily engaged during all June and encountered alot of enemy tanks...but in comparison to other units in Normandy 12.SS had a huge amount of Rifle Grenades adapters and GrBs on June 6th.
352.ID that was low grade unit but did have PzFs on June 6th reported 30 CC tank kill claims.
PLD that was engaged later than 12.SS but had PzF/RPzB reported 40 CC tank claims.
And 21.Pz that had neither PzF/RpzB nor significant amount of GrBs reported only 5 CC tank claims...
#25: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:55 pm
    —
FWIW, I agree regarding shrecks, can't find a single reference or acknowledgment anywhere in any source I've ever come across for 12SS in Normandy.

With fausts I run into a number of scattered accounts.  I will have to dig around soon (will do) to sort through them, but for starters, do you have a copy of "12th SS: Vol. 1, The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division"?  There are a fair number of references beginning on June 7.
#26: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:04 pm
    —
Dima

I just read something about GtC, have you seen this too:

JFFulcrum wrote (View Post):
- Ambushes (instant spotting by enemy on 'Fire' order, enemy see through smoke, cover system completely blown away)..
#27: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:56 pm
    —
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Dima

I just read something about GtC, have you seen this too:

JFFulcrum wrote (View Post):
- Ambushes (instant spotting by enemy on 'Fire' order, enemy see through smoke, cover system completely blown away)..


I have played the game to some extent and haven't noticed it having such strange problems so far. The only issues I have noticed about gameplay until now are the ones I have already posted above.
#28: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:01 pm
    —
Okay, glad to here.
Im thinking of buying the game but if cover system is craped then...
#29: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:16 pm
    —
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Dima
I just read something about GtC, have you seen this too:
JFFulcrum wrote (View Post):
- Ambushes (instant spotting by enemy on 'Fire' order, enemy see through smoke, cover system completely blown away)..

No, Stalk, the guy posted some BS.
IMO cover works same as before and in all CC teams could see through smoke.
#30: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:23 pm
    —
Quote:
With fausts I run into a number of scattered accounts.  I will have to dig around soon (will do) to sort through them, but for starters, do you have a copy of "12th SS: Vol. 1, The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division"?  There are a fair number of references beginning on June 7.

Will check the book but I have monthly reports of 12.SS since April 1944 and the first time PzF/RPzB are listed was in August 3rd report. But as there are 972 PzF listed out of 1.000 authorized that makes me think they got them in late July and had used/lost some already.
#31: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:32 pm
    —
You know the case when you shoot at a tank and it automatically discharges smoke. Plenty of times in this game I was not able to see the targeted tank for a while after it discharged smoke defensively.

So I think smoke seems to work ok, that it can sometimes hide units briefly.  It also changes the light green firing cursor through it to dark green as the previous games. So no problem there as well.

A mod, which:
- balanced the game a little more for H2H,
- changed the currently annoying things mentioned previously,
- and (if possible) made the maps more colorful (GJS style)          

would be perfect!
#32: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:59 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
You know the case when you shoot at a tank and it automatically discharges smoke. Plenty of times in this game I was not able to see the targeted tank for a while after it discharged smoke defensively.
So I think smoke seems to work ok, that it can sometimes hide units briefly.  It also changes the light green firing cursor through it to dark green as the previous games. So no problem there as well.

yes, it works same since at least TLD.

Quote:
A mod, which:
- balanced the game a little more for H2H

nah, will be a total rebalance Wink.

Quote:
- and (if possible) made the maps more colorful (GJS style)
         
I like the color scheme of maps in GTC Smile.

will show 2 first reworked BGs for the Germans tomorrow.
#33: re: panzerfausts Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:55 am
    —
Diaries of SS-Panzer Regiment 12 mentioned Panzerfaust training in Louviers on June 4 according to "Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy" by Norbert Szamveber.

Check out Hubert Meyer's account of 12.SS history yet?
#34: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:25 am
    —
Quote:
Diaries of SS-Panzer Regiment 12 mentioned Panzerfaust training in Louviers on June 4 according to "Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy" by Norbert Szamveber.

have just bought the book for kindle - looks like a decent work, thanks for sharing!
4 June 1944 - Tank training and tank gun fire practice between 0700 and 1100 hours for the officers nad NCO's of the Regimentsstab and Panzerfaust training in Louviers.
seems to me like an introduction of a new weapon for officers/NCOs and it doesn't mention life firing practice...and that's a single mentioning of panzerfaust in war diary.
#35: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:04 pm
    —
Cathartes,

Could you tell the limits for GTC data files?
#36: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:19 pm
    —
Steve said there were essentially no limits (technically up to 32768 per data file).

re: fausts, sure you can interpret discount that entry I mentioned, and the others that follow in Szambeber's book, including the report put together in early July that 23 tanks were destroyed in June by hand-held anti-tank weapons (interestingly more than by all AT guns).  I'm still interested what you have to say about Hubert Meyers book and the many personal accounts of using panzerfausts in June.

Two reports of panzerfausts by the British during Espom:  In Lloyd Clark's Operation Epsom there is mention of panzerfausts, small arms, and grenades being fired on 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry and 2nd Glasgow Highlanders as they entered the edge of Cheux on June 26.  Also, mention of panzerfausts stopping Churchill tanks in St. Mauvieu on June 26.

Finally there is the famous story of Unterscharfuhrer Emil Durr who was awarded the Iron Cross for his heroic assault of a Crocodile at St. Mauvieu first using two Panzerfausts to immobilize the enemy tanks before finally using a magnetic mine.  Apparently the tank was never destroyed but the crew abandoned it and was presumed killed/captured. Emil Durr was severely wounded in his attempts and died shortly after.

If you are going by KStN reports for 12SS, they are not completely reliable, especially since fausts were typically treated as ammunition and not weapons per se.  I could continue to dig up more, but I think I've put enough time into this.  It's your mod and obviously the effort and last word is yours.

Cheers,
Cathartes
#37: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:05 pm
    —
Quote:
Steve said there were essentially no limits (technically up to 32768 per data file).

seems weapons file doesn't work here if you set entry 97 - 96 is a max in GTC.

Quote:
re: fausts, sure you can interpret discount that entry I mentioned, and the others that follow in Szambeber's book, including the report put together in early July that 23 tanks were destroyed in June by hand-held anti-tank weapons (interestingly more than by all AT guns).

sure, as Panzers were the main AT weapon in Normandy for the whole campaign.

Quote:
I'm still interested what you have to say about Hubert Meyers book and the many personal accounts of using panzerfausts in June.

yes, will have to read that.

Quote:
Two reports of panzerfausts by the British during Espom:  In Lloyd Clark's Operation Epsom there is mention of panzerfausts, small arms, and grenades being fired on 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry and 2nd Glasgow Highlanders as they entered the edge of Cheux on June 26.  Also, mention of panzerfausts stopping Churchill tanks in St. Mauvieu on June 26.

and all guns were 88mm.
how could they see a difference between PzF and GrB.39 penetrations?

Quote:
Finally there is the famous story of Unterscharfuhrer Emil Durr who was awarded the Iron Cross for his heroic assault of a Crocodile at St. Mauvieu first using two Panzerfausts to immobilize the enemy tanks before finally using a magnetic mine.  Apparently the tank was never destroyed but the crew abandoned it and was presumed killed/captured. Emil Durr was severely wounded in his attempts and died shortly after.

or maybe he was throwing PanzerWurfMinen or shooting schiessbecher with HEAT ammo, who knows?

Quote:
If you are going by KStN reports for 12SS, they are not completely reliable, especially since fausts were typically treated as ammunition and not weapons per se.  I could continue to dig up more, but I think I've put enough time into this.  It's your mod and obviously the effort and last word is yours.

again, I have month reports that state each GrB, SB, russian ATG and IG but no mention of PzF/RPzB.
and yes, I've heard about fausts were treated as ammunition and that's why I asked Martin Block about that and he confirmed that Infantry units had a priority for PzF/RPzB till August 1944 on all fronts.
#38: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:06 pm
    —
There are some problems for me in learning new FPs files so there is a delay, sorry.
#39: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:15 pm
    —
Hi Cathartes,

Well, I've checked the Meyer's book and although I still in doubts I think there could be some PzFauste for PzNahkampf units and maybe Pioniere Smile.

Could you help me with understanding FPs?

To be on a safe side I gave 9 companies to II./26/12 but still slots are locked. Maybe there should be some amount of support/infantry unit to tigger 21 slots?
Or what do I do wrong?
#40: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:26 pm
    —
Quote:
To be on a safe side I gave 9 companies to II./26/12 but still slots are locked. Maybe there should be some amount of support/infantry unit to tigger 21 slots?
Or what do I do wrong?

Hard to say exactly, but with the 8 company thresholds and opening up the 7 corresponding support slot numbers: since this is an infantry BG, you will need to add 8 infantry companies to get all 7 support spots, not 8 companies total.  Support companies will always only show up as support unless you designate/edit them as infantry, but then you have the problem of having nothing available in your support slots unless you rig an artificial work-around.
#41: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:27 pm
    —
Cathartes wrote (View Post):
Quote:
To be on a safe side I gave 9 companies to II./26/12 but still slots are locked. Maybe there should be some amount of support/infantry unit to tigger 21 slots?
Or what do I do wrong?

Hard to say exactly, but with the 8 company thresholds and opening up the 7 corresponding support slot numbers: since this is an infantry BG, you will need to add 8 infantry companies to get all 7 support spots, not 8 companies total.  Support companies will always only show up as support unless you designate/edit them as infantry, but then you have the problem of having nothing available in your support slots unless you rig an artificial work-around.

Thank you!
#42: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:49 am
    —
Cathartes,

Could you ask Steve to fix aiming of tanx in a patch? As even with 100% accuracy they still keep missing at 100m with clear LOS Sad
That's a good feature for 500+m moving or obscured targets but kind of rediculous for clear LOS targets at low range.

btw tried 305mm caliber in weapons for 75mm gun and seems no difference after penetration...
I believe it was wrong to remove "bang" sound when tank is hit as now it's hard to understand if it was a miss or hit. Would be good to have a special graphics for a armor hit with no smoke but some sparks... Why would you want a smoke for hits especially for the british shells if they didn't have HE filler?

Last edited by Dima on Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:47 am; edited 1 time in total
#43: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:04 am
    —
Progress so far:

1) Adjust most of the data for vehicles and weapons - done.
2) Adjust/fix FPs/units for both sides - in progress.
3) Make 21 slots always available - you decide what you take in battle - harder than I thought Smile.but will manage, I hope
4) Make alot of diversity for teams representing real employment of units - in progress with No2.
5) Adressing vehicle speed - done.
6) Adressing poor aiming of tanks - looks hard-coded, let's all ask Steve!
7) Homing mortars - fixed.

Last edited by Dima on Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
#44: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:39 am
    —
Sounds good Dima!
#45: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:57 am
    —
Quote:
1) Adjust most of the data for vehicles and weapons - done.
2) Adjust/fix FPs/units for both sides - in progress.
3) Make 21 slots always available - you decide what you take in battle - harder than I thought Smile.but will manage, I hope
4) Make alot of diversity for teams representing real employment of units - in progress with No2.
5) Adressing vehicle speed - done.
6) Adressing poor aiming of tanks - looks hard-coded, let's all ask Steve!

ahh, yea, if you were thinking of it but forgot to mention, mortars were rebalanced as well - no more homing mortars, no more killing laying soliders with close explosion, you need alot of mortar ammo and luck to KO a single ATG Smile
#46: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:04 am
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):
Progress so far:

1) Adjust most of the data for vehicles and weapons - done.
2) Adjust/fix FPs/units for both sides - in progress.
3) Make 21 slots always available - you decide what you take in battle - harder than I thought Smile.but will manage, I hope
4) Make alot of diversity for teams representing real employment of units - in progress with No2.
5) Adressing vehicle speed - done.
6) Adressing poor aiming of tanks - looks hard-coded, let's all ask Steve!


Nice.  Regarding the poor aiming of tanks, I agree it must go given the ranges we play at in CC, BUT there is a positive to it in that it gives you time to react--not sure that positive outweighs the negatives and completely unrealistic nature of it.  It's funny since Slitherine and company (including you, Cathartes!) are often making defenses against complaints on the basis that the way it is is more realistic.  How is it at all realistic that a tank cannon is missing its first shot at 100 meters?  Tanks appear to miss their first shot 75% of the time, regardless of range.  

Dima, did you make any changes to the Panzershreck and/or Panzerfaust accuracy or damage?  I know the Panzerfaust was a close-range weapon, but it's missing broadside shots on Churchills at under 10 meters by a couple meters--however, if it hits it does tend to be effective (not the case with the Panzerschreck).

Last edited by Troger on Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:56 am; edited 1 time in total
#47: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:24 am
    —
Hi Troger,

long time no see ;)

Quote:
Dima, did you make any changes to the Panzershreck and/or Panzerfaust accuracy or damage?  I know the Panzerfaust was a close-range weapon, but it's missing broadside shots on Churchills at under 10 meters by a couple meters--however, if it hits it does tend to be effective (not the cause with the Panzerschreck).

I only rebalanced PzF (not tested yet though) as there were not PzSchrecks in that area that time Smile.
#48: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:38 am
    —
Quote:
Could you ask Steve to fix aiming of tanx in a patch? As even with 100% accuracy they still keep missing at 100m with clear LOS Sad
That's a good feature for 500+m moving or obscured targets but kind of rediculous for clear LOS targets at low range.
 You can all ask (nicely I might add), but it's not just up to Steve and there's a lot going on.  

Quote:
btw tried 305mm caliber in weapons for 75mm gun and seems no difference after penetration...

don't know about this, just went with what was in PitF.

Quote:
I believe it was wrong to remove "bang" sound when tank is hit as now it's hard to understand if it was a miss or hit. Would be good to have a special graphics for a armor hit with no smoke but some sparks... Why would you want a smoke for hits especially for the british shells if they didn't have HE filler?
 Bang wasn't removed, it's in there but you don't always hear it every time you get a glancing blow/deflected hit.  Don't know why, it's just how this engine functions...  regarding explosions: If we had permission, money, and time, sure... there would be a lot of fun stuff to do differently, but you only have so much time, you prioritize, and you have to make all new maps/strat layer, arrows, etc. which takes a LOT of time.  Also, c'mon... really?  That's a level of detail that just isn't going to rise to the top when you have hundreds of hours of mapmaking/coding to do along with all new vehicle graphics, and the countless hours that went into the new explosion graphics...  Just Conrad and I working on these things!
#49: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:08 am
    —
Cathartes wrote (View Post):
If we had permission, money, and time, sure... there would be a lot of fun stuff to do differently, but you only have so much time, you prioritize, and you have to make all new maps/strat layer, arrows, etc. which takes a LOT of time.  Also, c'mon... really?  That's a level of detail that just isn't going to rise to the top when you have hundreds of hours of mapmaking/coding to do along with all new vehicle graphics, and the countless hours that went into the new explosion graphics...  Just Conrad and I working on these things!


OK, but what did you do AFTER lunch?  Wink
#50: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:55 am
    —
I don't really like to make a full log of changes but I know it's good to show the amount of work Smile.

So there is list of main changes in weapons:

1) HE grenades (generic) - accuracy decreased by 37%, kill rating (KR) increased by 37% (from 8mm to 11mm).
2) Explosives (throwed) - RoF increased from 10s to 6s, flying time decreased from 5s to 4s, KR decreased from 100mm to 60mm.
3) 2-inch bomb thrower (tank) - RoF increased from 12s to 6s, max range increased from 30m to 137m.
4) .38 Cal. Enfield No2 Mk.I - RoF increased from 0,2s a shot to 0,4s a shot, reloading speed decreased from 8s to 30s, accuracy decreased from 75% to 20%, max range decreased from 50m to 40m, caliber changed from 11mm to 9mm, KR changed from 2/2/2/2mm  to 6/5/4/2mm (PB/Close/Medium/Long range)  
5) .303 Cal. SMLE No.4 Mk.I - RoF decreased from 0,4/s to 1,5s/s, reloading decreased from 8s to 11s, accuracy decreased from 90% to 55%, max range decreased from 500m to 400m, KR from 8/8/6/5 to 9/8/7/4.
6) Added Panzerwurminen (kurz) - AT grenade.
7) Added 4" smoke discharger - smoke discharging cups on early production Shermans/Stuarts/ACs.
Cool Mills bomb (board) - grenade that is used by open-top vehicles crew for self defence.
9) .303 Cal. No.4 Mk.I (T)  - reload decreased from 10s to 11s, cooldown (to adjust aim) changed from 0,5s to 3s, set up time increased from 0s to 2s, max range increased from 800m to 1000m, KR changed from 9/8/7/4 to 15/15/15/2.
10) Added 37-mm M5 L/50 for Stuart III and Humber IV (lower RoF and KR than M6).
11) 9mm STEN Mk.II - quality decreased from 90+% to 30%, accuracy changed from 80% to 40%, max range increased from 100m to 110m, KR changed from 2/2/2/2 to 6/6/5/4.
12) .303 Cal. BREN Mk.II - RoF decreased from 0,2s to 0,4s, reloading increased from 8s to 5s, set up time increased from 1s to 3s, accuracy decreased from 85% to 65%, max range decreased from 800m to 600m, KR changed from 9/8/6/4 to 9/8/6/3.
13) Added 17-pdr Mk.V L/55 for M10C (lower RoF than MkI but better than MkV).
14) .303 Cal. Vickers Mk.I - RoF increased from 0,4s to 0,2s, reloading changed from 15s to 6s, set up time changed from 10s to 30s, rounds in burst changed from 6 to 5, accuracy changed from 85% to 82%, max range decreased from 1200m to 1000m, KR from 9/8/4/2 to 9/8/6/3.
15) 83-mm PIAT - RoF from 10s to 30s, set up time decreased from 5s to 3s, min range from 8m to 10m, accuracy from 90% to 30%, max range from 110m to 85m, KR from 102mm to 95mm.
16) 37-mm M6 L/50 - accuracy AP from 90% to 87%, KR AP from 78/69/64/59 to 64/56/50/37, added cannister shot with max range of 150m.
17) 6-pdr Mk.IV L/50 (ATG) - RoF from 4s to 5s, KR AP from 115/99/92/82 to 110/104/100/82. APDS (SP) accuracy from 85% to 50%, KR APDS from 177/156/147/123 to 139/120/120/120.
1Cool 6-pdr Mk.V L/50 (tank) - RoF from 4s to 5,5s, KR AP from 115/99/92/82 to 110/104/100/82. APDS (SP) accuracy from 85% to 50%, KR APDS from 177/156/147/123 to 139/120/120/120.
19) 75-mm M3 L/40 - RoF from 8s to 7,5s, KR AP from 102/85/78/70 to 84/77/72/70 for AP shot and added APC shot (SP) with 95/90/88/73.
20) 17-pdr Mk.IV L/55 (Firefly) - RoF from 8s to 10s, KR AP from 174/152/143/120 to 153/141/131/109. Added APCBC shot (SP) 143/140/137/129.
21) 17-pdr Mk.I L/55 (ATG) - RoF from 8s to 7,5s, KR AP from 174/152/143/120 to 153/141/131/109. Added APCBC shot (SP) 143/140/137/129.
22) 3-inch M7 L/50 - RoF from 8s to 7s, KR AP from 124/118/98/88 to 122/110/102/81.
23) 95-mm Mk.I - RoF from 15s to 13s, caliber from 105mm to 95mm, KR HEAT from 128 to 95mm.
24) 75mm OQF Mk.V L/37 - RoF from 8s to 7,6s, KR AP from 102/85/78/70 to 93/83/76/57.

That's all for the brits for now.
Huh it's so boring to make such a list - even more boring than editing data cells Wink.
#51: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:53 pm
    —
there are things that the CC engine does that if you put "historical" data in, it will do strange things, so be aware that if you just look at this from a data perspective and don't take in the big picture, you may break or throw as many things off as you intend to fix.  

a lot of questionable/debatable changes here if you are basing this on historical fidelity... but well done on posting them!
#52: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:00 pm
    —
Cathartes wrote (View Post):
there are things that the CC engine does that if you put "historical" data in, it will do strange things, so be aware that if you just look at this from a data perspective and don't take in the big picture, you may break or throw as many things off as you intend to fix.

thanks for mentioning but that's not my first mod Wink  

Quote:
a lot of questionable/debatable changes here if you are basing this on historical fidelity... but well done on posting them!

want to debate? can prove all of them Wink.
#53: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:56 pm
    —
Now the German weapons:

1) 9mm Pistole 38 - RoF from 0,4 to 0,2s a shot, reloading from 10s to 4s, accuracy from 75% to 40%, max range from 50 to 40m, KR from 3/3/3/3 to 6/5/4/2.
2) 7.92mm Karabiner 98k - RoF from 1,5s to 2,2s, reloading from 10s to 8s, accuracy from 90% to 60%, max range from 500m to 400m, KR from 8/8/6/5 to 8/7/5/3.
3) 3cm Schie?becher - was K98k with SB, now just SB with it's own data.
4) 7.92mm Karabiner 98-ZF41 - RoF from 1,5s to 2,2s, reloading from 10s to 8s, set up time from 0s to 3s, adjusting aim time after shot from 0,5s to 3s, accuracy from 90% to 70%, max range from 800m to 1000m, KR from 8/8/6/5 to 15/15/15/15.
5) Added 3cm GrPzb?chse 39 (with HEAT and HE ammo).
6) Added 9.1cm Nebelwurfgerat - smoke cups used on the German tanks that time.
7) Removed Karabiner 43 - not used that time by these units in Normandy.
Cool Removed Karabiner 43-ZF4 - not used that time by these units in Normandy.
9) 9mm MP.40 - reloading from 10s to 7s, mag capacity from 28rnds to 30rnds, accuracy from 80% to 50%, KR from 3/3/3/3 to 6/6/5/3.
10) Removed 7.92mm MP.43 - not used that time by these units in Normandy.
11) 7.92mm le.MG.34 - cooldown after each burst from 0,3s to 0,6s, reloading changed from 5s to 14s simulating changing of barrel after 350 shots (was after 50 shots), rounds in burst changed from 5 to 7, accuracy changed from 80% to 55%, max range decreased from 1000m to 600m, KR from 8/8/4/3 to 8/7/5/3.
12) 7.92mm s.MG.34 - cooldown after each burst from 0,3s to 0,1s, reloading changed from 10s to 9s simulating changing of barrel after 300 shots (was after 250 shots), set up time from 30s to 40s, rounds in burst changed from 5 to 9, accuracy changed from 85% to 80%, max range decreased from 1200m to 1000m, KR from 8/8/4/2 to 8/7/6/3.
13) 7.92mm le.MG.42 - cooldown after each burst from 0,2s to 0,7s, reloading changed from 50s to 120s simulating changing of barrel after 230 shots (was after 250 shots), set up time from 6s to 5s, rounds in burst changed from 8 to 9, accuracy changed from 80% to 65%, max range decreased from 1000m to 600m, KR from 9/8/4/3 to 8/7/6/3.
14) 7.92mm s.MG.42 - cooldown after each burst from 0,2s to 0,1s, reloading changed from 10s to 9s simulating changing of barrel after 250 shots (was after 250 shots), rounds in burst changed from 8 to 11, accuracy changed from 85% to 70%, max range decreased from 1200m to 1000m, KR from 9/8/4/2 to 8/7/5/3.
15) Removed 8.8cm Raketenpanzerb?chse 54 - not used that time by these units in Normandy.
16) 15cm Panzerfaust 30 - reloading from 10s to 4s, set up time from 5s to 4,5s, accuracy from 90% to 80%, max range from 30m to 35m, KR from 200mm to 120mm.
17) Added 7.92mm Gewehr 41 - semi-auto rifle used by these units that time.
1Cool Removed PzF (klein) - was mainly distributed between Infantry units.
19) 2cm L/112 (flak) - KR AP from 45/34/29/24 to 40/31/23/14.
20) 8.8cm L/56 (flak) - RoF from 5s to 4,5s, accuracy from 90% to 99%, KR AP from 162/143/132/113 to 160/134/128/116.
21) 3.7cm PaK36 L/46 (HTs) - RoF from 2,0 to 2,5s, accuracy from 90% to 87%, KR AP from 49/39/35/28 to 41/37/34/26. Added APCR (SP) shells with 70/55/49/36.
22) 7.5cm L/46 (ATG) - RoF from 8s to 6s, accuracy from 90% to 99%, KR AP from 146/128/117/99 to 123/116/112/94.
23) 7.5cm L/12 (IG) - RoF from 15s to 7s, KR HEAT from 88 to 95mm.
24) 10.5cm leFH 18 L/28 (StuH39) - RoF from 15s to 27,5s, KR HEAT from 104 to 120mm.
25) 15cm L/11 (IG) - KR HEAT from 185 to 160mm.
26) 1.4cm Flammenwerfer - max range from 30m to 40m, KR FT from 125/100/80/60 to 30/30/30/30.
27) 2cm KwK38 L/55 - accuracy from 90% to 75%, KR AP from 45/34/29/24 to 23/21/16/12.
2Cool 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 - RoF from 8s to 8,6s, accuracy from 90% to 100%, KR AP from 135/119/108/91 to 123/116/104/94.
29) 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 - RoF from 8s to 11,1s, accuracy from 90% to 100%, KR AP from 185/152/135/107 to 160/150/144/129.
30) 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 (Tiger) - RoF from 5s to 10,5s, accuracy from 90% to 99%, KR AP from 162/143/132/113 to 160/134/128/116.

Ok, that's for german weapons by now.
Vehicles next.
#54: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:09 pm
    —
Quote:
want to debate? can prove all of them Wink.


You can't "prove" very much. You have arguments (so does everyone) but much of your "proof" is based on very limited data and a narrow interpretation of specific aspects of that data. Your assertions on APDS accuracy is just one example.  

It's your mod with your interpretations, and that's great.
#55: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:20 pm
    —
Quote:
You can't "prove" very much. You have arguments (so does everyone) but much of your "proof" is based on very limited data and a narrow interpretation of specific aspects of that data.

I can prove my points why I did that or that.
but I doubt you can have good arguments why for instance you used 174mm@100m for 17-pdr as there are number of test reports and vets evidences that state Panther glasic can't be penetrated by 17-pdr APCBC/APC shell at more than 300 yards Wink.

Quote:
Your assertions on APDS accuracy is just one example.  

that's funny, didn't you check the link i've sent to you today? Smile
#56: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:44 pm
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):

16) 15cm Panzerfaust 30 - reloading from 10s to 4s, set up time from 5s to 4,5s, accuracy from 90% to 80%, max range from 30m to 35m, KR from 200mm to 120mm.


Oh nooooooooo, it's even worse than it is currently Dima!  You have to test it in stock GTC, it's already wildly inaccurate at ranges under 15 meters.  

Can you please make ATGs and IGs movement faster?  I've never understood why they were given such insanely low movement speed.  I know you couldn't sprint with one but surely you could move one faster then what we see in CC.
#57: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:47 pm
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):

15) 83-mm PIAT - RoF from 10s to 30s, set up time decreased from 5s to 3s, min range from 8m to 10m, accuracy from 90% to 30%, max range from 110m to 85m, KR from 102mm to 95mm.


Good.  The PIAT currently has insanely fast reload speed, and seems a bit too powerful.
#58: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:42 pm
    —
interesting Dima.  Very Happy  id prefer the piat to be a little more accurate than it has been in all the other CC games. its been almost useless in most CC games to its inaccuracy IMO. going from 90% to 30% accuracy seems a bit much....50% might be better?
#59: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:08 pm
    —
stiener wrote (View Post):
interesting Dima.  Very Happy  id prefer the piat to be a little more accurate than it has been in all the other CC games. its been almost useless in most CC games to its inaccuracy IMO. going from 90% to 30% accuracy seems a bit much....50% might be better?

even if you set 1% in CC it will still hit, no worries Smile. let's first play-test this rebalance and then adjust what is neccessary.
FYI some info about PIAT perfromance Wink
Percentages of hits at different ranges were:
Target Less than 85 yards More than 85 yards
Crossing 70 48
Approaching 42 24
Receding 80 68
The effect of range on the percentage of hits is not very great; about two thirds as many shots hit
above 85 yards as below. It is certainly not possible to obtain a hit with certainty by waiting until the
tank is within say 70 yards. The reason for the unexpectedly poor performance at short ranges is
presumably the increase in angular movement of the target, combined, perhaps, with the 'sense of hurry'
already mentioned.
#60: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:11 pm
    —
Troger wrote (View Post):

Oh nooooooooo, it's even worse than it is currently Dima!  You have to test it in stock GTC, it's already wildly inaccurate at ranges under 15 meters.

I believe that's hard-coded as well as guns. And to fix that we all need to beg Steve at matrix forum Wink.  

Quote:
Can you please make ATGs and IGs movement faster?  I've never understood why they were given such insanely low movement speed.  I know you couldn't sprint with one but surely you could move one faster then what we see in CC.

already made for IGs, pak40 f.e. is immobile - i've not posted all the changes as it would take a couple of pages Smile.
#61: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:36 pm
    —
I forgot to mention that Snipers seem to be a bit worthless in this game. Has anyone else observed their pathetic performance?

@Dima:  Perhaps according to feedback from other people, could you also adjust it?

GJS, or TRSM level of snipers were quite useful in certain situations, would be great if we could have snipers as in those mods.
#62: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:01 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
I forgot to mention that Snipers seem to be a bit worthless in this game. Has anyone else observed their pathetic performance?
@Dima:  Perhaps according to feedback from other people, could you also adjust it?
GJS, or TRSM level of snipers were quite useful in certain situations, would be great if we could have snipers as in those mods.

you could notice in the list that sniper rifles were upgraded Wink.
funny is that IIRC I borrowed sniper data for my mods from GJS, but for GTC Cathartes made it different (same as it was done in stock CCs - not effective) Smile.
#63: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:29 pm
    —
Gentlemen.......as Dima has requested, the only way were going to get the data fixed for guns being more accurate is to ask steve at matrix to do it. theres a couple of threads at matrix where you can do this.
so far i havent seen to many of us post..PLEASE post. if we dont, it WILL NOT get fixed. i know this from past experience with matrix....they will say that no one else asked for a fix so its not a problem.

try this link to post to steve please  Very Happy

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3651378
#64: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:45 pm
    —
Quote:
already made for IGs, pak40 f.e. is immobile - i've not posted all the changes as it would take a couple of pages Smile.


Nice.  Why make the Pak40 immobile?  It was moveable, wasn't it?  

Also, can you add two mortars per mortar team?  This makes them more worth selecting, and offsets the changes you made to make them less powerful.
#65: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:07 pm
    —
Troger wrote (View Post):

Nice.  Why make the Pak40 immobile?  It was moveable, wasn't it?

pak40 had such a strong recoil that after a couple of shots Pak40 it was virtually digged into the soft ground.  
kind of hard to move 1,4 tons with 5men crew :)

Quote:
Also, can you add two mortars per mortar team?  This makes them more worth selecting, and offsets the changes you made to make them less powerful.

alread done for the units that had enough mortars Wink.
#66: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:10 pm
    —
Should I upload weapons vs armor rebalance while iam sruggling with new FPs? Smile
#67: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:16 pm
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):
Troger wrote (View Post):

Nice.  Why make the Pak40 immobile?  It was moveable, wasn't it?

pak40 had such a strong recoil that after a couple of shots Pak40 it was virtually digged into the soft ground.  
kind of hard to move 1,4 tons with 5men crew :)

Quote:
Also, can you add two mortars per mortar team?  This makes them more worth selecting, and offsets the changes you made to make them less powerful.

alread done for the units that had enough mortars Wink.


Great.  

Yes, I just saw this video of a PaK40 firing.  Who knows what type of ammo that is firing, but that is some blast.
#68: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:22 pm
    —
Troger wrote (View Post):

Great.  
Yes, I just saw this video of a PaK40 firing.  Who knows what type of ammo that is firing, but that is some blast.

but that's nothing in comparison to 17-pdr, neither gunner nor commander could see a tracer if it was shot at less than 1500 yards Wink.
btw, that's a good example why all the ATGs in the RA and USA had no muzzle break Smile.
the Brits and Germans were relying on one shot kill with a huge amount of powder for each shell and that's why needed a muzzle break to compensate recoil...
#69: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:03 am
    —
Quote:
I can prove my points why I did that or that.


Not very often.  You never really provide evidence, and when you do, you don't consider the whole picture.

The Isigny tests you DID cite is a classic example. You look at the data and see that 1/2 the 17pdr APDS rounds didn't hit the target area so you make the blanket assumption that only 1/2 of all APDS ammo type/batches, when fired under any circumstances, could only hit a tank 1/2 the time at any range.  What you fail to see is that most of the APDS actually hit the tank in the tests, even if they did not hit the specific target area.  Furthermore, do you believe that British gunners were so stupid when their lives were on the line that they didn't account for the errant flight of sabot ammo?  

Do you read books or just look for tidbits of data on the internet that support your specific interpretation of history?  I would urge you to have a more open mind and take in a broader spectrum of sources. You do have accurate information at times, but your dogmatism prevents you from having good peripheral vision.
#70: Re: Let's make a mod :) Author: Antony_nz,  PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:13 am
    —
stiener wrote (View Post):

try this link to post to steve please  Very Happy

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3651378


No mater how hard i try, i cant log onto the matrix forums to post. I merged my account from Slitherine, i tried to register. Its seems no matter what i cant log in. I couldn't log on a year back either. Seems like it cant be done.
Another thing, is there a non GwTC forum area on Matrix?

Dimas post to Steve made me laugh.
#71: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:27 pm
    —
lets not forget that the game has to be PLAYABLE too....we sometimes overlook that fact when we try to get too historical in our data.
some allowances have to be made to make the game balanced, per say, and playable.
some of the histroical data just doesnt work and make the game playable and needs to be tweaked.
#72: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:36 pm
    —
By the way, Steve says that we should ask Cathartes for gun inaccuracy, since it is a data related thing. (Check the thread at the Matrix forums.)

But according to Cathartes it is a hard-coded issue... So what happens now? Very Happy
#73: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:55 pm
    —
Dima....why are you dumbing down the bren and the sten? we have been complaining about the poor performance of the bren since cc5.
remember ...playability  Smile
#74: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:27 am
    —
stiener wrote (View Post):
lets not forget that the game has to be PLAYABLE too....


Couldn't agree with this more.  

Cathartes, you call out Dima for following a rigid interpretation of the "facts" (and I agree, it is rigid), but do you don't think you are the same way? You seem to be just as unmovable (albeit less confrontational) in your point of views.  I appreciate that both of you want to recreate reality, but come on. It's Close Combat. Your editing Excel cells. This game comes no where close to being a hardcore simulator.  

I think at the very least Dima's mod might be a starting ground for other mods given that it will have some changes that most us want.
#75: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Antony_nz,  PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:34 am
    —
[quote="Troger";p="76282"]
stiener wrote (View Post):
lThis game comes no where close to being a hardcore simulator.  


Awww i dont no.. You can probably make allot of points to back up that claim.. And granted i don't even bother too try and find other realistic war games.. Its pretty good. And it should only try to be better.
#76: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:29 am
    —
Cathartes wrote (View Post):
Quote:
I can prove my points why I did that or that.

Not very often.  You never really provide evidence, and when you do, you don't consider the whole picture.

maybe that's because most of my opponents doesn't site their sources to disprove my statements?
I normally reply with sources against sourced critics Wink.

Quote:
The Isigny tests you DID cite is a classic example. You look at the data and see that 1/2 the 17pdr APDS rounds didn't hit the target area so you make the blanket assumption that only 1/2 of all APDS ammo type/batches, when fired under any circumstances, could only hit a tank 1/2 the time at any range.  What you fail to see is that most of the APDS actually hit the tank in the tests, even if they did not hit the specific target area.
 
WOW!
That really suprised me as I thought that link I sent to you would force you start thinking and you will make some efforts finding other reports from Normandy shootins....guess I was wrong...so here you are:
at 400 yds - APC hit 90.5%, APDS hit 56.6%
at 600 yds - APC hit 73.0%, APDS hit 34.2%

6-pdr APDS failed to penetrate Panther glacis even at 200 yds Wink.
and yes, they couldn't hit Panther side with APDS to find out the penetration range Smile.

Quote:
Furthermore, do you believe that British gunners were so stupid when their lives were on the line that they didn't account for the errant flight of sabot ammo?  

funny logic, well I don't know if it was a stupidness to have gunners have a chance to hit and penetrate a heavy tank at 400 yds. Prolly better chance to hit (with high chance) and not penetrate at 400 yds? Wink
following your logic the US and RA tankers were so stupid having no 76mm ammo reliably penetrating Panther front at 400 yds.

Quote:
Do you read books or just look for tidbits of data on the internet that support your specific interpretation of history?

nice one Wink

Quote:
I would urge you to have a more open mind and take in a broader spectrum of sources. You do have accurate information at times, but your dogmatism prevents you from having good peripheral vision.

another good one, guess that's why GtC is more similar to TRSM/BfC than GJS in terms of data Wink.
#77: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:30 am
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
By the way, Steve says that we should ask Cathartes for gun inaccuracy, since it is a data related thing. (Check the thread at the Matrix forums.)
But according to Cathartes it is a hard-coded issue... So what happens now? Very Happy

that's wrong they can't hit at 100m with 100% accuracy Smile
#78: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:31 am
    —
stiener wrote (View Post):
Dima....why are you dumbing down the bren and the sten? we have been complaining about the poor performance of the bren since cc5.
remember ...playability  Smile

mate, they were just made wrong, in TRSM/BFC BRENs are good killers Wink.
#79: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:32 am
    —
Quote:
Cathartes, you call out Dima for following a rigid interpretation of the "facts" (and I agree, it is rigid), but do you don't think you are the same way? You seem to be just as unmovable (albeit less confrontational) in your point of views.  I appreciate that both of you want to recreate reality, but come on. It's Close Combat. Your editing Excel cells. This game comes no where close to being a hardcore simulator.

ever tried TRSM or BFC? was it unplayable? Smile
#80: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:26 am
    —
Hi Dima,

Another suggestion I would make here is:

-Remove the zeroing time (20 seconds iirc) for mortar smoke rounds and increase the number of smoke rounds mortar teams carry.

I don't know if it would be historical or not. However, currently using smoke while attacking and retreating is a pain in the ass and can not be pulled off reliably as it was done in CC5. This is somewhat detrimental to the tactical gameplay so it would be great if we could bring back the mortar smoke to its former glory!
#81: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:40 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
Hi Dima,
Another suggestion I would make here is:
-Remove the zeroing time (20 seconds iirc) for mortar smoke rounds and increase the number of smoke rounds mortar teams carry.
I don't know if it would be historical or not. However, currently using smoke while attacking and retreating is a pain in the ass and can not be pulled off reliably as it was done in CC5. This is somewhat detrimental to the tactical gameplay so it would be great if we could bring back the mortar smoke to its former glory!

zeroing time is hard-coded.
number of both smoke and HE shells will be increased.
#82: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:28 pm
    —
Ok, looks like I've found out how to make guns accuracy a little bit better Smile
#83: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:46 pm
    —
Now you need alot of mortars bombs to KO a single ATG :D

Infantry fox holes and gun pits were removed as they only help enemy to spot your units.
#84: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:06 pm
    —
30+ mortar bombs to kill a crew of one Flak38...another one survived 60+ rounds although some of crew was killed - i think that's a way to go Smile
will tune up performance of 80mm mortar during play test.

Tanks kill each other as intended - PzIV kill Shermans at >200m distance, Flies and M10-17pdr kill PzIV at any distance Smile
One shot one kill could be seen often.
#85: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:25 pm
    —
~300m night firefight between 2 Panther G and 2 Tigers against loads of Shermans and M10-17pdr resulted in 2 KO Panthers (by 17pdrs) and around 13-14 KO allied tanks Smile
#86: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:07 pm
    —
Great job Dima! However, I wonder how realistic the current night-time spotting / LoS reduction is. I think units would in reality have a much harder time when trying to spot anything further than 100 meters without any illumination. Currently you can spot and shoot tanks accurately as you have also illustrated here in much further distances.

What do you guys think?
#87: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:17 pm
    —
Quote:
However, I wonder how realistic the current night-time spotting / LoS reduction is. I think units would in reality have a much harder time when trying to spot anything further than 100 meters without any illumination. Currently you can spot and shoot tanks accurately as you have also illustrated here in much further distances.

yes, I agree with you about night distances.
but I doubt I can do anything about it as that's most likely hard coded.

ps I have a PVS-14 night vision goggles - that really helps to see up to 300m even during star/moonless nights Wink
#88: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:19 am
    —
Looking good Dima  Smile
#89: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:55 am
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):
Quote:
Cathartes, you call out Dima for following a rigid interpretation of the "facts" (and I agree, it is rigid), but do you don't think you are the same way? You seem to be just as unmovable (albeit less confrontational) in your point of views.  I appreciate that both of you want to recreate reality, but come on. It's Close Combat. Your editing Excel cells. This game comes no where close to being a hardcore simulator.

ever tried TRSM or BFC? was it unplayable? Smile


I haven't, but like I said in that post, at the very least, your mod will feature some changes we all want to see.  If people disagree with your data changes, they can always open Excel and edit the cells themselves. Smile
#90: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:58 am
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):
30+ mortar bombs to kill a crew of one Flak38...another one survived 60+ rounds although some of crew was killed - i think that's a way to go Smile


Great!
#91: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Antony_nz,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:54 am
    —
So is GwTc harder to mod than say CC5 or other CC games dima?
#92: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:37 am
    —
Antony_nz wrote (View Post):
So is GwTc harder to mod than say CC5 or other CC games dima?

IMO it's easier to mod GTC as it tracks all your mistakes made in data and reports them on launch.
but there are some differences in comparison to CC5/TLD that need to be taken into account Wink.
overall for now I believe that GTC is more solid game than CC5 or TLD.
#93: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Hesus,  PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:21 pm
    —
Any idea when your mod will go online? Smile
#94: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:52 am
    —
So had some time for modding and finally understood how it works Smile.

So here you are (will be faster from now on):
#95: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:55 am
    —
Ahh, btw I realized Cathartes has done a right thing having German BGs with less slots than the Brits as you can stack BGs Smile.
#96: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:33 am
    —
Hmm, can u stack bgs in GwTC.... Thought the removed that feature.. ? No?
#97: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:01 pm
    —
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Hmm, can u stack bgs in GwTC.... Thought the removed that feature.. ? No?

here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3634385 Cathartes says one can merge BGs.
#98: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:26 pm
    —
Yes, two BGs can be on the same map. However, only the active BG fights. It is possible to choose which BG is the active one and which BG is not.

It is also possible to merge two BGs and form a larger single BG. When you merge two large BGs with 12 available slots, you can get a BG with 21 available slots. When you merge a large BG with small BG though, the number of available slots may not change. The merging and the availability of slots is a bit vague though, needs better explanation.
#99: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:31 pm
    —
@Dima:  Another thing I have noticed in the games post CC5 GJS, is that every infantry seems to have an MG.

I mean the German 5 man teams each have MG42s. In GJS it was usually 3 men seperate MG team and a 7 men rifle team. I thought the common WW2 infantry team organization was like this: 3 + 7. The 5 + 5 organization is supposed to be post WW2 doctrine, correct me if I am wrong. How realistic is it for almost every Brit and German inf. team to have LMGs?

Gameplaywise, it is generally more fun to have a small 3-men fire support team and a large 7-men assault team, instead of 2 5-men teams.
#100: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:50 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
@Dima:  Another thing I have noticed in the games post CC5 GJS, is that every infantry seems to have an MG.

yes, all the Atomic CCs and CC5:GJS had it wrong - it was first made correctly by me in GJS:TRSM.

Quote:
I mean the German 5 man teams each have MG42s. In GJS it was usually 3 men seperate MG team and a 7 men rifle team. I thought the common WW2 infantry team organization was like this: 3 + 7. The 5 + 5 organization is supposed to be post WW2 doctrine, correct me if I am wrong.

the German infantry doctrine relied on leMG to deal with oppoistion and that's why Gruppe wasn't split to LMG+Rifle groups but riflemen served as ammo bearers and protection for leMG.
there were different types of Gruppe organization for the Germans, for instance:
1) PzGrenadiere (mot) Typ 41 - 7(leMG)+5(leMG).
2) PzGrenadiere (mot) Typ 43 - 5(leMG)+5(leMG).
3) PzGrenadiere (gp) Typ 41 - 5(leMG)+5(leMG).
4) PzGrenadiere (gp) Typ 43 - 4(leMG)+4(leMG).
5) Grenadiere Typ 41 - 10 (leMG).
6) Grenadiere Typ 43 - 9 (leMG).

Quote:
How realistic is it for almost every Brit and German inf. team to have LMGs?

it is absolutely realistic for the Germans but the British/Canadian Section was split as 7+3(LMG) with LMG providing cover for assaulting 7men Rifle Group.

Quote:
Gameplaywise, it is generally more fun to have a small 3-men fire support team and a large 7-men assault team, instead of 2 5-men teams.

you just need to develop different tactics using different type of teams Wink
#101: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: AT_Stalky,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:58 pm
    —
Look cool mod Dima.
#102: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: sickf1,  PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:39 pm
    —
looking good, cant wait Dima
#103: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:00 pm
    —
Thanks for the Mod Dima.
Sounds like its gonna be a lot of fun to play.


I am however wondering how will we be able to install it?
Does GWTC have the same abilities as say tLD,WAR to install a Mod and still be able to easily go back to the stock game?
#104: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:45 pm
    —
platoon_michael wrote (View Post):
I am however wondering how will we be able to install it?
Does GWTC have the same abilities as say tLD,WAR to install a Mod and still be able to easily go back to the stock game?

Right now it's a manual install, we'll see how it goes.
#105: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:00 pm
    —
Let's follow with PzPioBat.12

It's composition in GTC is the following with 85% manpower and all crewed weapon available:

1. Kompanie (gp)
2. Kompanie (mot)
3. Kompanie (mot)
Pz.Pio.Btl 12
Pak Zug

If we look at this unit on the eve of Epsom in reality, it had expanded to a 4 companies unit and had the following composition:

1. Kompanie (gp)
2. Kompanie (gp)
3. Kompanie (mot)
4. Kompanie (mot)
Pz.Pio.Btl 12

I don't know if SS-PzPio12 had a supporting Pak Zug - maybe Cathartes can help here if it wa attached for a balance or that was a division support unit.

SS-PzPio.12 was heavily engaged during June and was in pretty weak condition:

1. Kompanie (gp) - 50% manpower, no LMG, no mortars, 10 mSPW.
2. Kompanie (gp) - 50% manpower, no LMG, no mortars, 15 mSPW.
3. Kompanie (mot) - 60% manpower, 13 LMG, 1 mortar.
4. Kompanie (mot) - 60% manpower, 18 LMG, 1 mortar.
Pz.Pio.Btl 12 - 3 mSPW.

So for you who wanted 6-7men Pioniere teams with no leMG but alot of explosives, your dream came tru :P

Basically this BG needs to hold for 1 battle and then search for another to merge with Smile.

Last edited by Dima on Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
#106: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: RD_TG_Jager, Location: New Jersey PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:01 pm
    —
Looking forward to play your mod. Keep up the good work
#107: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Gunsche,  PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:34 pm
    —
This is what I like to see Dima! Keep up the good work!  Very Happy
Btw, where do you get the strenght numbers from? NARA, the archives in germany or from books?
#108: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:05 pm
    —
Gunsche wrote (View Post):
Btw, where do you get the strenght numbers from? NARA, the archives in germany or from books?

Polemarchos did some copies of the original 12.SS and 17.SS files for me when he was in the archive. But that was only for late May early June.
These numbers are from Dugdale book about 12.SS Smile.
#109: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Gunsche,  PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:26 pm
    —
You know I keep hearing that name Dugdale, but I have never seen his work. Could you provide me with a pointer?  Wink
#110: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:33 pm
    —
Gunsche wrote (View Post):
You know I keep hearing that name Dugdale, but I have never seen his work. Could you provide me with a pointer?  Wink

that's a best source for the German units in the West, especially detailed since September 1944 Wink and onwards.
you would really like: Panzer Divisions/PzGrenadier Divisions Their Detailed and Precise strength and organizations Volume 1 (part 1) September 1944 Wink.
#111: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:39 pm
    —
Next unit is HQ/ SS-Pz.Gr.Rgt.26/ 12.SS-Panzer
It really puzzles me.

Composition in GTC:

1. Kompanie (Ersatz)
2. Kompanie (Ersatz)
3. Kompanie (Ersatz)
SS-Pz.Gr.Rgt.26 Stab
Ersatz Flak Batterie (SS)

very strange one as there I don't undertand what Erzats Kompanie is.
If that means to represent a training unit of 26.SS-PzR that's wrong as 12.SS training units were in Belgium till August..
If that means ad-hock teams from non-combat personell there won't be so many of them...

guess the best way will be giving this unit all the Regiment suport units, like Flak Kp, IG Kp, PzAufkl Kp and Pi Kp? so it can merge with other units providing support?
#112: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Gunsche,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:44 am
    —
Quote:
guess the best way will be giving this unit all the Regiment suport units, like Flak Kp, IG Kp, PzAufkl Kp and Pi Kp? so it can merge with other units providing support?


Makes sense, they would be sitting on the support elements until they were needed somewhere, right?
#113: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:52 am
    —
Gunsche wrote (View Post):
Quote:
guess the best way will be giving this unit all the Regiment suport units, like Flak Kp, IG Kp, PzAufkl Kp and Pi Kp? so it can merge with other units providing support?

Makes sense, they would be sitting on the support elements until they were needed somewhere, right?

yeah like a regiment reserve although could be destributed to companies and that was the initial plan Smile.
guess will have to change my mind Wink
#114: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Hesus,  PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:32 am
    —
Any news on the progress of this mod? When will it be released? Sorry for the impatience but i always loved the community mods they made the CC series complete. Smile
#115: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:33 pm
    —
Alright Dima.
The world as we know it is now relying on you to hurry up and upload this Mod.

I have Tik's Small Map Mod and so far I like it.
But the 7-8 shots my Tanks are using to take out a Pak 40 is killing this game.
#116: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:30 pm
    —
Haven't done anything new since my last post as was quite busy these days.
Will continue soon.
#117: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:46 pm
    —
Got a Link so I can try what you do have?
#118: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:53 am
    —
I sure hope you can do something with the Girly Soldiers.

The small maps mod by Tik helps,but the girls are killing this game.
#119: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:25 am
    —
platoon_michael wrote (View Post):
I sure hope you can do something with the Girly Soldiers.
The small maps mod by Tik helps,but the girls are killing this game.

nothing Im aware of could be done to fix GS Sad
#120: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:44 am
    —
Play with "always obey orders" on.  It doesn't correct the issue completely, but a movement order only gets canceled when the squad's leader is hit (instead of the current "a pistol shot was fired in our general direction, hit the deck, and cancel the order" bullshit that the "developers" REFUSE to fix).
#121: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:49 am
    —
Yes, always obey orders helps in this case. However, it also disables the morale - surrendering component of the psychological engine. Troops will never surrender when always obey orders it turned on...
#122: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:43 am
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
Yes, always obey orders helps in this case. However, it also disables the morale - surrendering component of the psychological engine. Troops will never surrender when always obey orders it turned on...

well, we've played quite a lot of battles into BFC GC and after a while you don't really notice GS. Just takes you a little bit more micromanagement.
#123: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:15 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
Yes, always obey orders helps in this case. However, it also disables the morale - surrendering component of the psychological engine. Troops will never surrender when always obey orders it turned on...


Crackwise, did you get this confirmed by the "developers"? I also didn't notice much surrendering happening with "always obey orders" on, but I didn't notice any surrendering when "always obey orders" was off either.  I'm not 100% certain the two are linked.
#124: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:38 pm
    —
@Troger:  It is my own observations. We had played 3-4 turns of the GC with Pzt_Kami with "always obey orders" and "never act on initiative" checked (i.e. 70% realism). There was no single surrendering soldier throughout the GC. Also iirc, during our Ops with you we had this option on and as such also did not have any surrendering troops. Check our saved games if you want to be sure Smile

I have noticed troops actually surrender quite often when you don't have always obey order checked, since individual team morale is generally lower in this game than, let's say CC5 GJS. Or to put it in other words, you can not select and deselect individual teams in GtC until you get the best teams from the forcepool as we all used to do rigorously in CC5. Therefore, due to this limitation you eventually end up with a platoon full of more varying team morale, which is actually a good thing. It makes your HQ units much more important and urges you to keep them close to your troops.
#125: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:17 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):

I have noticed troops actually surrender quite often when you don't have always obey order checked, since individual team morale is generally lower in this game than, let's say CC5 GJS. Or to put it in other words, you can not select and deselect individual teams in GtC until you get the best teams from the forcepool as we all used to do rigorously in CC5. Therefore, due to this limitation you eventually end up with a platoon full of more varying team morale, which is actually a good thing. It makes your HQ units much more important and urges you to keep them close to your troops.


I have noticed this too since PiTF, it's not a bad change to me as I got used to CC4 with all their green units at the start.
#126: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:29 am
    —
For me, it's just completely unplayable without always obey orders on.  This problem has been around since the first "remake" Cross of Iron, and they have simply refused to acknowledge it or fix it since then.  It wasn't broken in CC5, it didn't need to be tinkered with.
#127: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:44 am
    —
Troger wrote (View Post):
For me, it's just completely unplayable without always obey orders on.  This problem has been around since the first "remake" Cross of Iron, and they have simply refused to acknowledge it or fix it since then.  It wasn't broken in CC5, it didn't need to be tinkered with.

my bet that they don't know what they did to activate GS and that's why they can't fix them.
#128: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Jager, Location: Moscow PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:00 am
    —
Hi all!
It's great to see modding and rework on just released game! At one side this means that there are some points to improve))
To make it more realistic historically is an obvious way of improvement. I used to change Stalingrad Operation Circle, great mod but lacking of information about Russian BGs and other stuff. My work has been finished but hasn't been published though)))

Back to this mod, I have several suggestions.
1. Immobile PaK40 due to trails buried into a soil. Strongly convinced this is a myth, started by one of Russian authors and popular at VIF2NE, for example. Among lots of pictured gun positions I've never seen any with gun trails completely dug in. But there are a lot of pictures with PaK40 firing standing on a plain ground supported only by its own weight and two crew numbers hanging on trails. Or fired without trail tails placed into soil properly. Anyway, crews are able to solve the problem putting logs or something like under trail tails to prevent digging in. The gun with carriage isn't a feather though, but it could be replaced by crew members compared to 17-pounder that could not.

2. Don't you think that diminishing power of mortars isn't real historical improvement? Of course something should be done, because it's very frustrating to see my only ATG spotted after killing it's first tank and being put out of action by 4-5 "bombs" of miserable 2inch. But gun crew is still vulnerable to shells blasting behind and aside of the gun shield. Also in reality mortars were effective infantry instrument to slow and stop enemy infantry advance. So, mortar bombs should kill soldiers effectively.
I don't have the plan how to rebalance mortars to stop them being super antitank and antipersonnel weapon but facts above should be taken in account somehow.

3. 17 pounder story. Without any doubts this is most capable Allied gun in terms of armor piercing. With APCBC it is capable to deal with Panther at standard CC ranges ~200-300 meters in frontal projection also. And Tiger is more vulnerable here. I was surprised to receive burning tank after 2 shots from Firefly. Tiger stood at 40 degrees angle to the opponent. But after some investigation, I've realized that there is nothing strange here. And this difference between two German heavies should be reflected IMHO.

4. Available ammunition for guns. For 17 pounder APDS based on the 6pdr APDS design was made available in June 1944 with the first ammunition being filled for service in July. During 1944 only 37000 APDS had been produced compared to 510000 APCBC and 679000 APC (and 1,6 mln APC and APCBC on stock after 1943). Are you sure APDS should be available for every Firefly in July?  The same for 6pdr.
#129: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:19 am
    —
Quote:
I used to change Stalingrad Operation Circle, great mod but lacking of information about Russian BGs and other stuff. My work has been finished but hasn't been published though)))


That was the most difficult of pzjager's Stalingrad mods. I gave up trying to "win" at that one vs the AI. Supply is just horrid, as was in real life. Guns with half dozen rounds.. SdkDK is nearly as difficult for same reason, though mods would have been great other than that. Der Kessel still rules.

Quote:
it's very frustrating to see my only ATG spotted after killing it's first tank and being put out of action by 4-5 "bombs" of miserable 2inch.


Interesting and only because the amount of ammunition given to the 2" was upped early on during the beta to the final 10-12. They originally only had 4-6 as remember. Cathartes would be the one to ask about this, tho he already turned down the lethality of 3" mortars and that has been gone over numerous times here, the Matrix site and on the beta forums before.
#130: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:29 am
    —
Any ETA on this?

I cant play the game anymore.
I'm hoping this and a Patch will get my interest up.
#131: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:42 am
    —
platoon_michael wrote (View Post):
Any ETA on this?

I cant play the game anymore.
I'm hoping this and a Patch will get my interest up.


Nomada is still working on his '46 mod also Platoon. He's started a site over at Moddb, in addition to at his own forums to feature updates on it's development:

1946 Mod Moddb
#132: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:19 am
    —
Jager wrote (View Post):
Back to this mod, I have several suggestions.
1. Immobile PaK40 due to trails buried into a soil. Strongly convinced this is a myth, started by one of Russian authors and popular at VIF2NE, for example. Among lots of pictured gun positions I've never seen any with gun trails completely dug in. But there are a lot of pictures with PaK40 firing standing on a plain ground supported only by its own weight and two crew numbers hanging on trails. Or fired without trail tails placed into soil properly. Anyway, crews are able to solve the problem putting logs or something like under trail tails to prevent digging in. The gun with carriage isn't a feather though, but it could be replaced by crew members compared to 17-pounder that could not.

It might a myth but I can't picture crew moving pak40 like that in CC Smile :
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/540259-4/Pak+40
so it will remain immobile for me.

Quote:
2. Don't you think that diminishing power of mortars isn't real historical improvement? Of course something should be done, because it's very frustrating to see my only ATG spotted after killing it's first tank and being put out of action by 4-5 "bombs" of miserable 2inch. But gun crew is still vulnerable to shells blasting behind and aside of the gun shield. Also in reality mortars were effective infantry instrument to slow and stop enemy infantry advance. So, mortar bombs should kill soldiers effectively.
I don't have the plan how to rebalance mortars to stop them being super antitank and antipersonnel weapon but facts above should be taken in account somehow.

no, mortars still kill moving/running infantry reliably and you just need more bombs to kill guns and proned soldiers. 81mm mortar bombs didn't have enough HE to affect proned soldiers like artlllery shells, their main advantages were numbers and trajectory.

Quote:
3. 17 pounder story. Without any doubts this is most capable Allied gun in terms of armor piercing. With APCBC it is capable to deal with Panther at standard CC ranges ~200-300 meters in frontal projection also. And Tiger is more vulnerable here. I was surprised to receive burning tank after 2 shots from Firefly. Tiger stood at 40 degrees angle to the opponent. But after some investigation, I've realized that there is nothing strange here. And this difference between two German heavies should be reflected IMHO.

?

Quote:
4. Available ammunition for guns. For 17 pounder APDS based on the 6pdr APDS design was made available in June 1944 with the first ammunition being filled for service in July. During 1944 only 37000 APDS had been produced compared to 510000 APCBC and 679000 APC (and 1,6 mln APC and APCBC on stock after 1943). Are you sure APDS should be available for every Firefly in July?  The same for 6pdr.

there is no APDS for 17pdr in mod, why?
6pdr APDS were issued prior to Invasion.
#133: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Jager, Location: Moscow PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:51 pm
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):

It might a myth but I can't picture crew moving pak40 like that in CC Smile :
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/540259-4/Pak+40
so it will remain immobile for me.


PaK40 is sitting on the line between mobile and immobile. If there is intended way to move it by crew, I will make it mobile for my playing. Hystorical realism Smile  BTW, will it be possible to tow it? Seems not.

Quote:

no, mortars still kill moving/running infantry reliably and you just need more bombs to kill guns and proned soldiers. 81mm mortar bombs didn't have enough HE to affect proned soldiers like artlllery shells, their main advantages were numbers and trajectory.


OK with this.

Quote:

?


The idea of my suggestion was that you should remember Tiger is far more vulnerable to 17pdr in frontal than Panther. Not only hull, but gun mask also but not so far. Hope you've done it this way. What type of ammo do you simulate for 17pdr,  APC or APCBC?

Quote:

there is no APDS for 17pdr in mod, why?
6pdr APDS were issued prior to Invasion.


Want to support you in that APDS dispersion discussion. All that I know about poor results for 17pdr APDS should be translated to the small brother. 6pdr  should demonstrate great dispersion for just moderate distances.
A very interesting testing results for 17pdr
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/us-firefly-17-pounder-vs-90mm-vs-76mm.285284/
#134: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:54 pm
    —
Jager wrote (View Post):
PaK40 is sitting on the line between mobile and immobile. If there is intended way to move it by crew, I will make it mobile for my playing. Hystorical realism Smile  BTW, will it be possible to tow it? Seems not.

it is possible to tow guns in GTC ;)

Quote:
The idea of my suggestion was that you should remember Tiger is far more vulnerable to 17pdr in frontal than Panther. Not only hull, but gun mask also but not so far. Hope you've done it this way. What type of ammo do you simulate for 17pdr,  APC or APCBC?

well, it is obvious and it is like that in all my mods sine TRSM Smile.
both types.

Quote:
Want to support you in that APDS dispersion discussion. All that I know about poor results for 17pdr APDS should be translated to the small brother. 6pdr  should demonstrate great dispersion for just moderate distances.
A very interesting testing results for 17pdr
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/us-firefly-17-pounder-vs-90mm-vs-76mm.285284/  

yes, I familiar with these documents and first implemented low APDS accuracy in TRSM like 2 years ago Smile
#135: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Jager, Location: Moscow PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:36 pm
    —
Great!  Seems, most of technical aspects already implemented in right way. Waiting for you finishing the work.
What type of AP ammunition do you simulate for 17 Pounder APC or APCBC and why? AND for 6pdr also.
#136: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:42 pm
    —
Jager wrote (View Post):
What type of AP ammunition do you simulate for 17 Pounder APC or APCBC and why? AND for 6pdr also.

17pdr - APC and APCBC as both were used that time because of different advantages and disadvantages.
6pdr - APCBC and APDS.
#137: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Jager, Location: Moscow PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:28 pm
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):

17pdr - APC and APCBC as both were used that time because of different advantages and disadvantages.
6pdr - APCBC and APDS.


What disadvantages you mean? I know about APC crashes striking hard armour plate with high Brinnel number set up with some slope.
#138: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:51 pm
    —
Jager wrote (View Post):

What disadvantages you mean? I know about APC crashes striking hard armour plate with high Brinnel number set up with some slope.

in same time APC was doing more damage to armor even not penetrating that's why it was recommended to keep on using APC along with APCBC.
#139: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: lotniarz,  PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:24 am
    —
Good to see the progress on your mod.

Please make ground attack aircraft less accurate and their weapons weaker.

According to wikipedia Typhoons were able to attack armor with 4% succes rate! wikilink

At this moment tactical air strikes often causes annihilation of tanks. I would say with 50% succes rate. This is way unrealistic and unbalances the game in Brits favor.
#140: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: arvigna, Location: arvigna PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:19 pm
    —
hello,

good mod  !!

and for = "Make 21 slots always available" .

is their ok ?

arvigna
#141: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:47 am
    —
DUDE,
Whats the status?
#142: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:09 am
    —
Seriously Dima, gives us a time-frame.  I take back all those things I said about Russia.  Smile  

If we don't get some sort of small fix, my money that I spent on Gateway to Caen will really be a waste.
#143: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:24 pm
    —
Looks like the UI issues I've posted are going to get fixed.

With that and this Mod I could see my interest for GWTC improving significantly.

Sorry to put you on the spot asking for an update.
Hopefully it coincides with the next patch from Matrix.
#144: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:45 am
    —
jumping in here about the 17 pdr and 6 pdr and the APDS ammo.......

i thought it was you dima or maybe it was nomada? that said that the APDS ammo was not present at all in either gun till july in normandy?

so im confused....6 pdr APDS was present in normandy for the invasion but 17 pdr APDS wasnt till july??

are you not using APDS in your historical realism mod??

are you also agreeing that regular AP ammo could take out a tiger or a panther in a frontal shot at CC ranges?
#145: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:43 am
    —
stiener wrote (View Post):
jumping in here about the 17 pdr and 6 pdr and the APDS ammo.......
i thought it was you dima or maybe it was nomada? that said that the APDS ammo was not present at all in either gun till july in normandy?

no, 6pdr APDS ammunition was issued prior to DDay.

Quote:
so im confused....6 pdr APDS was present in normandy for the invasion but 17 pdr APDS wasnt till july??

17pdr APDS were issued to front units in August.

Quote:
are you not using APDS in your historical realism mod??

there are 6pdr APDS.

Quote:
are you also agreeing that regular AP ammo could take out a tiger or a panther in a frontal shot at CC ranges?

minimum chance vs Panther turret front at point blank range, no chance for hull armor.
minimum chance vs Tiger's hull front at point blank range, no chance for turret armor.
#146: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Antony_nz,  PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:44 am
    —
Take your time. Perfect your craft.  Smile
#147: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Jager, Location: Moscow PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:37 pm
    —
Hi, Dima.

minimum chance vs Panther turret front at point blank range, no chance for hull armor.
minimum chance vs Tiger's hull front at point blank range, no chance for turret armor.

Do you mean both guns here?   Also rolled Tigers hull front seems to be more durable than cast mask with irregular thickness.
#148: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:18 am
    —
thanks for the clarification......
as Jager asked tho...what about the 6 pdr with APDS? will it pen a panther or a tiger front armour at CC ranges?
#149: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:53 am
    —
Jager wrote (View Post):

Do you mean both guns here?   Also rolled Tigers hull front seems to be more durable than cast mask with irregular thickness.

no, that was only for 6pdr.
Tiger didn't have cast armor and mantlet had up to 200mm thickness around a gun.
#150: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:56 am
    —
stiener wrote (View Post):
thanks for the clarification......
as Jager asked tho...what about the 6 pdr with APDS? will it pen a panther or a tiger front armour at CC ranges?

6pdr APDS couldn't not penetrate Panther glacis at any range. Could penetrate Panther turret with a bit of luck at any combat range*.
6pdr APDS had little chance to penetrate Tiger turret but could penetrate Tiger's hull at any combat range*.

* - combat range for 6pdr APDS was around 400m Wink.
#151: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Jager, Location: Moscow PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:10 pm
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):

Tiger didn't have cast armor and mantlet had up to 200mm thickness around a gun.


Can't agree here. This is common mistake routed from that people see the mantlet only from front side, but they don't realize how it looks from inside the turret. See pics applied. Mantlet is obviously cast. Hardest parts 150 mm are around coaxial MG port and bulb near sight ports. Main body is 140 and the weakest part is exactly around the gun (and scope).  Weakest because thinner edges are supported from behind by sloped 100 mm horisontal bars and vertical turret walls.

If we compare hull front, nose and turret front we will see that sloped hull front is about 102 mm, sloped nose plus spare tracks is about 115 mm and turret front differs totally from more than 200 mm on edges to 110 mm on sight port. Generally turret front is no less than 135 mm and if we summarize across whole area we'll get 140 mm " lowest average thickness". But this armor is cast and we should multiply to coefficient less than 1 to get the equivalent of rolled armour. This means that turret front vary from 120 mm (around gun) to 215 mm (on edges) in terms of rolled armour.
Maybe you need to recalculate tiger turret in the game according to this. But in sence of 6pdr penetration yes, turret is harder.
#152: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:17 am
    —
Jager wrote (View Post):

Can't agree here. This is common mistake routed from that people see the mantlet only from front side, but they don't realize how it looks from inside the turret. See pics applied. Mantlet is obviously cast. Hardest parts 150 mm are around coaxial MG port and bulb near sight ports. Main body is 140 and the weakest part is exactly around the gun (and scope).  Weakest because thinner edges are supported from behind by sloped 100 mm horisontal bars and vertical turret walls.

thanks alot for the drawings!
never even thought that a mantlet was cast Smile.

Quote:
If we compare hull front, nose and turret front we will see that sloped hull front is about 102 mm, sloped nose plus spare tracks is about 115 mm and turret front differs totally from more than 200 mm on edges to 110 mm on sight port. Generally turret front is no less than 135 mm and if we summarize across whole area we'll get 140 mm " lowest average thickness". But this armor is cast and we should multiply to coefficient less than 1 to get the equivalent of rolled armour. This means that turret front vary from 120 mm (around gun) to 215 mm (on edges) in terms of rolled armour.
Maybe you need to recalculate tiger turret in the game according to this. But in sence of 6pdr penetration yes, turret is harder.

looks like a drawing shows 135mm for these 6 screws?
normally I take the cast armor resistance as 15-25% less than the actual thickness depending on a country and time of production.
#153: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Jager, Location: Moscow PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:12 am
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):

looks like a drawing shows 135mm for these 6 screws?
normally I take the cast armor resistance as 15-25% less than the actual thickness depending on a country and time of production.


We should remember about that "cuff" of the sleeve which cover gun tube. Cuff is 30 mm thick but it is not applied to the mantlet it is pressed into it (see drawing 3). So one may assume that ring-shaped area around the gun tube is 135 mm.

I agree with your estimation of cast armour durability.

The toughest thing here is to calculate "effective mantlet thickness" cause it vary greatly. Do you have a trusted algorithm for such cases?
#154: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Cathartes,  PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:34 pm
    —
Quote:
6pdr APDS couldn't not penetrate Panther glacis at any range. Could penetrate Panther turret with a bit of luck at any combat range*.


once again, not accurate.  Panther glacis armor was notoriously of unreliable quality.  Also, Dima always assumes that the 6pdr APDS is being fired at the perfect angle to always bounce off, which wasn't combat reality.
#155: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:40 am
    —
Cathartes wrote (View Post):

once again, not accurate.  Panther glacis armor was notoriously of unreliable quality.

So would you please show us a Panther glacis penetrated by 6pdr (any projectile)?

Quote:
Also, Dima always assumes that the 6pdr APDS is being fired at the perfect angle to always bounce off, which wasn't combat reality

Thanks for thinking of me, but your are wrong as always, Dima has never assumed so.
#156: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:03 pm
    —
Dima...how is your mod coming along?
#157: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:50 am
    —
Yeah, please don't keep us waiting for so long! : )
#158: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:06 pm
    —
Ok, Iam back again Smile
Nikin is here to help and support me so we will go on making GTC a good game Smile.
Sorry Cath Smile
#159: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:05 am
    —
cool  Very Happy
#160: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: ke_mechial,  PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:48 am
    —
Nice, I hope in 2015 we will have great mods...
#161: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Gallagher,  PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:05 am
    —
Hi,

any news about the progress of this mod ? because i just buy GTC and really love it - not more than CC2/LSA but love it - but i m tired to see tiger lose against crocodile :/

thx
#162: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: TWJunky,  PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:02 am
    —
Any news?
#163: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Antony_nz,  PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:23 am
    —
Bump.
#164: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:38 am
    —
Will be but not for now.

You will be surprised what im preparing for you now Razz
#165: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: ScnelleMeyer,  PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:47 pm
    —
Hope this comes along soon though. - Seems like a good mod of GtC.

Quote:
You will be surprised what im preparing for you now Razz


Now you have to give us something more Dima - throw out a small bone to give a hint at least:)
#166: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: gravyface,  PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:27 pm
    —
Any progress?
#167: Re: Historical realism mod :) Author: Berger,  PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:10 pm
    —
Any news about the mod?
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Gateway to Caen


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1