Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch?

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

Personnally, I'm allright with a tank or half-track losing a track in battle. My problem is more with 60% of them being written off the force pool after the fight. As it is now, a tracked tank has a much chance to be written off as a tank immobilized by ennemy fire with a badly crippled crew.

Yes, it should be a higher % recovery but only once the map is won. You can't really recover a tank while enemy is still near, i.e. if it is a "battle continues".

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: David The Great

I think that some terrain values should be 0 instead of one , for example,
Bare Branches & Snow 1
Br. Branches & Snowy Br 1
Leaves & Snow 1
Leaves & Snowy Brush 1
Bare Branches 1
Bare Branches & Dirt 1
Bare Branches & Mud 1
This type of terrain should not be able to immobilez a tank.
Against these odds driving though a snowy field with some leaves or branches would give you almost a 100 % chance to loose a track, highly unlikely to my opinion.

these do sound a bit crazy, however it was technically possible to throw a track on a paved road. Tracks eventually wear out, even if you drive on the best surfaces. Maybe they could be set to .005% [:'(]

[Platoon_Michael]

And it's not pointless, it shows who controls the darn map

Shame that couldnt have been implanted on the mini map.

[Pzt_Serk]

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

Personnally, I'm allright with a tank or half-track losing a track in battle. My problem is more with 60% of them being written off the force pool after the fight. As it is now, a tracked tank has a much chance to be written off as a tank immobilized by ennemy fire with a badly crippled crew.

Yes, it should be a higher % recovery but only once the map is won. You can't really recover a tank while enemy is still near, i.e. if it is a "battle continues".

I know that the current rule is that an immobilised tank is captured if the ennemy controls the ground around it at battle end. (its always a bonus to send a command team next to an immobilized Tiger II near the end of a battle[:D]) It should be the same with tracked tanks.

[Nomada_Firefox]

When I was speaking about remove, I was not speaking fully remove. And yes next VetBoB version will have this modded, tanks will continue breaking tracks but not on fields or on the border of roads. Other things that I have made less powerfull are mortars. And there are more small things.

PD: And yes I asked about it because I did not know how remove it.

[Neil N]

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox
Other things that I have made less powerfull are mortars.

wow, mortars are already not very powerful, and have a pretty poor base accuracy (far lower than reality)...any less, and they won't be worth wasting space in a forcepool

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Neil N

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox
Other things that I have made less powerfull are mortars.

wow, mortars are already not very powerful, and have a pretty poor base accuracy (far lower than reality)...any less, and they won't be worth wasting space in a forcepool

I have to agree with Nomada on this. Mortars are pretty accurate, especially if they have LOS to the target or if a leader is close by spotting form them. Even firing blind I can always count on a few kills and lots of suppression. I usually save the rounds for AT guns and am almost always successful in either killing the gun or killing over 50% of the crew while firing blind.

Of course, the real problem with the mortars is that the rounds reach the target way too fast, making them easy to use against running infantry. It should take something like 10 seconds instead of the current 3 seconds or so.

[TheReal_Pak40]

[/quote]

I know that the current rule is that an immobilised tank is captured if the ennemy controls the ground around it at battle end. (its always a bonus to send a command team next to an immobilized Tiger II near the end of a battle[:D]) It should be the same with tracked tanks.

[/quote]

thanks, I didn't know that. Does the immobilized tank have to be abandoned too (I assume)?

[Neil N]

I was just comparing a couple of weapons:

Bazookas...weapon that people complains is to inaccurate and the mortars, which people complain is to accurate

Bazooka has a base accuracy of 85% and bazooka has a base accuracy of 75%. I guess the relative stress free environment of being away from the action helps the mortars shoot better for some people. I honestly wish my mortars were as accurate as everyone seems to say they are. I did a test, and my 60mm mortar team fired all of its' rounds, and only 1 crater was within 50 pixels of my aiming point when it was all over (out of about 20 rounds). Not very good, seeing as how WWII US airborne mortar crews had to be able to hit a stationary target at 300m within 3 rounds in order to graduate on that weapon.

[Nomada_Firefox]

It is a good example for the problem on motars.

Because I see it like a problem on a game named Close Combat. I do not like superweapons. The same happens with vehicles and tracks, on the Ardennes battle had thousands of vehicles but on a Close Combat battle there are only 15 teams and probably only a few are vehicles. If they can not cross one border of a road without crash a track, it would be a problem. It is my point from both problems.

Of course, the real problem with the mortars is that the rounds reach the target way too fast, making them easy to use against running infantry. It should take something like 10 seconds instead of the current 3 seconds or so.

I will check it. But the chance on WAR mortar is 6 or 8 times bigger than on other CC game.

And speaking from errors, I do not understand because nobody changed the numbers from days and they mainteined the original from CC5. Of course I fixed it.

[crushingleeek_slith]

Yes, The mortars travel way too fast.
 
I have no gripes about accuracy or damage potential. I think that's fine. But they land way too FAST!!!

[squadleader_id]

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

And speaking from errors, I do not understand because nobody changed the numbers from days and they mainteined the original from CC5. Of course I fixed it.

Looks like in CCWAR the numbers represent a 'generic' day (day 1, day 2, day 3 etc)...I don't think they're dates in June '44 from the original CC5 ('cause they start at 1 not 6).
In CCWAR: Classic CCIV they represent dates (December '44 to January '45)...just like your mod.

[Andrew Williams]

Day 1, the first day to day 26 the last day ( a nod to modders that can use any days they want)

The WaR campaign begins on 16 December the day the Germans Launched the attack and finishes on 9th January the day after Adolf Hitler authorized a partial withdrawal.

[crushingleeek_slith]

Can we take all the great things that close combat is, and combine them with the great visuals of Sudden Strike II (or precisely, Hidden Stroke II, my favorite!)

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Neil N
Bazooka has a base accuracy of 85% and bazooka has a base accuracy of 75%.

I suppose you meant to say mortars have 85%...

In your 60mm test did the crew have LOS to the target area?

I just did my own tests, all were about 175m to target area:

60mm - No line of sight to target area - about 15 meter spread from center.

60mm - Under influence of Platoon command team with LOS to target - about 10 meter spread from center

81mm - direct LOS to target area - about 5 meter spread from center

I call that pretty darn accurate, especially for the last test with direct LOS which more or less duplicates a firing range test.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Yes Sudden Strike II has good graphics for a game like it but it has it is not 0% realistic, it is more like a C&C from WWII. Of course a CC game with this graphics would be fantastic. And personally the graphics from Sudden Strike II are better and fun than the graphics on Sudden Strike III.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

Of course, the real problem with the mortars is that the rounds reach the target way too fast, making them easy to use against running infantry. It should take something like 10 seconds instead of the current 3 seconds or so.

I will check it. But the chance on WAR mortar is 6 or 8 times bigger than on other CC game.

What do you mean by "chance"?

And speaking from errors, I do not understand because nobody changed the numbers from days and they mainteined the original from CC5. Of course I fixed it.

This was not an error. The numbers don't represent the date. They represent the day of the operation. Kind of like D-Day, D-Day+1, D-Day+2 etc...

[Pzt_Serk]

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

thanks, I didn't know that. Does the immobilized tank have to be abandoned too (I assume)?

No they don't need to be abandonned to be captured. After the battle, you will see the crew of the captured vehicule with small arms only as weapon because they lost the tank. Oddly crewmembers are not listed as captured/mia. Abandonned tank and other vehicules are automaticly lost no matter what.

[Moss Orleni]

The central question here is the frequency of the immobilization check.
If the check is made for each element tile, that means (IIRC) each 10 pixels or each 2 meters.
So fi for Leaves & Snowy Brush, where the odds are 1/128, that would mean that for each 128 element tiles crossed, you would have one 'succesful' check (statistically speaking).
Basically, it would mean your vehicle would become immobilized after driving on average 2*128=256m... on leaves and brush ... [X(]

Now please tell me that there's something wrong with my calculations...[:)]

Cheers,

Moss

[Neil N]

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

I suppose you meant to say mortars have 85%...

In your 60mm test did the crew have LOS to the target area?

I just did my own tests, all were about 175m to target area:

60mm - No line of sight to target area - about 15 meter spread from center.

60mm - Under influence of Platoon command team with LOS to target - about 10 meter spread from center

81mm - direct LOS to target area - about 5 meter spread from center

I call that pretty darn accurate, especially for the last test with direct LOS which more or less duplicates a firing range test.

My 60mm mortar is set at 75% based on the chance table in the workbook...might be with the latest patch beta files, and they did have LOS to target.

That is very impressive shooting. So all of your 81m rounds fell within 25 pixels of the target? I have never experienced accuracy like that for mortars.

Something else that can be used to make them less accurate are the range modifiers. Currently, mortars use the medium modifier up to 600m...so the Long range modifier is rarely used based on the size of maps. I'll do some tests bringing the range modifiers down some.