Infantry Survivability

[Imp]

Have damage more likely (and low damage more common than serious damage) and brew-ups less likely.
I would upgrade crew survivability just a little more (this was done a year ot two ago, and was a great improvement).
Make shooting on the move even harder (WW2) to encourage players to use the short halt or stationary more often.

Not sure how you would do this without a new game though see where you are coming from & a few things might be possible.

On damage not sure if model can be improved it would be nice to see things damaged like Frange finder or for MBT certainly vision aids. Plus reduced speed for track /roadwheel damage etc.

Shooting on the move really needs a whole new engine I think to do well. Stationary moving should be independant of game turn as in you can end the turn still moving & it should cost points to change speed which would simulate sluggish acceleration.
Say 3MP to stop or based on speed doing & if increasing speed including from stationary +1MP per hex. This would mean a tank could not go flat out from a standing start in one turn. Also infantry loading could be addressed as currently costs nothing so no op fire opportunity. Same problem with placing smoke no need for infantry to worry while placing

[Weasel]

Well, I don't feel so bad now, knowing that I am not the only person firing almost point blant at an infantry unit with several howitzer units(155mm) in MBT and not even suppression the unit. Waste of a lot of ammo, that was really needed elsewhere. Had to send in special forces to get them instead.

Sounds like a problem worth investigating further, as it also exist in all series of SP both CAMO and WaW. Perhaps it is a random bug or faulty installation (not sure) since I haven't tested it yet.

You are actually better off using Z fire with the main gun so that you get the arty routine applied instead of the direct fire routine. I have used the Z fire for my tanks and MGs in my Oder battle and the suppression has been impressive. Thanks to Narwan for that tip. Note if you have LOS the Z fire will be far more accurate. Game play example: I have a bunker with a 170mm naval gun. I tried direct firing at an Russian MG across the river but the bugger fired back every time and it's status never changed (hard to believe). The next turn I switched to Z fire on the MG and pinned him and shut him up for a bit.

[Weasel]

I must however admit the damn Brits & their PIAT seem to perform well, stats show its not as acurate as most but they seem unervingly accurate somehow, strangely I fear them more than a Baz or PF.

I read a book on this, Canada at war, and in it the story teller speaks of his platoon commander having to take 4 shots with a piat to hit a tank at 50-100m. Really what was the piat but a big spring that fired a heavy charge?

[Cross]

I must however admit the damn Brits & their PIAT seem to perform well, stats show its not as acurate as most but they seem unervingly accurate somehow, strangely I fear them more than a Baz or PF.

I read a book on this, Canada at war, and in it the story teller speaks of his platoon commander having to take 4 shots with a piat to hit a tank at 50-100m. Really what was the piat but a big spring that fired a heavy charge?

Maybe he was a rubbish shot

I did quite a bit of research on the PIAT a while back; and there's a wide range of experiences and claims. For example, a Regiment in Burma claimed they were putting PIAT bombs into bunker slits with regular ease.

Quite a few heavy tanks were KO'd by this weapon, with plenty of battle reports, witnesses and citations as proof.

An analysis by British staff officers of the initial period of the Normandy campaign found that 7% of all German tanks destroyed by British forces were knocked out by PIATs, compared to 6% by rockets fired by aircraft.

The PIAT was kept in service into the 50s and the Korean war; until the USA designed the Super Bazooka, which was markedly superior.

I'm not saying this was a great weapon. All these AT weapons were primitive, but the PIAT easily held it's own, and IMHO had less weaknesses than it's contemporaries.

oops, sorry if this is getting a bit off topic.

[Walrus]

Gentlemen

Please keep the tone of this debate civil or I will have to raise the Iron Flipper.

EDIT: Due to time zones, this comment is posted a little later than it was needed. Indeed most of the tone of the debate is quite civil. Respect.

The correct place to raise issues about the mechanics of the SPCAMO games is at the Shrapnel CAMO forums here..
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=139

No one on the Blitz forum is in any position to change anything to do with the actual games.

While this debate is interesting, and often thrashed out, most of what has already been written here is just opinion, no matter how strongly held, and needs to be respected as that.

Now...Carry On....

[Weasel]

I must however admit the damn Brits & their PIAT seem to perform well, stats show its not as acurate as most but they seem unervingly accurate somehow, strangely I fear them more than a Baz or PF.

I read a book on this, Canada at war, and in it the story teller speaks of his platoon commander having to take 4 shots with a piat to hit a tank at 50-100m. Really what was the piat but a big spring that fired a heavy charge?

Maybe he was a rubbish shot

I did quite a bit of research on the PIAT a while back; and there's a wide range of experiences and claims. For example, a Regiment in Burma claimed they were putting PIAT bombs into bunker slits with regular ease.

Quite a few heavy tanks were KO'd by this weapon, with plenty of battle reports, witnesses and citations as proof.

An analysis by British staff officers of the initial period of the Normandy campaign found that 7% of all German tanks destroyed by British forces were knocked out by PIATs, compared to 6% by rockets fired by aircraft.

The PIAT was kept in service into the 50s and the Korean war; until the USA designed the Super Bazooka, which was markedly superior.

I'm not saying this was a great weapon. All these AT weapons were primitive, but the PIAT easily held it's own, and IMHO had less weaknesses than it's contemporaries.

oops, sorry if this is getting a bit off topic.

I agree, a guy I was in the infantry with had a grand father that hunted German snipers with a piat! I guess CLOSE ENOUGH works in this case.

[Imp]

I agree, a guy I was in the infantry with had a grand father that hunted German snipers with a piat! I guess CLOSE ENOUGH works in this case.

Just making sure?

No wonder they missed I should think your arms might be shaking from the effort of loading the thing. Anybody any idea just how hard it was to cock the spring I am thinking PIAT teams got spinnach for rations.

[Cross]

You usually only had to cock it once, because the recoil would recock it for subsequent shots.

Here's a YouTube vid of the PIAT being cocked and fired:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI54_pH3C74&NR=1

The fat gentleman at the end claims it would only fire 40M, but you can see from the earlier clips in the video that the bomb really hums, flying through the air at around 450fps (compare to panzerfaust 200, bazooka 270, panzershreck 345fps) so I believe what I see in the video, and that a 3 pound bomb going 450fps is going to have enough momentum to go further than 40m.

The guy also claimed the PIAT sights only went to 110yds, but I've picked up and handled the PIAT on a few occasions and have photos of the sights, which go[/i] up to 370yds.

I recently read "Quartered Safe out Here" (recommend it BTW) where the author fired the PIAT 4 times. He hit a small target at 80yds with his second shot on two occasions. The first time an officer paced out the distance. The second time was a boat moving down a river in very poor light.

Here's another video of the PIAT being cocked while sitting/lying down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj76mfiIa34

[Imp]

Cheers for that Cross the fat guy is something to do with a stateside museum or some such & confusing his facts as usual, 100-110yds seems the accepted usefull engagement range. Was actually surprised looked a lot easier to cock than I would have expected. Does have one advantage in no back blast smoke so can fire from a confined space, no need to step into the alley to fire but I bet it kicked a bit.

[retired from gaming]

just a short real life (I mean real game) example, as I dont have knowledge for theoretical debate :
my current MBT game, Leopard I (105mm gun) vs infantry squad 100 metres away in the open ground. Took one turn (3 shots) to anihilate little buggers.
The result I was personally 100 % satisfied with.