Tournamenthouse.com Forums

Homba · Site Admin

For a long time I have been wanting to clean up a few things in the 3.1S patch, which would result in a new, 3.2 patch for CC2. 3.2 would include everything in 3.1S, plus some additional material. LET\'S KEEP THIS IN DISCUSSION PHASE ONLY NOW. Let\'s take our time. Once we all decide on this some time in January, the 3.2 patch (if there is one) can be posted to Togashi_D\'s Ammo Dump site.

This is a bit long, but I think every CC2 player\'s interest will be held. It is vital that you comment on the ideas below, by posting in an organized way in this thread.

I\'ve done this in 3 parts.
(1) A summary list of 3 \"essential changes\".
(2) #4,5 and 6 are suggestions for improving the infantry flamers, and #7 is a suggestion for improving the DEMO CHARGE.
(3) A discussion about the suggested gammon bomb fix (item #1 in the summary list)

Ok, here we go.

Here are what I see as the must-fix issues that would be fixed with a 3.2 patch. I\'ll follow that with a few additional suggestions for 3.2, and a discussion of the gammon bomb.

3.2 patch: essential changes
=====================

ESSENTIAL CHANGES SUMMARY
-------
1) Gammon:
(a) Change Kill Rating (KR) from 80 to 400 to simulate top armor hits even though the \'direct fire\' gammon (capable of being thrown from inside buildings) is interpreted by the computer as impacting the side or front armor of the tank when thrown from ground level (see Discussion, below).
(b) Reduce minimum range for gammon from 6m to 0m. 6m minimum is unjustifiable from a realism standpoint (see Discussion, below).

2) German infantry flamers: Overlooked in the 3.1 patch was to raise the elite (SS/FJ) flamer to 5 bar exp/morale, and the regular flamer to 4 bar. This would mirror the allied elite and reg. flamers, which was the whole idea to begin with. The G were left 4 bar and 3 bar, respectively. I\'d like to move them up to 5/4. They are expensive enough (14/12) to warrant it. This would not effect balance. It is not a big change, and not as if the german infantry flamers are used a lot anyway (they may still be a bit \"too expensive\").

3) PIAT: In order to bring the piat in line with 3.1 standards for inf AT weapons, Min range reduced to 5m, and close range extended to 30m. Ranges would be: 5m=min 10m=PB 30m=Close 45m=Med 60m=Long. The PIAT was overlooked in the tweaks made in 3.1 to other inf AT weapons (zook, faust, schreck). This would be redressed.

THAT\'s IT. Those are the three changes I think are essential. The gammon, the G flamer tweak, and the PIAT tweak.

Here are 4 other suggestions that I\'d like to hear the community\'s opinion on, in addition to opinions on the top 3 \"essential changes\".

4) INFANTRY FLAMERS MINIMUM RANGE: Change minimum range from 10m to 6m.
If an enemy soldier is charging at me and I have a flamethrower, can you really argue that at 10m+ range, I can fry him, but at 9m range, or 8m, 7m or 6m, for some reason I cannot discharge the flamer at him!? I think that is nonsense. I have always thought the 10m minimum range was too restrictive, and would suggest a change to 6m minimum range (6m is about 20 feet!)

All infantry flamethrowers ranges would be tweaked.
--> Old stats (2.0, 3.1S): Min Range=8m, PB=6(?), Close=10, Med=20, Long=30
--> New stats (3.2)------: Min Range=6m, PB=10, Close=15, Med=25, Long=30

The old PB range of 6 is inexplicable and possibly an error (how can point blank range be 6m, when minimum range is 8m??? It is a logical contradiction, somebody at Atomic screwed up/overlooked it- one of numerous oversights). A 6m (~20 feet) min range seems a *conservative* realistic distance to discharge a flamer at an opponent (I would think much closer would be possible, but then you run into a problem with the 6m blast radius of the CC2 flamer possibly causing a self-kill, and I would not want to alter the blast radius, which seems perfect.)

5) ELITE INFANTRY FLAMER \"LEADER\":
There is a setting for each soldier that can be set to 1 (leader), 0 (soldier) or 2 (crew). What I am suggesting here is that the elite infantry flamers (SS/FJ, US AB, & Brit AB) be switched from 0, to 1. This will give them \'leader\' status. Right now (3.1S), all flamers are set to 0 (soldier). Though setting elite flamers to 1 (leader) does not necessarily mean they will get a yellow or green \"leader circle,\" you *will* see \"leader\" in the soldier monitor. This improves the individual\'s stats, including experience and morale.

My thinking is this: if you are paying 14 points for a 5 bar flamer, and you get a 1 bar or 2 bar, or very poor morale flamer, that really hurts your chances. Ladder games should be decided by a player\'s skill on the field as much as possible, not by the computer giving you a 1 bar flamer when you thought you were buying a 5 bar (and this seems to happen 50% of the time, especially if you buy more than 1 flamer). Using Leader status would reduce or eliminate the chance of this for the elite flamers. It would make the man less likely to panic, stop obeying orders, etc. This is a truely excellent soldier to whom a vital role has been intrusted, on whom the success of the mission depends. Do you think some idiot would be given the flamethrower in a crucial situation? No. They would give it to a gutsy and skilled individual- by CC2 game standards, a \"leader\". (The less expensive flamer would remain a \"soldier\" - a cheaper but slightly more \'risky\' purchase, as you might get a bad apple.)

6) INFANTRY FLAMER PRICE:
I would suggest reducing infantry flamer price from 14/12 to 13/11 or even 12/10. I think the flamer is a very under-used unit, and I think the reason for this is they are overpriced: They are not worth 14/12 points in CC2. They are simply too vulnerable. They are vulnerable to everything under the sun, mortars, MGs, stray rifle rounds, everything. Plus, if you buy a flamer you are giving up a valuable support slot that could hold a Stuart, 50cal, mortar, other tank, etc. Let\'s reduce the price of the infantry flamers a bit and get one of the most fun, sneaky and creative units in CC2 into the ladder games MORE OFTEN, instead of seeing them only as pre-set forces in tourneys. What do others think?

7) THE DEMO CHARGE (Assault & Sturm teams)
The CC2 demo charge is a powerful, but random weapon. Friendly fire deaths are common. I would like to offer the suggestion that, the demo charge be tweaked. I have fooled around with this a lot, and my numerous tests have shown that a slight tweak works great, with no friendly fire incidents. Here are my suggested new stats for the demo charge. The old 3.1 stats are in [brackets]:

Base Accuracy raised to 400 [from 370]; Long Range increased to 25m [from 20m]; Blast Radius reduced to 12m [from 15m]; Kill rating remains 100. Interestingly, Valid Targets has always been 6=Vehicles/Terrain (but not infantry? 7=veh/ter/inf). But demos are flung at infantry anyway.

Slightly increasing the accuracy, slightly extending the range and slightly reducing the blast radius makes the Demo a valuable weapon to the expensive assault or sturm teams, instead of something that ends up wiping out half your team! (This happens FAR too often).

=======

GAMMON DISCUSSION

Finally perfecting the gammon bomb.

CC2 Gammon History:

In original CC2, the AB Brit\'s gammon could not be thrown out of buildings. It was set to \'indirect fire\' like a mortar, and, like a mortar, could not be used from inside buildings.

This state of affairs resulted in gammons being nearly unusable in urban invironments (when infantry can actually approach tanks fairly safely using the cover of buildings).

The 3.1 patch changed the setting on the gammon from indirect to direct fire, allowing throws from inside buildings. This enabled the gammon to be very effective when used from above enemy tanks in urban environments. With 3.1 the gammon became more of a practical threat in urban environs, instead of a last-ditch suicide-charge novelty.

What no one realized at the time was the small but important effect on the gammon when used in *ground level* attacks (thrown either from inside a 1-story building, or from behind a hedgerow, etc). The 3.1S gammon, having been switched to *direct fire*, was now firing out in a direct line from the thrower and hitting against the front/side/rear armor of the hull or turret of enemy tanks, instead of *lobbing* onto the weak top armor as it did when using the original 2.0 \'indirect fire\' setting.

Socks_ was the first to document this, though he was unsure of what he was seeing, in a post he made in the forum[*Footnote1]. He observed that it seemed much harder for his men in fields, woods etc, to throw their gammons at tanks. They were refusing to throw at all. He later said they threw sometimes, but it seemed less frequent than before. This formed a cloud of doubt in my mind which lingered over 2003 until I ran a test on a hedgerow map (Veghel Bridge).

I set up several german Panthers, and controlled a bunch of Brit AB rifle teams among the hedgerows on the left side of the map, south of the road. I used 3.1S patch, then 2.0 patch, and did lots of tests with each. As predicted, they were consistently FAR more effective with the 2.0 patch than with the 3.1S patch. I believe that in 2.0 the \'indirect fire\' gammon is attacking the weak top armor, while in 3.1S, the \'direct fire\' gammon is NOT attacking the weak top armor, but rather attacking whatever side facing the thrower (and even side armor is much thicker than top armor). The tank\'s front or side armor (often much more than, or near 80mm) routinely withstands the gammon\'s kill rating of 80.

TO SOLVE THIS, in order to work around the problem, the gammon\'s Kill Rating (KR) should be raised from 80 to 400. This approximately **maintains the ratio** of 3 to 1 that the gammon\'s old KR of 80 enjoyed against tank top armor. Tests using 3.1S (direct fire gammon) with a 400 KR gammon show the same rate of success in ground level attacks as in original 2.0. Misses are still possible with the 400 KR gammon. ACCURACY is not changed. But if you hit, a kill is likely, since the armor-KR ratio is the nearly the same as the old indirect fire gammon vs top armor. The increase of KR to 400 simulates lobbing the gammon on top of the tank, which is the tactic employed in real life, even though the game mechanic was changed to direct fire to allow throws out of buildings.

Now, with a 400 KR, the gammon is perfectly realistic. It can be thrown out of buildings, but also regains its old attack value from ground level. Gammons are never used against infantry, so no harm in increasing the KR. The blast radius of a gammon is zero, so no \"bleed over\" effect against nearby infantry. You either hit, or miss. When the KR was 80 in 2.0, if you hit, you hit the top armor and normally got a kill. This just turns the clock back to that situation, except you can throw out of buildings. The whole setup simulates lobbing the bomb on top of the tank, or dropping it onto the tank from an overhead window.

The last tweak of the gammon is to change the minmum range from 6m to 0m. Realistically, the current 6m min is unjustifiable. Max range, as always, is 30m. The men however seem not to like to throw them when target is beyond 15m (which is the outer limit of Point Blank range, as always, with the Gammon). There is no reason if you are in a trench or shellhole, or directly above a tank, that you would not flip the gammon right up on top the tank, even if you were less than 1m away down by the treads. The blast isnt going to get you (in the game or in real life). The reduction of minimum range to zero allows infantry the chance to gammon a tank when it runs right up into their position. The result is an all-around realism improvement in close-quarters tank vs infantry combats.

[*Footnote1]
Socks_ post: http://thforums.com/board/viewthread.php3?FID=4&TID=2839

============

THAT\'s IT.

Please respond with your comments on:

1. Gammon fix
2. German infantry flamethrower 4/3-bar to 5/4-bar fix
3. PIAT range increment fix

4. Flamethrower minimum range change
5. Flamethrower elite unit \"leader\" status
6. Flamethrower price (currently 14/12, change to 13/11? or 12/10?)
7. DEMO CHARGE fix

Nice stocking-stuffer, or just \"stuff it\"? smile

Any questions about anything above, please ask, I will explain myself.

H

mpastor · Captain

3.1 mod,...bahhhh. I know I may hurt some egos and damage some pride and if this is the case I truly apologize. For the most part, however, I feel that the 3.1 mod fixes things not broke and breaks things further that were broke enough as is. Let me stick to focus of this thread though.

Gammon bombs: The original gammon bombs in 2.0b work fine, better than fine. They are probably the most reliable way to take out a tank next to an 88 gun. If you don’t believe me then I challenge you to do what some highly ladder ranked players have attempted and attack my infantry force with only tanks.

Now, Most of the time, gammons will not work in buildings cuz of indirect fire method ( i must begrudgingly concede this point). However, the changes suggested would not only further damage the realistic use of these little used weapons, but also drastically change the game use of them. Here are some potential problems. Correct me if I am wrong but wont a kill rating of 400 in direct fire
make this weapon appear more than twice as deadly as the dangerous 88mm main gun. Won’t this make german tanks dance wildly when approached. Especially if more that one gammon equipped team is close in another direction. Also, frontal armor attacks will be made by these squads at a range of up to 30 meters!!! I can hardly imagine a soldier throwing the 2 lb bag of c4 90 ft with this accuracy.

If you continue with this approach, I suggest you rename the Gammon the mini TOW missile or at least Super Piat. While you’re at it you may want to rename your new piat the bazooka.

A better approach would be to leave the gammon totally alone, and add a small direct fire grenade. Use some form of the Molotov cocktail already provided in the weapons list. Give this to most infantry units across the board.

This is an interesting time in CC2 modding. In the past, people in a attempt to better represent realism cut down the ranges of at weapons. Increasing the ranges might make the game easier for new players, but I don’t think it’s the correct solution.

ActionJacksonCC · Colonel

[quote]Correct me if I am wrong but wont a kill rating of 400 in direct fire
make this weapon appear more than twice as deadly as the dangerous 88mm main gun.[/quote]
The 50mm gun is normally more deadly then the 88mm because of it\'s higher rate of fire. The kill rating does normally not play any role at all once it is above a certain value. Croc frontal armor at 350m is a difference, but that\'s a rare case, and not the topic here.
A kill rating of 400 is just the same as the 280mm spigot mortar uses I think. That sounds way overpowered at first. But as Homba told, a gammon is supposed to land on the top of the tank, where the armor is weak enough for a kill rating 80 weapon to destroy the tank 99% of the time. But since gammon were changed to direct fire so they can be thrown out of buildings, gammons will not land ON the tanks when thrown from ground level. The actual idea behind the 400 KR is NOT to make it like the AVRE blast, but to SIMULATE a hit at the weaker top armor. The old 2.0b gammons would NEVER hit the front armor of a tank. They ALWAYS hit the top armor, and killed 99% of the time.

1) Gammon:
I\'m all for it.

2) German infantry flamers:
Agreed.

We have to keep in mind that german units are better value nearly all of the time - there is a reason that the german side normally gets only 3/4 of the points the allied player gets. Since the german player has less points, but flamers cost the same, the effective price of a german flamer is HIGHER than that of an allied flamer. It\'s like the german player would pay 14 pounds where the allied player pays 14 euros.

3) PIAT:
Agreed.

4) INFANTRY FLAMERS MINIMUM RANGE:
Agreed.

5) ELITE INFANTRY FLAMER \"LEADER\":
Agreed. I\'ve been pissed off too many times by inf flamers that panic with the first incoming mortar shell and hide for the rest of the game.

6) INFANTRY FLAMER PRICE:
Agreed. Actual values would have to be discussed. Extensive ladder playtesting would be great.

7) THE DEMO CHARGE (Assault & Sturm teams)
Agreed. This would make those heavy infantry teams a better choice, which is cool since you rarely ever see them, apart from those battle where allies have 344 points. I think in 300 ladder battles I have seen about 5 Sturmgrenadier teams.

Introducing the Cool

: further suggestions
-Make the rifle grenade a direct fire weapon. There is no reason that they cannot be fired out of buildings. The top armor vs front armor hit issue will not arise here since they cannot hurt armor anyway. Maybe armored cars can be an issue here?
-Lower the Prices for some of the armored cars. They are never used! This would have to be done with care since it could easily alter play balance.

Now for some truly heretic idea: raise the accuracy of all rifles and such. I have played CC5 for nearly a year now, and the biggest difference is infantry survivability. Tell me, how often have you seen a soldier with a mauser98K actually kill somebody with it? In cc2, more kills account to grenades then to rifles. Not quite realistic imo.
More effective rifles makes battles more interesting since you actually can kill enemy teams by ganging up and outgunning them.
At a second thought, I believe that patching this would split the community. OK, bad idea.

PZLeader · Site Admin

ESSENTIAL CHANGES
=================

1) GAMMON BOMB CHANGES

The creators at ATOMIC did a major boo-boo when they forced the \"indirect fire\" status on this AT weapon. The changes brought forward in 3.1S allowed the GAMMON to reclaim its status as a potent AT weapon. The changes now intended for 3.2 would finally resolve the GAMMON dilemma. The GAMMON bomb was either thrown from a window to land on the top of the turret or the engine, thrown underneath the hull between the tank threads[thus putting the thrower very close to the tank] or thrown besides one tank thread near the engine area[all of these attacks either eliminating the tank or immobilizing it]. All these preferred modes of attack refer to either ground level or upper level emplacements for the attacker. Thus, I agree with the changes intended by HOMBA except that for those ground level attacks, there should be a possibility of a \"friendly fire\" kill to the thrower.

2) GERMAN FLAMMEN CHANGES

There is nothing worse to see when you purchase an elite G FLAMMEN unit and end up with a 0 BAR unit. It has happened to me on two occasions. They end up breaking at the first sounds of battle and leave the map ASAP. I totally agree with the need to fix the BAR levels of this unit to represent the \"special\" status of this kind of combat unit.

3) PIAT RANGE CHANGES

I see no problem in tweaking the \"MINIMUM\" and \"CLOSE\" ranges, since they have been modified in 3.1S for the other three AT weaponry (Bazooka, Pzfaust and Pzchreck).

4) MINIMUM RANGE FOR INFANTRY FLAMERS CHANGE

I agree that it makes no sense, in the original CC2 code, that any unit inside 10m would not suffer a flame-attack. If you see original WW2 footage on flame-attacks, many Japanese soldiers were flamed upon at ranges well underneath 30 feet (crazy cameramen in those days to be so close to the action !!). Modifying the \"MINIMUM\" range to 6m seems very logical and I agree with this.

5) ELITE INFANTRY FLAMER LEADER

The soldier who agreed to carry this weapon was either

A) SADISTIC
B) PSYCHOTIC
C) FANATIC
D) ALL OF THE ABOVE

Which does correlate, in CC2 speak, to being a \"LEADER\".
I agree with this change as well.

6) INFANTRY FLAMER PRICING

Currently = 14/12
Options = 14/12, 13/11 or 12/10

When utilized properly, this unit is as effective as the HETZERFLAMMEN as it will provoke numerous casualties and morale checks on enemy units. It\'s addiction to stray bullets and the 14/12 pricing are the great equalizers here and it should remain so. I believe the current pricing of 14/12 should remain.

7) DEMO CHARGE CHANGES

The DEMO CHARGE, due to it\'s explosive contents, will always include the possibility of \"friendly fire\" kills. This element of \"chance\" has to remain in the game. It is the possible price to pay when you utilize a close-range explosives device. I do not agree with any changes here.

PZL

Guest

What I would like to see is the 50.cals ammo up\'ed by a mere 100rds.
A three(3) man team should be able to carry 200 rds each.if you go on a real life airborne combat carring weight of 80-150 pounds of equiptment per soldier.not including personal weapon.
The 50.cal is 130 pounds including tri-pod divided by 3 = 43.3 pounds per person...not as much as you thought it would be huh!since it has three(3) major parts it breaks down into.The barrle,receiver and tri-pod.
The gunner carries the receiver which weighs 80 pounds and is armed with a handgun.that leaves only 25 pounds to divide to those other to worthless people that comes with the 50.
Just my suggestion...I see the people of CC2 out there using it,but like the flamer costing to much or running away like a scared rabbit at the first signs of being under fire...the 50. is 100 rds short of its true potential of the formidable weapon that it is!
HedgeHogM5

theoldguy · Captain

I thought something was screwed up with those gammons! I guess it pays to read on new patches when installing them.

I agree with homba on #1, #2, #3 (sort of), #4, #5.

#3 some of you know (small points games) that I take a few piats because they have an amazing infantry kill ratio on units that have used up most of their grenades (need to be close). This is one of the best anti sniper weapons around too. Im a little concerned that this weapon may be a little too effective past grenade range (I would love it of course), but I think in testing it may prove a little too good for 2 – 3 points.

#6 have to agree with PZL on this one. This may be a good change on the 3.3 patch since we don’t know how the proposed effects of the one in discussion (5) will change the balance of power. The last thing I want to do is change points on all my old BM’s (I have over 200 now!) Just upping the leader status on this unit is going to make a massive change in its worth, people still take them these days with the possible lousy coin toss for experience.

#7 have to agree with PZL on this one too (it’s a Canadian conspiracy…lol), this is a massive charge used in the real close combat situations where everything is a mess…if it wasn’t, im not sure it could not be called war. I would rather have a ‘demo charge button’ to control the use of the damn thing. Nothing worse than it being your last AT and using it on fleeing surrendered soldiers. I would change it so that the demo is available when the unit is at 2 – 3 soldiers though. No reason one of those idiots cant pick it up and pack it with them like the 50 cal rounds and mortar rounds of those full ammo one man teams.

#8 give the damn 50 cal team a couple smoke grenades.

#9 shorten relode time of snipers. These guys aren’t fumbling idiots.

#10 all surrendered soldiers leave map. No more standing around waving hands like idiots!

#11 no more getting stuck under your own tanks…I hate that.

#12 I know this may not be possible. Why the hell cant these guys just throw one smoke grenade every 5 seconds or so? They use em all up half the time on one order.

#13 lower points for achillies II to 25 points…achillies to 18. These poor tanks are quite fragile and low on AT & HE.

#14 if we keep the current gammon data…I suggest that riffle and bren teams have them for the AB allies. The AB brits are a little peppy now…need some balance.

#15 get rid of that damn dog that barks in this game. It sounds just like my neighbors. I think someone is breaking into my car…would like to hear more birds though.

Im sure there are a million other things…but homba has put a lot of thought into these changes, and we will always be in a position to revert, revoke, or renew the patch.

We will never get to 3.3 without 3.2

tog

Homba · Site Admin

Thanks for the comments guys. I hope to see more when people have a chance to catch up with the forum after the holidays.

To respond to some comments:

mpastor, regarding the gammon, you must not have read my post closely enough. ActionJackson answered your concern in the same way I would. You can reference my first post, in the Discussion, the paragraph beginning \'TO SOLVE THIS,\' where you will find the same explanation given by ActionJackson.

A note on gammon range. I have found that the men rarely (or never) throw the gammon beyond 15m. I agree that realistically, 30m is an implausibly long way to throw a gammon with effective accuracy. But the long range for gammons in 2.0 is 30m. It has always been, and still is in 3.1S. I see no reason to change it, especially when the men don\'t seem to try to use the gammon at extreme range.

ActionJackson, your point on the price of the G flamers vs Allied flamers being like Pounds to Euros is well taken smile

The germans do have typically less points to spend (though units like the MarkIII and aufks tend to make up for this). Nonetheless, an argument could be made that the G flamers should cost one or two points less than their allied counterparts. On the other hand, I like the uniformity of them costing the same. If price was lowered to 10/12 for all flamers, I think we would see more german flamers appear in ladder games. As it is now, a german flamer appearance is even more rare than an allied flamer appearance, I think because of the very reason AJ identifies: germans have less points. Need a MarkIII for 18 rather than an elite flamer for 14. I leave this up in the air... comments?

Action your other points:

[quote]-Make the rifle grenade a direct fire weapon.[/quote]

This has been attempted in the past. RG\'s are very tricky to deal with for some reason. Trying to switch them to direct fire causes problems (it has been too long since I\'ve worked with them for me to be more specific). Further, they are dramatically under-gunned as far as their kill rating KR. It is weak as a kitten. (I am away from my numbers on holiday right now). If it doesnt have the same KR as a regular (thrown) grenade, it will have little chance to damage infantry especially in buildings. If we up\'ed it to the KR of a grenade, a whole world of problems open up: units with RG\'s suddenly become potent killers. Their cost would have to be adjusted to reflect this. Units in buildings would not be relatively safe from other inf units at range, due to RG barrages. In short, it would change the game drastically. Drastic change has always been something the 3.x patch series has tried to avoid at all cost. That is why for example, an MG has not been added to the Daimler: the same analysis as above would apply. I think we want CC2 to be the same game, with the same balancing factors we have played since the beginning, BUT to fix some of Atomic\'s errors if we can, to make little changes in the direction of realism- without fundamentally altering game play, to increase player options and potential creativity without making the game unrecognizable from what it has always been. It is a fine line sometimes, but one I think was walked with great success by the 3.0, 3.1, and 3.1S patches.

[quote]-Lower the Prices for some of the armored cars. They are never used! This would have to be done with care since it could easily alter play balance.[/quote]

I sypathize with this. There are so many stupid german vehicles, either because they cost more than identical counterparts which cost less or for other reasons (no AP ammo in a supposedly AT halftrack, etc). Atomic obviously did not spend enough time on these units, the errors and oversights are so numerous. It is really a tragic. A nice vision is a remake of the entire german light vehichle list, with the appropriate fixes made, and the units valued at what they \'should\' be to produce a balanced list of units, all viable, all valuable in their own way, and worth exactly what you pay for them. The possibilities would open up on the battlefield! But I think this is something for the future, a 4.0 patch perhaps. I would like to limit the scope of the 3.2 patch to only the items I have put up for discussion, and any similar (simple) suggestions that the community agrees on. The german light vehicle universal fix is a huge project, with much to be discussed (including possibly more resistence to mortars, etc) and in the interest of time, I would like to put that off until another day, and focus only on small things for this patch.

[quote]
Now for some truly heretic idea: raise the accuracy of all rifles and such.[/quote]

Hehe, heretic indeed. smile

I hear you, but again, same analysis as \'effective\' rifle grenades or MG on the Daimler. It would totally change the game. I want to play a game that *feels* the same as i was playing 5 years ago, except for limited improvements we can make. CC2 infantry is the most \'survivable\' infantry under fire than any other CC infantry. Maybe even a little unrealisticly so (I dont know though- CC2 casuality rates are *very* high compared to realistic standards- though as you say, maybe the proportion killed with rifles is too low.) But that\'s the game I know and love.

PZL: re: gammon, possibility to kill the thrower. I agree with your reasoning, though this would be hard to simulate given the limited variables we have to work with. I would further say that CC2 tanks mow down whole infantry squads at close range so incredibly quickly and thoroughly, that there is no need to throw in one more thing to kill an infantryman.

PZL: flamer price: I think it is a giant leap to compare the inf flamer to the mighty HFP. Effective range is less than half, killing power is much less than half, HFP is invulnerable to many things that easily kill the flamer, HFP has lots of ammo, inf flamer has very limiting 10 rounds of ammo. Yet you say the inf flamer \'is as effective\' as the HFP. (Granted you preface that with \'when utilized properly\'... BUT STILL! smile

The HFP (cost 30 points) is probably *worth* 90 points in urban environs and any environs with short LOS (woods, hedgrows, practically 80%+ of all CC2 battlefields). It is the most bang for the buck available, by far, and can often win games nearly single-handedly. The inf flamer at cost 14/12 I personally think is a bit high (especially for points-starved germans), and I think evidence for this is that you rarely see inf flamers (especially german inf flamers) in ladder games. I think players have figured out that except in a tiny range of circumstances, the inf flamer is not cost-effective. But these are just my opinions from playing. Where does everyone come down on this?

PZL: demo charge. Well, I agree possible risk, but dont you find that about 50% of the time you kill members of your own squad? Maybe 40% or 30% of the time? Wouldn\'t you agree that even 30% of the time would be grossly unrealistic? I would venture to guess that in actual combat in WWII, friendly fire injury/death related to the use of demo charges was at less than a 2% rate per 100 demos used. That is because of the nature of their use, and the CC2\'s failure to accurately represent that use. In real life, they were flung into enemy bunkers, etc while the rest of the squad took cover. In CC2 unfortunately, they are often flung into the mix of bodies as your assualt squad enters a building and engages in melee combat. This is not a realistic portrayal of the use of the demo, and results in grossly disproportional friendly fire causualties in CC2. My suggested fixes would mostly remedy this problem, making demo use more realistic. Further, since Assault and Sturm squads cost so much, it would be nice if the demo was a weapon that counted for something, instead of being a weapon that you dreaded/wished you didnt have at all. What parts of the above do you disagree with, PZL?

HH: To me, the 50cal seems so powerful, and so cheap, that giving it more ammo is uneccessary in the game (though I have no argument with your solid reasoning about ideal ammo load in real life). 300 rounds lasts a long time, though some efforts must be made to conserve ammo in a long battle. You do have to manage them. You cant forget about them and let them waste all their ammo on some unit in a building hundreds of meters away-- which they will do if you don\'t manage them carefully. The only sure cure for a 50cal is blasting it our of its position with tank rounds. .50\'s power is somewhat offset by the well known tendency of the men to panic. They are just reg. army troops, 3 bar average experience. Try keeping a leader unit close to them (in the back of the same building) or try the \'pick them first of all your units\' technique to statistically improve your chances to get a high exp/morale unit (see majorT\'s website and this forum for more on this \'order of unit selection\' technique). Bottom line in my opinion is, if you give the 50cal 100 more rounds, they\'d be even more powerful and you\'d have to raise their price. I think the unit is perfect as-is. Other opinions?

Homba · Site Admin

tog, thanks for your post. After posting mine, I saw yours.

[quote]#3 some of you know (small points games) that I take a few piats because they have an amazing infantry kill ratio on units that have used up most of their grenades (need to be close). This is one of the best anti sniper weapons around too. Im a little concerned that this weapon may be a little too effective past grenade range (I would love it of course), but I think in testing it may prove a little too good for 2 – 3 points.[/quote]

The PIAT max range is not being extended, it is and always has been 60m. Only the minimum range is being reduced from 8m to 5m. So that when a tank is close to you, you can still reach around the wall and fire at it as close as 5m away. I have not shared your experience of the PIAT as an infantry killer, though I find your anecdote interesting. I think the tiny adjustments I am suggesting will not be noticed at all in play. The changes are really tiny.

[quote]#6 have to agree with PZL on this one. This may be a good change on the 3.3 patch since we don’t know how the proposed effects of the one in discussion (5) will change the balance of power. The last thing I want to do is change points on all my old BM’s (I have over 200 now!) Just upping the leader status on this unit is going to make a massive change in its worth, people still take them these days with the possible lousy coin toss for experience.[/quote]

Ok, you have convinced me. If we make the suggested changes to the flamers, we should see how they do prior to lowering their price. I do not think the leader change would have as dramatic an impact as you seem to think it might, but it should have a palpable impact. We could wait until 3.3 to discuss flamer prices again, once the changes to the unit have been assessed on the battlefield.

[quote]#7 have to agree with PZL on this one too (it’s a Canadian conspiracy…lol), this is a massive charge used in the real close combat situations where everything is a mess…if it wasn’t, im not sure it could not be called war. I would rather have a ‘demo charge button’ to control the use of the damn thing. Nothing worse than it being your last AT and using it on fleeing surrendered soldiers. I would change it so that the demo is available when the unit is at 2 – 3 soldiers though. No reason one of those idiots cant pick it up and pack it with them like the 50 cal rounds and mortar rounds of those full ammo one man teams.[/quote]

My arguments in the PZL section in my last post I still think are valid. The computer soldiers are just not intelligent enough to use the demo in an intelligent way. Yeh, i wish we had a \'demo button\' smile

There is no (good) way to make it a \'passable\' weapon- not impossible, but too much downside. It dies with the user, which sucks. Another reason to make its use statistically more effective.

#8 give the damn 50 cal team a couple smoke grenades.

[i]Could do this. I don\'t think it would save their asses though. Better to run out the back fast than spend time chucking smoke while that next shell is pounding into you? And the smoke is probably not going to block area fire into the building- just as deadly (or nearly so) as direct fire.[/i]

#9 shorten relode time of snipers. These guys aren’t fumbling idiots.

[i]You talking german or allied snipers? I never thought twice about their reload time. Would you elaborate? (Snipers are pretty damn tough. You make them any more efficient killers, and a price increase would be necessary it seems to me.)[/i]

#10 all surrendered soldiers leave map. No more standing around waving hands like idiots!

[i]Would be great. We don\'t have access to that code. Can\'t do it.[/i]

#11 no more getting stuck under your own tanks…I hate that.

[i]Would be great. We don\'t have access to that code. Can\'t do it.[/i]

#12 I know this may not be possible. Why the hell cant these guys just throw one smoke grenade every 5 seconds or so? They use em all up half the time on one order.

[i]Would be great. We don\'t have access to that code. Can\'t do it.[/i]

#13 lower points for achillies II to 25 points…achillies to 18. These poor tanks are quite fragile and low on AT & HE.

[i]yeow... now you\'re getting radical smile

Some attempt to harden them (and other vehicles) somewhat against mortars could be made in a future patch (not this one)[/i]

#14 if we keep the current gammon data…I suggest that riffle and bren teams have them for the AB allies. The AB brits are a little peppy now…need some balance.

[i]You mean give gammons to the US troops? Again, seems a tad radical. The US troops have the extra man, and some better guns than the Brit ABs. I like to take a mix myself. And a skilled G player will rarely let his tanks get gammoned anyway. So you may be better off with the bigger, better guns, US AB teams, on the theory that the opponent will not allow you to gammon him anyway. I think it is all pretty balanced, interesting mixes can be attempted and such. The US troops having gammons would be to really change the game in a *major* way. As I said above, I don\'t want to do this. Others opinions?[/i]

#15 get rid of that damn dog that barks in this game. It sounds just like my neighbors. I think someone is breaking into my car…would like to hear more birds though.

[i]Might be possible to cahnge with the culprit sound file (from dog to bird). I dont know where it is, not worth the trouble, and would make patching practically more complex because you\'d have to replace more files. This would be a sound mod project rather than a game play mod project.[/i]

Im sure there are a million other things…but homba has put a lot of thought into these changes, and we will always be in a position to revert, revoke, or renew the patch.

We will never get to 3.3 without 3.2

tog

[i]H[/i]

FJ_HFlik · 1st Lt.

concerning making gameplay more \"real\" is that sometimes enjoyment of the game suffers as a consequence.
Operation Flashpoint is, in my experience, a very real game.
Yet I find it annoyingly unenjoyable.
By all means make fine adjustments but please let\'s not sacrifice enjoyment for realism.

mpastor · Captain

Gammons were not that effective of an anti tank weapon, and were used more often as anti personnel or to cook food. They were dangerous to the user, and time consuming to prime. However, at Arnhem many tanks were taken out by infantry close assaults. I have a hunch the designer’s added gammons to help simulate this and that’s why they gave them only to British. I also have a hunch the designers understood the draw back of indirect fire and blgs with gammon and is why when you are in a blg you can drop grenades on any tank and take it out. The chances of this happening in a game far out pace the chances in real life.

Now, let me address some pts. I am not sure you guys understand what you even plan to do. You mention upping the Kill Rating of the gammon from 80 to 400. Did you intend to up the HE rating to 400, for it currently is -1. OR do you plan to (and is what I assumed you meant) up the AP rating from 80 to 400. IF you do the later then do you realize that that will place it above the ratings for both the 88 L56 and 128 L55 guns with maximum ratings of 328. This of course is well above the rating of 184 for the 50 L60 that someone implies has a higher rating than the 88. Kill rating after all (and not rate of fire) is what is important since it will face off against some pretty thick armor on German hvy tanks. Any experienced player knows that even with a kill rating of 400 HE, it is foolish to fire the avre main gun at the frontal armor of these hvy tanks and expect a certain kill.

Therefore, assuming you intend to modify the AP rating, I must repeat my important question here. Wont the extremely high value of 400 AP (not HE) potentially radically affect the way enemy vehicles react to mere British infantry units. Is this not something that the ai takes into account when deciding if it will advance or not.
1. Is there a reason the 328 is the maximum rating used for all other weapons
2. Will this cause nearby enemy tanks to gyrate more than normal.
3. Will this cause more frequent tank crew routs
4. Will this make the tank decide to advance in a less direct fashion or slower than normal.
5. IF so why would you want this behavior in your game..

WRT other points

1. Adding more leaders to units will have more effects than you seem to realize. Leaders effect Force and unit morale (other units). Units with leaders move faster, and rally quicker. The death of a leader reduces your force morale. In real life, leaders rarely carried support equipment.
2. Flame throwers are great weapons, especially the allied flame thrower and is currently the best buy for a unit. No other unit in that price range can take out every unit on the board. On top of that no other unit sneaks better. Finally, the ft’r can’t be alt right moused. I take an allied ft’r into every battle I can and would be surprised to find any veteran player not doing same. Reducing min range sounds like a great idea, however, I am guessing that there will be problems with friendly kills. I am sure this is why it is at its current value. The problem with the German flame thrower is that it has 2 men. This means unit behaves like the dumber of the 2 men. Often abandoning its duty as ft’er and heading to death in melee. If you increase it to 4 and 5 bar, won’t you also increase the chance of this happening, though they may fair better? Perhaps this is why the designers settled on a lower rating.
3. Change the piat, …..Why again?
4. If you want people to take thin skinned or open topped AFVs, then you need to fix the unrealistic problem of them quickly blowing up due to mortar fire. Fix that and people will buy them at their current value.

ActionJacksonCC · Colonel

[quote]I have a hunch the designer’s added gammons to help simulate this and that’s why they gave them only to British.[/quote]
AFAIK US troops had no gammons historically. Correct me if I am wrong.
[quote]I also have a hunch the designers understood the draw back of indirect fire and blgs with gammon and is why when you are in a blg you can drop grenades on any tank and take it out.[/quote]
No, you cannot. We\'ve said this numerous times before, in 2.0b you cannot throw gammons from the inside of buildings because they are set to indirect fire just like mortars.
So actually the designers either overlooked this thing, or decided to release the game prematurely.
[quote]You mention upping the Kill Rating of the gammon from 80 to 400. Did you intend to up the HE rating to 400, for it currently is -1. OR do you plan to (and is what I assumed you meant) up the AP rating from 80 to 400.[/quote]
AP rating. I don\'t have an idea of what might happen once you give a gammon two different KRs.
[quote]IF you do the later then do you realize that that will place it above the ratings for both the 88 L56 and 128 L55 guns with maximum ratings of 328. This of course is well above the rating of 184 for the 50 L60 that someone implies has a higher rating than the 88. Kill rating after all (and not rate of fire) is what is important since it will face off against some pretty thick armor on German hvy tanks.[/quote]
I have yet to see an 88mm or 50mm open fire at a german tank. Really, never seen that.
And YES, I realized that. To quote myself:
[quote]A kill rating of 400 is just the same as the 280mm spigot mortar uses I think. That sounds way overpowered at first.[/quote]
...
[quote]Any experienced player knows that even with a kill rating of 400 HE, it is foolish to fire the avre main gun at the frontal armor of these hvy tanks and expect a certain kill.[/quote]
I always fire next to the KT, but more due to AI targeting reasons than KR. Nice to know that there is actually a difference.
[quote]Therefore, assuming you intend to modify the AP rating, I must repeat my important question here. Wont the extremely high value of 400 AP (not HE) potentially radically affect the way enemy vehicles react to mere British infantry units. Is this not something that the ai takes into account when deciding if it will advance or not.[/quote]
It really rarely happens that a tank turns red and stops obeying orders. If this happens more frequently with 3.2, what I think to be unlikely, we can still change the data again. IMO, tanks panicking at close infantry assaults wouldn\'t be too uncool anyway.
[quote]1. Is there a reason the 328 is the maximum rating used for all other weapons[/quote]
no idea.
[quote]2. Will this cause nearby enemy tanks to gyrate more than normal.[/quote]
Why should there be a relation?
[quote]3. Will this cause more frequent tank crew routs[/quote]
This is speculation. The only way to find out is to test.
[quote]4. Will this make the tank decide to advance in a less direct fashion or slower than normal.[/quote]
why should there be a relation?

PZLeader · Site Admin

TO HOMBA
========

REGARDING INFANTRY FLAMERS
--------------------------
My reference to the dreaded HFP was, indeed, over the top, BUT, smile

, since the infantry flamers are great at sneaks and infiltration, they do represent a formidable fighting unit when properly utilized smile

. Yes they do have only 10 charges, but, provoke massive morale checks on nearby enemy infantry late in games when the battle reaches it\'s breaking point...

I still stand by my statement of maintaining the costs of an infantry flamer to 14/12....

REGARDING DEMO CHARGES
----------------------
It is true that DC\'s were primarily used against bunkers and fortified buildings. In CC2 land however, there are neither, which must leave open the \"chance\" of friendly fire kills. Yes it is frustrating at times to see a couple of your soldiers fly off in the wild blue yonder when the DC goes off but those are the breaks. The tennis ball is back in your court H smile

TO THE OLD GUY
==============
LOL @ Canadian Conspiracy !!!!!

PZL

theoldguy · Captain

Gammons for AB allies was an oops…meant demo charge for the next two units. Not a good idea if the demo charge is modded as proposed. Now that I think about it…demo for the riffle and bren teams may be overkill. I just want to have a weapon of last resort so that allies stand a small chance of cracking a tank on the hail mary charge once all other AT is used up.

Homba

3) PIAT: In order to bring the piat in line with 3.1 standards for inf AT weapons, Min range reduced to 5m, and close range extended to 30m. Ranges would be: 5m=min 10m=PB 30m=Close 45m=Med 60m=Long. The PIAT was overlooked in the tweaks made in 3.1 to other inf AT weapons (zook, faust, schreck). This would be redressed.

I guess I don’t understand the current values. Is <30m close now? If we are only talking about the min range…then im all for it. Using the piat at <40m at this time is highly effective…at <30m they will alternate with some grenades on infantry targets…markkal…I just finished playing him with my 8 piat teams (1/2 ab) that wiped out the Auks quite nicely. Zook teams are idiots when dealing with infantry.

Any improvement to the piat would get more people using them (good thing). Spend a few hours with some setups for testing them (everybody), you will get the hang of using 2 or 3 on any target with amazing results…especially in trees and buildings targets. It is, however, not a good idea to use them on units that have a lot of AP left. The pait teams are a little fragile, and the army units will panic with one close grenade…so keep that in mind.

tog

mpastor · Captain

I offer my congratulations to TOG. He has found a way to use a fine weapon, the piat. Which, has a better KR than a bazooka. I also believe they sneak better and may be due to weapon size. Not only is this a good weapon for scout kills but great against MG’s. Again this weapon fires HEAT rounds so watchout reducing minimum ranges too much. Finding clever ways to use weapons in the game is a more intelligent approach than to start changing things just so you can do things easier.

Also one more good point about flame throwers is that they are the only weapon in the game that can attack terrain, soldiers, and tanks directly. I question the veteran status of players who don’t recognize this. One reason they may not be used in ladder play a lot is because you play the same map over and over. Eventually people know where the flamer is hiding. In the old days when I laddered, people got tired of high pt maps and moved toward 100 pt maps. In these games, you see alot of flamers and also you see more even pt distributions since german tanks are not available and lack of allied tanks takes away faust bonus. These 2 former pts are the main reason german players get less pts.

Let me make a quick correction here, the gammon kill rating is a heat rating also, not ap as I mentioned before. From Homba’s comments concerning minimum range and effects on troops I assumed an AP value. However, this brings up another drawback and that is that it should effect infantry if close to blast reguardless of original target. By the way, gammons were considered very dangerous weapons to their users (just bars of C4 in a bag), and were used more often as satchel charge type attacks vs infantry than tanks.

Jackson, before you put up some more poorly informed flippant responses to this post, please note that grenades (Class 1 weapons) are direct fire and can be thrown from windows. You don’t seem to have too much knowledge of the game and it shows in your posts. Not knowing this is probably why you lose a lot troops to grenade attacks when you try your cc5 infantry charge tactics in cc2. Infantry DO drop grenades on tanks from buildings in CC2. I have a feeling this just was not enough an infantry anti tank attack for designers. Especially due to direct fire mode of weapon. This is probably why the gammon weapon was created in the game and a weapon class of 79 (the last number) adds credit to this idea. Your lack of knowledge wrt to tank behavior and threat are also particularly alarming. Thwarting this behavior is why some have modified tank armor in past.

Don’t really understand why you even mentioned the 400 KR of the Avre or for that matter what Homba meant when he said you spoke for him while using it as an example. Either he did not read your post, or plans to do something very strange and apply a 400 HE kill rating to gammon. That of course would be horrible and was the point I tried to make. Lack of response to the type of KR you guys intend to modify makes me wonder again more whether you have really put thought into this mod.

I must repeat this since you doubters seem not to read it. Why change the gammon a weapon that works perfectly fine as it is. If you want a better blg attack ability add an AP grenade to the infantry. A quick and painless fix. I cant imagine near as many potentially bad ramifications, but you never know.

BoroXXX · 5 Star General

It costs 30, same as flamhetzer, so no use taking it. I think that it should cost somewhere between 17 and 20 (21?).

When something else pops into my mind I\'ll drop you a line;).