[MOD] Company of Heroes: Real Combat

[Fox808]

Hello,

I'm working on a skirmish/multiplayer (maybe even singleplayer release if things will go good), it's all about realism and tactics. I want to achieve a close combat experience in CoH. Real Combat will feature new music, graphics, new units and more realistic overall view of combat, based on Close Combat series...

WIP (most of these units are nearly done, i just need to balance game, fix bugs etc.)

Units

Allies:

Command Squad (1 carbine, 1thompson, 2 garands, 1BAR)
Rifle Squad (1 carbine, 1thompson, 1BAR, 4 garands)
Half-Rifle Squad (1carbine, 3 garands)
BAR Squad (1 carbine, 1thompson, 2 BARs, 3 garands)
Bazooka Squad (1bazooka, 1carbine, 2garands)
Recon Squad (1grase, 2thompsons, 2carbines, explosives)
Sniper (sniper rifle)
Assault Eng. (1carbine, 1thompson, 1BAR, 1 garand, 1flamethrower, explosives, mines)

Axis:

Zugfuhrergruppe 'command squad' (3 mp-40s, 1mg-34, 1kar)
Granadiere ' infantry' (2 mp-40s, 3 kars, 1 sniper)
Reserve Granadiere 'half-infantry' (1 mp-40, 3 kars)
Panzerschreck 'anti-tank' (1 panzerschreck, 3 kars)
Aufklarer 'scout' (3 mp-40s, 2 kars)
Sturmpionere 'assault engenniers' (5 mp-40s, 1flamethrower, 1 mg-34, mines, explosives)
Sturmgrenadiere 'assault infantry' (5 mp-40s, 1 mg-34, 1kar, 1 panzerfaust, explosives)

Overall Experience

- Dead bodies never dissapear, more gore (but not too much).
- No tracers exept MG or so.
- Medics help wounded soldiers on the battlefield.
- More realistic soldier behaviour (eg. more easly suppressed or pinned, no more idiotic charges)
- Battles between soldiers are now fight from longer distance than before.
- New abilities for support units.
- Tank battles more realistic


Near Future plans

New sounds
Make ammunition finite
New weapons, teams and vehicles:

81mm mortar
Browing .50
Stuart 37mm
New mines
Pak 43
M5


Future Plans

New graphics
New single player missions
New maps



Mod release date: 'when its done'.

Hope you will like it,
Fox

[Busby]

Will you be balancing things based on real life effectiveness, IE a single Sherman will always die to a Tiger unless its completely unprepared for battle?

[Fox808]

Yes, but don't expect tons of tigers charging your poor shermans :)... I want to make game stay as well balanced as it can be.

[nsysusoloman]

New sounds? Okay, make germans speak pure german

[muzrub]

Good call mate- the more CC this game can be the better!
I'm no programmer but if I can offer assistance within a research role i am quite happy to help.

cheers and good luck,

Please keep us updated on the progress!

Zugfuhrergruppe 'command squad'- it will be good to have that back- its a real insentive to now buy a officer.

[Pvt.Nouri]

Sounds great. I love realism. And i especially need longer engagement ranges for all units.

But th grenadier group has a sniper and only 3 kars? Hmm.

[alexbretzer]

Do You have an estimate on when it's going to come out

[Sooth]

Im looking forward to this, although... The "dead bodies never disapear" is kindof tricky, first of: it will take alot of memory. Second, it wont look good because they will just merge into eachother and GEEZ it will fly limbs if any kind of explosives hit it... Ok, the last part was... yummy, but the other ones don't look good. Also DON'T go for realism on the range with weapons, I'll just backfire and in the end units will just... fire at enemies you didnt even consider a threat. So maybe increaste the range a bit. Still if it is increased to much, and if the accuracy is increased aswell it will just be killing of tactics.

[Jason Baane]

The maximum range of weapons is hardly a representation of their typical optimum range. For example, tank cannons can easily send shells flying 2000+ meters, some guns more accurately than others. However, on the western front, the typical engagement range was around 800 meters, often less than that. I'm not sure how this affects infantry weapons, but I can't imagine soldiers firing at one another at the absolute maximum range of their rifles which would be well beyond their ability to consistently hit a man-sized target.

As for the M4 bashing, I will not get into it in too much detail but show me a sourced instance of a Tiger waxing an M4 and I’ll show you a sourced instance of an M4 waxing a Tiger. Saying M4s should always loose by default because it’s an M4 is a bit silly.

To the OP: This site may help you out - http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/

It has accurate TO&E and equipment loadouts up to the Battalion level. Very good site, I just wish I could remember who I got the link from.

[Gremlin Shoota]

This sounds like KMOD Two Point O!!!

[Kyranzor]

err.. lol maybe not. im not 100% realistic, but realism can be fun -_-

good luck Fox mate. if you need any help, please PM me and i might be able to answer questions.


btw Jason, i recently saw a documentary on M4 sherman on - yes - the history channel. its not a heap of dribble it was slightly good :D lol
even the man said M4 shermans sux and the person quotes from the tank crews. some lucky bastard bailed out of 5 shermans and kept fighting lol

[Jason Baane]

Were they interviewing Belton Cooper, by chance? I know they have him on the History Channel a lot. Anyway, if it WAS him, you should know that he was not a M4 crewman. He was a rear laison officer.

Some people hated the Sherman, some loved it. For every bad thing said about the Sherman, there is a good thing to be said about it. Most of the faults with the Sherman are found when comparing it to tanks like the Tiger, which are an entirely different class of vehicle.

For the good of this thread, lets not take this too far.

[Kyranzor]

of course. :D and no i dont think Belton Cooper was there. there was about 5 different sherman tankers, all had bail out of 2-5 shermans in their career. the improved sherman M4 models in '43 like the "easy eight" model sherman M4A3E8 or whatever it was were by far alot better than the original M4A1 sherman which was very poorly made and had pathetic armament (low velocity guns), very light armour, and poor ammunition storage. so it WAS a bad tank, its actually up to tactical use and later improvements that made it better

so i suggest to Fox808 that you make two or even three different classes of shermans buildable. the original sherman M4A1 with the 75mm gun, and the M4A3E8 with 76mm gun with the E8 model being more costly but better in terms of anti-tank power. Maybe another model with extra armour i cant remember the nickname or model number either sorry.

[Jason Baane]

M4A1s and M4A3s were hardly ever in the same unit because they required different parts.

Early production tanks weren't "bad." Bad compared to what? Panzer IVs? Laughable. The 75mm M3 maintained lethality against them at combat ranges. The ammunition layout wasn't much different from German tanks, and therefor the combustion problem was no greater than the Mark IV.

In the book Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks by Dmitry Loza, it is revealed that the M4A2 was less prone to combustion than the T-34. And no, it wasn't because of deisel fuel.

The late production M4 tanks of all models had reshaped front hulls, thicker armor, higher quality armor, and the safest ammunition stowage in the world. Combustion was effectively a non-issue in the late production runs of the Sherman.

Allow me to give to you this anecdote from one Lieutenant Colonel Louis Hightower:

As the Germans turned for what they thought would be a picnic, we let go and struck their commander's tanks with our third shot. He stopped cold as if he had hit a tree. We got a second tank with one more shot, and the German tanks braked to a halt and began to fire at us in earnest. We could fire on the move, though, and kept going at about 15 mile per hour. We put three more shots into another German tanks before discovering that it was the Tiger. I saw the shells burst against him, but I don't know if he was disabled. However, he didn't shoot at us again, so we must have done some damage.

Another Mk IV came up to him, and we got that one with one shot, still moving ourselves. He flamed up like a flower. The another Mk IV approached the Tiger and the burning tank, which was stupid because all my gunner had to do was move his sight over a hair, and that tank also flamed up with the first shot. Then our gun overheated and jammed, and we were in serious trouble as the remaining Mk IVs really opened up on us. We could actually see the shells coming along close to the ground, like a ricocheting stone on the water. One shell fragment came straight down our gun tube, rattled around the but caused no serious damage. Another shell went through the bogie wheels, under the tank. Then with a sound like a giant bell, a shell hit our turret, but didn't penetrate. Another hit made our ears ring, but we kept on working on that jammed breechblock. As soon as our gun was unjammed, we began firing again, but now a German 75mm shell smashed the bottom of our left gas tank, and blazing gasoline spurted out over the back of the tank, the tracks and the ground around us. Heavy black smoke began to roil up from our hull. I shouted to my boys, "Now is the time to git" and we boiled out like peas from a hot pod."


Thats a single M4A1 armed with a 75mm M3 bagging a Tiger and 2 Panzer IVs before getting hit 3 times and finaly being taken out with the 4th hit. Pretty good for a tank that "sux" if you ask me.

[Kyranzor]

no one said a sherman couldn't do that. a man with a bazooka can do all that single handedly. and the sherman isnt bad in "comparison" to anything, they are just bad tanks. they were poorly made and poorly manufactured to get the quantity. the allies initially made the sherman as a "it does the job" tank, and it really did "do the job" but it had its flaws. it needed on the spot upgrades like the hedge cutter add-on to get through france.

the sherman is a good tank, in-sofar as it does the job. it really wasnt a very high class tank and shouldnt be considered as such.

Tigers and Panzer Iv's are considered "better" because they have better quality weapons (higher velocity = more penetration) and more armour. A sherman tanker quoted that he on many occaisions saw their 75mm shells bounce harmlessly off the thick german armour.

the sherman was mass produced, and although had a high rate of loss, it still did a damn fine job. the german tanks however were not mass produced, and had to do with what they had. Obviously everyone wants to hear about to heroic german panzers fighting off against many shermans, and dieing with honour. no one wants to hear about the "ronson" fireball sherman tanks that pwned the poor germans. lol

[Jason Baane]

no one said a sherman couldn't do that. a man with a bazooka can do all that single handedly. and the sherman isnt bad in "comparison" to anything, they are just bad tanks. they were poorly made and poorly manufactured to get the quantity. the allies initially made the sherman as a "it does the job" tank, and it really did "do the job" but it had its flaws.
Every tank had flaws.


it needed on the spot upgrades like the hedge cutter add-on to get through france.
Play of words. What you really mean is that the Americans developed a device to allow the Sherman to cut down the Hedgerows, something even the heaviest tanks couldn't do. It didn;t "need" the cullin Hedgerow cutter device to "get through france."


the sherman is a good tank, in-sofar as it does the job. it really wasnt a very high class tank and shouldnt be considered as such.
Dmitri Loza would disagree.


Tigers and Panzer Iv's are considered "better" because they have better quality weapons (higher velocity = more penetration) and more armour. A sherman tanker quoted that he on many occaisions saw their 75mm shells bounce harmlessly off the thick german armour.
Cool it. Get off the Panther and Tiger bandwagon. Those were not the majority of the German motor pool in Europe. The biggest opponents to the M4 were StuG IIIs and Mark IV Panzers, both of which it was on par with or outclassed. Besides, I have plenty of accounts of Sherman crews waxing Tigers. For example, the one quoted above.

While we're on that subject, isn't it odd that you dismiss the above account as "Anyone, even a guy with a Bazooka could do it" then turn around and try to say that Panthers destroying Shermans is evidence that Shermans sucked?


the sherman was mass produced, and although had a high rate of loss, it still did a damn fine job. the german tanks however were not mass produced, and had to do with what they had. Obviously everyone wants to hear about to heroic german panzers fighting off against many shermans, and dieing with honour. no one wants to hear about the "ronson" fireball sherman tanks that pwned the poor germans. lol

The ronson thing is a myth. I feel I have proven that, and I have come to the conclusion that you simply are not reading my posts.

[Sooth]

I had a feeling the Panthers were the majority when it came to axis tanks in normandy. This is only what I've read though. If someone was there, tell us. :P

[Jason Baane]

Panthers and Tigers together made up less than 50% of the German tank strength at Normandy and the western front in general.

[Sooth]

What about Panzer III:s?
Anyway, considering the speed of a sherman is superior to its axis counterparts, a rush of a few shermans could to well. As long as the shermans hit the back of the axis bigger tanks it would be well.
I read somewhere that the USSR T-23 tank took out 3 tigers by just comming up from behind and shooting quickly.

[Kyranzor]

Jason, i understand that you are for the Shermans and against any mention of tiger or panther. thats fine. but seriously man, all tanks sucked and the sherman beats them all in suckyness. thats to put it childishly.

i believe forum guidelines dont like people abusing the quote function. please do not quote something and take it out of context.


11. Do not abuse the quote function.
Using the quote function to take someone else's words out of context or misrepresent them is considered flaming and will not be tolerated.
lol



Play of words

no thats the truth. even the tankers said they would never have gotten through france if it wasnt for this invention and locale upgrades. i seriously doubt if a small jagged peice of metal attached to the tanks really would help, but it seems it did.. oh well



The ronson thing is a myth.
exactly. its a nickname dude, based on the very fact that the early shermans were prone to catching fire alot.

mmmkay im done. sure Sherman was alright, but i like Panzer IV's better. they have better armour and guns and crew. that to me is what counts. i dont care if Tigers can be defeated by shermans, because anything is possible in war. and yes Jason, i do read your posts and i can see that you are very single-minded in your arguments and will know no different to your own approach.

[Jason Baane]

Jason, i understand that you are for the Shermans and against any mention of tiger or panther. thats fine. but seriously man, all tanks sucked and the sherman beats them all in suckyness. thats to put it childishly.

i believe forum guidelines dont like people abusing the quote function. please do not quote something and take it out of context.

lol




no thats the truth. even the tankers said they would never have gotten through france if it wasnt for this invention and locale upgrades. i seriously doubt if a small jagged peice of metal attached to the tanks really would help, but it seems it did.. oh well



exactly. its a nickname dude, based on the very fact that the early shermans were prone to catching fire alot.

mmmkay im done. sure Sherman was alright, but i like Panzer IV's better. they have better armour and guns and crew. that to me is what counts. i dont care if Tigers can be defeated by shermans, because anything is possible in war. and yes Jason, i do read your posts and i can see that you are very single-minded in your arguments and will know no different to your own approach.
The Sherman did not suck. I have proven it time and time again. You're ignoring the evidence.

I did not take your quotes out of context. I answered them. Granted, the forum guideline states no moe than three quotes is prefered, so that's my bad. However, my points still stand.

Your statement that they needed Cullin Hedgerow cutters to get through france is not truth. Cullin Hedgerow cutters helped to remove Hedges, but they did not carry the Sherman through france.

The Panzer Mk. IV had inferior armor. The gun was comparable to the 76mm M1A1, and the crew issue is a random variable.

Did you read the anecdote I posted? That's a single Sherman dropping a Tiger and two Panzers, absorbing 3 Shells and only being taken out on the fourth. You cannot say the Sherman was inferior ro the Panzer IV after that. The Panzer IV was just as prone to combustion as the early Shermans and that's a fact. You are completely ignoring the evidence and are only seeing what you want to see.

For your benifit, i'll post another anecdote from Panzers at War by Michael and Gladys Green:

Sergeant Steward B. Olson describes a battle between several M4 Shermans and a single Tiger B tank -

A Tiger tank coming down from Freialdenhoven to Ederen was spotted by the knocked out, but still manned, mediums (one 75mm and one 76mm.) They opened fire at approximately 1000 yards (914 meters,) and the Tiger swung to face it. Both tanks got ricochets and direct hits on the Tiger, as proved later. The Tiger swung back on the narrow road and proceeded about 50 yards (46 meters,) then swung his tail to the two tanks. He was then knocked out by an AP round through the back plate into the motor. Twenty-four hours later, I had the oppertunity to observe the burned Tiger and found the results of the fire.

Several scars were visible on the slope plate (glacis) and around the hull, but the one hit that stood out was a direct hit by an AP to the upper left of the sight opening in the gun shield. The shell had penetrated about five inches straight into the steel and dropped out, doing no damage to the Tiger.

That's two Shermans, one with a 75mm M3 and one with a 76.2mm M1, outshooting a King Tiger from well over 800 meters away. They even had their mobility stripped, which is the commonly cited single advantage of the Sherman. I'm sorry, but if you're still going to tell me the Sherman "beat them all in suckyness" then there's frankly little more I have to say to you.

[Kyranzor]

so two versus 1. again its just tactics and plain old chances of warfare. it was hit in the rear. so what? tank crews make mistakes. As said by the history channel narrator the tank crew of the germans by '44 were surpassed by the battle weary allied tankers who had been in many fights all through france and normandy.

yes i read your anecdotes and see that on some occasions yes, the Sherman proved its worth. That does not mean it is any better than the german armour.


You are completely ignoring the evidence and are only seeing what you want to see.

dont we all?

[Unkn0wn]

Just to lighten the spirit, Panzer IV's WERE mass produced.
It was the most common German tank on the fiel, basically what the Sherman is to the Americans, the Panzer IV was to the Germans. (But obviously there were more Shermans around as the Americans lend leased it to other nations)

Tigers & Panthers (Especially the Tiger) however were not (Mainly due to them being issued late war when the Reich had lower funds and with some of the factories starting to get bombed.


Btw theres also stories of Tigers and Panzers taking out various Shermans, just like theres stories of Shermans taking out various Panzers. That is not at all proof that any of these two tanks were in theory superior to one another. (Although there is other proof for that).

A tank is just a tool, it's the crew that mans it that will really make a difference.
And when it comes to quality we all know the Axis were far superior to any other nation while the Allied had to rely on quantity.

[Sooth]

As I see it its all about taking the right decisions. Look, a sherman could easily outgun a tiger if it had its back exposed, since thats where the armour is the weakest, and also where the engine compartment is located. Although if we look at it like this: A sherman, has speed and a decent firepower. An Mark IV panzer has about the same perks, perhaps a bit slower. That makes them pretty much even and its all about who gets the best hits, if the laws of physics decide that the first shell of the mark IV bounces of the armour of the sherman, way to go sherman cause it will take the mark IV out. IF it scores a good hit that is.

You can't really compare tanks like you do, because there are so many factors to consider, is it an open landscape? and little town? a forest? Are the tanks prepeared or taken by suprise? Its quite hard to just say "that tank is better than that one", just because its all pretty relative. A tiger without support from infantry, is a goner if two shermans close in and one of them gets around. (although tigers were usually backed up by MG teams to cover their flanks). I think my point is clear.

[Jason Baane]

The immobile M4s did not outshoot the Tiger because it's back was turned. That's just when they killed it. The Tiger chose to try and retreat.

It's funny: people will try to post anecdotes of Panthers and Tigers taking out numerous M4s as proof of M4 inferiority, often making the statement of "5 American tanks to 1 German tank." However, as soon as someone turns the tables with sourced accounts of M4 ownage, the tune suddenly changes to "Oh, well... none of that matters. So there. The M4 still sucks because I say so."

[Sooth]

This can go on and on, but we all know if you put one sherman, versus a mark IV panzer/panther/tiger or an random assault gun the sherman would have the odds turned against it. Since this whole discussion has been you (Jason) stating both varios examples of shermans taking out axis tanks, and also saying that the M4 is better than we imply it is. Can't be helped but theres not much more to say about it, if the sherman is so good on its own, why flood the place with them?

Also about that thing with the reported losses and tank take-downs... You don't think its possible they overdid it? loosing around 40% of the tanks you take out means you really have som kickass tanks. And we all know that sherman wernt the best (nor the worst) tanks in world war 2.

[Jason Baane]

Using your obvious advantages in production capacity means by default that your tanks are inferior? Ok, whatever. It's obvious that nothing I say, no matter how many facts or how much evidence I present will change your opinion on the issue.

[Sooth]

I think youre right, but atleast *I* can tell you that; sure the M4 sherman was a good tank, I never said it was bad, nor have I thought so but I am merely saying german tanks had an advantage, that is not ALL german tanks. As you say Panzer IVs were tanks shermans could at many times be better than. So see like if you proved you proved M4 shermans are not that bad at all, but still that doesnt say they are the best.

And about using your advandages in production... No offcourse it doesnt prove anything about the quality of the tank (one can only speculate).

Also I have a question for you, it seems alot of missions for various units were without tank support, and the tanks always came in the last minute, ok not always but alot of times. That could be used in the mod. :P Slow tank production!