dieseltaylor

Noticeably the first and last contributors have 93 and 279 posts and are in favour. Those who have read his sig and scrolled past thousands of times do not find them quite as worth keeping .... other than as an historical relic : )

Interesting. In CMx1 the TD was a difficult kill for the IV - and should be more so as firing uphill should increase the angle of the armour. An interesting risk but judging how you feel you may duke it out as nailing them would be fun and might throw a spanner into the attack. PS 60mm smoke for the ridge traverse?Its getting more fun by as the action unfolds.!

Ron- I am confused as to the C2 relevance as if GAJ goes through all his units each turn does that not tell him what they have seen? Regarding defence. In game terms from my experience with CMx1 its not solely the points but the terrain that makes the difference. The idea that the points ratio remains the same though the terrain changes I find illogical. RL shows that some terrain is very defensible whereas others is not. This is is also shows up where some weapon systems excel and others suck. This particular battle may reveal the map is too large for a reasonable defence rather than any major screw-ups. With hindsight as to how the game engine works and the enemy force mix I am sure GAJ would do it differently - we all would. In general terms I am not averse to the offering up piecemeal units while in defence. This normally involves calculating disruption value on the attack and the time to get to the objectives. Obviously this is dependent on the battlefield size, timing, weather and force available. However I am sure most players can envisage a situation where you may hold an outlier not on the main advance where later in the game you may be able to crossfire on the assault and disrupt it. I may also put a unit forward that is an irritant on the advance but has the added value of being a TRP trap. In CMx2 V2 I simply do not have the knowledge to be confident on tactics that work. Given the time V2 has been out for the public I suspect most are stilling feeling their way.

My reading was that pivoting was OK provided you had the right type of ground - that is hard and flat. Possibly hard but slightly muddy even easier. However as a general rule it was quite possible to do damage and therefore I am sure training was designed as far as possible to stop this pivoting becoming a default behaviour. On the battlefield a rut or or ditch etc could ruin your day. In towns it may have been a necessary part of navigating given the size of vehicle and the narrowness of some roads. Presumably done gently : )

Looking at the photo it seems to me that it is heaps of spoil, and stored coal which is being piled up and being dug into. A quick check reveals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsdorf

Was the victim in line with travel, side on, or in front of impact point? It does seem so unlikely that to have it factored in as a possible result seems bizarre.

What is the feeling about banning Bazooka and Panzerschrek from firing from buildings? Apparently the big firing signature of the Panzerschrek made it unpopular with German troops and it had a much more dangerous effect to the rear of the weapon. Or is that too complex? The Panzerfausts were massively more common than the PzSchrek - 8 million to sub-300,00. Pzschrek ammo 2.2 million. "The Panzerschrecks were initially less successful than Panzerfausts because Panzerschreck gunners - trusting in the impressive size of the Panzerschreck - tended to open fire at larger ranges of around 100m (330 ft.), which was also necessified by the relative cumbersomeness of the large Panzerschreck which was a hindrance when retreating into cover after the shot. Panzerfausts were easier to handle and usually shot from a distance of 30m (100 ft.) after which the soldier quite easily could get under cover again. At early trials, out of 12 Panzerschreck rounds fired at a static T-34 at a range of 100m only 3 hit the target. In the same trial all of the five Panzerfausts fired at a range of 30m hit the tank - however one should keep in mind that this was a static target that did not shoot back!" http://www.oocities.org/pizzatest/panzerfaust3.htm

US Army Tactical and Technical Trends, October 1944. Incidentally is it possible that the bazooka and Panzerschrek are far less room friendly than the faustpatrone? http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_faustpatrone/index.html ASLVeteran The point is that whilst you consider the blast effects as very problematic most of the community disagree with you. Obviously it will be nice when we discover more information however one will not be pleased to be told anecdote does not count! If BF feel gamewise it makes for too many problems and degrades the gaming pleasure then lets hear it. I can live with it as gameplay should outrank attempted fidelity to history. Perhaps a fudge is in order that makes going near enemy buildings without unsuppressed infantry friends a more dangerous event. Perhaps within 50 metres of a non-friendly building degrades spotting severely as crew keep an eye on that and associated clutter... and this is cumulative to a certain level.

Ian Hogg has the US 57mm ATG doing around 73mm at 20degree slope at 1000 yards. Therefore I would suggest at right angles and at closer range the Elefant is vulnerable. After all 80mm of armour is barely more than the Matilda II. : ) The other point is that if the small 57mm can be hidden then firing to upset the commanders nerves would be fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1 answers your query Essentially you need also a different shell to take advantage of the different gun length and all that is a function of making an ATG specific weapon.

womble - There are a number of threads on gun accuracy and John D Salt's War Office research figures are available. In all the research AFAIK the basis is a fixed gun firing at a fixed target. This is a good shot at 1200 metres. The nub of the point is the ability for the SP to get into a position and nail first shot. The minimum standard in training for Tiger crews was AFAIR 3 shots to nail a target at 800m -1200m. So certainly training would agree with the feasibility of it with a tank. I suppose the SP not having to consider elevation/declination may make it functionally a bit more useful than in RL. I am curious if the cross-country speed of 8-10kph is modeled.

It is the first shot kill aspect that is interesting. Certainly possible but generally long range first shot kills happen when tanks are already set prepared in position. Here we have a SP drive up into the position that allows a shot and fires and hits. Now if it jiggered about to get the correct position [and was not spotted despite its bulk] then that would seem more probable. The other alternative is that Bill was firing blind - is that feasible? Tree burst effects? Or there is infantry in advance spotting the correct position. PS thanks to ian and slysniper for replying : )

GAJ comes from WeBoB where friendly gaming is seen as more important than winning at all costs. Another advantage is that if 10 club players played with the original set forces, or even the original set-ups we could still assess who did well. And the chances for freak results can be seen. In this situation you may see a seven out of ten Axis win but every player will get some fun. This " I win or lose" as a single result does not prove whether the battle is unbalanced or not. The art of negotiation occurred in CMx1 and really was not very clever if you just wanted to play a game. I suspect I have played over 400+ CMx1 games and have 200+ recorded so feel familiar with all the tweaks for achieving "fairness". CMx1 also suffered from the proportions chosen by BF were flawed as the ratio of units for purchase did not change during the entire war. The Western allied artillery was very handicapped. I have no idea as to the costs for purchase in FI and in GL but the strongest Allied ground force was the artillery and if this is too expensive then recreating what happened in RL would be difficult. ATG's do seem busted but that might be a function of the tree density and not a lesson to translate to other battlefields. I was debating about popping smoke about the battle field to give the impression of screening something - on a large battlefield distraction and wasting his units time and stressing the player seems a good idea. On the same tack, and given dust is raised, I would be looking for a non-viewed area to run vehicles on dust and then back on grass. An honest commander would perhaps think there is more units in reserve and plan accordingly. All adds to the fun : )

womble - The UK has the smallest houses in Western Europe. "The average home in the UK is 85 square metres compared to 115 square metres in Holland and 137 square metres in Denmark." In a sense average size is not much help as we would expect the defender to choose the most suitable house/room for the purpose. One other point is the height of the rooms is not being considered and the 9-10'/ 3m ceiling is more common abroad than in the UK. Strangely room heights are very difficult information to discover so I can only go by the buildings I have been in personally.

JK another post like that and I might be persuaded! : ) I have been dabbling but the videos I have seen from YouTube have the camera very adjacent to the weapon firing and there is no discernible wobble to the camera. And the blast does not seem excessive. Of course this is but gnats piss to your info. Now BF may have AI coding reasons for their stance. In any event if bazookas are not very effective when fired at angles at tanks then perhaps their lethality in street fighting is much restricted.

1. Just out of curiosity is this against the AI? 2. I am left wondering if we are meant to be using our ears to locate likely areas? Do people do this? Does it work?

BTW the effectiveness of bazooka's is called on here: http://forumonwar.yuku.com/topic/554 I note the comment on rooms though this assertion is not backed up by any proviso on room size, open windows and doors etc.

I thought it worth leaving it hanging. : ) Lets face it warfare is a life and death matter. On that basis given a chance to nail a tank would you or I , or perhaps more to the point a fanatical German, risk a modest danger and NOT fire? So I think it unlikely that the Germans did not fire from rooms at targets of opportunity. However at the end of day perhaps BF have decided the game plays better the way they have it. I do not play urban scenarios so have no idea whether this is a correct view or not. Just ahistorical.

Rather a telling point in that last sentence.

Tanks and the drive train are interesting. In WW2 the British Churchill and the German tanks with very different ideas on heavy tank design. The Germans certainly hit the spot with the agility of the Cats on the battleground . Incidentally most people do not realise the Churchill in length exceeds German tanks as it was designed to traverse difficult terrain. Hence the very large number of bogies. However with the gun forward the Cats had the barrel projecting between 6 and 10ft which could and was a tactical drawback. However the greater lethality of the gun was perhaps a most useful attribute. PS - I see that modern tanks to increase their agility, for instance the reworked T-55AGM originally with 6kph, have sufficient reverse gears [4] to reach 31kph. AFAIK in tanks WW2 only the Tigers had multiple reverse gears.

And if you are on your own after being dumped and celebrating this months festival you can also get in some more shooting in ....

Mind you perhaps that only applies when the market is transparent and price differences can be seen. http://www.alternet.org/one-hospital-charges-8000-another-charges-38000-same-treatment

I thought you knew why it was called Congress! Its the 5th meaning : ) BTW the celebration is a month not a day so plenty of time. : )

A bigger example of misdirection or probably lack of comprehension is mind-boggling. I thought the comments on the Italian WW2 performance so far had been fairly unanimous in saying how poorly overall it had fought. Perhaps more usefully Rickusty has provided reasons and insights other than "blows chunks". It has also been noted that parts of the Italian forces performed very well. How this equates to " Hint, it starts with N and ends with ism..." requires a huge and tortuous stretch.

Now that sounds like a proud thrusting formation! : )