RT North Dakota

Not likely based on the 76mm ammunition I am aware of. The 85mm APCR rounds will perforate the Tiger turret front aspect at 750, and the hull at about 1,100m.

Generally concur. I am not seeing much of any armour modelling bugs in the game. Fact is you can only trust the data done from actual instrumented firing trials or derived from armour analysis software. I don't know what source data the game uses, or how the armour is modelled but it's certainly fit for purpose. Most data I see published in a lot of the accepted books seems based on some pretty hokey sources corrupted by veterans memories of events that might not actually have taken place.

When I was doing some work on Future AFV requirements, I asked the US Army to send me the German Army's Future Armour requirement of 1950. The big take aways were that they considered the Tigers an utter failure and the Panther a complete mess. 9,000kgs over weight for a start, and far too complicated. They concluded they should have had a 30-35 tonne tank with a 75 or 76mm gun. By 1950, they want a 100mm gun. Most operational analysts consider late German WW2 armour a bit of joke. The exceptions are things like the JgdPz 38(T) and the upgraded Pz IVs.

So there is no objective science and empirical evidence to military equipment? I think plastic modellers are all about looks and feel, but military science can tell which are bad tanks/planes and which were good/good enough.

FOR ME (not everyone else... so relax possums.) this is a big so what? The play balance feature that matters is tactical skill of the player. As I said in my original post it is the player himself that creates the mutual respect by his own conduct. If I invite someone for a QB and give them "Assault" at +150%, I am deliberately inviting them to "do their worst." The QB point is the QB points. Deal with it. The reason I say I want to fight someone who has a +150% assault advantage is that I know/believe I have the tactical skill to render his best effort less effective. The MAP settings have all the other conditions to balance the game. It's ALL IN THE GAME. Now, if the person I am playing says "Yes I will +150% advantage, but you cannot have any Tigers, Panthers, or King Tigers and you cannot use artillery on my set up, etc etc," I am clearly not playing the most confident rabbit on planet earth. Such a person could perhaps best be called a "timid soul." ....and profuse apologise to all those who find this "attitude" way to aggressive and offensive.

What I actually said was: "I think we can all tell when our opponent is a jerk, and likewise when he/she is timid soul who wishes to negotiate success prior to playing. Mutual respect is not something you write into a set of rules." So I categorically never said that "rules are for timid souls." I said timid souls were those "who wishes to negotiate success prior to playing." - likewise I pointed out the converse was being a jerk.

We sure as hell used to. We no longer do, because we both expect it, and because the set-up zones are configured to make it very hard to get away with..... plus, if you don't have a lot of arty, and there is a low pay-off, then it's actually bad tactics. Point being, we DO PLAY by rules - but they are the ones in the game!! If he wants to do "RECCE" by Jeep Death, then fine by me. Is that "GAMEY?" Is RECCE by Fire "GAMEY?" What we DO NOT do say in a a QB is "OK, no Tigers." If I pick King Tigers he just has to deal with it, and as we all know there are plenty of ways to deal with King Tigers.

You are a class act Sir. Very good. I'm going to print that.

Two tanks is not a very viable force. With the greatest respect, you probably didn't play to their strengths. You really need at least 4 of any tank type to be effective. I strongly suggest not seeking out opinions as to the historic performance of the Tiger and attempting to apply that to the game. What I would suggest is knocking up some firing ranges and seeing how the Tiger actually performs in the game, both as concerns weapons and armour. From that, all good things follow. .....and beware the Tamiya and Airfix version of tank history, pumped by the plastic modellers!!

I beg to differ. They relate directly to my concern, and my opinion.

.... but those things are cheating or being abusive. Are you suggesting that this is what I suggested, or are you just making stuff up? When I said "breaking an opponents will" I very clearly meant within the rules of the game. How could you not understand that? Is there a "Surrender" option in the game? YES/NO? Do you aim to make your opponent hit that button? YES/NO?

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder. Clarity at last. Clearly I made the mistake of assuming that when folks complained about "gamey play" they meant in competition, ----- when in fact they meant any recreational use of the game at all ----- but then why would that be an issue? Actually, I mostly play H2H with a good mate, and we aim to have fun, BUT (FOR US) that means trying to win by pushing the game and each other to the limits. - the limits are in the game, QB or Battle - and the mind of the opponent - because (FOR ME) the most fun is the toughest fight. I will admit to not being entirely objective on this issue, as having played online games for over 20 years, I see them get ruined by people whining that their favourite aircraft of tank isn't "mega-enough" for them or that the game is "too difficult" for players that suck. - thus games become degenerate into a set of politically regulated behaviours.

Well I am neither. PLAY THE GAME. The rules are in the code. Play to win, based on mutual consent to fight the conditions the GAME ALLOWS. a.) Don't pick Tigers? Why not? Don't you have Sherman Fireflies? b.) Don't arty my set-up? Why not? c.) Don't use TRP's? Why not? The game allows almost endless victory and set up parameters. Why impose more. The whole gamey thing make no sense. It's a simulation. It is an APPROXIMATION of reality.

Clearly plain English is my second language...... Womble -you've missed the point, and apparently chosen to misrepresent what I actually said. - sadly. A Battle has fixed parameters - play or don't. Even if you loose, you aim to make is cost. QBs also have set parameters - once you hit start, then PLAY the rules inherent to game, not some "code of behaviour," aimed at making it more likely your opponent will win. Yes, mutual respect does come from interaction. You can respect people who hand you your hat. - Respect does not mean "like." The game is about combat. Inherent to combat is the breaking of will an opponent. Even in football. Keep scoring and the other side will give up. The "Ceasefire" button exists for a reason. Most of the folks I play against are good friends. I play for fun, but it sucks to loose. "Attitude?" Well if wanting to give my opponent the hardest possible chance of winning (whatever the parameters we agree on) is "attitude," then why would you want anything else.

I have some real issues with folks saying something is "gamey." 15 year ago, the old "Warbirds" online community got destroyed by a bunch of weenies who got all upset about "gamey" thinks like bombing spawn points of camping over airfields. As far as I was concerned the object of the game was to break the will of the other players so that will log-off and we won. It was about winning, not handing out medals to every kid in the class or giving a cup to the team that lost. As concerns H2H, if you can do it in the game and you can win, do it! The second you start placing arbitrary restrictions on an opponents behaviour you are negotiating in a game which is about breaking the will of your opponent to play on. You want to do things that will cause him to give up. As far as I can tell, the game contains all the play balance configurations you need (points, rarity, inf-only etc). I think we can all tell when our opponent is a jerk, and likewise when he/she is timid soul who wishes to negotiate success prior to playing. Mutual respect is not something you write into a set of rules.