Skwabie

Thnx for the replies but... vehicles that can't do fire support and infantry that lacks some serious hitting power... I doubt how the real guys manage, constant swearing in style with stiff upper lips? Anyways let the suffering begin:mad:

I'm no Brit, and I've read it's been said many times but WTF is wrong with their equipment, or is what CMSF models already outdated? The troop carriers seem to have 7.62mm machine gun at best without a remote weapon station. The scimitars only have a limited amount of HE ammo... are they supposed to take on tanks with all those AP shells? Even the Challengers have a few HE shells less than Leo2s and Abrams. Compared to US army's lollipop Javelins or the Marines' grenade galore this is really pathetic... pathetic!!:eek: I'm about to start the highlander games campaign and my confidence level is not very high atm...

Not... a single reply? C'mon ya old timers, waiting to be educated here!

Just took out a sherman with a HE shot.. infantry spotted it behind some trees but my own tanks couldn't. But a line of fire might be there if it ain't for the damn tree leaves so I ordered 2 area fire and the other 2 flank around to shoot it from behind... before flankers are even in motion voila knocked out sherman! (not an issue just an interesting bit this one!)

measured by ruler in photoshop @ 42.5 deg. based on a screenie tho

yep turret is just some messing around by me. the hull is another matter however. as said above whole thing is blockier compared to real life pics. was trying to find the reason. atm i still think the gun is mounted too high enlarging the turret... you're absolutely right that pics are misleading... it needs to be checked in 3dsmax or whatever modelling software is used and compared with dimensions of the real one

Do the edits on the core units' leadership/experience/motivation in a individual campaign scenario have no effect? Made a test campaign to try it out: Core unit file, tank platoon: typical experience, motivation, leadership. Scenario 1, tank platoon imported: edited it to best experience, motivation, leadership in editor. Launch scenario 1 as a single battle, tank platoon shows best ratings. Made test campaign with above. scenario 1 in campaign mode, tank platoon only shows typical ratings. Am I right in assuming that you cannot alter the core units ratings in the course of the campaign? As in once set in the core unit file, editing these values in the subsequent campaign scenarios has no effect... coz I was under the impression that you can. Or am I missing something (since I'm rather new to making campaigns)?

@aboves: go away ya sherman lovers.....

food for thought Hiya Steve! Thanks for your attention. The mudguards was the only thing that I could conclude after many hours of drawing. Sure sucks for not being a 3D artist for this one. As seen in 2 pics in this post it's also possible that the upper hull is too thick. But unable to verify atm...

The only apparent issue I could verify is the skirt. After drawing various reference lines on game screenies vs RL photos that is. However something still isn't quite right, perhaps I'll dig the thread up later:rolleyes:

Most of combat mission's vehicle models are very well done... The Tiger Is, Shermans, PzIVs etc all look exquisite. However the King Tigers, both Porsche and Henschel versions lack the accuracy compared to others, i.e. its external shape is off. I know there're many more important things to improve but visual authenticity does increase immersion... The real life King tiger is a beautiful looking vehicle and it won't hurt to get it right.

Hi LUCASWILLEN, Mad Mike's tool can do that already for BN/FI (not sure about MG though yet to get it) http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/4916/details Do have all the SF modules but no promises unfortunately as real life is hectic as usual...

Now that MG module is out, can someone post some screenies? (I suppose there'd be a lot of em coming but still..) thanks!

it's right here! http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109969&highlight=ScAnCaDe&page=2 or http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/4916/details

very new to all land combat/CM series myself, but don't think anybody really need the numbers when fighting the tanks where all it matters is tactics, even if you do i suppose it's some kinda mental insurance. what's more curious is the damage modeling... 8 tigers and 8 fireflies in a 1000m standoff. the tigers usually win but why, as they both can freely penetrate each other. we see enough discussion on armor thickness and round penetrations but how is a tank considered knocked-out, more importantly how is it decided in-game..

yep hits there, "upper frontal hull", every one of 'em are bounces. I suppose nothing goes thru that particular plate due to the extreme angle.. a shame rather that the front of the tank is shaped like that. If they could have connected the top edge of the hull to the front nose, like the JS-2 -> 2M modification, not only the frontal protection is increased, but also internal space of the tank. Gotta marvel at works of human minds and how simple technology enhancements change them... Test goes on, 228 Tigers destroyed so far, 4.88 shots per for tiger late, 4.67 shots per for tiger mid. All are real time.

... a sarcastic smiley at the end of that one would've made it clearer

Yep did read all that, also found the mantlet description/drawing in rexford's book. I think probably what they did is give the "breech ring" 100+ thickness and rest of the area 100 so a 76mm shot can pen anywhere beside breech ring. Just my total guess anyway. Heck long as anyone takes pride in taking out tigers reckon there ain't much difference. Wasn't that thread you quoted dug up a bug where the upper front hull is only 15mm thick and got penned everytime, altho it was later fixed.

yea well watching the shooting itself was enjoyable for a while at least:rolleyes: reminds me I did read most of your other tests and there was one about weapon mount vs turret front hits. From what I can see 76mm hits on the circled area are registered as "weapon mount" and they all bounced. Visually at least that part's armor is much thicker. So mayhaps it could be just a hit text naming thing..

Thanks mate! I'll try something similar as apparently 1 tank per run ain't very efficient.

Hi VAB, can you share the scenario? I think it would save me sometime fumbling with scenario editor... Did some few more runs on me own with weird discoveries. Yesterday ran each 50 times for tiger Late and Mid. But for these 100 runs the tigers were without crew: 50 Tiger Late destroyed, 122 shots fired at, average shots for destroy 2.44 50 Tiger Mid destroyed, 162 shots fired at, average shots for destroy 3.24 And, more tests ran, with crew: 53 Tiger Late destroyed, 279 shots fired at, average shots for destroy 5.26 53 Tiger Mid destroyed, 234 shots fired at, average shots for destroy 4.42 So the tigers without crew are much more fragile. Is vehicle damage modeling without crews simplified? Also while a Tiger Mid without crew is tougher, it's the other way around with crew. What gives.. There have been 3 instances (among 53 total) where the Tiger Late withstood 20+ shots and still wouldn't go down. One case the sherman ran outta AP ammo with the Tiger Late still standing. I had to discard that result because well there's no longer a shot count. Is the Tiger late crew better at damage control (or is there such a thing in game) or is the random factor still playing.. More tests to follow I guess...

Agreed with above... I did 40 more runs and the numbers vary too much. At one time the sherman ran out of AP ammo and the tiger still wouldn't go down. That's 30+ shots.. Meanwhile there're many times when one hit was enough. Much better idea indeed... Is there a terrain feature that could cover up the turret and the lower hulls and still allow the tank to be shot at... Can't seem to find one atm..

uhmmm.... manual says Tiger Late armor is flawed. in my test, it takes more shots to knock it out than Tiger Mid. atm, I chalk it up to randomness. probably need to run it a few more times to even that out...

so I did a test... Scenario 1, a M4A3(76W) 150 meters from a Tiger I Mid, both head to head. Scenario 2 same as 1, except changed the Tiger I Mid to Late. Both Scenarios ran 20 times. In scenario 1 it took average of 4.35 shots of the sherman to knock out the Tiger I Mid. In scenario 2 it took average of 4.9 shots to knock out the Tiger I Late. As the manual states, Tiger Late has lower armor quality, so ... what gives??...

Thnx mate some good tips there. I finally got thru without taking major losses. Used to place my armor on the open ground on the right of the box, but they got picked off by AT up hill. I moved them closer to the hedgerow in front and was able to hide from AT's LOS. Also at least for me the infantry assault on the left flank is a bit futile... so gave that up after the units that could see into the box were taken out and used the armor push on the right only. But yeah, do wish those 251's have closed tops...