Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Lanes is testing to isolate single variables which are the source of the problem. I and noob are doing integration testing, testing what players actually see in game. The snowball effect is very real in game, and therefore should be part of a test to see what the real outcomes the player can expect. I understand what Siffo said about my test above, but none of the factors he mentioned seem to me to be anything that should radically effect the outcome. IMO seeing 50% in highly unrealistic, controlled lanes 1v1 tells you much less about what will really happen in game than what I did, which is to take two regular tank companies, whatever the game decided that makeup should be, and place them face to face in totally equivalent but not table-top flat terrain and let them go at it, just as they would in game. My results and as I said earlier actual playtesting with this map shows me that the IVs almost always lose, and if they have a very good day, break even. I really don't care that under completely controlled 1v1 lanes they come out even or the IVs slightly ahead, because that will never happen in game. I do care that in what seem to be very even but realistic game situations, the IVs always lose in my tests.
  2. Sent off stuff to Noob and Siffo, I'd like it if something was wrong and IVs won at range, as that is what reality would suggest. But even in regular gameplay on my map the IVs consistently lose at ranges >1200mm or so, or at best come close to breaking even.
  3. Again I'll be happy to send anyone who wants the map and the save I used to do my tests, show me what is different about my test other than it's 1500m vs. 1000m if I'm reading above correctly. It comes out conclusively in favor of the Shermans every time. One other difference in mine is everyone is buttoned.
  4. Um that wasn't the case, at least in my tests, where the Pz-IVs were lucky to come out close to even and most often were beaten like rented mules. I started Siffo off on this, but my test was simpler and I believe a more accurate representation of game results: Lining up 17 Regular Shermans and PZ-IVs face to face on open terrain at 1500m (with someplace they could retreat to to get out of sight) with everyone being able to see everyone, and then I let it run ten games turns and just counted up how many were still alive on each side. The losses for each side were... US German 5 14 5 10 1 12 9 12 6 13 And testing on my big map with regular game play says the same thing, at 1200-2000 meters, Shermans stomp Pz-Iv face. Inside 1000m and it's pretty even.
  5. To add one more anecdotal bit of amusement here: I just had a Pz-IVG (Late) have its upper hull top penetrated (at what had to have been like an 85 degree angle of impact) by a 57mm AT gun, and the round went straight through that tank and penetrated the lower right side of the Pz-IV behind him. Pz-IV motto: "We Don't Even Slow Rounds Down!"
  6. Ok not really specifically still testing this (other people doing a better job) but what is the penetration of the M1 57mm AT gun? Seeing same frontal hull penetrations on IVs at a range of 1000m.
  7. No, I meant if they're down crew you can load up replacements. If they're down to three, load up a two man team and that team will man the guns and it will start firing again. I did this in a scenario recently when I had the same problem.
  8. I think it's still bugged, they should be able to still fire, just at lower efficiency/accuracy. Try loading up a two man team, bet you it starts firing again.
  9. I thought it had four crew? Isn't the gunner dead? I've definitely seen them refuse to fire when they get down to 2 crew, and I got them firing again by loading up a two man FO team.
  10. Siffo998, thanks for continuing to look at this issue. When I first started testing it last week I was seriously confused watching platoons of Pz-IVs get seriously stomped by Shermans at 1700-1500m on my 2k map. Hopefully since you've made the tests even more stringent than I did, BFC will take a look into this.
  11. That's exactly what I saw. Those rounds should be on the edge of being able to penetrate 50mm, especially as the incidence angle is not 0 degrees. They definitely shouldn't penetrate 80mm. BTW which side won in your tests? That is what I think as well.
  12. What it appears to me is that with infantry, it's firing at a randomly selected AS from an array of possible action squares centered on the target. It's hard to tell the dimensions of the AS array from the video but it appears to be at least 5 wide x 3 deep. I can guess at reasons why they might have done that but it would be guesses on top of a guess; but certainly you can see the MG firing at action squares at least two left and right of the target and at least one short and long. As the target gets closer the array probably is reduced at certain range thresholds to like 3x3, then finally consistently on target at even closer ranges.
  13. Last time I checked QBs also required AI plans for both sides. Least the manual says that.
  14. The late Gs and Hs die just as quickly, and I see no problems for the M4s penetrating the hulls. I see an occasional spalling but most are full penetrations. I'm willing to accept that long range gunnery in CMx2 is kaka for a few reasons, if that's just the case. I was also trying to make sure what I was remembering of the relationships between the two in terms of guns/armor/optics was correct. It's frustrating as it makes creating a map with long range gunnery options difficult, as the balance (at least in what I'm seeing) between the two main medium tanks diverges from what one would expect in reality and seems to be quite different from that inside 1000 yards (in which case the advantage goes to the IV, since it will get the first shot downrange most often). If anyone else wants to try this test out, let me know and I'll send map/save along.
  15. Ah, understand now thanks. That being said I've now run this a bunch of times and although I haven't counted all the hits (with 34 tanks blasting away that's not easy), on the face of it I see no hit advantage for the IVs. The IVs usually get off the first shot (and I mean the first single shot then the first Sherman will generally fire less than a second later), but the Shermans seem to find the range first. And once they have the range, they really don't miss at all subsequently, even when some of the IVs decide they have someplace else to be and start reversing to find someplace out of LOS- they'll get hit over and over while moving at 1500 yards. The not missing once they get a hit thing applies to both sides, the IVs keep hitting Shermans that have popped smoke and are reversing too. I also find that weird because at these ranges we're dealing with lots of round drop so the danger zone should be smaller and the need for corrections greater. And although I see a few hits on Shermans with not even spalling, it's only a few- pretty much everything is partial or penetration. So anyway I still am finding these results odd. So the Shermans had a slight protection advantage at that range, I would think the supposed gunnery advantage of the IVs would at least make it even, when it's more like the Germans getting a good face-kicking. I was trying to balance a scenario and although at shorter ranges the rule of thumb I used for CM (about 1.20 Shermans for each IV) for balance seems to apply still, at longer ranges that's at least reversed.
  • Create New...