shift8

The thing here is that I completely agree with what Miller said. There is more or less no difference of opinion there. If you dont want to use the "block" terminology fine, but that is how I think of it on macro level. I am not sure though how you think my mental model wouldnt add up to what you said about the Mg. Given that Cpt Millers explanation is more or less in line with my own, I think you may be misunderstanding what I mean when I talk of blocks. My mental model of that situation works fine. For example, if the total abstracted fire power sum of the former squad is 10, and the later 8, in a open field all things being the same the former would most likely win. I think we would agree? However, if the Mg is obstructed, this would depreciate the firepower of the former squad accordingly, relative to the Fov of the user. Im not denying the specifics of the game mechanics, as I have already said. There is a certain degree of nuance to this that I think everyone might be missing. I am simply summarizing the units as blocks. You could also choose to further break each man into sub-blocks. However, in many situations the units would be affected more as a single block in certain geometries. So here is a more fine tuned definition of what I mean: Each infantry unit is a "block" made up of "sub-blocks" that are capable of having independent actions levied upon them. In the case of spacing for units, I consider it to be a non-issue because the units in general are re-affected by additional modifiers that reflect the terrain or position they are in. So long as the general modifier for a given space compensates for spacing, the end-result vulnerability is the same. Vanirs point on the HE is an example of this. So in summary, the spacing is a non-issue because the overall effectiveness of fires in respective environments is correct imo.

Yep. Also rechecking the slope multipliers for AP it would be a similar story. I keep forgetting there is corrected data for that.

I could be misinterpreting this, but if you are referring to what I think you are, you are comparing watermelons to coconuts.

Depends on the Panther, the section of side armor, and type of projectile. For example, the 75mm M3 M61 has a hard time with the Upper side hull of a Panther G, but not the A. But in general, the Panther is vulnerable on the side.

Yeah you are completely missing my point. Again. That last time you "corrected" this you also misunderstood by doing the same thing you are doing now: inserting your own presumptions of my casual understanding in between the lines of what I actually said. I corrected you on this last time, and I guess I have to do it again. I disagree with none of the mechanical things you said. None. Just like before...big surprise. But that doesnt change the fact that the END RESULT of the infantry combat is a abstraction that makes this 1:1 comparison of infantry locations silly. As I already pointed out, but you found it somehow necessary to repeat as though I had not, the game does use the individual 3d representations to determine what is hit and what isn't (aiming etc....) However, this is a moot point to a certain extent if units that are literally struck at saved when a (insert statistical modifier) prevents their demise. This means that units that are bunched up have legitimate reflections of their vulnerability so long as CM's adjustments for a particular set of terrain are representative accurate. The game does not render 1 to 1 the micro cover of the units any more so in a field than it does in a building (in terms of the visual.) Hence why a unit sitting in clump of trees might not die even if physically struck because it is "in the clump of trees." The fact the moving units significant distances from each other in individual fire teams is a moot point because we are now talking of units that are far more separated in general. This had nothing to do with what I was on about. I am viewing the infantry in game as a sum of their parts, which is the only thing that matters in the end. Effectively, they are simply blocks of firepower that move around and are affected by various states depending on tactical geometry. The only way they would not be this is if BFC somehow created near sentient ai and billions of 3d animations or represent the massive and varied possibilities for infantry on the battlefield. Not to mention all the additional 3d models we would need to represent all the micro cover and terrain that currently exists only as math. The main point can be summarized as this. It does not matter much how point to point the 3d render of the simulation is if huge amounts of the final results are done behind the scenes due to limitations on what can actually be shown. YES, much of the game IS visual, but the final result of everything is NOT. This means that while CMx2 is FAR MORE visual, it is still in abstraction overall. And this in turn means that as a sum of it parts, each squad or fire team etc, is just a "block" with xxxx fire, xxxx movement, xxxx cover, xxxx leadership xxxxx etc. (AND yes those things are modifited by the individual actions of the separate troops....) Reiterating the same mechanics I already did does not somehow make the end result any different.

Yes those other guns did exist, and the 100mm in particular was capable of killing the Panther. However I was under the impression we were talking about the 85mm gun. I included the others just as a comparison reference. Generally, the Panther was a difficult tank to knock out from the front. The Is2 also has a bit of a harder time with the Panther than vice versa. The Panther can pen the turret, LFH, and upper half of the UFP on the Is2 at long range. The 122m gun can pen only the LFP and turret/mantlet at long range, and the glacis at 600m. That makes the Is2 plenty effective vs the Panther in general, but still quite well protected in a sense.

Tanks already do aim for weak points. Higher experience crews have higher chances to do this etc. Im not sure it would be a good idea to allow the player to do this directly, since at most normal tank battle ranges (including the 400m example above) it is simply too far away for a human to have much effect on shell placement. Aim center mass etc. Also just to add to your story on hits: I once lets an entire company of shermans 75mm's pound a Panther in game at 100m. They ran out of ammunition trying to penetrate the Panthers. CMx2's ballistics system for the tanks has no equal in gaming. In fact, I dont know of a single other game that is as accurate as CMx2 when it comes to ww2 armor penetration. Most other games dont even take into account slope multipliers, but instead just erroneously calculate geometric slope LOS (world of tanks etc). The armor system in CMx2 is truly a masterpiece, and is the only 99% accurate AP system out there that I know of other than steel beasts.

I will answer your question on the Panthers armor as in depth as I possibly can. I know this is late but others may find this interesting as well. The short asnwer: hell yes. The Panthers Upper front hull especially, the Panther is a beast from the front. It is immune to fire from the Russian 85mm gun, and even the American 90mm gun, and its OWN 75mm gun: even at point blank range. The T-34-85 firing its standard APBC ammo has a max penetration at 100m of 139mm. 85mm/85mm (panther armor) gives us a Thickness to Diameter ratio of 1.0. This gives us a slope multiplier of 2.1. A slope multiplier is a number that is multiplied by the base armor thickness to give us effective LOS thickness when over-match and the effects of sloping the armor are taken into account. This includes energy loss from the shell impact at the associated slope, not just the geometric LOS thickness. This is important because most people assume you can simply take the geometric thickness, but this is not true(LOS thickness here would be 148mm). Anyhow, this gives us a effective armor thickness at 55 degree's of 168mm. Meaning that a T-34 is nearly 30mm short of being able to penetrate at point blank range even with a perfectly straight shot. If there is any side angle the problem is even worse. Additionally, that value of 168mm is only true for a 85mm APBC round. The Panther has different effective armor values for different guns. I will give one example to demonstrate this. I will use American 90mm M82 APCBC and 76mm HVAP as examples. 90mm APCBC over matches the 85mm armor slightly with a T/D ratio of .94. This means it will incur a slope multiplier of 2.5~. Notice this is higher than the soviet APBC, because APCBC is more affected by slope. This give the Panther 212mm of effective armor vs the American 90mm gun. At 100m M-82 penetrates 169mm of RHA, making it ineffective. 76mm HVAP under-matches the 85mm armor, at 1.11 T/D. APCR rounds incur significant slope penalties, and with that T/D ratio the slope effect is 3.3, giving the Panther 280mm of armor vs 76mm HVAP. 76mm HVAP penetrates at most 239mm.

Cool breeze basically said this but Ill also say it so that it is more clear still. I did say they are 1:1 in terms of the location of the 3d model in the world. and that 3d model is a hitbox etc. That does NOT mean they are a complete 1 to 1 representation of every infantry function. Their visual model is simply MORE precise that it was in CMx1, BUT they are still abstracted in a sense because much of their function is done as "invisible" math behind the scenes. For example, just because they are visually bunched up, it says nothing as to how vulnerable they are necessarily. When a bullet is fired or a shell lands, the literal shrapnel strikes the 3d model of the infantry, BUT whether or not that unit takes damage is still hinged on whether the game chooses to "save" the unit based on certain factors. So a infantry unit standing in a gaggle in a open field does NOT mean the unit is receiving "gaggle" modifiers. It is receiving modifiers tangent to the general vulnerability of infantry in a "field" which means the formation and spacing are to a certain degree completely irrelevant. (visually) A very obvious example of this working in game is any combat that occurs in buildings. Units can seemingly survive barrages of fire, sometime even from HE, because the game in "saving" units from death despite physical hits because there is a chance that is assumes certain things about combat in a building that it would be extremely hard to visually represent. For example, while you might be flummoxed that a sniper team just survived 900 rounds pelting the side of the building they are in, the game is potentially assuming they that are not just behind the wall.....but also perhaps behind several layers of furniture not literally shown. There are also affects from the more nuanced and particular ways human beings make themselves scarce.

The ai has no effective tendency to clump. The virtual effectiveness of mortars and every single other weapons is more or less equivalent to IRL as near as makes no difference because of the modififiers (you cant see) that are applied to units in general based on the terrain. Infantry in CM are simply placeholders as general visual representations of the units position and actions on the map. Attempting to model their movements more precisely would be mess, since as other already pointed out, infantry are far too nuanced and complicated for this to be done without creating worse problems. The 3d models ARE hit boxes, but the sum of modifiers that occur behind the scenes mean that the visual bunching is irrelevant. The infantry in CM are largely just slightly more visually representative versions of the infantry in CMx1 (that can also be broken into smaller pieces, unlike cmx1). This means that a squad in game, or fire team etc....is simply a "block" that represents the orientation, firepower, and general location of a unit. It is not a one-to-one visual representation of a group of infantry, and as such does not need to represent (and cannot) every single nuanced move infantry make. This entire thread stems from a massive misunderstanding of what infantry in CM actually are on a game level.

Ok I see where you are coming from. But for myself I will not simply assume a technical problem unless BFC says there is one. Even then, that would require some explanation. I still find it hard to believe that there is some kind of technical issue. After all, all it would be is what PBEM already does: simply without leaving the games interface. I dont think (demand + no result) = cant. Game companies refuse to change things all the time for tons of different reasons. It may be a case of simple lack of inclination. There are a number of features in cmx1 (like the push campaigns for example) that failed to carry over. I think CMx2 was overall and improvement over x1, especially in terms of armor ballistics, but there are a few serious losses from the former. Although I on a side note I am not sure how much I really care for getting the rewind aspect specifically. There are some cases where this feature adds to the realism, but I think that is the minority. Most often I find myself and others using this mechanic to unreasonably analyze a situation by seeing the same even 100 times over. Doing silly things like tracking the exact location of a hidden AT gun by following the tracer ultra precisely etc. It detracts somewhat by the aspect of WEGO I most like: the prevention of second by second micro of single units. But I digress.

What exactly was changed that makes it do hard to implement true WEGO in TCP? Legitimately curious, because I am having a hard time imagining what sort of crazy code gymnastics must have occurred to make something as simple WEGO without PBEM impossible. I always prefered CMx1's option to play WEGO "in game" rather than using the archaic method of email play. It is particularly onerous in CMx2 because the load times are horrendous. So has BFC actually ever specified some kind of engine limitation or is this just the line the community likes to feed itself?

There is also nothing wrong with the casualty rate in CM. Too many people on here are piece meal comparing anecdotal and irrelevant real life examples with very specific CM instances. The Physics of the combat in CM is extremely accurate. IF there are some battles with higher than expected casualties it is because HOW people play, not the physical nature of the combat.

Infantry in the game are still essentially what they were in CMx1. They should be views as "blocks" of firepower. Infantry are far far too complex to animated or display their highly nuanced moments to such a degree that they would be 100% visually accurate. You should not be expecting that. Instead, you should view the simulation for what it is: the tactical movement of "firepower" elements. The accuracy of the weapons in game and the various calculations for micro cover etc already "effectively" take into account the effect that spacing would have. As others have already pointed out, IRL infantry do NOT follow the manual definition of spacing. COVER always takes precedence over individual space. Just because you want every man to be 10m apart doesnt mean the terrain will allow for it. You find cover where it is plain and simple.

Cooper is but one example of a logical plague that infests any dialogue. Cooper was taken seriously because there is a general assumption by the public at large, even among many grogs, that because a person was involved in something they are an "expert" Examples: He is a general, ergo must know how to win battles. or He was a soldier, therefore what he says about a war must be true. Etc Etc. And this logical fallacy applies to much more than military science. The experiences of people have a certain value and application, but it is much narrower than people assume. Anecdotal evidence must always be weighed against certain data. Personnel experiences never trump the laws of physics or the combined knowledge yielded from comparison of other data points. Almost every WWII myth derives from this nonsense.

Just to add a few things on a different note for the Sherman: One of the biggest myths of the Sherman was that it was poorly armored. This is absolutely untrue. The Sherman's armor was more than adequate against the most common threats all the way until the end of the war more or less. When the tank was first introduced, it had exemplary protection. The cast armor models gradually became less adequate as the Germans improved the guns, but with the M4A3 and beyond the protection of the M4's glacis was good enough to defeat the long 75 of the Pz4 at ranges exceeding 750m. In particular the M4A3W. It was not for pure jollies that the M4A3 and variants of the M4A3 had their armor changed from cast to RHA, and later from 51mm to 64mm. Most people simply figure the LOS thickness of the armor as 90~mm but this is not an accurate estimate of the tanks protection. The M4A1 models had very varying protection ranging from about 122mm to only 90mm due to the inconsistency of cast armor effectivness. The M4A3W had a consistent effective thickness on the glacis of 118mm. This is substantially better protections than that of the Shermans contemporary mediums, the Pz4 and T-34. Combat mission models all of these things more or less to the T.

That is pure nonsense. In order for me to show there is something unrealistic in the game I do not have to prove every facet of the game code. Utter rubbish. Doubtless we could explore every nook and crany of every odd and end: but that doesnt meant I havent shown there is a problem. With that attitude I may as well package my OP with a patch of game code I wrote to fix it. IF BFC wants to chime in on what is and is not impossible that is another matter entirely. BUT whether or not there is some strange engine limit is besides of point of realism.

1000m has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Im not complaining about the fire rate at 1000m am I? And your response here pretty much proves you are conducting an intentional derailment here. I and others already posted and discussed what the real tanks could do and how the game is currently wrong. Im not going to sit here is justify myself by playing a ring around the rosy of "who is the biggest grog in the room." If you have a contrary opinion, post your opinion and we can have a discussion about it. But this knowledge base **** is pure rubbish. Instead of actually discussing the issue at hand you are taking a back-ass ward approach to trying to discredit me instead of posting some kind of fact-based counter or support yourself. As to game limitations: DO YOU know? Up till now we were discussing the nature of the problem. I dont see BFC in here saying this inst possible to be fixed. And the game engine would be rather hamfisted indeed if it couldnt have alternate rates of fire at different ranges. Something I find hard to believe since the ballistics system in game is extremely complex.

I stated what I think it should be. Twice now. Perhaps even thrice......Im not going to say it again. Please stop asking questions you could have answered for yourself by reading the thread. At this point all you are doing is asking increasingly redundant things instead of actually offering an opinion. 1000m....really?

Yet again, already been gone over. But since you missed this: The average ROF for the sherman is about 8 seconds, at point blank. This is about 7.5 round per minute. This make the in game rate of fire about twice as long as it should be for brief shooting, especially up close and personal, when you consider that modern 120mm cannon which much heavier projectiles could do better than what is occurring in game. Other people mentioned some of the historical methods for quick shooting, and some data on ww2 gun rof. Have you actually read through this thread? You may want to if you are going to start make patronizing accusations on one thing or another. There was already quite a bit of back and forth on the actual reload times of tanks. Then there was some conversation on how tanks react to being penetrated irregardless of rate of fire. Then there was conversation on how long it takes for tanks to aim and generally react. And now we are seemingly the at point of the thread where meaningful conversation of the issue at hand disintegrates into deflection finger pointing at the OP's methodology. To be clear: I generally give CM the benefit of the doubt on most things. It has a ballistics system that is 99.9% accurate regarding armor penetration and its general realism and historical accuracy unmatched in gaming. However, I do not consider that carte blanch to simply make excuses for the game when it is particularly wrong. This is not a single mechanic problem. It is issue affected by several different game play mechanics that leads to some rather extreme errors of outcome. We can debate all day how this should be fixed etc, but this is what has been mentioned so far to contribute to the general problem. 1)Tanks shoot too slowly at close range. 2)Tanks take far too long to acquire targets and shoot at close range (for one reason or another) 3)Tanks under certain circumstances do not suffer appreciably to either mechanical or crew function after being hit once or even several times in sensitive areas.

Data on that was already posted on the first or second page...........

That doesnt mean we cant have other solutions, or that the aim penalty couldnt be toned down or have conditions added to it. And I do just fine in this game thank you. The capacity on this forum for people to reduce every complaint down to "the op doesnt know how to play" is absolutely incredible. Not to mention that stunning mechanics and reload times would change things for the better and have nothing to do with aim penalties. AND, it has not been established that the 2nd video even involved said mechanic.

They are not all that rare. Both those video happened on the same day (in the same battle even). I wasnt even looking for it, I just saw it happen and went back an filmed. Ive been noticing this for about a year now and havent said anything until now because I usually give CM the benefit of the doubt. It happens at least 20% of the time, and it the most crazy situations. It happens often enough that it can be battle changing. It affects all the tanks, but it really hurts the smaller ones since they cannot afford for their flank attacks to fail. It takes alot of proper handling to get a tank into the position and is not a small issue when a significant amount of the time the tanks at that range do not behave reasonably. Not to mention the situation itself is not all the rare, especially in the bocage.

Ok so there is a gun depression penalty. I dont know how precisely it fits into this, but one way or another a fix should occur imo for the issue this thread is about. There are probably several game mechanics contributing. Perhaps the gun elevation penalties should only be in effect when the tank is engaging infantry. It seems like that was the reason that mechanic was introduced. It seems to me that while there may be reasons for certain mechanics, that does not necessarily mean that they werent heavy handed. Or that there might not be a better solution. It certainly seems to me that something should be done, because this appears to be effecting the tank combat so that rather silly things occur.