A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[kipanderson]

Steve,or anyone from BTS,

If you are still out there may I just mention one more feature request that I made about six months ago and for which there “was” a “lot” of support. (In fact there was so much support for it that I can not believe someone else did not mentioned it before me, anyway no matter.)

That is reducing the elevation step change from a minimum of 2.5m to 1.25m. So in the editor one would have the option of 1.25m and 2.5m instead of 2.5m and 5m.

I have no argument with things as they are for Western Europe but from all the pictures I have seen of what is now the Ukraine and Poland the current minimum 2.5m is too great. It leads to too “stepped” or “terraced” a look. For various reasons I have seen a lot of photos of the Ukraine and it is made up of gently undulating plains, not flat plains, broken by the odd steep sided gully. The very fine, but sadly very expensive book, The Battle of Kharkov by Jean Restayn, illustrates this point very well.

It may take a lot of coding changes or a small coding change that has a big effect. I have no idea.

All the best,

Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

I have followed this forum fairly regualarily (like daily ) since the CMBO Beta Demo, so I would like to make a small suggestion that I don't think I have seen or read about here yet.

It may not even be a good suggestion, BUT here goes:

I would like to suggest the that when unit bases are turned on as they can be now, that those little squares be coded to be different shapes and SIZES to represent different classes of units.

Here's the thing, we know that there are several different sizes of coloured squares that represent units, BUT the smallest square could be a Platoon Leader, and Company HQ, A Mortor or a HMG or a Flame Thrower. I would like to suggest the perhaps different shapes be coded to represent different units that the same size square now represents.

Now before anyone jumps all over me for this one YES, this issue is ONLY a problem when looking at the battle field from view 7 or 8 (way high up). BUT

I find the Best way to determine where the enemy units are and what is happening at the moment of first contact is to watch the movie for the first time from view 8 and then zoom in later and replay the movie.

As it is now there are different sizes of the sqaures bases, a Platoon HQ and a infantry squad and a tank, all have different SIZES of bases that are easily distingusihable from view 8.

Would it be possible to code, say circles and ovals and rectangles and triangle bases, (all roughly the same size, just with a different SHAPES) to represent little fiddly units like jeeps and kubel wagons and Platoon HQ's and Mortors and Flame throwers and HMG's ?

Has anyone seen or heard this suggestion before?

I suppose the first thing some might say s DON'T look from view 8 and/or this is NOT really an aspect of the interface the needs attention because if you look at the battlefield from view 3,4, or even over head 5 you can easily see what's what and who is where, BUT from view 8 I would like to see different SHAPES to represent different classes of units. I'm happy with all tanks being on uniform sized bigger square, but maybe SP arty could be a big rectangle or oval or something else.

Just my one small suggestion for CM2 ....

(I don't think this one has been mentioned before, but it has I have never seen it discussed or any feedback from BTS on it)

Thanks

-tom w

[Panzer Leader]

I like it. I would also like the squares to be a little more "fancy" maybe like the unit bases in East Front/West Front. Those "map disk" bases were pretty sweet looking.

It would be nice if they were bmp's but since they're hard-coded, I guess that issue is moot.

[Måkjager]

I found the following in a book called New Vanguard No.7 IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-73

“The prototype of the Kirovets-1 was completed in October 1944 and it was accepted for series production as the IS-3. Production of the IS-3 began at Chelyabinsk in 1945 in parallel to the IS-2m. The IS-3 design had been prematurely rushed into production , and the tank was beset with scores of mechanical problems. As a result, no significant number of IS-3s were ready before the end of the war in Europe.The issue of wherther or not the IS-3 saw any fighting in the Berlin campaign is a controversial one. for many years , official Soviet accounts indicated they it did take part in the fighting. However internal Soviet design histories that were restricted until recently deny that this was the case, and interviews with the Soviet heavy tank designers also indicate that the IS-3 never saw combat action against Germany.

Apparently , at least one regiment was rushed to Germany in April 1945, but hostilities ended before they were committed to the fighting.

Other sources indicate that the IS-3 heavy tanks were used in the August 1945 assault on the Japanese.”

Regards

Måkjager

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Måkjager:

I found the following in a book called New Vanguard No.7 IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-73

“The prototype of the Kirovets-1 was completed in October 1944 and it was accepted for series production as the IS-3. Production of the IS-3 began at Chelyabinsk in 1945 in parallel to the IS-2m. The IS-3 design had been prematurely rushed into production , and the tank was beset with scores of mechanical problems. As a result, no significant number of IS-3s were ready before the end of the war in Europe.The issue of wherther or not the IS-3 saw any fighting in the Berlin campaign is a controversial one. for many years , official Soviet accounts indicated they it did take part in the fighting. However internal Soviet design histories that were restricted until recently deny that this was the case, and interviews with the Soviet heavy tank designers also indicate that the IS-3 never saw combat action against Germany.

Apparently , at least one regiment was rushed to Germany in April 1945, but hostilities ended before they were committed to the fighting.

Other sources indicate that the IS-3 heavy tanks were used in the August 1945 assault on the Japanese.”

Regards

Måkjager<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IS-3s were sent over to the East to fight the Japanese but it is doubtful they ever saw action. There apparently are no combat reports or testimonials that confirm that it actually engaged in combat.

The IS-3 was more useful as a conceptual tank than an actual fighting vehicle. Technically, the IS-3 addressed some of the weakpoints of the IS-2 but the IS-3 had its own difficulties. It underwent two very expensive modernization programs to fix some of the reliability issues, both which failed. However, the IS-3 was very successful in influencing future tank design in not only the Soviet Union but also Western nations. Its appearance at the victory parade in Berlin was a rude shock to the Western allies. Design concepts used in IS-3 development would later lead to development of the T-54/55. Oddly enough, the old IS-2 stayed in service and outlasted both the IS-3 and IS-4. According to "The Russian Battlefield", orders to finally remove the IS-2 from service didn't come until sometime around 1994.

[James Crowley]

I dont think this has been covered in this or recent allied threads; apologies if it has. The Q.B.

Are there any plans to enhance this important area?

Specifically:

More varied maps (deeper rather than wider; perhaps automatically linked to default timer; deeper map, longer default time etc.)

More or complete randomisation (for a greater variety of battle circumstances)

Different types of victory criteria ( including exiting units off-board)

Possible variations in troop quality (both within troop types i.e. Green infantry regular tankers and within platoons/companies

and leaders)

Any other improvements/additions that have already been suggested in the past?

[MrSpkr]

Speaking of weather conditions, will there be a "blizzard" or "blowing snow" weather type (limiting visibility to about 50-75m max).

IIRC, the Soviets loved this type of cover in Operation Uranus.

[Guest PondScum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Speaking of weather conditions, will there be a "blizzard" or "blowing snow" weather type (limiting visibility to about 50-75m max).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If there isn't, you could still simulate it with snow at night (visibility ~65m in CMBO)

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

Lewis - I'm sure BTS would love to change the "spotting" code in CMBB, but according to Steve this is going to require far too much in the way of code changes. It can only be realistically done with the engine rewrite. I guess that there is only so much that they can tweak with the current engine without messing up a lot of the TacAI's engagement routines.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My real concern is the IDing than the spotting. I apreciate the global spotting is firmly ingrained in the CMBO and CM2 designs. But that doesnt mean it cant be improved.

I will try to put together a post Sunday where I outline a proposal of a better way that hopefully fits into the coding.

Lewis

[Tero]

>No, it was just one bite too many for us to

>chew. Unfortunately, doing the Winter War

>would have required far too much work.

In what respect ?

>If our first confirmed Finnish CM

>fanatic "TSS" counts as a parameter, then

>that is your answer I also have some good

>sources here for Finnish uniforms and

>equipment, but Tommi has already provided a

>wealth of details for us to go by.

I'm not concerned about the minutae like the OB or stuff like that. I know Tommi can handle that without any difficulties. I'm concerned about the bonuses or similar modifiers you plan on using to implement the variables that make out the "national characteristics" aspects. Are you going to use the Dupuy formula for example to model the relative effectiveness of the various armies in relation to each other ?

[Wolfpack]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

I am slightly miffed. I am having trouble understanding why a tank which wasn't in action in WWII (at least from information I have read) is being included in (as close as it gets to realistic) WWII game (simulation). I know that Steve said it was because the IS-3 was one motha tank, but I am having trouble understanding this mainly becouse there are lots of motha tanks (maus comes to mind) which would be cool to see in the game as well. I guess my main concern as well, as fickle as it may be is that; what QB's will become or potentialy may become if a tank which was not really involved in WWII is in the game and is an option in a QB. I guess the short answer is to just make game parameters clear before the game has begun, so that the unwanted tanks are not picked.

Anyway, I am just trying to understand the decsion of modeling vehicles that were not operational in WWII battle. It just doesnt make any sense to me to do it mainly because of reasons above, and because there are other cool AFV's which in my mind could equaly be modeled in the game as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the answer to this is that the IS-3 was produced, therefore, they can get data on their performance and such. The Maus had two prototypes, one of which was destroyed. There is no way to determine if the design of the Maus was a good one or not. Sure, it was big and ugly and had a nifty gun, but would it have ever been more than a (slightly) mobile pillbox? You don't know, they don't know, so how can they be expected to do any kind of accurate representation. Same for the other late German designs. Most were only prototypes, or had seen no action. They can't just make up performance characteristics, there has to be some solid data for them to go on. Look at the Panther...coming off the drawing board, it looked like a great design, but it had huge problems for quite a while. Can you honestly say that a super heavy behemoth like the Maus would have come off the lines exactly like the designers planned? I think not.

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Steve et al

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

[QB]I like it. I would also like the squares to be a little more "fancy" maybe like the unit bases in East Front/West Front.

I agree this would be an excellent piece of additional eye-candy to complement the improved interface etc of CM2

BTW Steve (& rest of BTS) great info on CM2 an extremely mouth-watering title I eagerly await

Cheers

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfpack:

Look at the Panther...coming off the drawing board, it looked like a great design, but it had huge problems for quite a while.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And thats exactly my point on the IS-3 it suffered its own severe teething problems do to it's rushed development that effectively kept it out of action in WW2 and suffered them well into 1947.

Regards, John Waters

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfpack:

Can you honestly say that a super heavy behemoth like the Maus would have come off the lines exactly like the designers planned? I think not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not at all. But either did the IS-3. That's why the IS-3 didn't make it to combat. The IS-3 while it was a good conceptual design which lead to better overall soviet tank design was not in the war for good reason, it suffered reliability wise. If the tank wasn't in WWII and by that I mean in any battle or secondary action at all, then why have it modeled? I only see "what if" potentials and if that is the case, why not model the maus or the panther F? There are enough technical specifications of Maus and Panther F so that it could be designed in CMBB.

But, while I propose why have these none proven none used vehicles during the WWII persiod in CM, I really would rather not have them. My pet peeve is why have a vehicle that wasn't in WWII action in a game that simulates action in WWII? To me thats not simulating WWII.

One further point. I agree, that having a tank like the IS-3 in the game creates fun and interesting scenariosand can be a great addition to the game. However, if one side gets a non-operational tank in the game, I believe it would be more fair to have the other side get perhaps one non-operational tank in the game as well.

Regards,

Freak

[Wolfpack]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

No, not at all. But either did the IS-3. That's why the IS-3 didn't make it to combat. The IS-3 while it was a good conceptual design which lead to better overall soviet tank design was not in the war for good reason, it suffered reliability wise. If the tank wasn't in WWII and by that I mean in any battle or secondary action at all, then why have it modeled? I only see "what if" potentials and if that is the case, why not model the maus or the panther F? There are enough technical specifications of Maus and Panther F so that it could be designed in CMBB.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point taken, but at least BTS knows how the IS-3 turned out. They can model what it actually was, not what they THINK it would have been. With the Maus, you're taking a vehicle which most likely never saw active use, little testing and inputting values for what it should have been, not what it actually would have been. You can't know exactly how it would have performed, while you can with the IS-3 since it was finished and produced. Now, as for the Panther II, that's a bit more iffy since it was a much more conventional design and I think you could get a pretty good idea of what it would have done. But it still comes down to that BTS can use real, and actual figures for the IS-3, while they can't for the late German designs.

That said, I agree with you..if you can't do one or two for both sides, then none should be done. That is just my opinion though, and I'm pretty dang sure that BTS isn't going to put what I think ahead of what they want. And that's fine with me, it is their baby. And then there's always that other arguement, "You don't have to use it."

[Tarkus]

Here's a quick question about C&C in CM2.

When, in CMBO, a squad has lost its appropriate HQ, the only way to regain a proper command over that unit is to bring up a higher level HQ unit, that is, a company or a battalion HQ. The problem that sometimes occur, mostly in operations, is when losses are high enough to call for a major administrative overhaul to reassign units, in order to form more balanced combat teams.

My question: have you guys at BTS thought about a way to implement a feature where Platoon HQ could command squads other than their organic ones?

I have been given extensive thoughts about that (both historically and game-wise) and think this would be an accurate one. Just to take a few examples, the Ardennes campaign ( mostly for the US Army) saw many such an arrangement, as did the Wehrmacht in Normandy. In any case, I think it would be a factor to take into consideraton in CMII if it prove to be too complex for your current code.

I do not want to clog this thread but would like to get your ideas about it.

Oh, and while I'm there, tell me you'll put the Brummbär in...?

Other than that, I'm a student, I'm poor, and I'm in line for my copy of CMBB.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

No, not at all. But either did the IS-3. That's why the IS-3 didn't make it to combat. The IS-3 while it was a good conceptual design which lead to better overall soviet tank design was not in the war for good reason, it suffered reliability wise. If the tank wasn't in WWII and by that I mean in any battle or secondary action at all, then why have it modeled? I only see "what if" potentials and if that is the case, why not model the maus or the panther F? There are enough technical specifications of Maus and Panther F so that it could be designed in CMBB.

But, while I propose why have these none proven none used vehicles during the WWII persiod in CM, I really would rather not have them. My pet peeve is why have a vehicle that wasn't in WWII action in a game that simulates action in WWII? To me thats not simulating WWII.

One further point. I agree, that having a tank like the IS-3 in the game creates fun and interesting scenariosand can be a great addition to the game. However, if one side gets a non-operational tank in the game, I believe it would be more fair to have the other side get perhaps one non-operational tank in the game as well.

Regards,

Freak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are including the SturmTiger despite its very limited use. Anyway, BTS is going to include the IS-3 and if you don't like it you don't have to use it. In multiplay, just play with someone who agrees not to use it as well. I think Steve has been pretty clear why IS-3 gets put in and something like the Maus doesn't. While the IS-3 most likely didn't see service in WW2, it did see service else where. I believe the Arabs had a few and some of those got pressed into Israeli service. I think Steve's argument is that there is plenty of hard data of ACTUAL performance of the IS-3 in combat while something like the Maus is almost purely theoretical or extremely limited and hard to verify if it's possible at all. That's just the way it is. Unless BTS runs out of time, BTS will most likely not remove the IS-3 since there is probably more than enough people who want to see it. Plus it doesn't take take too much time to do since there is plenty of hard data and a minimum amount of guesswork. They don't have to make a major rewrite of the game engine either whereas simulating early night vision would require this (according to Steve). The IS-3 should make games a lot more interesting for the King Tiger fans. If that still bugs you then just pretend it's not there. For me, I'll probably limit my use of the IS-3 to hypothetical battles against King Tigers.

[Username]

I find it interesting that BTS would come scrounging for info about a "crappy" TD like the Elephant (and then get read the "Riot act" by people with info on its success) but feel that a uber-dinosaur like the IS-3 gets special attention and has to make it into the game.

The IS3 was a piece of crap. The age of the hollow charge was just beginning and slow large targets full of slow-loading ammo were in decline. The age of gun firepower and excellent ammo and rates of fire combined with automotive excellence ruled the post war years. Any tank with a decent transmission could out run the slow gun on the IS3. I dont know if these ponderous behomeths had any success in any endeavor. I think I recall that the Israelis even KO'd them in the early wars. I heard that they were dug in like static pillboxes facing china in their later years. Good riddance.

[Grisha]

Steve,

Any word on trenches for infantry?

[Panzer Leader]

He mentioned (somewhere) that there would be trenches and that they would be laid like barbed wire is now.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfpack:

They can model what it actually was, not what they THINK it would have been. With the Maus, you're taking a vehicle which most likely never saw active use, little testing and inputting values for what it should have been, not what it actually would have been.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Maus was finished enough so, that the germans knew the thing was vastly underpowered and way overweight. It barely could move. However, the technical data of the tank, ammo and armor is fact. Its just that no more then 2 were built. I believe that one is restored to some degree in a museum in Russia somewhere. Technical data of the Maus is as readily available as any other tank in WWII as far as I know. It may not be as hard fact but nontheless it is there and it is fairly true.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, as for the Panther II, that's a bit more iffy since it was a much more conventional design and I think you could get a pretty good idea of what it would have done. But it still comes down to that BTS can use real, and actual figures for the IS-3, while they can't for the late German designs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The figures are real in the case of the Maus. Its just that they are not as well known. I don't think it would be unfair to use achtungpanzer.com for this, as there is a good amount of info about it there.

I agree about the Panther II. As much as it would be great to see it in, we just have no real stats on what to go by on this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> hat said, I agree with you..if you can't do one or two for both sides, then none should be done. That is just my opinion though, and I'm pretty dang sure that BTS isn't going to put what I think ahead of what they want. And that's fine with me, it is their baby. And then there's always that other arguement, "You don't have to use it." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutley. It is there baby. A great one at that. But still, I would hope that BTS considers making a prototype or non-operational tank for both sides. I just don't see it as being fair to both sides in the game. Or as fun!!

I am not trying to be ungrateful, I am just trying to understand the reasoning behind it. As I know that BTS pays special attention to "real world physics" and pays special attention to tank data, I know they also like to pay special attention to the realities of the war. As CM is to me a great WWII tactical simulation, I would like to keep it that way in regards to which tanks actaully saw service in WWII. Not ones that didn't.

I know my arguments sound contradictory. But I am just trying to grasp this whole idea to bring the IS-3 into CM. If the IS-3 is in the game, I don't see why the german side doesn't get a non-serviced vehicle. At least to make things ultra fair (in some ultra odd way) and of course ultra fun.

Commissar and Wolfpack - I agree with your statements after investigating the SturmTiger. That is one mean motha tank. I hope that does make it in, especially sinceit did see some if limited service (leveling towns I believe).

Thanks for your inputs, both were insightful. I will leave my argument up just to be seen by BTS if they see it. Maybe the Panther II has a chance after all

I still feel in some way that having a tank that was non-operational in battle during WWII in CM is odd.

Regards,

Freak

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

I find it interesting that BTS would come scrounging for info about a "crappy" TD like the Elephant (and then get read the "Riot act" by people with info on its success) but feel that a uber-dinosaur like the IS-3 gets special attention and has to make it into the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting certainly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The IS3 was a piece of crap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I hope its modeled that way

I hope its modeled with all sorts of mechanical problems. I read somewere (can't remember where, that it had severe transmission problems). I certainly do not want to see this tank be in perfect working condition like the rest of the AFV's in CM. There is a reason it DIDN'T see combat until 1947 or so they say.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The age of the hollow charge was just beginning and slow large targets full of slow-loading ammo were in decline. The age of gun firepower and excellent ammo and rates of fire combined with automotive excellence ruled the post war years. Any tank with a decent transmission could out run the slow gun on the IS3. I dont know if these ponderous behomeths had any success in any endeavor. I think I recall that the Israelis even KO'd them in the early wars. I heard that they were dug in like static pillboxes facing china in their later years. Good riddance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting stuff, thanks Username.

Regards,

Freak

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[kipanderson]

Tero, hi,

I see you mention the Dupuy formulas.

I am a huge fan of his analysis. He was professor at Harvard and his work was used by both the British and the US for operational analysis. When is comes to operational analysis he has no equal, in my view.

However, when it comes to the Eastern Front, although his formulas still hold in every detail, it must be remembered that the “data” he entered into his formulas was almost completely wrong, with regard to the Soviets.

By this I mean that in order to use his formulas one has to “know” the force ratio, the size of the Soviet forces relative to the Germans, and, the causalities suffered by the Soviets. In the 1970s and 1980s the only people who knew the true size of Soviet forces, and even more so, their true causalities were the Russians, and they were not telling.

Now we know both.

As it turns out Soviet forces were far smaller than was believed in the 1980s; also their causalities were far less. The Germans were simply not killing as many Soviets, post Kursk, as had been believed.

The average force ratio during the period July 43 to March 45, Soviet to German, was only 2.7:1. Not the 4-5:1 as had been believed. Also the causalities ratio over that period, Soviet to German, was only 1.64:1, not 2-3:1 as had been believed. (Remember these figures exclude the round-up of April-May 45.)

To cut a very long story short if you run the Dupuy formulas, using the new data, you get a combat effectiveness figure for the Germans against the Soviets, during the period given above, of 1.15, not the 1.8-2 or 3 given in Dupuy’s books.

This is no criticism of Dupuy; the figures were just not available in his day.

The conclusion is that the Soviets were very nearly as good as a Germans, battalion combat team V battalion combat team, post Kursk. Note that is “post Kursk” not at Kursk. At Kursk the Soviets really fought in the “old” style for the last time.

All the best,

Kip.

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Steve has stated that CM2 maps will be bigger, but what I am more curious about is their shape, not their size. Specificaly, will large pt. QB maps be deeper and more square for attack/defend type games than the curret long and skinny shape we get (long and skinny is fine for MEs)? Deeper and more square with VLs staggered front to back as well as side to side would be ideal for attack/defend or assault.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm curious about this as well.

[von Lucke]

Seems the inclusion of the IS-3 has opened up a whole new controversy worthy of a new and seperate thread (hint! hint!).

Can't say as I'm in favor of including a tank that never saw active service --- espicially since there are already going to be IS-2's around.

But I think it's more a case of, "we've already got the IS-2 coded, so it would be only five minutes more work to adapt an IS-3 out of it" than anything else. (See the Pershing / Super Pershing from CMBO for comparison).