kipanderson

Tom, hi, I was fortunate enough to have been in the Ardennes between 16th-19th December this last year. The conditions were similar to those of the actual battle, -1C to -4C with light snow and mist. Your mod really does set new standards for realism. The above picture, with the mist, is “exactly” how is really looked. Short of being an actual photo, a mod could not be more realistic. Congratulations. All the best, Kip.

von Murrin, yup, I have all the ASL modules, including KGP. I agree that the system you describe may well have something going for it. Before the re-write BTS would do well to just take a look at how some of the Historic Advanced Squad Leader games handled what CM calls operations. However, I do sympathise with Steve and co. It must be very difficult/impossible to code a system that can handle all situations. All the best, Kip. [ February 15, 2002, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Steve, hi, Thanks for the replies. I for one, will stop nagging you about operations. (In fact I think operations are the best way to play CMBO.) However, given the high quality of the job you all did on CMBO it is only natural that all your fans should allow their “war game fantasies” to run a little wild. All the best, Kip.

Steve, Yes, I am somewhat of a dreamer in the sense of wanting the ultimate operational/tactical wargames. However, BTS has already delivered one “ultimate” wargame, so to claim BTS cannot do it will not wash! When it comes to CM I certainly would not like to see it become a command game, or change its scale. The SL/ASL/CM scale is perfect for tactical games. One quick point on Operations within CM. I have asked a number of times, and in the hope that you read this will now ask again. Would it be possible for the maximum length of “battles within operations” to be increased from 30 turns to, say, 60 turns? I fully understand the point about the AI tending to wish to fight to the last man in longer battles. However, in human V human games, as long as you explain the situation in the briefing, players will/do take care to preserve their units in longer battles. I feel 40-50 minutes is about right for most battles, including in operations. However, others will differ on this. All the best, Kip. [ February 13, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Steve, I know from other threads you are “not keen” on the idea, but welding together a quality operational game and CM would make for another stunning breakthrough in wargaming. Not as big a leap as CMBO was, but still a step change. What I would like to see is an operational game which could be played entirely at the operational level if the players wished. However, if they preferred, they could zoom down to the CM scale and play any given individual engagement at the CM scale. Like many others, I would have thought that a program similar to the QB generator, but taking its parameters from the operational game, would do the job. It was always clear to me that someone would have a go at a SL/ASL type computer game, but I never expected anything of the quality of CMBO to emerge. I am equally confident that one day some one will add a quality operational layer to a CM type game. I would very much like to see BTS do just that. BTW, in my view, Decisive Action by Jim Lunsford, is the finest operational game out there. It a WEGO system. But you will have your own views on which of the operational game designers is best. All the best, Kip. PS. The thought of “tracking characters/individuals” is not what I am after. I am after a quality operational game such as those used by the military. Like Decisive Action. PPS. For the engine re-write my other big hope is live team play. Would deal with relative spotting and command in a realistic way.Also be fun.

Hi, Quote from the interview. “And, due to our meticulous historical research, who knows if CMBB doesn't actually manage to answer quite a few questions and get rid of many "unknowns" about the battles in the East.” This is exactly how I look at CMBO and why the prospect of CMBB excites me so much. When I first down loaded and played the demo to CMBO I realized it was more than a computer game, it was a historically accurate simulation. I think of it as military history. As many have said before, CM attracts the hard-core military history fans, like me, “and” the computer game fans. With the use of CMBB I expect to be able to accurately model engagements I have read about. This is where the fun comes from, for me. And, of course, it also looks great. From what I have seen it will be a challenge for all those modders to improve on it, but you can be sure someone will! All the best, Kip.

Hi, All sounds too good to be true. Great to see the option of bigger battles. I am not sure I will be using it much; battalion V battalion is fine for me, but still great to know I will have the option. Will not be able to resist the odd mass attack. On another issue, for me the graphics are not the most important, but given that I do have a new machine I greatly look forward to using the extreme terrain/graphics settings. Waiting, is indeed, becoming harder and harder. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I was wondering if one of the five guys at BTS could just let me know if my request for the maximum length of battles, in operations, could be increased from its current limit of 30 turns in CMBO, to say, 60 turns in CMBB. I understand the point about the AI always wishing to fight to the death in long battles. However, in human V human play, with the correct scenario briefings, this is not a problem. In CMMC we have also found people becoming far more careful about causalities, because they understand the need for force preservation. All the best, Kip.

Terry, hi, Yes, it all gets better and better. Having some idea of the type of planes will add to the fun. I can see an appearance from Mr. Sturmovik on the horizon! I tend to the view that “appearance” should not be certain. May be there could be the option of “certain” or “non certain” appearance of air support for the scenario designer. All the best, Kip.

Hi, If any one of the five from BTS does happen to read this, I would be very grateful to know if there is any chance of my request for an increase in the maximum length of battles, within operations, to go up to 60 minutes from the current 30 minutes. That is in CMBB, of course. If the answer is no, I can take it, sort of, maybe, on a good day…. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with those whom have posted above. Being able to use the same map file for operations and battles would be great. I also believe a more subtle elevation step change of, say, 1.25 metres as opposed to the current 2.5 metres and 5 metres, would be a welcome change. Especially for modelling Eastern Front terrain. In fact I posted requesting such a change about 7-8 months ago. My hunch is that we will have to wait until the re-write of the engine for these changes.Time will tell. All the best, Kip

Hi, One of the problems that will be faced by those whom wish to produce historically accurate scenarios for CMBB is the lack of topographical maps to work from. Given the above, I thought I would just confirm that high quality topographical maps of the Soviet Union are available. I have just received two topographical maps of the Soviet Union. One 1:100,000 the other 1:50,000. They are both of extremely high quality. i.e. just as high quality as topographical maps from other first world countries. They are produced by the Military Topographic Directorate of the General Staff. Sadly, as with so much "niche market" material, they are very expensive. However, if for you do want an accurate map of, say, an area near Kursk, one can get hold of them. East View Cartographic. http://www.cartographic.com/default.shtml All the best, Kip.

Hi, Long, long ago, when CMBB was a mere twinkle in the bottom of a beer glass for Steve and co, I posted requesting that the 30 minute limit on the length of battles within operations be increased. For me, operations are potentially the most realistic use of CM. I think of it like this. During WW2 most company/battalion V company/battalion scale engagements took a number of hours to resolve; from all I have read. It is true that some battles were over in just a few minutes, but this was the exception. Anyway... within most 2-5 hour battles for, say, a given village, there were individual “assaults or pushes”. It is these “assaults or pushes” that are represents by battles in CM. I like to use operations to model the full struggle for a given geographical location. However, it is a constant frustration to me that battles, within operations, are limits to 30 minutes. They are artificially truncated. So my request is that the upper limit of 30 minutes, on the length of battles within operations, be increased in CMBB. All the best, Kip.

Jeff, hi, Yup, I have noticed that you and I do agree on a lot of matters, but am sure not all. Get two military history nuts like us in the same room, and you will get three different opinions! However, I am optimistic that what we both wish for will happen one day. Problem is I would like to see it now, and from Steve and co. Unfortunately the mood music coming out of Steve is not good for this particular feature. One cannot win them all! All the best, Kip.

Captain Wacky, I will just add my thanks for the instructions. I have been following matters and wanted to install the new drivers but did not know how to. Thanks again, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve wrote, “No matter WHAT level of detail the designers choose to focus on, there is ALWAYS someone who wants it to be spilled over to the next level.” I confess; I am one of them! For the engine re-write I have two main wishes. One is live team play, multi-play. There are many reasons for this, fun is one of them, even greater realism is another. Would help with “relative spotting and relative command”, “if” I understand what is meant by these terms. However, the big one is an operational layer. The two most popular scales for wargames, that is real wargames and not shooters, has for twenty-five years been individual squads and AFVs, i.e. CM and ASL on the one hand, and battalion/operational on the other. One day, someone will put the two together. A quality operational game, the standard manoeuvre units being battalions, the scale one inch to the mile/km. With the option to zoom down to the CM scale to fight any individual engagement, a program very like the Quick Battle generator taking the parameters for the CM battle from the operational map/game. Instead of being input manually by the players, as is the case in QBs now. However, the entire operational game could be played at the operational level in the standard way, if people wished. Steve and co may not wish to do this, but one day, someone will do it. I hope it will be BTS because I trust them to get it right in a way I do not quite trust others. If done to the usual BTS standard, and I know Steve and co would never lower their standards, it would be another ground breaking first. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with someone who posted above. This is cruel. I want to know all there is to know about CMBB, but like many others, find the waiting a strain. I have never played a QB because for me, a top quality map is a “must”. Now even this is fixed. Greatly looking forward to all the QBs to come. All the best, Kip. PS. The graphics look great. CMBB will be a real challenge for all those Modders, how to improve on what ships with the game! [ February 01, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, Steve wrote, “This is going to be very stressfull for the control freaks out there ” Sounds like a good laugh. Quick point. The great thing about CM, or one of them anyway, is that it is both a historically accurate simulation of WW2 ground combat, and a great computer game. Some buy it because it is a great computer game; I know this because of the comments in some reviews, some like me, because it is by far the most accurate simulation available of WW2 ground combat. Because it is military history. That is where the fun comes from, for me. Given the above, I would every time go for accuracy in modelling the individual manoeuvre units. Once that is done, then the scenario designers, can construct games/battles that set achievable goals for both sides. All the games I play are historical, or semi-historical, in the sense that the given situation may have happened in reality, and most likely did happen at least once. Then I judge victory or defeat not by the points system, but by my own view of whether, given the circumstances and forces involved, I did OK. All good fun. All the best, Kip.

Steve, Yup, same books. They are embarrassingly expensive, even I think I am not quite sane! I am hugely relieved about all I have heard about how CMBB is to model the Soviets, it looks as though the traps will be avoided. However, one of your above answers has brought to the fore another question. I agree fully that C&C should receive some attention in Soviet AFVs without radios. You wrote “While we don't have time to do a cool animiation of flag waving TCs, being buttoned up witout a radio imediately closes that vehicle off from C&C. And C&C is only as good as LOS even when unbuttoned.” However, my concern is that one of the roles we play in CM is that of AFV commander. This relates to what I wrote to Spook above. So could you give some examples of what an out of C&C Soviet AFV could and could not do in CMBB? What can I, as a Soviet AFV commander, but out of C&C, order my tanks to do? Or am I totally paralyzed? Hope you understand what I am trying to get at. All the best, Kip. PS. It will be interesting to see if in CMIII to move towards making CM a “command game”. As long as all is done to your usual high standards, I am neutral on the issue.

Hi, Steve wrote, “Spook, the new system is based on CMBO's C&C and waypoint systems. The big change is that for every waypoint you plot you get a delay added to the initial start time delay. However, the closer the point is to the pervious point, the smaller the delay is. The further away, the greater. Meaning that if you plot 5 short moves around a building it costs you little more than say one point out to the same destination (i.e. careful does not equal "expensive" if it is limited). But if you did 5 points in a complex zig zag over 1/2 the map... be prepared for a substantial penalty. And like in CMBO, editing moves is allowed but adding new ones means suffering brand new C&C delay as noted above.” As the official defender of the Great Soviet Masses, I cannot say how relieved I am. Steve and co have done it again. The way Human Wave and Assault are to be modeled was a hint of what was to come. From what I have heard, the way Human Wave attacks and Assault interact in CMBB is perfect. Simple and realistic. The way command delay is to work; with less experienced troops having longer delays within a system as described above, does the job just fine. It does not have an “artificial” feel to it. It looks as if the reasons for the delays will be realistic. A platoon commander, even a competent one, would have problems explaining and controlling less experienced troops in such circumstances. The point about restrictions and features not being or looking “artificial” is, for me, crucial. My complaint about previous tactical, Eastern Front wargames is that the restrictions on Soviet forces, their downward tweaking, always seemed artificial. Unrealistic, and therefore not historically accurate. Spook, I understand your point about company and battalion HQs. However, remember that the scale of CM, it is not a "command game". You are not only playing the part of the battalion/company commander, but also the platoon and squad commanders. Put too many restrictions on platoon and squad/AFV commanders and you no longer have a CM game at its current scale, even if individual squads are still running around.Such a game would be fun, but would no longer be CM, in my view.I believe one of the answers is live team play. This would slove much of the relative command/ relative spotting problem. You can only give orders to "your platoon or company" you can only spot what "your platoon or company can spot". All good fun. Looks as though CMBB really will be as good as I was hoping for. All the best, Kip. PS. Steve, if you do not already have it, do just consider the book I recommended. The “Germany and the Second World War” series of books. They also cover the desert war in detail. Opinions will differ, but certainly right up there amongst the best operational military history books available. If not just taking the biscuit as the number one of their type. One point they do illustrate is that even as early as the second half of 42 the Soviets seemed to make better use of their assets than the Germans. Given the troops the two sides had available from June 42 onwards, and taking into account their quality, the Soviets used them more sensibly. They attacked at the correct times and places, they retreated at the correct times and places. That is at the operational level, got the better of things. However, the fact that we do not all agree on this, adds to the fun!

Hi, I feel I should just start by saying I did not intend to offend fans of ASL. Due to my advanced years, mid forties, I am more a Squad Leader than Advanced Squad Leader man; however I do have all the ASL modules. And yes, I have played SL/ASL a lot, but many years ago. At university playing SL was really what I did; the study of economics just had to fit in around my SL habit! In its time, SL was as much a brake through as CMBO is today, in a different stratosphere to the rest. However, I stand by the point I made above. The difference in the treatment of elite submachine gunners is the most extreme example, and generally, typical of all previous tactical Eastern Front games I have seen. (PS. I still visit the websites that cover this stuff, Multiman Publishing and Critical Hits.) Steve, I am re-assured by what you say, and when it comes to BTS I do indeed “keep the faith”. However, do just remember that you and I, the players of CM, are the platoon, company and battalion commanders in CMBB so care must be taken when it comes to tying our hands. This is my view of all wargames. For example, in an operational wargame I would be against tying the hands of the German player because in reality Soviet generals and staff officers tended to have the edge over their German counterparts, for most of the war, but certainly not all of it. All the best, Kip. PS. When it comes to my above comments on Soviet and German generals I should point out that I am no more a believer in “uber” Soviet generals than I am in “uber” German company commanders. In both cases the reasons why one side may have had the edge will have been institutional, doctrinal, and training. Until very recently it was my view that the Soviets only started to out perform their enemies, at the operational level, from mid 43. However, I have just started to read the Eastern Front sections of Germany and the Second World War, volume VI. http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-822888-0 . At the operational level the reason for the any German failings were not just down to Hitler, even in 1942. PPS. The above book is the first from the series I have read; the early war does not interest me so much. Anyway… they are very authoritative, right up there with books by Charles MacDonald and David Glantz. Like so many that come out of military educational establishments, they are seemingly unbiased and balanced in their judgements. Plus, stuffed to exploding point with data, facts and figures.

Hi, Of course, what I mean by “the trap awaiting all tactical, Eastern Front wargames” is that all previous such games have fallen into the particular trap I have in mind. It also follows, that I very much hope BTS have avoid the ambush in question. I will be using examples from Advanced Squad Leader, but no, this is not a particular ASL related problem. I accept fully that CM is in a different stratosphere to ASL, and more. It is just that twenty odd years back I played SL/ASL so much that the data from it comes most readily to mind to illustrate points that are common to all previous tactical, Eastern Front games I have seen. At its heart is a contradiction, “if the individual, Soviet manoeuvre units in WW2, tactical wargames are modelled historically accurately, the outcome of battles will not be historically accurate, during the first half of the war.” For me, this is desirable, in an imperfect world. The priority must always be that the individual manoeuvre units, in any wargame, are modelled historically accurately. One simply has to live with any adverse side effects. I will now attempt to explain what I mean by this rather strange statement. All the tactical, Eastern Front wargames I have seen, no exceptions, have understated the combat power; normally it is the firepower, of Soviet manoeuvre units by a wide margin. That is the firepower of Soviet infantry platoons and squads, machine guns and such. I have no way of knowing the “actual” reason for this; I was not involved in the design of any of them. However, there is a possible reason. I have always assumed that the reason is that when they play tested the games with the combat power of Soviet manoeuvre units at a more realistic level, this is probably how they started out; they found they got unrealistic results/outcomes to battles. By this I mean that if they set-up a battle in, say, October 42, with the Germans outnumbered 2 or 3 to one, the Germans got beaten every time; with the Soviet manoeuvre units set at realistic combat power/firepower. So, what then happened is that they lowered the combat power of Soviet manoeuvre units until they reached a stage when the Germans could sometimes hold out against odds of three to one. They did this from the best of intentions, believing these lower combat powers for Soviet manoeuvre units must have been the historical reality. Of course, that was not the case. The problem is that if you set up a tactical, Eastern Front wargame between two human players they are performing the roles, in CM or SL/ASL, of the battalion commander, the company commanders, the platoon commanders, and, of course, also the squad commanders/AFV commanders. The two human players may be fairly closely matched in skill levels, or indeed, the player taking the role of the Soviets may even be the better player. And herein lays the core of the problem. The difference in skill levels between the person playing the role of the Soviet battlefield officers, battalion, company and platoon commanders, and the person playing the role of the German battlefield officers, is likely to be less than it was in reality. During the first half of the war. In reality it will normally have been the case, during the first half of the war, that the Soviet battalion, company and platoon commanders were less well trained/skilled than their German counterparts. Hence, if the Soviet manoeuvre units are given historically accurate firepower/combat power, and are present in historically accurate numbers, the German player has very little chance when two human players of similar skill fight it out. For me, having the individual manoeuvre units modelled historically accurately is a must. The entire point of a wargame, in my view, others will differ, is that it is a historically accurate simulation. You are given the actual manoeuvre units available at the time, modelled as accurately as the current state of knowledge can deliver, and then it is down to you to try and out perform your enemy. If you perform better, relative to your human enemy, than was historically the case, so be it. Good luck to you and well done. Lowering the firepower of one sides manoeuvre units in order to achieve a certain outcome is undesirable, no matter how well intentioned the motives. I will just give a brief example from SL/ASL to illustrate what I am ranting on about. In ASL regular Soviet infantry are given a rating of 4, 4; that is four range and four firepower. Regular German infantry are given a rating of 6, 4. Six range and four firepower. What this means, is that in the case of regular infantry, the designers of ASL are assuming that Soviet rifle squads could only deliver half the firepower of German rifle squads at two hundred metres range. (PS. Light machine guns are modelled separately.) To my mind, this is clearly unrealistic. Remember we are comparing “regular” infantry squads, not a Soviet conscript squad against a more elite German squad. Having fired a WW2 bolt action rifle, in my case a Lee Enfield, I can confirm that have are incredible easy to use. After just a few rounds, I was hitting anything I aimed at again and again, within reason. Of course, nothing was coming the other way! Anyway… a Soviet “regular” rifleman, armed with his five round Mossin Nagant, would have delivered just as accurate fire as his counterpart armed with his five round Mauser. Even in the early years. If we turn to submachine gunners in ASL there was a similar problem. Soviet elite submachine gunners were given a rating of 2, 6. German elite submachine gunners 3, 8. Given that the Soviet PPSh 41 was the superior submachine gun, greater range and such, there is no rational reason for these ratings. What is happening is that the Soviet units are being more harshly judged than the German units. The same rational, impartial criteria are not being used to judge Soviet and German units. If they were, in the above example, Soviet and German units would have the same firepower. (In the case of the submachine gunners the Soviet units would have a slightly longer range.) Just to restate, my concern is not with SL/ASL. My concern is that similar distortions appear in all other tactical, Eastern Front wargames that I have seen. Given the above, the rational side of my brain tells me that “statistically” it is likely that CMBB will fall into the same trap. Of course, instinct tells me, due to the high quality of CMBO, that Steve and co will not fall into the trap of understating the performance of individual Soviet manoeuvre units in order to achieve a certain desired outcome on the battlefield when two human players of similar skill levels take each other on in CMBB. But I cannot be sure, and that drives my concern. All part of the fun of waiting for CMBB, I guess. At this stage I feel I should point out that it is not just in the matter of firepower that the designers of tactical, Eastern Front wargames have to be careful. The same distortion can be achieved by excessive command delays for the Soviets. It is important to model Soviet manoeuvre units as they are likely to have been in reality, giving them all the shortcomings they may have had in the early years, but no more than that. I will now give an example of where I believe Steve and co have “hit the nail on the head” in modelling Soviet squads as they probably were in reality. From what I read, in CMBB there is to be an “assault” command for infantry. However, in the case of Soviet infantry, the less inexperienced units will not have the option of “assault”, but of “human wave attack”. At a certain level of experience, the Soviets lose the option of “human wave attack” and gain the option of “assault”, i.e. they fight in a similar style to the Germans. To my mind this is perfect modelling of Soviet infantry. From all I have read, including Soviet WW2 Field Manuals/Combat Orders, it is likely that this is exactly as it was during WW2. The lack of an “assault” option for inexperienced/poorly trained Soviet infantry is important because in reality they are not likely to have had that option. However, in WW2 wargames there is always the danger that the designers will look for, and hence “discover”, differences between the Soviets and Germans that are unlikely to have existed in reality. When it comes to Command and Control in CMBB, particularly command delays, there exists that risk. If once again, we take the example of inexperienced Soviet infantry there will be some battle drills that they were not trained to do, that more experienced German squads could perform. Hence no “assault” option. But within the limits of the things inexperienced Soviet infantry could do, there is a limit to how much longer they would take to react than their better trained German counterparts. It is to be remembered that one of the roles the human player of CM performs is that of squad/AFV commander. I can imagine a situation in which I, as a Soviet squad commander, order my men to fire on a threat, and due to excessive command delay, nothing happens for an unrealistic length of time. When in reality, even less experienced Soviet squads would have readily opened fire, of course, within all the usual limits of moral and such. This is also a risk in the modelling of command delays for Soviet AFVs. In sum, the delays should take account of the inexperience of some Soviet units, but must not be so long as to in affect “assume” the Soviet manoeuvre units are “stupid”. Soviet platoon commander could shout orders to their men, and their men hear those orders, in a similar time scale to Germans. Also, contrary to popular belief, initiative was encouraged in Soviet manuals and “documents on war experience” as early as 1942. Great care must be taken as to which commands take inexperienced Soviet manoeuvre units longer than German manoeuvre units. I will just round off by repeating that if Soviet and German individual manoeuvre units are modelled historically accurately in CMBB, and are present in the relative numbers they often were, in a game between two equally skilled human players, the Germans will have a very difficult challenge. Will more often than not be beaten. This is how it should be. It is only when the human player is the Germans and the computer plays the part of the Soviets, that historically accurate outcomes to early war battles should be expected. The reason is that one of the major problems faced by the Soviets was that their battalion, company and platoon commanders were not as skilled as their German counterparts, during the first half of the war. In most cases. However, if two human players of equal skill face each other in CMBB you are giving the Soviet forces battalion, company and platoon commanders of the same quality as the Germans. Hence, if the combat power/firepower of individual Soviet manoeuvre units is historically accurate, as hopefully it will be in CMBB, the Germans are likely to come off worse than they did in reality. This is unavoidable, and how it should be. For an “early war experience” of fighting the Soviets, the human player can play the Germans and allow the computer to control the Soviets. All the best, Kip. PS. No insult intended to the AI. It is of stunning quality. But no one would claim it is the equal of a skilled and cunning human opponent.

Steve, I apologise if I have underestimated the CM armour penetration model. Now I think about it, I would not be surprised if Charles had a completely different equation running for HEAT penetration. He does have the correct slope affect for HEAT rounds, so I should have guessed he may well be using the correct formulas for armour quality. Moral of the story is, do not “assume” BTS have got it wrong. All the best, Kip.

Steve, I agree that such a “fix” is undesirable. I was just trying to work out a way to take account of the high hardness of Soviet armour, and thus its lower quality against APCBC rounds, but leaving its quality unaffected against HEAT rounds. You probably know this, but I can confirm that whether steel is high or low quality makes no difference to HEAT round penetration. You would have to get into other materials such as ceramics or glass before HEAT round penetration would be affected. Given that there were quite a lot of German guns firing 75mm HEAT rounds, that if realistically modelled could only “just” penetrate a T34, call it 50/50, it is important not to affect the T34’s armour resistance against HEAT while adjusting for high hardness. No doubt, I am now starting to repeat what was said earlier. Paul Jungnitsch, interesting post. Shows just how variable it all is. All the best, Kip.

Steve wrote, “My point is that the quality/thickness thing varied quite a bit factory to factory, month to month, vehicle to vehicle. Real bitch to try and simulate that with any degree of accuracy ” I sympathies 100% and do understand the problem. I would ask Charles if it were possible to fall back on the “old randomizer affect”. As he did with the Panthers/Tiger front turret armour. What I mean is this. Let’s accept that T34s had a quality rating of 75% due to high hardness. In tanks produced between June 41 and June 43 ask Charles if he can enter a random affect between 65% and 85% to take account of varied thickness and quality. In the same way he does with the Panther’s and Tiger’s front turret armour. Again, this would give realistic battlefield results, which is what we all want. Hope you understand what I mean, even if you do not agree with the possible solution. All the best, Kip. PS. That reminds me, most Soviet mantlets need to be modeled the same way Charles ended up doing the Panther. But I will post about that on another day. For all I know they already are modeled like that.