rune

While i think the job admiral keth and big dog do is above and beyond the call of duty, i have never rated a scenario there, and take rating numbers with a grain of salt. I do not post reviews, since as a designer, i know what I like, may not be what another designer likes. Matter of fact, seldom are tastes the same. Which brings about the scores. Let's look at jaegermeister, the briefing is a 3 or it is a 8 or 9. OK. The format is the same as all the other briefings on the CD [done for a specific reason], yet is marked worse? Another scenario was a tutorial, but marked down because it isn't replayable. The scenario is pretty much historical, but I marked it semi-historical. I am told to add more anti-tank guns to the Russian side. Ummm...that would destroy the whole point of the tutorial/scenario, as well as destroy the historical battle. I use the feedback as a guide, and that is all. People bring their own thoughts and prejudices to a review, if they realize it or not. How many of us have gotten a "I lost, so the scenario is unbalanced" when the next review says balance is fine? Replayability...well the engine does NOT allow for vsrious starting points, just random times the forces can show. Replayability is limited in EVERY scenario. All that being said, I love reading the comments and feedback I get. I just take it with a grain of salt. I actually get more feedback via email then I do on the depot. However, I THANK Admiral Keth and Big Dog for what they do, because I know a lot of people got my scenarios that would not have gotten them any other way. Most people don't bother reviewing....a shame really, but understandable. Last point: I differ from a lot of opinions here. I think the scenario should be played with default locations the first time through. I know I place my units historically if I can, or for a reason if not... I don't lock them however, so the next time the scenario is played, some randomness comes into play. I was lucky enough to learn from some of the best, and I got to work with some of the best for CMBB. It was a pleasure working with the lot of you, and seeing different styles, different feedback, etc. Yep, you can blame me for what went on the CD, it was basically my call. I did ask, fought for, and finally got on more scenarios then was originally planned for. I thank each and every scenario designer that worked on the scenarios for the CD, as well as thanking those others that just keep the game going by making new scenarios/operations. Rune

When it was tested it was a 60-40 split for which side won. You are correct, it is either a slaughter, or the massed armour can work. SPOILER * * * * * * * * * You have to use the Russian real life tactic of speed. Look over the terrain, the dips and dry creeks beds to get you to the main river bed, but you have to beat the Panthers there. Hold the flags, and the Panthers have no choice but to close the distance into your lethal range. Slug it out, and your tanks will be wiped from the map. From the German Side against the AI, depends on if the Soviets rush the flag or not. If the AI does the right thing, and I have seen it happen, then no bonus is necessary. If the computer takes its time, then yes, I would add 25%. How do you know what the comptuer is going to do? You don't. It is why I didn't put a rtecommendation in, as it depends on the randomness of the AI. However, the scenario does do what is intended. The Germans see when the Panther was used correctly, unlike the first commander, it is awesome. The Russians learn speed is life on the steppes. Fail to close in, and you die. You have to hit the Panthers in their weak spots [the sides]. Play it fromt he Russian side and see how you do. Have been debating about putting in play as two player or as the Russians, but the AI has won as the Russians. Haven't made up my mind yet. Rune

Kloss, You have NO idea what was brought up and what wasn't during beta testing. You have no idea what was tested, what was changed, or what bugs we found before release. In other words, you are speaking of stuff you do NOT know about. Let us look what was said: Steve has said previously that the universal turret size will not change until the engine rewrite. So, obviously Steve knew about the turret. Obviously it was not addressed. Therefore, it is not a bug but the way the game is designed. Since it will be addressed in the engine re-write, why would beta testers say it is a bug? Rune

I am sorry...what part of People who worked hard did you not understand? Since I am still testing things instead of playing...maybe I know? Also, notice you didn't comment on your being wrong? Rune

You are going to complain about beta testers, but you are the one who is wrong? The terrain in Korshun Relief in the scenario and the briefing show it as muddy. If that is an example of how you research, don't ever test anything. I also just tested Panzer IVs vs IS2. Oh look, the Panzers died. How many times, at what range, and what conditions did you test? What is an outlier? You want an answer? Try be civil and ask a question, instead of insulting people who worked hard. Rune

It is posted in another thread, but to sum up, if he is a wire spotter, he cannot embark. Radio spotters can. Rune

Yep, be a part of the Stalingrad pack. Rune

Yes, but obviously they never got that far...the Russians had broke through, and the unit was used to dam the flood, which they could not do, since the Russians were pouring through. The Russians actually accomplished what they hoped for in little Saturn, and at one point, took control of thr closest airfields and rail that were trying to supply Stalingrad. I have created a scenario on the German counter-attack to take back the airfield, it is in the final testing phase. Rune

Noloff SPOILER! * * * * * * * * * * * The initial deployments are weak. Sure they have a couple of things that can take out your tanks, but all together they are rather weak. The initial assault by the Soviets, altho suffering heavy casualties, broke through the line, and the Panzer unit that move up to support could not stop the flood of Russian troops. You need to do the same. Rune

Henri, Difficulty is too subjective a thing. A lot of people are having problems with cemetary hill, but I tested it for Andreas, and wiped out the defenders with little loss. To me, I think it was a great scenario, average in difficulty, but to a lot of people, it is too difficult. Just too difficult to met a happy medium with so many different types of players. As for a Rune Pak, I already have one done, but it won't be released until the scenarios in it are used in 2 tourneys and in the Stalingrad pack. I also made a brand new Kursk scenario on some of the infantry battles over the hedgehogs, but it is still in testing. As for more tutorials, the game ia already out. I don't think addiing or changing things int he scenarios or manual will happen now. Rune

Coffin, That's the fun of a scenario. Play it again, use different tactics and see how you do. SPOILER * * * * * * * * * You have to keep the Tigers interested in the right hand side, and your left can catch them in the side. Keep your tank commanders unbuttoned to get the draw on them. I moved my infantry up the center and use the right hand side tanks to deal with the infantry in the buildings, and to keep the Tigers busy. Do not go up the road, have those tanks go more to the left. Let me know how it goes on your next try. A collasping building does make for a good smoke screen. Rune

Henri, There is a beginners tutorial, The Iron Roadblock. The problem with making so many tutorials, is: 1. It takes a LOT of time to make the scenario, then get someone to actually create the text. If you notice, I made the scenario while others did the harder work of creating the tutorial. 2. It would be a pain to have all these tutorials if done translated to different languages. 3. Some people don't even bother learning it was a tutorial, and just go off on playability and balance. Hey guys, it is a tutorial. 4. Assume in a tutorial the scenario designer put units in a position for a reason. Altering the starting positions, or allowing the AI, to changes the tutorial. Thanks for the good words about the scenario. I thank the people who did the harder work with the actual text. Rune

SPOILERS!!!!!!!! * * * * * * * * * * Divide your force. The left side is open and you can catch the Tigers napping. You still have to support on the right or your infantry gets slaughtered. Also a little bit of luck comes in on this with your air power. As BH said, fear the 88s. In testing, both sides managed to win this one against a human player. Rune

Scenario did not change. The directions are reversed...I think he wanted to do everything from the viewpoint of the Germans, which confuses people. Rune

Known bug with the NVidia driver, and other games are also having problems. Use the 30.82 or the 27.XX drivers. Rune [ October 25, 2002, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

Not a bug in the scneario itself, but a bug that is fixed in the patch. Rune

Said it before will repeat it. it is NOT the code. Proof? If you use the 30.82 driver, fsaa on the nvidia works absolutely well. Nvidia changed something in the drivers. Table fog is ATI's fault. Proof? The put table fog in the drivers for the Mac, but NOT in the windows drivers. Why? Vertex fog does work, but Charles coded in table fog, since EVERY OTHER card supports it. Don't blame the code for things it isn't responsible for. Rune

Red Parachutes on the CD is a historical drop also. Rune

The placement was on purpose, and as stated, bogging is patched in version 1.01. However, still do not use a command faster then move or hunt to try to keep from bogging. Rune

Information about the American review of the T34: Armor A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel. In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability (the situation with American armor was even worse. Engineers in Aberdeen have criticized their armor on Shermans. Soviet engineers have agreed with them because during the comparative trials Soviet ZIS-3 gun could penetrate Sherman's galcis from 1100 metres - Valera). As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.) Rune

Blame History then. Rune

Better look at the tanks again, the Russians have a mix of tankers. I just double checked. Rune

Depends on the model of the T34. The model 40 only had 45mm or armor. The Russians themselves stated the T34 was inferior to the Panzer III and you can see the document on www.battlefield.ru. The later models were up-armored to 65 and 70 mm of armor, because of the problems early war. In 1943, there are like 4-5 models of the t34/76 alone. Lets use the table from http://www.panzerworld.net/APT.htm Remember these are at 30 degree angle. The armor you are hitting might not be. The 75mmL24 could penetrate 39mm or armor at 30 degrees at 500 meters. Factor in the armor was prone to shattering [also from www.battlefield.ru] so the armor is set to 90%. So realistically, depending on the angle of the strike, the 75mmL24 could take out the early T34s. Let's look at the long 50mm. 59mm at 500 meters, depending on the ammo. Early T34s are dead meat, later ones with 60mm coould also be destroyed depending on the angle it hit. ALso factor in the armor problems cited, and I think the model 43 T34 was also armored at 90%, then kills are possible up to 700-800 meters i would guess. These are table results, and do not even factor in brinell hardness, or other factors that rexford explains very well in the other thread. Remember, CMBB does NOT use tables, but math formulas. The formula matches test results very closely. As for the KV-1, make sure they are NOT KV-1S, a model where armour was dropped to increase performance. As Madmatt likes to say, the "s" designation stands for Sucks. Try Iron Roadblock and see how the majority of early war tanks fared against the KV-1. Rune [ October 21, 2002, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

Andreas, I may take you up on that. Obviously my mom isn't German Military savy. Will get the words when I call her tonight. I THINK one of the terms was Das Gewehr manlet. I assume it means gun manlet, but not sure. The other was the description of so many Russian tanks, will see if I can find out what the term was. Rune [ October 21, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

No Rune