rune

Radley! Radley! you idiot! 1. Do you have some free time, since no one is returning your turns anyway? 2. Can you work fast and get me a quick turnaround? 3. Do you have access to some books [these are things used by most to read....you remember reading don't you?]that concern cannons and tanks of WWII? 4. Can you live under the scroll of NDA? Answer me in email. Rune

Some numbers of the VVS Post subject: According to the book: Russia and the USSR in Battles of the 20th Centry - Losses in the Armed Forces, Moscow, 2001, the following lists the number of combat aircraft overall and the number in the active air armies (in thousands). All dates are on Jan 1st except for 1941, which is June 22nd: 1941 - 20.0 / 9.2 1942 - 12.0 / 5.4 1943 - 21.9 / 12.3 1944 - 32.5 / 13.4 1945 - 43.3 / 21.5 let's say 1/2 are fighting the Germans, that is about 6,600 Combat aircraft facing the Germans. German numbers say about 1600 combat aircraft on the Eastern front during Jan. 1944. Rune

Enought Gentlemen, do not make me put in the heavy hand. By January of 1944, most operations of the Luftwaffe were shut down in the East. This was due to 3 over-whelming facts. 1. Aircraft were withdrawn fron the fronts to defend Germany. 2. fuel was starting to be a problem. 3. Pilot training had deteroriated to the point an average pilot was getting 25-40 hours of flight time. For those interested in the numbers, see: Luftwaffe numbers Rune

Yeah exactly...I was looking for some of the old notes and wanted to look at the forum, but couldn't. However the explination is far more simplier then a bias or conspiracy. I just heard from Charles: First, I did remember right, the factories were retooled to make ammunition. However, we could not get enough information on the ammo, so both tanks have EXACTLY the same ammo. So, why the difference in the penetration values? Easy, this is the exact quote from Charles' brain jar: "Are you talking about the penetration numbers printed on the screen? The difference is that the numbers are versus the "typical enemy". So the Russian T-34 is shooting at "typical German armor" in the chart, and the captured (now German) T-34 is shooting at "typical Russian armor". The difference you're seeing is in the armor and yeah, the German armor is a little higher quality." I must now feed Charles chocolate, so there you have it. Rune

Correct, I believe they made the ammo with the different materials and powder. I know they were not blunt nose. If I remember right, I think Byrd got involved. I may have this confused with the re-chambered field gun, and maybe when values changed they forgot to change the German side. What the heck, I'll email the guys and see if anyone remember from that far back. Either way, for those who think a bias, please feel free to join the conspiracy threads in the general forum. I'll email them now. Rune

No, I believe that is a bug. When changed to the German ammo, I think they forgot to change the screens. I distinctly remember the discussion on the german rounds for the t34. Also remember the screens are for information only, the formula used changed. I could ask Charles if he remembers, but he is brain jar deep in CMSF at the moment. Andreas, I would up refereeing a college game last night, will follow up tonight with the emails. Ahhh...found one reference. Zaloga, Steven J., James Grandsen, states the Germans retooled factories to make ammunition for the T34. It does not state rechambered, so not sure on that. Rune

Andreas, I have two sources that state the T34 had ammo designed for it in retooled factories. I'll email you with them when I get home [also have a follow-up to ask you on the thing you are helping me with for ToW]. of course not all t34s were redone, and often times they were just field modified. The thought at the time if I remember correctly, is to model the upgraded gun since the factories were changed for a reason, and it was thought to be the most common of the captured modifications. I did find on the net that some t34s were up armoured with schrutzen [spelling?]. Sgt_Kelly, I totally understand, however since I have been working with the guys since the CMBO alpha time [Even pre-madmatt] it just urks me that things are said without any proof, rather just with hearsay. I WAS there, and I saw how much was changed, and the great input from valera. [He asked for the change to 2 rounds per minute for the one example] Heck, a lot of the dicussion is above me...I am still not sold either way on the great StuG debate on the two armoured plates effectiveness. If the guys who know a lot more then me still cannot agree, I am not about to throw in an uninformed opinion. I remember when it was found the definitions of penetration were different for the Russians and the Germans. I remember the great 88mm debate on penetration for the Tiger II's gun. I am lucky enough to get the internal emails that even the testers do not get. The game chartered territory that no other computer game did...people forget that. I remember proving a few points to the guys and getting additional equipment in, for both sides. This was what...over 6 years ago? Sure, more things have come to light since the game was released, but it was based fairly and with no bias with the best information available at the time. Mistakes made? hindsight says yes. I can list out all the changes I wanted starting from individual armour plate and impacts to better HE effects on tanks from the bigger guns. hey, with CMX2, I know I will see some of these things. The guys have already included things in CMSF that I found. Will there be Abram's 120mm cannister type of debates? Of course... no one and no game is perfect. Rune

Bull**** jason, that is now twice you have said the team was biased. Show me proof that at the time that the game was made, that the team was biased. Valera from the Russian Battlefield was involved heavily in the making of the game, and I know, I got him in. Now, if you are saying he is German centric, please show me your proof. Are there errors in the game? Yep, but honest errors and not because the "German fans" had influence. As for the more penetration, i believe the german t34 has different ammo then the Russian t34. It has the same armour and the same spotting chance with the commander exposed and has a slightly greater chance when buttoned due to the cupola. I don't remember if optics were changed or not. You were not in the alpha and beta testing. You didn't see the debates on the figures and the input from Russian sources. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but saying the game is purposefuly biased is pure bull****. Rune

Diesel, I said right and wrong and posted the article. If you read further, it states the idea of ramming with the railroad ties had drawbacks, and the reason they went to the cutters. The ties would dislodge, the brackets would break, etc. Rune

actually you are right and wrong diesel. The Engineering with ramps and explosives were replaced by the cutters. The reason? I quote: "Another approach was conceived by tankers of the 747th Tank Battalion, attached to the 29th Division. In conjunction with Lt. Col. Robert Ploger's 121st Engineer Combat Battalion, the tankers experimented with combined engineer-tank tactics to create breaches in the hedge wide enough for a tank to pass through. During an attack on 24 June, the engineers placed a pair of 24 lb charges eight feet apart at the base of the hedge. The tactics worked, but the engineers decided that a charge double the size was really needed. Ploger began a more careful study of the problem. A tank company, penetrating one and a half miles through bocage country, would on average encounter 34 separate hedgerows. This would require 17 tons of explosive per company or about 60 tons per battalion. This was clearly beyond the resources of any engineer battalion." The quote is from Steve Zaloga. He also goes on to explain that a runup was required and often due to bombardment the tanks couldn't cross the pastures. Interesting reading for anyone interested: Hedgerow Cutters Rune

After reading this, this could be the reason to go to war. Broadband Not So Hot in Syria 10,000 users, 2 million on a waiting list Posted 2006-09-14 08:41:31 by Karl Yes, we didn't know Syria had only 10,000 broadband customers either. The nation's engaged in a $200 million plan to upgrade the nation's telecom infrastructure, left dysfunctional after "decades of bureaucracy." There are currently 350,000 dial-up users in the country of 19 million, with two million Syrians on a waiting list for a fixed-line connection. The Ministry runs the country's sole landline network operator, the Syrian Telecommunication Establishment (STE), and oversees two private wireless operators, Syriatel and Areeba. At least we know that not a lot will be coming here to buy the game. Rune

Stone75, No insult taken, none given. Now smile before I put you to work. Rune

Re-read the sentence, it is NOT what I said. The grief of a missed date, or the whine for more information is the main reason we don't post about the demo. I never said requests are whines, nor did I ever say finding out about information about the game is whining. Nor at any point did I say asking about the demo is whining. You are reading into it. Enough time wasted on this. Rune

Reminds me... ParaBellum, check the email I have for you for a question to you. Windy City, if you have some free time, email me. PseudoSimonds, you are on standby, email me if you have some free time. What do you have on the waffenvolksguitar and cowbells? Rune

My point is made, you have a post about what we were shooting for, and still there are two threads going asking about the demo. Sirocco, as minor a sentence as that, i am not going to worry about it, newcomer or not. Rune

We are working on adding more cowbell... Please stand by... Rune

You forget we have done this before. The grief of a missed date, or the whine for more information is the main reason we don't post about the demo. How about if we talked about a battle in a demo then remove it for some reason? Remember each minute here having to explain things is a minute I could spend testing or changing something. We have kept to this policy for years with no issues, just know we are working on the demo and other things, and madmatt will announce when the time comes. Rune

OK, then the official answer is the demo will be released when it is done. It has been this way since CMBO, and nothing has changed with announcements. Rune

The Polish missions are against the Germans. Rune

You better read that again, 1 main turret and 2 mg turrets from that web site. Rune

Hof, It has to do with amount of coding time vs. gameplay impact. I think Steve said it best in the CMSF forums. I quote: The problem with showing serious WIA is that we would then have to do a ton of other things to simulate what happens with them after. Animations for dragging boddies (not easy!), animations for administering some sort of first aid, and the worst is the rather substantial stuff for dealing with the WIA after they have been left behind. In real life there are guys who follow up who move WIA around, so now we'd have to simulate these guys and all that entails. KIA is almost the same, but there is a lot more room for abstraction and still show something. Don't get me wrong, in theory we would love to have this stuff simulated to the nth degree. We do understand that it is an important part of a battle, so much so that it is almost an entire simulation within a simulation. And that my dear friends is where desire and reality have a really nasty fight and reality winds up winning. We simply don't have the time nor the resources to do a battlefield casualty simulator. Other points: If you rush in this game, your troops will die-a-lot . The pace for a successful battle is much slower then the CMX1 series. Besides, I have to worry about casualties already if I want the unit and troops in my next battle. I don't want to have to get a man to drag each soldier out. Bottom line: Hard to do correctly, lots of animations, low gameplay influence over already worrying about casualties. All that being said, you never know. 1C has done a good job with the game. There are changes to be made, and other features I would love to see in long before I have to micromanage a medic to drag Hans off the battlefield, but they may surprise both of us yet. Rune

Sirocco, I have seen and placed at gun in the trenches and behind sandbags. Is this what you mean? Rune

Sammy, Last response on this, it is because of an economy of scale. Why put in 2 weeks of coding for a minor detail for one army? You are the commander already and call artillery in, what is the use of a medic on the map or a radio operator when it does not enhance gameplay and the coding time can be spent elsewhere on something else? It is a combat game, not a medic game. Add something to gameplay that affects all sides, like vehicle smoke. A much better allotment of coding time. So the why not is because you are on a slippery slope. You cannot cover every aspect of war and have the game released in our lifetime. The designers have to make decisions on what to include and not include, and what to put in a patch cause it doesn't work right, and you need more time. Remember, 1C has been working on this quite a while, and haven't been paid for it...at some point it has to be released. CMBO didn't have everything we wanted, but then CMBB added to it. I know we are working on the realism and accuracy... but how realistic is a game where you can buy your units? I cringe when I see people complain about this tank wouldn't be with that tank... well, then don't buy that tank. Again, great to have wishes, and nothing wrong with putting them down. Just don't be surprised when the answer is no. Rune

No, unless someone can show that Syria beyond a resonable doubt has received them. Rune

You have to turn on port forwarding. I am at work, so don't have the port numbers handy, but all you have to do it get the port number, and then put it in the table to connect to the ip of the computer. I know I posted the ports before, anyone got them handy? Rune