aka_tom_w

Who said Russian Tank Babes in Bikini's? :cool: Are you talking about A Special edition CMBB with an hot graphic of a 3D Playmate or Russian babe with a different model/babe (i.e. Blonde, Redhead etc.) lying on the deck of EVERY different AFV?? something like this: lying on every tank! What are there? over 300 different vehicles represented in CMBB?! That would be a VERY special Special Edition! Count me in! -tom w [ August 19, 2002, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Thanks for the screen shots and info from WWII online. they are helpful I think. Nice pics -tom w

Maybe I'm wrong.. BUT when I hear the word Strategic, I think of the planning and attacking on the BIG international sized map, with Army Groups and divisions, and strateguc air command bombers, and entire navies and naval battle groups and task forces. (BIG picture) When I think of operations I think one division or several battelions. When I think of tactics I think of moving and attacking and planning with Companies, Squads and platoons (as mentioned). How's that? -tom w [ August 19, 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Of course this magical gizmo sounds like somthing that is only available on a PC? :mad: No? -tom w

try this http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=022774;p= -tom w

lost on the 3rd page? WHAT?!! bump -tom w

THe original CMBO disk was a hybrid the CDV disks from that distributor in Europe are PC only I think. do you have the CMBO disk now? Where did you get it from? if BFC mailed it to you then you can bet it is a hybrid so playing it on either a MAC or PC should be no problem -tom w

and make that a BIG cup of "Shut the Hell Up" -tom w

anything further here? great thread That was ALOT of hard work on the Part of the Diceman to run all those test and post those charts. THANKS! nice work. -tom w

Well if it takes the now wildly circulated "estimated" 2.5 years to develop the NEXT master piece Combat Mission game (CM II) AND if the counting on that 2.5 doesn't start until Jan 2003 (just a guess here) then we aren't going to see that next new game until the summer of 2005, I would guess that by then we will all have newer faster computers. And the way they do things at BFC I would guess they will target computers that will be average consumer level computers that are 18-24 months OLD by the summer of 2005 so the average computer you can buy at Christmas 2003 would be my totally homegrown GUESS for the next new hardware standard for CMII How's that? -tom w [ August 16, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

great thread worth a bump -tom w

Yes I agree with that too, good point More FOW for sure those stinking POW's problably wouldn't give you any real reliable intel any way, but your cyber troops might have "fun" interogating them .... but that's ANOTHTER video game all together I think :confused: ! -tom w [ August 16, 2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

More on Optics From: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=026043 " Moon Administrator Member # 386 posted August 15, 2002 06:40 AM Better rangefinding is only one of the capabilities of good optics that CMBB models. But there is more than that. Narrow field of view making tracking of moving targets more difficult for some tanks(especially at close ranges), for example. Or nighttime and adverse weather (including temperature) sighting abilities (impacting ranges and spotting chances). Besides simply rating optics as "good", other "ratings" include for example "narrow" or "long range" or "binocular" to simulate this. Martin -------------------- "Nobody dies." - When Trumpets Fade " Moon Administrator Member # 386 posted August 15, 2002 05:45 PM Some good and correct points about binocular systems. Perception of depth IS improved, even without "donkey ears" binoculars systems, and especially when one has to look through the sight for more than just a few minutes. All the points mentioned (ease of use, eye strain etc.) really combine into making binocular systems somewhat superior to a monocular system in viewing quality, which really is what is rated in CMBB, with various implications on gameplay. The reason why the binocular sights were dropped from what I read was due to ease of production and complexity of design more than anything else. Dual-magnification optics are taken into consideration, as well as optical fillers (which only the Germans used in a way that it actually improved sighting it seems) and even glass quality (affecting among other things edge sharpness and contrast, the most visible thing are the "bubbles" somebody mentioned in this thread, which were often found in poor Allied sights, especially early war). Optics with high magnification also behave in the game as you would expect - excelling at long ranges, but rather detrimental when firing at moving targets at short ranges. And so on... but really what has to be kept in mind is this - optics can tilt the favor to one tank or another in a one on one duel, but they are rarely decisive all by themselves, as their effects on armored shootouts, all things considered, are fairly small. In your typical CMBB style combat situation, you can fire at a tank even when you can't see all the bolts on its armor It's the extreme ranges (Steppe) and environmental conditions (fog, night, rain etc.) where differences in optics start to really kick in. -------------------- "Nobody dies." - When Trumpets Fade"

Why not just consider BORG SPOTTING an "artifact" of interogation of prisoners you have not even captured yet ! "Would the infantry Lt. know what was happening with the tanks on the other flank? Suppose the CO changes deployments in the meantime... you get the idea." you will find out MORE intel about what is REALLY actually transpiring on the CMBO battle field from BORG spotting than you will ever find out if you attempted to model prisoner interogation! -tom w

what draws me to CMBO? I was asCMilated by the CM Borg and had no other choice, early on in the Beta Demo phase. -tom w

Zoom is very handy, and helps deal with FOV issues because you can quickly zoom out. Zoom lenses don't produce as clear a picture as non-zoom (i.e., prime) lenses, but they're definitely what you want to have in a tank battle. It is important to keep in mind that shooting at a tank is different from photographing a tank, and slight lens imperfections wouldn't compromise gunnery optics at all. Filters do matter at the margins, especially in glare or low-light situations. Fog is more problematic because of the effect that fog has on lenses. Condensation is one obvious problem, but optics can also get fog on the inside, which is not ideal and which can persist after the actual fog has gone. (Modern higher-quality lenses use generally use a "nitrogen purging" process that replaces the oxygen inside the lenses with nitrogen (or another gas - argon works, too), which prevents fogging on the inside of the optics. I don't think that the Germans did this in WWII, though. Is this a result of the magnification and zoom aspect of the lenses, or is it a lens quality issue? That is, is the difference in PE primarily due to the design of the optics or the manufacture of the lenses?</font>

It's the extreme ranges (Steppe) and environmental conditions (fog,night, rain etc.) where differences in optics start to really kick in. AS THEY SHOULD..... sounds like all is well with the new optics modeling. ! -tom w [ August 15, 2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Roger THAT! and that is NOT how it is modeled in CMBO, Even the Hellcat and Greyhoud WITHOUT the gyro bonus are absolutely deadly on the fast move. Want Gamey? Engage some Big German cats with a bunch of hellcat and Greyhound, never let them stay still or move at less than FAST speed, and have them aim and shoot while fast moving on the flanks, and you too will be amazed how well they can hit and KILL from the flanks on the fast move, (sure, you need to engage at close range (less than 500m for this tactic, but it works!) -tom w

BOTH excuses are good ones that's about right great Comments Mr. Marine Guy! (very entertaining!) -tom w

If they (Steve and/or Charles) are reading this I wonder if I might humbly suggest that the "new" 88mm AT gun be "featured" in one of the Demo Scenarios as a demonstration of the new way it is modeled? (I'm sure they have already thought of that! I hope) I know we are more than a month away from the release of the demo and demo scenario(s) BUT it would be nice to have the now newly legendary 88mm AT gun in one of them now that optics are in (I am reminded of the scenario in the orginal CMBO demo (Riesberg I think), where that 88mm was sort of disappointing when it came down to knocking out those attacking Sherms, because it would occasionally miss and then give away its location then rather promptly get knocked out by Sherm HE rounds. :confused: ) anyway food for thought! thanks again -tom w [ August 15, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Maybe he was refering to binocular "Donkeys ears" which the spotter on the 88 anti tank flak gun would have used to more accurately determine range. Binocular opitics may in fact only refer to an enhanced ability to determine range when used by the spotter, (eg the commander of a tank or the spotter on an 88mm AT flak gun?) Just guessing? -tom w

Thanks for the reply Martin ! That sounds great. We are all (I think ) enthusiastically awaiting CMBB AND its new optics modeling! Your post makes it sound like CMBB will be MUCH more historically accurate and realistic with regard to gunnery optics compared its earlier and now becoming, distant cousin, CMBO! (he he Little gunnery range joke there, get it? "distant"? Ok its early it was a BAD joke.... chortle) You know we JUST CAN'T WAIT to play with and the new ballistics, gunnery, damage and optics models in CMBB (not to mention Extreme FOW and all the rest of the goodies!!! ) -tom w [ August 15, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I have not been to any previews... BUT if I understand this issue correctly, better optics is VERY closely related to the ability to accurately determine the range to the target. Most German optics in tanks had superior range finding capability due to the way they were designed. I'm afraid I don't know much about Russian gunnery optics. With Optics now being modeled in CMBB, we can see (from the previews) that experienced crews can now determine range and target location and the shot fall more accurately and this (it would seem) can be modeled more correctly in CMBB resulting in the units being able to get the shot on target with fewer misses I would guess, this means (I suspect) MORE first shot kills and much quicker ability (within 2-3 shots for an experienced crew) to accuratly lay the round on the target. I know it is ONLY a video game but if you want to play around with WWII gun accuracy and range determintation check out Panzer Elite (Special Edition now available) and play both the Germans and American with REALISTIC ballistics and try to determine the range and site the gun and lay the round on target while in the middle of a tank battle while being shot at from things you can't see! Its like CMBO with Ironman (Frankco's) rules (view the battle from level one only) STRICTLY enforced. Its clear to me the German sights have the advantage in range determination. check out these sites for more info: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/turret/pegunnery/pegunnery.shtml http://www.panzerelite.com/zeiss/zeiss.html and this page ALONE has good info on range determination: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pref8u/PEgunneryGER.htm see this pic "These Tips require the 1000m calibration for the German Site - else it isn't really "full realism" gunnery PE's german gunsight is calibrated for 500m. To get the 1000m calibration just use notepad or edit to open PE_Game.ini from in C:\Program Files\Psygnosis\Panzer Elite\Data and change aimscale1=16384 and aimscale2=16384 for both zoom levels of the german sight. This does not effect the mg sights or US sights. P.S. The big triangles height in the german sight is 4m at 1000m and the smalls are 2m at 1000m. This lets you estimate the range to the target by how much triangle is covered by the target. TIP 1: How to gauge range with the German Sight After estimating the range by how much triangle the tank covers set the sight to that range by using F9 / F10, Depending on where your shot lands you may change the range setting or just move the sight to compensate for how much you missed." End Quote from Page. tom notes: That pic above assumes the gunner has identified a Allied Sherman and KNOWS it is 3 meters high, then doing FAST math in his head he figures if that 3 meter object takes up ALL if my 4m (the big one) triangle then the target must be 750m (3/4 of 1000m) away and I will then dial in the correct range before I fire to hit the target. You can see this makes sense when the target is 3m high and takes up .75 of the big triangle the the gunner then guesses that the target is 1000m away. hows that? (I have been practicing at PE gunnery using the German Panzer Mk IV, on my best day with an "Outstanding crew" using REALISTIC ballistics (I aimed, and HIT "by hand" (on the mouse) each kill acting alone as the gunner), I had 33 kills in one turkey shoot scenario (La Haye) using all the AP and HE I had. I accounted for 33 dead Allied Sherms at an average range of 1450m from a GOOD hill top position overlooking a valley that they were all advancing into. This was a very unusual result. But it sure was FUN! -tom w P.S. Can't wait for CMBB??? Try Panzer Elite in the mean time! [ August 15, 2002, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Optics not at all modeld in CMBO. Hit probablities of moving shooter against standing target and vice versa plain broken, announced to be CMBB-corrected in a recent thread.</font>

I've wondered about this too. From what I've gathered reading here, the answer is "No." 1) CMBO limits engagement range, so the PzIV can't take full advantage of its gun. 2) CMBO doesn't treat the PzIV's small weakly armored turret as a _small_ weakly armored turret. 3) CMBO doesn't model the mantlet, which would add some armor where the PzIV often needs it most. 4) CMBO might treat the Sherman's gyro to favorably, and probably don't treat the PzIV's optics favorably enough. If that isn't correct it should act as good grog bait, and we'll find out what is correct.</font>