aka_tom_w

some of this maybe somewhat off topic but it it here is... (It was a GREAT thread 13 pages LONG!) If you are interested this is it: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=009258 ""Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division: The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories. Superior Flotation. Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome. The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate. The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns. German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy. German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks. The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression. The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. " -Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A" " "Big Time Software Administrator Member # 42 posted September 21, 2000 03:56 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Helge, To date this thread has produced nothing more than various different assortments of conjecture as to why CM's output differs from certain ballistics tests. This would be fine, and even enjoyable, if it wasn't (at times) intended to be personal. As you say, ballistics is not something that is easy to simulate. It is also, as this thread has clearly shown, not easy to document first hand. Or at least, it is not easy to know exactly what this 1st hand documention means some 55 years after the fact. Our point has been, from the start, that CM's treatment is accurate. Our approach, which *is* scientifically sound (even if it turns out it contains some flaws), has been repeatedly called into question and at times ridiculed without any coherent counter position based on science, logic, and data combined. It is really hard not to take things personally when some of the things said here were definitely intended to be personal. But the thread remains open. Why? Because we have no interest in shutting down this thread because WHO KNOWS... something might actually come from it. Stranger things have been known to happen Steve " "danielh Member Member # 2160 posted September 30, 2000 04:16 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ John, So what sources are accepted ? The formulas used do undermine the wrong "Jentz" figures do not represent reality, but instead are rough assumptions of reality, for instance the effects of the explosive charge at a near penetrating hit are not represented. To get the real values through maths a much more complex model would have to be choosen incorporating an endless count of variables. What is important is the following: The 88/KwK43 and 88/L56 could kill any allied tank up to 1000 yards. Shells from a 8,8 cm bouncing off a jumbo under 1000 m is ridicolous. A US-tanker stated when asked to improve armor for the M4: "A 8.8 cm penetrates any practical armor." Have you read the collected statements of US-tankers provided by Grisha ? (Or are these sources also rendered inacurate ?) I quote just a few findings: - Superior mobility of Pz V against M4 even with the new suspension - Far superior sights - Far superior guns - Superior projectiles (Souped up...) - Far superior acuraccy at ranges over 1000 m - US 90 mm believed to be inferior to 88/KwK43 - HVAP remedies only partly for the 76 mm These quotes are from men actually being there... Why not accept it ? Greets Daniel" All from that Thread -tom w [ April 30, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

No problem Sodball I was just mentioning that "88 lacks punch" thread specifically because it ALSO dealt with accuracy issues IIRC. -tom w

OK won't argue with you there Just thought I'd mention that this topic has been discussed to death here in the past. I'm sure you remember the "88 lacks Punch" thread -tom w

This is not the first time this has come up Doh! Does anyone here remember the "88 lacks punch" thread.... it had to be the MOTHER of all 88 complaining threads. I think Steve and Charles posted to it. If you look at the history of the patchs to CMBO you will see they have increased the accuracy of all guns in tanks at two times, one patch lists increased accuracy at long range and the range for the Tiger was extended beyond the original progrmaing decision (bug I think they tried to call it?) to limit the spotting distance of the Tiger to no more than about 2000 m if I recall correctly. An another seperate patch lists increased accuracy at short range for all guns in tanks as well. It would seem to me (and I'm only guessing here) that a Tiger with a reg crew should get a first shot hit on a Sherm at 250m over %90 of the time. Is that TOO accurate? There have been some old threads with some VERY techincal imformation in them as to the percentage of the dispersal effect of the 88mm round and how if a Tiger crew at a certain distance (close) aimed at the center of a tank (the tank being about 2m high) would be SURE to hit some part of the tank because at that close of a range the effect of the dispersal (inaccuracy) was as small as .25m (I'm totally guessing here) so the 88 mm round, because if its VERY flat trajectory, basically could not miss, and was sure to hit some part of the target.There is of course MUCH more to this theoretical explanation, those were just some numbers I GUESSED off the top of my head to demonstrate the principle, as I only recall the "gist" of the discussion as it was highly technical in nature, and worth re-reading. If one searches the archives for discussions on the accuracy of the 88mm weapon in CMBO there is ALL kinds of really great stats and theories and propositions with GOOD physics equations behind them as to why this game should model the 88mm with MORE accuracy than we currently see in the game. I'm not sure what Rexford's member number is, but you search for 88 accuracy and use his member number you will find plenty of GREAT information to read and enjoy. If you are lazy my member number is 1515 and I did participate in some of those discusions. -tom w [ April 30, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

not to my knowledge and I have been watching it was Murphe I think see the New Snow thread for Tom's BoB for more info -tom w

not to my knowledge and I have been watching it was Murphe I think see the New Snow thread for Tom's BoB for more info -tom w

What? Again? The other web sites say early summer 2002 Late June sounds about right -tom w

"It seems like just yesterday that I'd plan a whole weekend of beer, cigars and PanzerBlitz with a buddy. Stay up all night playing, sleep in, go to a greasy diner for a late breakfast" Oh MAN! those were the DAYS We would gather 5 or 6 of us and Play Risk until the armies grew so large we were using chits of paper for number holders. We played Thrid Reich and World in Flames and that Other monster map with the spiral producution chart, that looked like a galaxy or something, and then the damn CAT moved stuff! We used to use the whole pool table in my friend's basement to set up those monster campaign games. We could play all weekend and sometimes Monday and/or friday TOO in the winter if it was a SNOW day! I'm not sure how I passed high school? All I ever did ALL weekend was play wargames with the guys -tom w [ April 29, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

married full time Mac Tech Job 40 hrs /wk 7 month old son Play CMBO: 1 or 2 games against the AI per week (I know the AI sucks) moslty I get my thrills out this game by posting to the forum on lunch breaks and during work ONE TCP/IP per month if I'm lucky NO PBEM turns or games at present -tom w

Sure I'm interested when you find the time .... -tom w

seems like a good review as we wait for CMBB and the NEW Extreme FOW can't wait -tom w

this thread should be promoted to the status of having its VERY OWN forum 'cause its so hard to find sometimes -tom w

Hey Murph!! where is that Wheat Mod anyway?? you previewed it and it looked great and then we never saw it again the Snow looks great too!! where can we all get that new snow and that Wheat Mod you hve been teasing us with??? :confused: -tom w</font>

Well I guess that's about that! oh well, it was fun while it lasted -tom w

ok thanks for the prompt reply -tom w

Yes you can. The retail version will include a big magic pen to directly draw onto the Combat Mission screen. The pen will work with Photoshop 6 but not with Photoshop 7, or so I am told.</font>

"I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution." OK that sounds good. I have very little idea of how Extreme FOW will be implimented in CMBB so of course I am only guessing as to how Relative Spotting might be part of the Borg problem in CM II. "Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels." That sounds very positive. "When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic." WELL OK! if thats an invitation to participate in discusions on the Design of CM II with respect to Simulated Relative Spotting and the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) problem, then I can't wait to get started . I'm sure lots of folks here would be interested in participating. As you can imagine we all CAN'T wait to see exactly HOW Extreme FOW works in CMBB and your latest solutions and tweaks! -tom w

Thanks Steve I think you and everyone else here has figured that this is the basic summary of my position on this issue: "...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve? I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat." sorry to repeat that. From what I understand, yourself (and Most folks here it woud seem) will be comfortable with the Player responding to an enemey threat that is only identified and spotted by one friendly unit by directing all other friendly units in the vicinity to fire at that location or start to move toward that location, (EVEN from WAY across the map) if this is an acceptable situation as a result of the NEW Relative Spotting protocol, to most folks here then I should simply agree to live with it and retire back to that old gunnery optics discussion that was so much fun. (Posted in the very BEST of humour) Thanks again its a GREAT game and chatting about it on this forum is even MORE fun than playing sometimes -tom w [ April 26, 2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Steve Thanks for the the latest post. I would be thrilled to think you actually read every post in this thread. :eek: I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented. Thanks -tom w [ April 26, 2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

wow that map was cool can you make those "notes" on it right in the game??? -tom w

Great Rubble and nice partial destruction on the building I see someone has discovered the "Automate- Web Photo Gallery" command. It works GREAT! if you use Photoshop (and it is STILL THE only image manipulation tool IMHO) and you have not discovered the joys of Automate- Web Photo Gallery Check it out! NICE screen shots, they look beautiful! Thanks!! -tom w [ April 26, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Does anyone here know (for certain) any of the answers to these questions. I could make some guesses but I'm not sure they would be right. -tom w

These are GOOD questions ! I'm not sure anyone here REALLY knows the answers. -tom w

First off before you read this, let me state (again) Muskin is some person who I don't know AT ALL who sends me e-mail and asks me to post here. I have no idea who he/she (?) is If you have any clue who this person sounds like you think you know what other identity they might go by please e-mail me or post your thoughts here. I'm concerned some of you might think I have spontaneously developed Multiple Personalities or I'm prone to delusion or something wierd like that. Anyway (my rant aside) here is his last post: From Muskin aka_tom_w says: "If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the Player is the CAUSE of the Borg-Like Absolute Spotting problem because the Player knows ALL, sees All and Commands All." Muskin: Exactly. Unless BTS makes a multiplayer game where each player only commands a platoon or less, there is no resolution to the BORG being the HUMAN'S fault. The game should not feed the Borg. DO NOT FEED THE BORG! It is my new motto. There will always be the people that like things the way they are. There are always people that like things a little differently. I haven't read that many posts from people demanding that the game go back to rev 1.1. I also feel that the majority play the game on full FOW and will move to Extreme FOW once CMBB comes out. Who knows if they wouldnt go for Super-Extremely Realistic Anti-Borg FOW. (tom edits: SERA-B FOW ) In the HMG example I gave, I never said that the russian PPSH unit was the greatest threat TO THE HMG! It was the greatest threat to the players agenda. I wonder if some people want a TACAI at all? Maybe the TACAI can be a variable setting? A slider that the player can preset before the battle (from 'take control' to 'follow orders robot'). maybe it can be set for each platoon lets say. I was a squad leader (well mostly assistant SL but also SL) and most actions I would take were really drills. Preset, undserstood actions that I could holler out and the troopies' **** would snap to action. It was all from the platoon commander's direction that this flowed and his actions flowed from the Comp CO (mostly top). Its a team effort and loose cannons are discouraged because they endanger the group effort. My contention is that most of these drills can easily be performed by the TACAI. Most movement orders are really 'Command Decisions' and aren't within the realm of the TACAI. Muskin [ April 26, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.</font>