aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patgod: It's all about the zeis optics man. they let you "guestarange" from the actual gun sight. @ the calibrated range(usually 1000m) a 4m wide target will be 4mils in the center triangle(which is 4mils itself) a 4m tall target will be....well you guessed it 4 mils tall, and fit inside the 4mil tall triangle. your sherman was sighted, then optics were calibrated down to 500m, centered, and then wasted. as for the american....lucky shot. P.S. i dont suggest buying it, but wwiiol can give you a good idea of gun ranges. despite the fact the gunsights are not correctly done yet. i can get first hit kills out to and far beyond 700m. though the magnification is too high at the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't get Me Started about Zeiss optics!! (NOT modeled here!) See this Thread if you want more..... http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009258 And this thread is Specifically about German Gunnery optics (appear Lacking).... http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010850 Good luck! -tom w [ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Steve Writes: "Brief pauses are up to the player. You can very easily do them. If we put in brief firing halts into the system we would stop the vehicle when it fired since it would be highly unrealistic to keep it moving since target tracking and physics are linked to such action. quote: If they are not abstracted, they should be, as doctrine and (most) common practice by '44 appeared to be brief halts. True, but this is up to the player. There are a half dozen ways of doing this, but generally they center on the HUNT order, giving Pause orders during the middle of a move, or halting orders completely and then replotting using the C&C penalty as a pause of sorts." Those folks here who think the game should model the tank actually stopping and firing and then moving on when NOT ordered to advance on a hunt order are presumably requesting this feature so they can avoid the firing while moving penalty modifier then move on, but they will still lose the second shot target aquistion modifier. Here's my point, I still don't believe that the penalty you pay for firing on the FAST move is really all that substantial so you "could" suggest or infer that this not so substantial penalty applied to firing on the fast move "sort of" abstracts the kind of targeting accuracy you would get if your tank stopped and fired which it CLEARLY does NOT in CMBO while firing on the FAST move. I'm still ranting on about this because I could NOT believe my eyes the first time a played the Beta Demo when those three Hellcats came flying down the hill at warp 9 firing on the FAST move of course and Nailed that Tiger I and took it out. Right there I thought that must the Allies Secret weapon, Hell for all I know that fast Hellcat must have been the secret weapon the Allies needed to win the war . Anyway the only way to fix this that I can see, would be to ADD another order that says fire on the move BUT stop to do so than Then Move on, this would be different then the Hunt order. I think the Hunt order works just fine. Here's another idea.... OR not penalize firing while on the MOVE, and tell us the this new Fire on the MOVE order abstracts the move and fire order and while tanks don't actually stop moving to fire it is modeled. In any case there REALY should two sets of firing on the move penalty modifiers, first the modifier (Much more substantial than it is now, i.e. Hard to get a hit) for firing on the FAST move, and then a different and MORE generous modifier for firing on the Move, thus implying the only real penalties for firing on the Move would be a slower ROF and No target acquistion bonus after every round, the "No target acquistion bonus" is in the game already, but I'm not sure about the slower ROF for firing on the move. AND of course the ROF for firing on the fast move should be slower than while firing on the move. Again thanks to Steve and all the contributors here, lets stay focused on how we can make positive and constructive comments and suggestions for how this feature can be modeled in CMBB. Thanks All -tom w [ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: Would it work to area target right next to them so that your tanks fire HE? The blast of a 75mm should be enough to take them out. I've disabled tanks that way. It lets you be just outside of LOS so that the enemy can't fire directly back at you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> actually no, that is the problem niether HE or AP has much efect on them. small arms up close seems to KO them better than any thing else. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pilgrim: Snake Eyes, Stixx: Thanks for the quick responses and the polite way of slapping me and telling me to wake up. aka_tom_w: Wow, thanks for the links. That's *exactly* what I was looking for. Did you use the search? What search terms did you enter? tss: Thanks for the anecdotes, showing both long-range incredibly accuracy and short range misses. I was ROFLOL at some of those, but please, no more. It's a dead giveaway to my boss that I'm not doing engineering work if I'm laughing my head off as he walks by. The mental picture of that entire scene is priceless... Thanks again, all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure no problem I used my member number 1515 and the word gunnery to do the search Since I knew I posted in MOST gunnery threads I searched with my member number. if you want EVEN more info look up Rexford's member number and use it and type in gunnery or accuracy and you will be so busy reading technical details you will never have time to play CMBO again !! The search when it is narrowed to one members posts (i.e. Rexford or me) should only take about 3-4 minutes ok? Good luck! -tom w

"3. Before I bought CM, I read in a review that of course I cannot find now, that the design team "Upped the to-hit percentage of tanks and AT guns in a patch (BTW, I'm at 1.12), even though the original percentages were based on tons of research", or something like that. Since the search function of this board seems to really hate me, was there a thread about this? Was it discussed? Did the design team give their reasons for changing their original numbers?" The original numbers were modified because it was proven by more than a few folks (read Grogs) posting here that their original chance to hit percentages were too conservative and many here (including myself) were loudly complaining that there were too many misses a short range and 500m is SHORT range. not to sound grog like myself, here are some threads on gunnery accuracy you may be interested in http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004572 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=014199 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009258 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009792 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010850 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=011342 this one: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=014094 is about "gunnery equation modifed slightly" Steve G comments Here about accuracy in CMBO: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=014199&p=3 ALSO begin new to the game please bear in mind that tanks can and will shoot RIGHT directly through ALL vehciles live or dead that are not smoking ONLY smoking vehciles block LOS more gunery threads to follow -tom w [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

we have been over this one many times This may sound strange but most of us here now believe that combat in CMBO and especially tank gunnery are modeled MORE accurately than any other WWII game or simulation has ever modeled them. for instance in the board game Tobruk (I happen to have it handy) a German Marder III with a 76.2mm ® main weapon at 525 m needs a roll of 5 or more on two six sided dice to get a first shot hit. The game models Armoured combat in the Desert around 1942.So back to the point in this case in the game on a roll of two dice ONLY a roll of 2,3,or 4 will MISS at 525 m. ANd the legendary 88 mm Flak needs a roll of 7 or greater to get a first shot hit ALL the way out to 1200m in Tobruk. Rolling a 7 or greater on two six sided dice is NOT hard given a 30 sec turn and an axquired rate of fire of 7(!!!) rounds every 30 secs!! Those Damn 88's were MURDER in Tobruk and my friends ALWAYS suckered me into playing the Brits since my dad was from the UK. SO... What did we learn? CMBO is not like Tobruk or ASL or SL when it comes to armoured combat but you will find most folks here think it is VERY historically accurate and more realistic than any other game. Good luck When you get good, play a real human opponent via TCP/IP and get set for the thrill of your life! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sock Monkey: Hey, can somebody post the email addresses of the people in the tournament?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is what I have: Here is the list of players participating in the "Combined Arms CASH Tourney". Each one of you must play one game against every person on the list. It is the players' responsibility to contact each other and iron out the game details. As you complete the games both players should send the final score to me so I can update your total points. Having a final from both players in a contest will insure that both players agree on the final score. All games are limited to 25 turns +/- 4 using the BER (The secure version of the BER will be out very soon) All games are limited to a maximum of 1,500 pts. All games must follow CAL Rules as posted at TH. All games must be completed by September 1, 2001. PLEASE try to make it by this date. The_Capt k.lan@roadrunner.nf.net aka_tom_w tom_w@mac.com KelsieD ruhlir@home.com Stalin's Organ mikecampbell@paradise.net.nz Sajer malcock33@aol.com Sock Monkey bbaker@biomail.ucsd.edu Kiwi Joe richy@xtra.co.nz GClement gclement@amtelecom.net Bog user853818@aol.com labappel bappel@triad.rr.com Post to the tournament thread if you have any questions or problems. Send game results to Mikeman@cablelynx.com Good Luck Gentlemen!! Treeburst out.

I'm still reading this thread with GREAT interest. Lets all try to focus (just a suggestion here ) on how we can help Steve and Charles model shooting on the move better in CMBB. What where the important technical considerations on the Eastern Front? Which vehicles from which Side fired on the move? How accurate were they? What was the SOP for firing on the move? Who? When? Where? I think it is clear that we will not be getting any more updates or patches to CMBO so with that in mind the purpose of this thread was to bring this issue of accuracy while firing on the move to the attention of Steve and Charles so we can research how to make this aspect of the game, ( oops, WWII military combat simulator) MORE realistic on the Eastern Front. I hope everyone else has found this thread has informative has I have! Thanks to ALL the experienced gunners who have posted here with their Real Life fire on the move experience. -tom w

this "turn in place" feature has been refered to also in the forum here as "neutral steer" if you are patient and you care to wait for the search engine, look up neutral steer, there have been ALOT of posts about Allied and Axis vehicles with neutral steer capability. good luck -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks: So, it would seem only logical that a tank driving on the paved road has a higher chance to hit the target than a tank driving off-road?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With respect to tanks firing on the move, I would agree that would be logical and so it would seem that a tank attempting to drive fast through scattered trees would be even less accurate, and a paved road would be more accurate than a dirt road and dirt road should be more accurate than open grass. I imagine that is a heck of ALOT to ask of CMBB though. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Folks, Charles got back to me and reported this: While this is not an exact match to situations we have been describing above, I think it does show that the accuracy for this small calibre gun was better than one would expect. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW! All I can say is Holy Crap!! I'm blown away by that degree of accuracy on the move at 650 m!! And on the FAST move at that. (but it was a Small sample) I would have never believed there were actual real world tests indicating that kind of accuracy while on the move in the Real WWII. I'm not entirely convinced that the extrapolation from that small Data sample to all the tanks and all the weapons in the game is an apropriate projection, (if in fact that data was extrapolated to all weapons and all vehicels) BUT it is MORE real than all of our collective gut (non-RW tank gunery , ie. no real world experience for some of us) "feelings" put together, so at least we now know it is based on facts and real test fire data. I'm sort of surprised no one else from this thread who is reading this forum, who has that book, has quoted or commented on that data yet? Any other comments from that book? At least we have a real reference and a verifiable source for the test now. Thanks Steve! Thanks again Charles! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Has Labappel dropped out?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have a game going with him now. I hope he picks ups few more games. I need to pick up 2-3 more games to finish I'm in 3 right now one against Kiwi Joe one against Stalins Organ and one against labappel -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan: The mood in this forum lately reminds me of the times when everybody played the beta demo and eagerly awaited the gold demo and the final game. There is a glimpse of CM2 on the horizon, more and more features of the game come to light, everybody is a bit bored or itchy, we have more flames, more padlocks and Steve starts to post more regularly... Things get definitely more interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HERE here!! too true! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hey Tom, We all make mistakes. The important thing is to understand that and look beyond them. Now that you (and others who share your opinions) have seen a fairly factually based counter discussion, what say you? In my opinion these are the points, counter points brought up in this (and another) thread. 1. Firing on the move using FAST does not offer much of a penalty - my tests clearly show that even at point blank range this is not true. At longer ranges it is night and day different compared to firing while halted. 2. Tanks should not be able to fire on the move - historical accounts beg to differ. In fact, especially with the Soviets, this was SOP for armored vehicles on the advance. 3. Firing on the move was very difficult - yup, which is exactly what the stats show. But it doesn't mean it wasn't done simply because it was difficult. 4. AFVs should not be able to fire while going at top speed - again, there is no basis for this. In any case, Fast does not mean the vehicle actually acheives its top rated speed. Generally the speed is actually only 10-20mph over perfect open ground conditions. 5. Gyros add a huge advantage to a tank which has one - not true. At most it adds a couple of % points to the chance of hitting, but since firing on the move is already rather poor, it doesn't result in a massive difference between a non-gyroed vehicle. 6. Do moving vehicles get an accuracy penalty due to the impossibility of bracketing? - you bet. Each shot fired is treated like a "1st round" since it is highly unlikely that the TC is going to spot shotfall or be able to quickly calculate aiming corrections while bouncing around in the turret. Uh... did I miss anything? Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve Thanks for looking into this. I admit after we all looked at it again, and after I got my math calculation problem sorted out, that the firing on the move thing does not look as bad or "gamey", as I had originally concluded. I agree with opfor6 when he posts: "What is happening is players are making very "gamey" tactics to take advantage of the fact there is no morale in vehicle units. I seriously doubt I could convince very many crews in my platoon or company to race their tank or AC at some stationary Panthers in the hopes of getting a 13% silver bullet shot. It would definately be harder after the Panthers killed the first few as they broke from cover in their charge." This does make sense because I send Greyhounds and Hellcats in ALL the time to get close for great flanking shots, and sure, I get alot of my tanks and crews wasted, so vehicle moral would probably prevent trying to get "that 13-30% silver bullet shot" to the rear or flank of a heavy tank. BUT its still FUN to try! Vehicle moral in CMBB should be VERY interesting indeed. I can't wait! -tom w [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

bump just for fun -tom w

AND Of course lets not forget to mention: "Let this be a lesson for anyone who tries to get away with lame-ass math skills, wrong calculations or EVEN bad or incorrect historical military data or facts from WWII....." The accurate and correct data or calculation WILL, without a doubt, appear on this board BEFORE you even have time to edit the original offending post, claim, fact, or calculation. And this is a testament to the devotion of this community. I thank all of you who posted so diligently to correct my calculations which were clearly in error. Thanks -tom w [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Tom, that is what these threads are for. Everyone makes a little mistake. You go and test your theories, post your results, and don't wiff if they get a little beaten. I think you deserve a silver star.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I never been really good at math and I knew when I posted the caculation seemed suspect given that the top speed of the Hellcat is supposed to be 55 mph. BUT the 103 sec over 1 km WAS accuratly recorded and double checked, my Lousy Math skills screwed me up, but i really did figure that some here would do the math right I just did not want to ask someone else to do the calculation for me so I tried my self. Ooops! Oh well I guess that kind of accuracy at 23 mph at 250 m was historically accurate for the Hellcat. Its still fun to fly down the flanks and attempt to envelope and out flank heavy German tanks with. And no, no silver star was earned for Lousy math skills but thanks -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fangorn: 1000m in 103s = 9,7 m/s x 3,6 = 34,92 k/h. Yes, your math is wrong, happy now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks I figured someone would correct my LAME math But I tried Now where is that Great big cup of Shut Up I was looking for Sorry Steve, I was mistaken, I offer my apologies. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Incorrect, and perhaps why your perception is being warped. Move = infantry walking speed. In other words, roughly 1-3 mph not 15mph. Fast is roughly 15mph, depending on the vehicle, terrain, weather, path, slope, etc. So does this change your "strong opinion" any? Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve You may want to look into this. I just did a REAL test in the game What is the Speed of a Hellcat While firing on a fast move across open grass. The Game is in meters and the speed of vehicles are in mph so bare with me here. I clocked the Hellcat, after it got up to full speed for the uninterupted stretch of 1km (1000m) the Hellcat can do the 1000m dash in 103 secs in game time (real time I assume) WHILE firing at a target it got off about 6-7 shots (at range of about 500m all missed, no surprise here) so what does 1 km in 103 secs mean in mph? I would do the math like this and this could be questionable? (it is beyond questionable, EDIT, this math is WRONG, the following posts have corrected the ERROR!!) 103 secs = 1.66 minutes 1.66 minutes times 60 minutes = 99.6 kph 99.6 kph divide by 1.6 to get mph equals 62.25 mph!!!! Please look into this, the Hellcat can and does, fire on the fast move at 62 mph in CMBO, if it can cover 1 km of open grass (no road) in 103 secs FLAT. I would be more than HAPPY if someone would correct my math or prove my methodology wrong. Steve, please check the speed of the Hellcat on the fast move across open grass. I think 1 km in 103 secs (1.66 minutes) is pretty damn fast!! and it is not the 15 mph on the fast move you are refering to. The suggestion here being to add another set of chance to hit percentages to differentiate between firing at MOVE speed and firing at FAST speed, that is the suggestion for CMBB. Clearly there seems to be evidence to suggest tanks fired on the move.OK, did they do so at top speed? if so their chance to hit percentages in the game should reflect some kind of wild chance, flukly LUCK to get a hit if they are moving at FULL speed across open ground. -tom w [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Ropey: This is a core problem related to the spotting system and the fact that this is a game, not real life. It is, as you say, very hard for a friendly unit to know when it has eliminated an enemy unit. But you missed a bigger point, which is that it is very difficult for a friendly unit to even identify an enemy unit PERIOD. In real life an infantry unit can't pick out a mortar crew from the full squad surrounding it, even if they are sitting out in the open. In real life a squad might look like a platoon if spread out, or a platon like a squad if bunched up. However, since CM is a game there has to be exactly displayed units. There is really no way around this. So a certain level of abstraction is unavoidable. However, we can reduce the chance of identifying when the enemy unit is wiped out. For our new level of Fog of War, which does not show enemy headcount, an infantry unit that is eliminated will show up as a generic spotting marker. This means you will never know, until you get in close, if the unit you were shooting at is eliminated, Hiding, or withdrawn. As for extreme situations where the TacAI gets "confused", we must remind you that any system we create will have such problems some times. If the game had them ALL the time it would be unplayable. If it even had them often, the game would be unplayable. Since the game is not unplayable, the number and severity of such extreme targeting problems can not be all that bad. Yes, for that one individual came it could very well be, but over all... no. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great response! "For our new level of Fog of War, which does not show enemy headcount, an infantry unit that is eliminated will show up as a generic spotting marker. This means you will never know, until you get in close, if the unit you were shooting at is eliminated, Hiding, or withdrawn." PERFECT! Thats sounds more fun and more realistic to me. WooHOO! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dilger: First, thanks to all...and Kwazydog for responding to both posts. Germanboy your response was exactly the type of info I was after and I agree with the realism argument to a point. I do realize the turnover rate was high...Stephen Ambrose points out that for American divisions from D-Day to Bulge, replacment rates were as high as 200%. However, the Company and Battalion commanders within most of these divisions remained unchanged, as turnover rates were not equivilent for officers ( which is effectively our role as players in this game). As Mortiis said, and I think this is the ultimate argument here... It would be FUN to actually deal with longterm command and that includes trying to maintain an potent fighting unit in spite of high losses. Its the longterm challenge I'm after, not just the adrenaline rush of blowing up a tank. And of course the feeling that, however unrealistic, that our actions on the battlefeild impact the outcome of the war. Campaigns provide for logistic considerations which are ultimately the deciding factor in war. What is truely UNREALISTIC is, playing the German side and throwing in all your units to achieve victory locations on a particular battlefeild. Germany was fighting a defensive war in '44-'45 with limited resources. Careful attention was required in determining were the resources were allocated. Campaigns require you to fight a battle with considerations for the next battle. THANKS [This message has been edited by Dilger (edited 09-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Try this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019910 and see the responses to this post of mine if you want to see how to really tick some people off..... (Not me I was never that emotionally investing in the topic, but posted with zeal and passion regarding the issue, clearly stateing my opinion anyway, and boy did I HEAR about it in the replies.) aka_tom_w Posts: What ever happened to the standard line: "You'll get killed" ??? Perhaps I'm not in the minority but I would like to propose that the campaign game suggestion does little more than facilitate the dreams and wishes of all those fans of the Third Reich that would like to believe that if Hilter had not royally screwed up, the war would have been won by the Germans and those same folks are only to happy to show how they as the German commander(s) would have won the war. (in the East anyway in the suggested Campaign Game in CMBB ) The ONLY campaign game that Should realistically work would be one where it would be impossible to win as the Germans, (given ALL realistic settings and historical maps and troops, yeah yeah I KNOW, the Real fun is in the "what If" scenario's where the Germans can take over the world ) The entire premise of the campaign game is based on winning, and CONTINUING to win every time you meet the enemy on the battle field. This notion turns the great historical WWII simulator (to be) CMBB, into something akin to a video game that has "boards" or screen sections with the "boss" monster bady (whatever) at the end of it to be over come, so you can move on to the next "board". I strongly believe this notion has NO place in CMBB. I also believe that units SHOULD not gain experience from a single battle and move on to the next. In virtually all Meeting Engagements against a skilled human player that I have ever played there is not enough units (men or machines) left fit and healthy to continue on EITHER side to make any sense of a "campaign". I now realize this viewpoint may be in the minority, but I WHOLLY and completely disagree with the suggestion that it is realistic for either the Germans to win a campaign game or for units to gain experience after only one battle. Again the One Line Refrain: YOU'LL DIE BEFORE YOU GAIN ENOUGH EXPERIENCE (I'm sounding more and More like a GROG every Day Oh MY GOD!!) -tom w

"Good Manners Never go out of Style!" Just try telling that to your teenage kids and see how far it gets you. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: Um... Gremlin? I think I knew the history. I wouldn't have used the word if I didn't. Thanks anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um... don't worry that wasn't a shot at you, some of the rest of us did not know the history and I did indeed find Gremlin's post very enlightening. I'm sure there are lots of folks on this board who did not know the origin of the term "pyrrhic victory" Thanks Gremlin -tom w [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I understand and respect the insights that contemporary AFV crews have brought forward here, but since the history books and the veterans who fought in them talk about firing on the move... I got to side with the historical stuff and not personal conjecture. As someone said earlier, in ideal circumstances you will, at some point, get the cross hairs on the target (at short range at least). The German's experiments with autmatic firing once the cross hairs met the target show that this concept is not imaginary. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK Great Reply thanks again Lets talk about firing on the move, it happened in the war and it is modeled in the game. BUT, do we have any evidence of firing at top speed? My issue (specifically) is with the ability to fire while on the fast move (at top speed, fast move being the choice you want for intstance when you want to speed up a road and get to your intended destination as quickly as possible), and still get a 13-33% chance to hit percentage at 250m That number would be a WHOLE lot different if the tank was rolling at "MOVE" speed, which is more akin to the 15 mph quoted from tank vets, then I see can see that the historical practice of firing on the move in WWII would make sense. The point here was really to look at Firing on the FAST move and to determine if this aspect of the game could be tweaked to make it a little more difficult to hit while on the fast move in CMBB. None the less it has been a VERY fruitful discussion , and I thank Steve immensly for his posts, opinions and recent test data. -tom w [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

We play by CAL rules See the first post All battles are QB's Then we all argue and negotiate like lawyers (ahem Kiwi Joe!) to determine the ideal side, conditions, date, and map type to do battle in. All matches are not more than 1500 pts and all matches are 25 turns -/+4 turns with a random ending. All the players here are quite skilled and there are no easier vicotories (Kiwi Joe might tell you otherwise ) Every battle starts with lengthy negotiations as to who will put up with what advaatages and disadvantages. Hope that helps and yes Kiwi Joe just took out my Sherm 105 and it was doing so well getting REALLY lucky with the hollow point into the hull down StuG. But I'm in BIG trouble now. -tom w