Sgt Joch

It is relevant because the current system is simplified and actually benefits the big German Cats which can basically go anywhere. You can't just argue that you should make them even more mobile... IF we did go to a more realistic system, you would be worried about your Cats blowing a tranny as soon as you took them offroad...while the shermans would pretty much continue as is.

Panther is only the best if you just look at one specific variable. The biggest problem with the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were the weak transmission and drivetrain which had not been designed to handle such heavy vehicles. They were prone to breakdown just driving along a paved road. Crews were very reticent to take them offroad since that just increased the chances of a breakdown. Sherman tanks were more reliable which in practice made more mobile. I would like to see a Panther doing that...

The game is already very lenient regarding offroad performance, German tankers were skittish about going off road in muddy conditions in RL, (see Anzio for example) but that is not an issue in game.

Soviet Artillery in WW2 preferred direct fire for purely practical reasons: 1. There was a shortage of artillery shells in 1941-42 and, according to the Soviets, one direct fire shell would do as much damage on average as 20 shells fired indirectly; 2. More generally, educational standards in the Soviet Union were low, compared to Germany, USA and UK. Relatively few Soviet artillerymen mastered the skill for "on-the-fly" indirect fire which was pretty much standard with the other combatants. It worked well before major offensives when everything was pre-prepared, but in quiet sectors, the Soviets used indirect fire a lot less than the other combatants. Soviets used direct fire to a great extent to get around this issue. So they did not use it because they thought it was better, but because there was no practical alternative.

Ships also have other uses. Ths ship used in "Master and commander" for example was used and doubled as both ships in the movie. Fox paid $1,5 million for her. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise_(replica_ship) Also when you read up on movies, you see that many replicas are made so they look good on film, but can look very cheap when examined up close.

so you don't need my help then do you?

The problem is that the exact spot where a tank is considered to be hull down is "fuzzy" and varies from tank to tank. It is hard to give a general rule of thumb. My limited testing seems to suggest that the benefits of being hulldown outweigh the spotting penalty, hence my suggestion to make sure you really are hulldown. Of course, YMMV.

Most likely the Cromwells got the jump because they were stationary and your PzIVs were moving. There is also the question of whether your PzIVs were hulldown. There is also a random factor which can have a big impact. Guys, I would not read too much into this thread or change your tactics. The tests raise some interesting point which we are looking at, but in tests I ran over the weekend, stationary hulldown tanks always spotted tanks moving in the open first, an average of 80 seconds faster. One important point is to make sure your tank is "hulldown" as far as the game is concerned. To be sure, you have to get it down as low as possible, low enough so that the gun just clears the obstacle.

I just did a quick test. setup: -4 PzIV H late, unbuttoned, regulars positioned hull down behind the crest of a ridge. -4 enemy AFVs, also unbuttoned, regulars, go over a rise and move towards the PzIVs with a "Hunt" command. results: -All 4 PzIVs spot first, fire first and knock out their target; -none of the enemy AFVs fire, 3 never spot the PzIV firing at them, 1 gets a question mark and spots the PzIV just before it is knocked out. I will do some more runs this weeked and will also try with Panthers, but at first glance, the "tank combat model" appears to be working fine. That does not mean, as Steve said, that the Hull down parameters/crew weighting will not be relooked at and maybe tweaked. p.s. - never forget that "movement" has a huge impact on spotting. It is easier to spot a moving unit and conversely a moving unit has a harder time spotting other units.

It should be obvious even to you that the pzIV in your tests were not "hull down" in game terms. Also your tests completely ignore the "movement" factor which has a huge impact on spotting in actual games. That is why we said your tests are intriguing, but have no practical impact in game terms. well..... You are not the first new player to have trouble with the game since it is a complex simulation. You will find players here are very helpful if you give them a chance. However, if you just want to dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole..well, we all love a good spectacle also...

you have been here what, a month? Why don't learn how to actually play the game before making silly comments like that. You have obviously no clue how the game actually works. The "issue" you are so worked up about has no practical impact on the game. If it did, it would have been noticed before. If you actually played the game, you would know that. What Steve said is clear and our internal tests show the same, being hulldown gives both a concealment and a protection bonus. Should it be tweaked? maybe, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the tank combat model.

We also have to remember that we are looking at a very narrow set of variables, i.e. a buttoned up tank suddenly appearing 800 meters in front of a hull down buttoned up tank. At that point, it is just a question of whether 5 sets of eyes looking directly at a small stationary target outweigh 3 sets of eyes looking at a bigger stationary target. In a more typical scenario, the hull down tank would be unbuttoned and the tank in the open would have been moving either directly towards or across the front of the hulldown tank. In both scenarios, the non moving tank should spot the moving tank first, since "movement" has a big impact on spotting. That probably explains why this issue has never been noticed before even though the basic code has been there since 2007.

Interesting results. At first glance it would appear that tanks in the open get an advantage because they have all 5 crewmen spotting while "Hull Down" tanks only have 3 since the driver/co-driver have a blocked LOS, although there might be another reason. Definitely worth looking into. I presume all tests were done with buttoned up tanks? I did a very quick and dirty test with unbuttoned tanks which showed little noticeable difference in spotting times between tanks hulldown or in the open.

proverb Grog.

On Command Delays. Personally, I would love to see them, both movement and area fire, although we would need something more sophisticated than in CMx1, taking into account not only the experience level of the troops, but of the leaders and whether they are in C2. As far as I know, BFC has never said they would never come back, only that if they do they come back, it will not be the same as in CMx1. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1489362&postcount=44 CMx2 is constantly in evolution. As the Chinese proverb goes: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step" ..... or is that "Don't start a land war in Asia!". I always get those two confused.

I don't doubt there were instances where tanks physically rolled over guns, but I don't think this was standard practice. I have seen many references which make it clearer that references to overrunning guns or infantry usually refer to overunning their positions, which would usually imply using direct fire to kill, rout, capture enemy troops and dismounts to spike the guns. Any tanker would usually think twice about running over any object, especially artillery pieces. It would be too easy to throw a track or damage the running gear, leaving the tank immobilised deep behind enemy lines.

its more a case of observer bias. I used to be convinced the leader was being killed more often, but if you test it out and keep an eye on it, you will see he has no more chance of being killed than other squad members. I actually tested this out for another reason over the weekend. The leader sometimes walks in front, sometimes in the middle and sometimes in the back.

no, that is Soviet infantry, textured, equipped, mean and ready to kick Nazi butts.

I nominate this for post of the year!

The Chinese have been turning out some great war movies lately, good stories with high production values. Not surprisingly, most turn around the Sino-chinese conflict, one of the least known conflict of WW2.

the whole world is getting into the war/action movie genre. This clip is from the chinese movie "Flowers of War" about Nanking, 1937. This is how you take out a Japanese platoon...

Did you retest that with 2.12?

ah yes, good point.

what I am having trouble figuring out is what angle a shell has to hit to be deflected into the hull top. If you look at the photo, you can see where the shell gouged the mantlet before hitting the turret ring. If a shell is coming in level, you would think most deflections would be into the turret ring or bottom of the turret. I have trouble seeing how it could be deflected into the hull top, unless its coming in with a downward angle.

Before getting off on a tangent, it is important to point out that the 1 in 8 WAS NOT A TEST RESULT. It was achieved in a combat situation, so the real sample is not 1 in 8, but X in Y, with X = number of shells deflected by the mantlet and Y = all hits achieved to the front of a Panther by Allied forces in WW2. Actually we also have to break that down by type of ammo since obviously every type of ammo reacts differently. That is the reason I asked Vanir what type of ammo was used in the test. 75 mm APC fired at the Glacis plate of a Panther will ricochet almost 100% of the time while 76 mm (17 pdr) APCBC will penetrate same plate 40-50% of the time. Both shells are roughly the same, the big difference is the muzzle velocity. So obviously it is NOT as simple as just figuring out what angle the shell hits the mantlet at. Is there any recorded instance of 75 mm APC being deflected by the Mantlet into the hull top?