M Hofbauer

well He111 and Ju88 is just about as heavy as it gets for the Joe Shmoe german - I had never assumed they would put in the He177 or some such. And somehow, despite having read some adventures of Do17s early in the war, more or less prowling to attack targets of opportunity in France, in the diary of KG 2, I just cannot imagine He111s directly level bombing into a running battle CAS-style. Not saying it never happened - but its just not the typical way things were going.

however the target panther might just as likely, or rather more likely!! (since tanks tend to be hull down and hence omn the reverse slope), that the hull is pointing upwards and hence the sloping is even higher...

are you insinuating that he's banned? :confused:

so I take it the whining about german armor not performing as expected is due to the influx of players that arent exactly "in the know" about ww2 ballistics, not even rudimentary things like 75mm and 76mm shermans? it was to be expected with tow attracting the rts crowd. another matter would be how many 76mm shermans the allies fielded that early, and hence the ratio of 76mm shermans in that scenario in question. they were still outnumbered by the 75mm shermans as per US doctrine. btw, moon, to my understanding the 76mm HVAP ammo was officially issued only to TD units, not tanks.

the mathematical increase in thickness is still the same. it is the desired aditional sloping effects that go beyond the mere mathematical / geometrical armor increase, that do not apply to HEAT/shaped charges as much. i.e., sloped armor behaves "stronger" vs kinetic energy penetrators as would be expected based merely on the geometrical increase of armor thickness. a very strong sloping however can lead to the shaped charge not detonating at all, in extreme cases and depending on the shaped charge fuze construction design. this is akin to the likeliness of ricochets re. kinetic energy penetrators, but quite less pronounced than the latter. [ May 01, 2007, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

The german ones, true (british, too). But apparently someone forgot to tell the russians who just started producing them two years later and right up into 1945... (also forgot to tell them that ATRs are supposed to be ineffective ). Not to mention the heavy sniper rifles, "anti-material rifles", of today (Barrett et al), which are, after all, nothing but ATRs in new design. nihil novum.... edit: cue some fin to bring up the Lahti...

if that's the way it is - that's the way it's supposed to be. there's a historic reason why it was called Rotbart by it's crews ("hauchdünn" as the contemporary commercials had it for the razor blades of that brand). and thats also why some cm players coined the phrase "do not expose to sunlight or fresh air" w/r/t the durability of the Pz IV. btw, have you ever played CM? you mean as opposed to repairing at night or with blindfolds? personally I think there should be an option to grow repair weed. you could harvest that and replenish your tanks' shields with it or build new ones in small factories.

Elvis, dont get me wrong, and I duly bow to your impressive #159 in an inverse-paradroidesque way, but even tho you fit the criteria "old CMer/board member" you were also part of the team that made and tested ToW. So you're not exactly the impartial fresh prima facie onlooker I had in mind - no offense meant.

that would kinda narrow it down considerably was it outside the beta process?!? :confused:

I am still waiting for a review/first impression by some established CM board old timer. What you describe is often done by quintuple-digit members who registered within the last year or so. Dont get me wrong, Im not out to diss newbies, its just that I want an opinion from someone whos been with the CM board/crowd for a while and who I *know* from past posting history. Im not saying I would take their view as gospel - its just that I know where that opinion comes from. I dont think buying a game based on the reputation / your opinion of a company or your past experience is one of the worst reasons for buying the game. Especially in the case of BTS/BF.C it is only natural that people who have followed them since their inception, who benefitted from their company policy and hence products in the past, will trust them to deliver good products again in the future. Especially given their original manifesto, their - btw mostly justified IMO - critique and "holier-than-tho" attitude re. the evil conventional big gaming/software companies. With CM they mostly delivered in my book. Plus BTS has repeatedly stressed ever since announcing their cooperation with 1C for TOW, that they will ensure that this game will meet their high standards. After all, that is what took the game so long to be labeled done by BTS even after it had been considered "finished" in russia. One day I may be able to find out myself what the game is like. Until then I am really curious to hear what CM board "veterans" think about this game.

when rune mentions their model matching bird/livingston within a millimetre I took that to mean they also accounted for the effects and aspects emphasized in their work on ww2 ballistics, such as compound angles, slope effects, face-hardening, high-hardness peculiarities, cast vs. rolled armor peculiarities, armor flaws, edge effects, the high-energy projectile failure shatter gap "and all that other stuff"

to be fair, the encyclopedia is all these people have to go by to judge the authenticity of the game's ballistic values, since apparently they do not have access to these "internal numbers" you are referring to. If the encyclopedia gives other valus than the game uses, then it is both a) 1C/BTS's fault and b)questions the point of having that encyclopedia in the first place. The way it is it seems to be way more of a problem than a feature / aid. authors is rather unspecific. The Dorsch is an author, Im an author, everyone's an author... what kind of kryptic source quoting style is that? and believe me Ive seen a lot of different quoting styles. Zetterling, you mean his work on Normandy or the one on russian tank warfare co-authored with Frankson? While Zetterling surely isnt the worst of works out there, I would definitely trust him more with organizational issues and not with hard technical details. add-on: abovesaid notwithstanding, kudos to you and the work of the BTS/beta team on arriving at rexford/bird values.

what's wrong with checkers?

By sneaking a look every now and then to see where the enemy is. Otherwise you are just guarding a 1.5m deep hole. </font>

that ios nopt what I sdaid. those are most typical situations in which they would. there are other instances, too. however, guns in WW II were typically not abandoned prior to a battle because that would make them less noticed by enemy tanks. Camoflage and a simple hide/hold fire command was the usual way to go about this "how not to be seen" business back in WW II the way I see it. and I doubt that in suich a weird WW II situation leaving the guns open like that would spare them from the enemy's fire. In RealLife, the enemy wouldnt know that the enemy "player" had relocated the crew to a neabry trench, AND / OR would blast the sh*t out of those guns out in the open anyhow. Unlike in ToW, wehre, as you conceded, they are unwilling to engage the guns in such a setup. Since you are using that RealLife - game difference/deficiency ("feature", if you want *g*) of the game to your advantage (for increased survivability of your forces), such a tactic is gamey as per general opinion on what constitutes "gameyness".

soldiers ordered to hide and hold fire so they wont be noticed/targeted by the enemy are expected not to raise their heads to take nosy peeks. green troops might not adhere to that, but thats a different matter. how does the dutch army execute ambushes and/or keep the element of surprise?

Turewicz, the crews would abandon the guns and seek cover if they wiould not be in action facing enemy tanks and came under, say, an air attack or artillery fire. Its gamey because the guns werent abandoned due to taking cover from air / artillery strike. Now, let me emphasize that I did not play the game/demo so far since my system will not run it, but that from what I can gather so far the game seems like it will be very much enjoyable to me, despite any smaller or larger perceived deficiencies. Therefore, correct me if Im wrong, but from what little I could gather from the postings so far people complained that --> the mission is too hard, b/c guns are destroyed/their crews killed too fast, b/c one cannot HIDE them (= there is lack of a HIDE command) and there is no option to entrench them, resulting in them being spotted and destroyed too fast. your advice was for the player to abandon the guns, this will prevent/delay spotting/destruction of the guns, and crew the weapons later when the tanks are closer. this advice implies that either a) guns that are not crewed are harder to spot guns that are not crewed are ignored by the enemy (=AI) despite being functional and being seen both a and b are deficiencies of the game. abandoning a gun does not make it harder to spot. in reality, a gun is camoflaged (and preferrably also entrenched) to make it hard to spot, and the crew is hiding/hunkering down behind it, not running away into a nearby trench to prevent the gun from being seen. as for b, the enemy in reality would shoot at any guns it sees because it cannot see whether they are crewed or not. so you are using this flaw of the game to provide a solution to facilitate winning the scenario. fits the definition of gamey in my book, down to the t. I guess I can live with it, but I'll call out a flaw or gamey tactic when I see either.

rubbing my eyes - gamey tactics recommended by the game designers to overcome deficiencies (lack of HIDE command / entrenchment / scenario design) of the game? :eek: and this from BTS / BF.C? :confused:

I want it all and I want it now. And I want it free and I want chocolate icecream with it. Thanks. please do so. we'll love you even more for it. look at me... I'm laughing hard... laughing at you.

Use this one: 75mm PaK 40 L / 48 (release date november 1941)</font>

I disagree. It doesnt take a lot of tree to stop a tank. And trees, even big ones, can grow rather thick / close to each other. Of course Im not talking about tulip fields ( ) - but any regular run-of-the-mill mature fir or pine should be sufficient to make a tank not want to pass it. Even if knocked over, the tank will likely immobilize itself on the stump or lose track due to the tension created when passing the leftovers. And woods do not consist of one such tree, but, as the definition goes, several ones, I'ld even chance to say lots of them.

#1: patience

That "no way to create maps" is just Dorosh talking.

Dont worry. Its just Dorosh. to put things in perspective, he also categorizes simulations like M1 Tank Platoon as RTS games. go figure. just look at his initial post... he came from "it is not possible to make maps for cc" down to, well, he didnt know and Dorosh cant make maps for cc.

... and CMC. Ooops, now I'll have to kill y'all.