Mattias

So why, do you suppose they didn't? M.

Hello Fionn, nice to have you back in person on the open forum I assume the reason this thread has taken in interest in the tactical level is because it was aimed at good match ups at the CM scale. Look around and I think you will find more than one post indicating that what was asked by Le Tondu is one thing, what really won the war is another. M.

Thanks for putting in the time to clarify Steve. I don't think anyone who follows the board had missed that the rarity options are, eh, optional but I was nevertheless a little puzzled by the way fixed rarity panned out in the end. With the quite distinct "normal" force being shaped, depending on time, place etc. Looks to be "the" choice for those who want a realistic force but doesn't know exactly what that entails. Perhaps making it easier to go from fun play to historical, and fun, play. I don't think the comments about the fixed rarity comes from frustrated ladder players as much as from people who thought they had understood how it would work and now found it to be something else. I like it, though it is a little out of the CM ordinary with it's, more "firm" structure M.

PF, troop trials in July 1943. 350.000 built the same year. PSchr. deployed in numbers at end of 1943. They did not hang on to the AT rifles, much, but rather relied on the organic PaK units and fought as best they could with a host of different production and ad hoc close in AT weapons. When there was no armoured units at hand to counter attack with that is. Head over to this great site to learn more about the weapons used. M [ May 09, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Yes, yes, yes but the numbers were big enough to cause a bit of a reaction, rational or not M. [ May 08, 2002, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Panzer Leader I was thinking the same thing, that we would be looking at cost increases on par or a bit over those we see today for different experience levels, up and around 100% at the most. It'll most certainly gear "competitive" QB ME's towards the statistically most prevalent units Or more likely, these games will be played without using this rarity model. Or is this were the random model kicks in, making "rarity inflated" units, randomly, affordable? If not I am hard pressed to see who will ever play by the system. I love diversity, odd and interesting units but against a human, and indeed often the AI, there is just no margin for satisfying that interest in the face of a run of the mill, cost effective, force. - Ah, well, this has been discussed in numerous threads before and I don't know enough to harp on, it'll be good in the end I'm sure M. [ May 08, 2002, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Welcome and congratulation on finding it in the end! Despite having played it for more than two years now, including the demos, it still hasn't lost any of it's appeal. Quite the opposite actually, it just keeps on getting better Cheers! M.

I wasn't out to prove you wrong Brian, just adding a few numbers M. [ May 08, 2002, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

The basic premise that the 76mm mounted on the T34 was generally inferior to the 75mm mounted on the Sherman with regards to armour penetration appears to be supported elsewhere. It is, again, important to remember that in 1940 when the T34 went into service it was heads and shoulder above the competition in many respects. However, in wartime development moves ahead by leaps and bounds and as the years went by the T34 went from being a battlefield dominant to "just" one medium tank among others. It was still a revolutionary vehicle but like most revolutionary developments it was eventually overtaken by competing designs. The Sherman which was standardised in 1941, and today is a favorite object of ridicule for some, was in many ways just as good as the T34, ask the Germans who had to deal with it in the desert. What subsequently brought it down was, later, being exposed to German armour designs that had been shaped by confrontations with the T34. It's just the flow of time and I bet the T34 76mm crews where just as doubtful about their situation as any Sherman 75 operators in late 1944. M. [ May 08, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Well, MrCK, as much as I agree on the general futility and madness of war, you are now at a forum dedicated to the simulation of WWII combat. The men and the materiel that took part in it, what we know about them and how to produce the most accurate representation possible. So, please take the "painful truth" out to the General forum and let the search for the best tank of the war continue in here. Or did you have a point that is relevant to the discussion that you wanted to show by those numbers? M.

Really, where do you get these numbers that puts the Soviet 76mm's on par with the US? It takes special ammunition, what's it called, 350P something, to put the T-34 gun ahead of even the 75mm cannon mounted on the regular Sherman. M.

Seems there is a bit of an übertank myth with regards to the T-34 too. Perhaps it is the Sovietophiles that will cry foul when CM:BB comes out, just like the Panzer fanatics did when CM:BO entered the scene M.

I think not in CM:BB, perhaps in CMII, BTS willing. As it is now the details of tank gunnery and design specific features are abstracted, quite considerably. Though CM:BB will feature improvements with respect to two man turrets they will not include, I assume, the of counting rounds in ready racks. I for one consider the fact that all guns are always "loaded" with the right kind of ammunition to be an even bigger "omission". In CM style quick draw fights this would be the difference between life and death in many cases. M.

All T34/76 had four man crews, out of which only two were in the turret (Russian Tanks..., Milsom) . Among the many models up until model "F" you find at the very least 7 types of turrets with varying ballistic characteristics. Judging by the many discussions regarding armour quality, welding quality etc you could probably produce dozens of different turret configurations. M.

Scipio, I'm sure we are not really very far from each other with regards to this question, a matter of degrees and weights -- When the leader dies the squad still have their training, isn't that exactly what CM is portrays right now? A Veteran squad remains a veteran squad in most respects. It gets an order delay due to the lack of higher command functions and they do no longer benefit from any leadership bonuses deriving from exceptional ability in their leader. For me one of the central functions of the leader is to remain alert and sharp when everybody else are tired, hungry, exhausted, bored, scared, shocked, drunk or just generally loosing it in one way or another. He must always be at least one step ahead in the schedule, ready to meet any unexpected occurrences and handle all sorts of problems, smallish as well as full blown life threatening crises. He holds the responsibility and will be called to answer for any and all actions of the platoon. These and many other demands placed on the leader is handled differently by different people, some have "it", some doesn't. You can learn a lot and improve a lot but in the end there will be great variations in ability (Moon giving a nice list of examples of affected areas). I claim that the presence of an extraordinary leader will make the men behave more intelligently and more decisively than if he is not there. One thing that might have skewed perceptions of this in CM is, as has been mentioned, that there are too many leaders that have too much bonuses in the game, which makes the "best" the norm. A Veteran squad will still behave a whole lot better than a Conscript one but if their "above and beyond" Lt. is around they will be even better. Granted, I can imagine that real Elite (think SAS) units are capable of functioning independently in a different way, but then again, every man in the unit is at least a +1 leader in every CM bonus aspect (and that's with a realistic distribution of bonuses in mind, not the current wild spread). M. [ May 06, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Sarge S, Agree completely with you on number 1, the CM playing field is usually filled with excellent and superlative leaders, something that only serves to dilute feeling of there being anything special with them. Instead of treasuring a bonus I find myself begrudge the lack of one... Nr. 2 sounds like it would be a little more "into the details". I mean, the "longevity" of the HQ's could, if you like, be interpreted as the good leadership stemming from more than one individual. Below that there is the squad experience to fall back on. A more detailed version could, in it's extreme, form model the bonuses for every new ad hock leader that takes command as the squad is decimated. I think I see what you mean though.. M.

I disagree on all counts. I never was much of a platoon commander but I am absolutely certain that a more able, mature or well trained (gotta to think positive) leader in my position could influence all these factors. And yes, within the scope of a single CM battle. Beside my real life impression, hell, make that experience for once, I see the HQ as an abstraction of the leader ability of the whole platoon. A good platoon commander inspires the squad leaders and make them look out for badly packed or clumsy soldiers, makes them lead the fire instead of firing themselves, makes them trust the judgment of the commander and project this to the soldiers and fosters good command and signals procedure within the platoon. The fact is that the training in never over and it is only in very well trained and led units that the edge is maintained. And, again, this is very, very, very much up to the individual leader. A "bad" squad can most definitely be fired up by a good commander, in all the aspects portrayed in CM. Quite! Stay down! Run now! Wait for it! Get over here! MG on the right! Use hand signals! If the squad leader doesn't cut it the Platoon leader or his second in command must intervene. Hmm.. Like I said, I never was that good, too much shouting... -- Woha, my 1000th post, do I get some kind of bonus or gift now? An invitation to the Beta forum perhaps -- M. [ May 06, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Indeed they have! Head over to Tom's, eh, Tom. I have the subdued and winter Tiger running free in my little version of CM M.

I would advice against it in most cases. Using a tank as cover means bunching up and if you are advancing over open spaces that is not what you want to do. A single well spread out squad is a much harder target to get at than a bunch of bone sacks clinging to a noisy and smoking 3 x 3 meter target which every weapon within sight are turning their attention to. I don't mean to squash the idea, it's just that it is usually not a good thing to do. But making the tanks actually provide realistic cover would be nice. M.

Well, we got the mighty Strv m/42 in, eh, '43. It sported a 75mm L/34 gun that was just as good as the German 75mm L/24 For more information on Swedish armour, and indeed all (and I do mean ALL) nations during the period up to 1945 head over to... This great site! M. P.S. Cogust, where is my turn

I for one would like to see CM:Beyond Borlänge. A version that deals with what if situations along the Swedish borders from 1939-1945. German invasions, Soviet incursions, Allied occupations against an army slowly developing from WWI standard in 1939 to about half decent but still weak in 1945. Adding Finish interventions, Norweigian partisans and Allied SOF's on the Blue side to spice things up. Could even make it a full blown high North kit, as long as the Swedes are included at all times -- We always hear you guys complaining about the lack of representation of forces and equipment from Y-land at the X-front (couldn't start with X there) and how much fun it would be to see forces from former allies clash, etc etc. Well, we haven't had a decent conflict since 1809. And though I thank god, and others involved, for that every day it makes for poor wargaming when one is mostly interested in battles taking place after 1850. So, bring em on, I want to see the Strv M/40 L's rolling and debate on the forum wether the PvKv43 should be included or not! Yup, that's it, it's a no brainer BTS M.

Volker, what you see there is a completely different game form another team. Has nothing to do with CM or BTS. BTS has, however, stated that CMII will look even better M.

After having played the full game for almost two years now, and adding a few hundred MB of mods, those shots look kind of strange. A trip down a memory lane that now is the latest news M.

In CM:BO the Germans have not been given the most effective HL grenade available, at least not judging by the numbers displayed in the game. BTS hasn't commented on the matter but I assume they had their reasons. For a lot of talk about the 75mm HL grenades and their effectiveness in combat I suggest.. This thread Among other things there, on page 2 Claus B posts a detailed list on the production of different types of 75mm ammunition, paying particular attention to HL grenades. -- As dicey as it was to do combat with HL munitions it seems they gave the Stummels a chance against the Soviet heavies. M. [ May 05, 2002, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

You learn something new every day they say. And that thing I have never seen before... Looks like a completely idiotic design, prone to all sorts of problems even if no enemy is encountered M.