Renaud

Bodies smodies. I want basic stuff like white water plinks/spouts when shells or small-arms fire hits water. Ren

Tanaka, This is why 'shot trap' is modeled for some vehicles such as the panther, in which the 'rounded' turret front creates a vulnerability. Not all panthers have a rounded mantlet. The later ones have a sloped mantlet to eliminate the shot trap. The T34 is different from the panther in that if a shot is deflected downward, it's not as likely to impact a top surface as you can see is the case with the panther (in game terms, the 'top' armor). With the T34, it looks like a downward directed turret front ricochet will bounce down onto the sloped upper hull front, or laterally off to the side. I don't know how if the engine actually does it this way, but this is what I gather from simply looking at the models and the armor ratings. If I remember correctly, the T35/85 has a 'shot trap' because it has a huge curved mantlet that extends way out over the hull front, creating more of a problem. In short, it can be ascertained from looking at the models and putting 2-and-2 together, what 'rounded' means. Ren Er, I see you're saying there's both 'curved' and 'rounded' ratings, where curved is used by panther (iirc). The difference seems to be that 'rounded' describes the narrow teardrop shape of the T34 which would produce more harmless lateral or upward rather than downward ricochets I would think. [ October 25, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

One thing the game does do (using EFOW at least) is to not always show you a correct number of individual solder models. Very often you think you are being assualted by full squads and when they get identified it shrinks from 3 to 1 solder model and turns out to be 2 guys left in a 10 man squad or something. This can be scary, like how you sometimes see tiger(?) when it's really a PZIV. Ren

This really belongs in 'scenario talk', but till someone moves it... (POSSIBLE KHARKOV SPOILER AT BOTTOM) The quality of the scenario's has been outstanding so far! I've worked my way through about 2 dozen on the CD, and 1 OP. There are some really clever designs going on here. I think some folks may be unhappy because many of the scenario's aren't 'balanced' in terms of 1-on-1 competition. Frankly I don't care about that. My scenario favorites usually include one of more of the following aspects: 1) Gives you a feeling that 'yea, this could have happened in reality, I feel like i'm in a historical account of the east front'. Example: 'A Deadly Affair', 'Tiger Tiger', 'A morning at the Zoo (Kharkov Zoo)', 'Yelnia' from the demo. 2) is a clever idea: makes inventive use of the tools given to designers to create a believable action. example: 'A Deadly Affair' antipartisan action. 3) provides an impressive challenge against the AI when played from the correct side. example: Cemetery Hill, Hill 312, Aufsklarung...(sp?), kharkov zoo in the mud scenario. 4) great maps that look like real places. The kharkov zoo scenario has a great map. Highly recommended for QB play as well. MINOR KHARKOV ZOO SPOILER****************** * * * * * * * * * * * I'm harping on the kharkov zoo scenario because I just played it last night. Man is that fun! I got tired of always playing as attacker in scenarios (usually the more challenging role) so I played soviets and increased german force by 100%. Truly a brutal struggle to the last gasp. Among the amazing events: The Aviary was finally over-run by a horde of fanatical fascists despite heavy losses. My defenders perished to the last man after brutal hand-to-hand combat...except for one lone lieutenant who hid (in a closet I suppose) as victorious SS streamed right past and over him. 5 minutes later he was still there when a German HQ tank pulled up 20 meters away. He threw his one remaining grenade in a graceful arc right into the hatch, single handedly destroying the tank! One grenade, one tank! It was amazing. There were several tanks parked there and they all looked the same to me but somehow he identified the command tank. Boris, write up another posthumous 'Hero of the Soviet Union' citation... Ren edit: oh yea I got a Draw (germans by a hair,52-48) [ October 25, 2002, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

Can I command the mine-dog division? Huh, huh, can I!? Please dont' tell me it's already taken. *woof woof

WWB: I agree that wargames depending primarily on pathing (aka programmed routes) does not work well at all. I suggested pathing as an optional or additional scenario design tool which would complement the existing strat AI plotting, not replace it. I can't count the number of scenarios that would benefit tremendously from a few simple route commands for the AI. Note that after reaching the end of a path (series of waypoints) the default strat AI automatic pathing would take over again. Designer specified pathing for groups could be used by authors to time the arrival of AI groups at objectives to achieve coordinated attacks. Obviously the human opponent can and should interrupt this by intercepting one of more of the groups en-route. But that's the objective in human-vs-human play as well. Ren

Oh yea, smoke is somewhat too available I think. I may be wrong but I think smoke was not always as available as it is for CM batteries. This could be addressed with seperate ammo types for artillery that could be set seperately in the 'edit unit' screen of the scenario editor. Then the game could track the number of available smoke and HE (any maybe other types) independently. Having 200 smoke OR 200 HE, or any combination thereof, for every 82mm battery is a little unbelievable. Ren

I have tried putting flags on each russian strongpoint, but then the behavior seems the same. Not long after you take the first strongpoint, russians from distant strongpoint/flag areas will start leaving their trenches/foxholes and moving in the open toward you. Of course they then get hung up in their own wire and decimated. Also they get completely exhausted from trying to run through lots of trenches and of course the wire. Sad Really. This is where designer-specified AI behavior categories would be a godsend. I'm going to continue trying various combinations of flags/no flags and different scenario parameters (it's an 'assault' type right now). Ren

Keep those sucker's hull-down. Then you won't get immobilized. After all the turret is as large as a cottage so that shouldn't be a problem hehe. Ren

I'm trying to design a Kursk strongpoint defense by Russian AI. The AI defenders will leave their positions and get wiped out within 20 turns. I know they tend to do that if a flag falls (a 'counter-attack' I suppose), but in this case I moved the flag way to the back and continuously in Rusky possession. The AI still insists on leaving strong points and running out in the open (toward the attacking germans) after about 15-20 turns of battle. Has anyone had any luck circumventing this behavior? thanks Ren

Tom has a nice succinct list which I second without reservation. Here are a few pet-features I'd love to see: * a pathing system for use by scenario designers in creating custom strat AI behavior. Even something as simple as waypoints assigned to grouped units would be great. This would really complement the current very good automated tac/strat AI, although it would have to be used judiciously. Would allow for multi-prong attacks, flanking manuevers, covered route approaches, etc. Obviously would affect replay value. * add possibility of infantry command units having/not having radios or field-telephones. (see below) * enhanced command system combined with above radio addition, which would model command units drawing command lines to their lower echelon commanders. Battalion commander would be in/out of command of company commanders, who would be in/out of command of platoon commanders, who would be in/out of command of their squads. Radios would change command radius just as they do currently with tanks. Command delay penalties would be cumulative for each echelon out-of-command. So, the lowest possible order delay would be achieved if there was a link all the way to the highest echelon commander. This would lend extra value to purchasing formations since you would get the fastest reaction time that way. A battalion commander in contact with his company CO's who is also in touch with his platoon leaders would give that player a good advantage, while the player with a grab-bag of teams and platoons and no higher level commander would have generally higher orders delay for all units. * add the possibility of buying individual Battalion/Company level 'battlegroup' or 'kampfgruppe' leader units, who could take command of ad-hoc combinations of designated teams/platoons. Possibly make them quite expensive as they would give a reduction in command delay for units when in contact with platoon/section leaders of lower-echelon units in the battlegroup, just as a battalion/company commander in a regular formation does. * field fortifications such as dugouts and bunkers with/without fields of fire, which squads/teams can actually enter/exit (perhaps recycling the vehicle passenger code for this purpose). * Optional improved 'overhead' cover foxholes, in addition to the hasty foxholes currently available. I would exchange extra functionality of this kind, and that which Tom lists, for all the graphics icing in the world. Ren edit: oh yea, for the bunkers/dugouts idea, you could also just use the building code, which would simply mean adding some custom building types/models with varying (but high) damage absorbing potential. [ October 22, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

Yea, I always keep detailed armor hits cause it gives you too much information. Ren

Oh man, as an ex-cav guy I have to say that's a dam**d shame. I think it adds a lot of flavor to the game to have authentic period military terminology or even native language unit designations. At least change the cavalry designations to Squadron/Troop (battalion/company respectively) where such were used! The germans switched between the two for some of their recon units. I think the early war used Squadron/Troop then they switched to battalion/company (the german language equivalent that is). Ren

Maybe cause it was a weak or partial penetration. Which would make sense if it was a German 50L42 at a distance especially. Or maybe it was early 75mm shaped-charge. That could account for the blackened holes, or maybe it just burned out. Holes look kinda small for 75mm tho. Ren

Yes, but Blackvoid, imagine the never-ending adjustments that would have to take place. Every time you tweaked a unit here, it would unbalance the relationship with yet another unit. It's a complex jumble where I think only the most glaring errors can be corrected. In this particular case I don't think the Stug is undervalued. I'm rather happy with the value because it generates a situation which is roughly consonant with what I've learned about Stug's in the other thread: they played a large role on the eastern front so should be low-balled point-wise. Anyway, they CAN be defeated. You just have to look at this as a challenge. At the very least you will have the satisfaction of being killed by a notable German AFV of exception reputation and design quality! Perhaps even by a celebrity german sturmabtielung commander! Ren edit: Brian, I pretty much reached that conclusion in my diatribe, so you are kind of making a straw-man argument. As you can see I came full circle. Ah, it's great to blab aimlessly! [ October 21, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

One or two guesses: 1) No one at ESRB understands russian? 2) Russian can't be properly spoken (or understood) without a curse every 3rd word? Ren

Haido, "* Actual unit size " Don't have an opinion on the other stuff, but you are probably playing the game in +1 unit size, which is I think the default. I wish it wasn't because it does look rather laughable to the uninitiated. You can adjust this to 'realistic' scale with one of the hotkeys. In 'realistic' scale the men, guns and vehicles are about right. The individual soldiers are slightly bloated, but that bratwurst is soooo tempting you know. Don't know what the Russians ate (maybe dead germans?). Ren edit: whoa, you kiss your mother with that mouth?! almost forgot: 'hi mom!' [ October 21, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

Incorrect. We set up a scientific system which figures out the "value" of each unit. This system is imperical and cares nothing about how they are used, what type of game is played, etc. The simple reason for that is as you stated just after: </font>

Things are still roughly the same in CMBB. EXCEPT that now you can get partial penetration of varying strength. This means the panther side shot from a 2-pounder would still penetrate, but maybe not do much damage so the panther would stay in action. So yea it's harder to get those bogus outright kills from tiny weapons that sometimes plagued CMBO. Ren

BlackVoid, To be honest, I don't think BTS really cares about accurately reflecting QB combat power in unit point values. They've always been way off and probably always will be. Your example is only one of many. The reason for this is that they are more interested in historical simulation and contemplation of plausible tactical situations than competitive 'ladder-style' play. Another thing to keep in mind is that a relatively cheap unit can become all-powerful if used in an advantageous situation. How can you every accurately reflect 'combat power' in 'points' when a couple of guys with molotovs can kill a king tiger? The king tiger probably costs over a million reichsmarks, the molotov and russian recruits, next to nothing. At that moment, in that situation, the AT team is worth more points than the Tiger. I can find a dozen 'gamey' ways around the point system if I want to. This is why the game is best played with other enthusiasts who have an interest in authentic recreation of realistic WWII tactical situations. In the case of competitive leagues, the managers have come up with extra rules restricting what/how much you buy in order to alleviate some of these issues. Ren

Heh, this game is the micromanagers dream. Every 60 seconds you can fiddle with every one of your units, laboriously plotting every single order if you wish. Now, if you want to be clicking every single second (several times a second?), Warcraft 3 or other RTS is more your game. CMBB is a 'sit back and think' game. Much more like chess. Except the pieces blow up, burn, scream, cower in fear, bog down in the mud, etc. You need this game. Ren edit: btw your system is fine. however this game is a hog so you won't see liquid smooth huge battles like you are used to with most FPS games. The small-medium ones should be very smooth for you though. [ October 21, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

Nice! My guess would be high verticle angle strikes by 50L42 or L60 AP at a roughly 90 degree angle to that turret surface. In CMBB you can do it pretty regularly from range if you are on a slightly higher elevation firing down on the T34. Rune: I think on behalf of everyone I can extend sincere appreciation for the information conveyed by your grandfather. It's not every day that you get to hear 1st-hand (OK, 3rd hand in our case, counting your mom's translations) personal accounts like that. As an added bonus his comments seems to validate several assumptions in CMBB, including the front T34 turret weak spot (I'm guessing when a near 90-degree vertical/horizontal AOI strike on the rounded turret face (gun mantlet?) occurs). Whether a 37mm could achieve this in reality as it does in CMBB is still being debated I suppose. But looking at the numbers and other arguments so far, I tend agree that yes a 37mm will barely penetrate if you get a near 90-degree AOI hit right on the rounded turret front from within a few hundred meters. This is what we see in the Yelnia scenario, for instance. Not very reassuring to the door-knocker crew however: "Yes, you MAY penetrate the front turret if you get a hit dead center, assuming you don't get machine gunned or HE'd first. Oh, and it may not cause much damage so you will have to hit several times in that exact spot". Ren edit: Oh, and gewehr means 'rifle' or 'gun' so yes he must have meant the gun mantlet (the 'curved' portion of the turrent front, like the curved front of the panther mantlet). [ October 21, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

I have a book on Kursk published in 1968 by Geoffrey Jukes, "Kursk: the clash or armour", which states the numbers from 12 July 43 at Prokhorovka as: German tanks: 'nearly' 700 Russian tanks: 'about' 850 (including 'some' SP guns) German/Russian losses: 'more than' 300 each. remaining tanks, german: 'little more than' 350 remaining tanks, russian: 'over' 500 In other areas it seems like a pretty balanced account. Probably because Jukes was a professional historian and soviet military policy expert, rather than the amateur enthusiast or news correspondent (so often the bane of military histories), the account is fairly scholarly. Looks like I avoided the 'nazi-superhero myth' version you refer to. I've been looking for something to compare it to and this new book seems like the one. Thanks for the recommendations! Ren

Originally posted by Pantherbait: This was necessary because German WWII AFV's did not have gun stabilization, which is unrelated to gun accuracy. That is to say, the ballistic accuracy of the gun is a seperate issue from the rangefinding, targeting and stabilization technology used to point the weapon: if you manually lay either a modern M256 smoothbore or WWII 88L56 correctly and apply the proper elevation you will hit with both reliably at ranges well over 1500 meters. Obviously, using the modern targeting devices, today's tank gunners are expected to get first round hits EVERY time even at long (1500+) ranges. You don't get the same accuracy if you must use the regular auxilary optical sights and no rangefinder. It may take you several shots, maybe only 1 or 2 if the TC has time to find range with the .50. However, my point is that the guns themselves are essentially the same in regards to ballistic accuracy, and that crews specifically trained in manual rangefinding (a skill in which modern US crews are poorly trained, but hardly need) as were those in WWII will hit regularly well beyond 1250m. I think if you stuck Bobby Woll in the gunner's seat behind a M256 120mm (a german designed gun btw) and asked him to only use the Gunner's Auxilary Sight, he would probably compare favorably to me using the full hi-tech works. Of course the standard Tiger I optical sight is vastly better than the M1 GAS which is extemely 'auxilary'... On a side note, I believe a major contributor to the legendary long range AT effectiveness of the LW 88 Flak units was their high level of gunnery training particularly in manual rangefinding techniques. Ren

I noticed one book listed that I have heard mention of before. Can anyone tell me what they think of this book? Worth getting? Title: The Battle of Kursk Author: David M. Glantz & Jonathan M. House Ren