Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: English and metric align at -30 degrees. -60 C is a recorded Russian temperature (and a recorded New Hampshire Temperature in 1927 when Mount Washington suffered that low of a dip) that of course resulted in the death of countless Soviet and German soldiers exposed to it, not just the freezing of equipment, but the -10 C - -30 C of the worst of 1941 was still fought in by both sides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I always thought that -40 is the same for Farhenheit and Celcius? Can you Cite an equation slappy? F=C*(9/5)+32? C=-40 then (-40)*9/5= -72 and -72 +32= -40 F Its really a good example for an iterative technique problem. If you take the equation and just plug in a guess and then take the answer (F) and plug that back into the C, you will iterate to the common answer of -40. Lewis Lewis

The Super Pershing had a super long 90mm also. I believe its detailed in Death Traps. The author (Belton?) was given the assignment of increasing the armor of the super pershing. He cut plate from panthers hulls and such. He rigged them on to give the pershing a head to head chance when it came across a King Tiger. So the slow rate of fire is because of the longer gun. It was also very rare (2?) that were modified. The regular pershing could have/should have been operational shortly after Dday. It should have been fielded like the tiger battalions were. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Okay, I am leaving you all to spend some time with some naked cabana boys behind... See ya next week! Raul! Pass the margarittas! Madmatt 4 new CM2 pics are up as well...Enjoy!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Be careful Madmatt theres some spanish fly in that Margarita..

Thank God theres going to be a Hull Down order. I hope that BTS abstracts in the poor gun elevation/high height of many AFV on the eastern front. Good deal. Make it so that a AFV with a gun 8 feet off the ground and only 3 degrees of depression has a very limited chance of getting HD from a slope. I beleive that the Human wave/assault commands represent orders limitations. I had argued way back when about this and met with some really vehement opinions (including BTS). But what the heck. It sounds good to me. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: I do believe we can improve on the spotting thing with the current engine. The problem I have is once a unit is spotted by one, it is spotted by all. I don't care if it comes up Tiger? or PZ-IVH, an AFV is an AFV for the most part. So IDing a unit is not *that* big of a problem IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. It all depends on who is doing the spotting of that AFV. Thats the point. I have no real problem with the spotting. Theres no quick way around the ingrained routines the game is running. I quite frankly think that it is going to take alot more than an engine rewrite. Its the sharing of detailed info between disconnected units that kills the present gameplay for me. My major concern is battles with tons of russian infantry eyeballing everything in sight. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: When you mention "generic shot distribution" are you speaking of distribution of location of hits on the target (and their subsequent effects) ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS models the distribution of hits on AFVs according to some generic percentile distribution (ie 10% tracks, 50%hull, etc). Since many vehicles (like odd shaped tanks and assault guns) dont fit nicely into this model, certain vehicles have bigger weaknesses than in real life. An example would be a pzIV turret front. The 50mm area is actually very small but recieves a large number of hits (in my experience). Steve has said that CM2 will continue to use this model (which might hurt T3476 since the small turret front wasnt as trong as the sloped hull). Lewis [ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

Bolagna

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Hmm, Lewis, enemy tanks are far from being insta-identified in CM. Infantry has a really low chance to actually ID an enemy tank. Best you get is Tank? or Assaultgun? usually, unless they are really close and the infantry has nothing else to do - and sometimes you won't even get an ID then. Armor, due to optics and a generally better knowledge about enemy tanks, has a much higher chance to ID an enemy vehicle, just as you're calling for. So what's your point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point is about the sharing of info. And as I suspected , someone would focus on the microscopic instead of the whole picture. If you go back to my origional post: "I dont believe the current "compromise" works as well as BTS thinks. It is very attacker friendly and favors the player with more units. The game gives you unrealistic strategic level info when unit types, without real commo, are sharing info. IDing of units (the ability to know info with telepathic interrogation) is a related but seperate issue and should be addressed as such. Globally seeing a unit is one thing but what gets "reported" needs attention. Putting in delays for armored vehicles can sometimes be counter productive. An example is the lack of a withdrawl command for armor. This does not address the issue and only makes more problems." So the attacker with many disconnected eyes is rewarded. Thats the point. So while what you are saying is true, that BTS already implements a differential between infantry IDing and "ARMOR" IDing, it should be toned downed some more. And again, for the myopic types; It doesnt mean that these units cant see and/or possibly ID but that this global info isnt at the player control level. I actually like Schrullenhaft's idea of the having the units act on better IDing but that would definitely need coding. But, its just a last stab at getting something into the present CMBO/CM2 level of play. And I am beggining to think that CM2 play wont be that different than CMBO. lewis

How about scanning a page of it and postig it here so we can see the general quality of your work?

Thought I might get one response but everyones so IS3 happy that nothing will get their attention. I thought that BTS was going the route of selling CM2 as "what should have been fixed in CMBO". Now, I am not so sure. Armored warfare in CMBO was hamperted by the whole sighting, targetting, hull down, TACAI dancing and generic shot distribution thing. I dont think that BTS is adressing much of this if at all. Its going to be "The weak panzers visit the eatern front". But I am going to Vegas. CYA

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I fear that I know the answers but... Is there going to be any modeling or abstraction to cover gun depression? Will there be any TC view point or is it going to basically stay the same for CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No gun depression for you! Shuttup and buttonup you!

I think the PIII had as good as armor, if not better , than the PIV. Its mostly a "what if?", but the 50mmL60 in the confines of the bocage would have made a really good weapon. The rate of fire, ease of logistics (smaller ammo than 75mm weapons and lighter fuel consumption) and very small height and good gun depression all add up to a pain in the ass for the shermans. Maybe a couple of PIIIMs with 75mm wouldnt have been out of place (to help with HE and smoke). A couple of stugs would round out the 'Bocage Panzertruppen'. Perhaps Germany should have sprinkled 'mini-panzerdivisions' all across the coast to act as a quick reaction/delay force.

This came from another thread: "Lewis, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It won't work. Toning it down more risks unrealistic behavior on a 1:1 relationship level, which is even worse than unrealistic strategic level info. There is simply no way to get Relative type behavior out of an Absolute system. We have done the best we can do with it. Putting in things like delays for armored vehicles and such. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spotting in CMBO has always been non-linear since the first day the code was added. A unit has a MUCH greater chance of spotting something up close than it does far away. Spotting is also dependent on unit type, unit state (i.e. pinned), weather, and terrain as well as distance. Steve" I dont believe the current "compromise" works as well as BTS thinks. It is very attacker friendly and favors the player with more units. The game gives you unrealistic strategic level info when unit types, without real commo, are sharing info. IDing of units (the ability to know info with telepathic interrogation) is a related but seperate issue and should be addressed as such. Globally seeing a unit is one thing but what gets "reported" needs attention. Putting in delays for armored vehicles can sometimes be counter productive. An example is the lack of a withdrawl command for armor. This does not address the issue and only makes more problems. Possible Solution: Perhaps spotting routines should depend on the spotter also. If the spotter is an infantry type (not gun/tank) spotting might be toned down when spotting vehicles. Not that they couldnt "see" them but rather that the type, experience status, etc. are not reported (just because some infantry have seen a tank at a few hundred yards doesnt mean the player gets its model number..) Lets go to an example. You have a platoon of infantry scattered on your flank. They are 3 squads foward with the platoon HQ behind a small hill to the rear. The spotting routine is run for all 3 squads and several enemy vehicles are determined to be in LOS and get "spotted". What is reported is very generic because of the following: 1. Some infantry are out of command control of the platoon HQ. 2. Some infantry dont have an LOS to its HQ. 3. The HQ didnt spot any vehicles itself. 4. One squad was in command control and LOS of its HQ but is pinned and green. So what happens? Several generic lt armor and tank type enemy vehicles show up as spotted. In real life, this can represent an alarm type situation. It was common practice to either fire an alarm flare (red for tanks lets say) or to bang pots or whatever. But in game terms, you have just rudimentary info that there are some kind of armored vehicles on that flank. The infantry platoon have spotted targets, and can target them if they are crazy enough, but the gameyness of planting infantry squads on flanks to determine tank types is limited. Also, in real life, anyone one of the 3 squads could have in actuality ID'd the vehicle type, but in strategic reporting, theres no real point to it. So the real issue is not really spotting but IDing. Another example. A player craftily puts an armored car on his flank to protect this area from TDs. Sure enough, enemy TDs show up and are of different types. The armored car is run through the spotting routine and since he is a crack achtrad and unbuttoned, he spots and IDs the menace (which is actually the same menace from the example above), IDs them by type M18 and M10 (and starts an immediate withdrawl). So a game benefit is that a recon element can be modeled in the game. His abstracted value is the info element. One more example: A company HQ and nearby sherman are positioned near a roadblock. The spotting routine runs and the sherman doesnt spot anything. The Company HQ does spot an enemy hetzer and since the HQ has an LOS to the sherman tank and has a "radio" link, then theres the chance that the hetzer will be "reported". Otherwise it pops up generic. The whole issue of optics has a spotting/IDing link to it. To show that a side enjoys an optics advantage, it can be integrated into the spotting/IDing routines. Take a case of a platoon of tanks that can see a company of vehicles 2000 meters away. For the sake of argument, lets say its a platoon of early war T34s. Then there would be a field of spotted tanks but very little info as to what type they are. The player would then have to target them as generic. This would put an end to what I call cherry-target-picking. This is when a player puts custom shooters onto hand selected targets thereby gamily maximizing his weapons. So the strategic knowledge overview can be limited depending on who does the info gathering. Things like radios and experience and recon, etc add a new flavor to the positioning of troops. A bloody nuisance? Might be. But I dont feel the present abstraction is very good, or that the 1:1 for that matter, is more important than the overall effect. In fact, the 1:1 would be benefitted by this. How much of this could be worked into CM2? I dunno. But I dont know if CM2 is going to be that much of a leap forward without some better abstractions. Lewis

I often thought that the germans should have moved alot of the Panzer III/L60s into Normandy. They would have been very capable in the close in fighting amongst the bocage. I guess they only thought madmen would want to fight in that stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: There's a famous photo of IS-3's destroyed by the Israelis in 1967 that has one with it's turret blown right off IIRC. The caption says that they were destroyed by AMX-13 light tanks, which is kind of ironical, cos I think the 75 on hte AMX-13 was the same gun as the Panther used!! !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah I remember that from "The Tanks of Tummuz" or a book like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Why are you responding to Lewis? Isn't it obvious that he's a troll, and that the only way to handle him is steal the best of the ideas he comes up with, leaving them unattributed, while ignoring everything else? 8)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (I was just trying to get JasonC to break his post-length record but this guy skippy is an un-hoped for find.) Seriosly though, I think the panzer IIIs and StuG spawn of the III chassis might have been the greatest tank killers the germans had. If would be interesting to add up the total tank kills these vehicles had and compare them to panther kills, etc. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: When I think about what would happen if nazis won, to me those losses seem to be 'acceptable'. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Get a history book Skippy. The russians caved in WWI. I guess thats why they call you skippy. In WWII, with an Iron handed dictator, they werent allowed the luxury of thinking otherwise. If the russians had been a little less heavy handed, then thier losses wouldnt have been as tragic. But they were allowing unwanted types to get the chance to offer themselves up werent they? The communists were no blessing on Mother russia either so spare me and the others your glorious praise of the soviets. When the commisars were pulled back and the US supplied war essentials flowed, then the russian steam-roller could make its bones. The stupid germans were more responsible for the losses than the soviets leadership. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: > Point 1. It did. Point 2. SOP was to fire the already loaded HE at the target, then load AP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It did? It did what? I am making a point that to pull back and un-ass the HEs and bomb up with a better mix of APs to HEs would have been much better than your SOP. Got a source BTW? Thanks Skippy.

---------------------------------------------Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: ....the IS-2 was meant to deal with German fortifications, & be frontaly immune to the standard German AT gun, the7.5 cm PAK.40 ROF realy wasnt an issue vs bunkers & fixed AT positions, except in ammunition limitations, as it would be if the task was tank vs tank fighting. Another aspect concerning the IS-2, is they only carried 5 - 7 AP-T rounds, out of the 28 main gun round's the main loadout was OF (HE) rounds for the above reasons. ----------------------------------- I have always thought that was the intent. To further clarify, it was meant to get closer to these immobile targets than the SP 122 or 152s. It had the armor and if it lost mobility could fight on with the turret. It was really a turreted SP gun. But that was the plan and the reality is that anything goes in the front lines. Doctrine looks good on paper but gets burned to ashes in practice. So the IS2s had run-ins with all kinds of vehicles: Tanks, TDs , assault guns, etc. It could have even been used as a clean up vehicle KOing immobilized panzers that were cut-off. Doing this at long range with HE would have been possible. The bottom line is that just like the US TD doctrine, the russian IS2 doctrine (whatever it was) didnt last long in combat. It was an asset and it had to be a player. In face-offs with fast shooting tanks, it might have been best to pull back and reload with AP as SOP. Lewis

How many russians died taking Berlin? Put that in your Katyusha launcher and smoke it!

I fear that I know the answers but... Is there going to be any modeling or abstraction to cover gun depression? Will there be any TC view point or is it going to basically stay the same for CM2?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: > The US and the Anglos would not have been > capable of using these tactics. US and Anglos had 3 (three) years to get ready to D-Day. By the time of landing, they built such an overwhelming superiority in artillery and tanks that they never have any need for what you call "sledgehammer tactics". They had no need for too much operational finesse, either. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uh..it was sure nice of the germans to allow the allies to land all that stuff... Thanks for completely missing my point. How many Operational lives did the soviets lose? yeah real finesse there. The soviet union is one of the few nations to actually have its population substantionally decrease during and after the war. The Anglo-Americans used logistics as well. In fact, the lack of german logistics as well as lack of resources allowed such catastrophes to happen to the wermacht. The soviets would operationally run out of steam and have to stockpile more ammo and soon-to-be-dead men also. My point is that the sovs lost an unacceptable amount of human lives in their nations defense and in the winning of the war on their front. No free people would have put up with it. The US certainly wouldnt and the war would not go on (long)without the US. Since the russians kept little records and arent the most reliable source of their own failings; where are these decimal point numbers of loss ratios that people are coming up with? The early Blitzkrieg success and the US/anglo retaking of France had the same element of complete airpower. It was more a part of modern warfare than the tank. In the case of the US and Great Britian, the strategic, interdictive and close support airpower represented the high point of the airfront in WWII. Lewis

I am not sure what JasonC is getting at since CM focuses on the microscopic where the play is about gun vs armor and hopefully things like 3 man turrets, radios, rates of fire, etc MATTER. Its my belief that successful ops like the early bltzkrieg and the US/Anglo invasion of europe depended on a firepower advantage that airpower/artillery gives. Taking large portions of enemy ground with sustainable losses is the key. Having a decisive firepower advantage (it could be ships guns against an island by the way) leads to a low cost victory. In cases like the Bulge, where the US air force couldnt operate, it becomes a blood bath. luckily in the bulge, the US fired its artillery till the breaking point. It suffered the rest of the war due to shortages by the way. The sovs paid a big price on the eastern front. They used sledgehammer tactics to get victorys/stalemates at very great costs. The US and the Anglos would not have been capable of using these tactics. So the early german tank victorys were a function of the tanks engine and tranny as much as the tanks gun. They drove through the rubble and smoke that the stukas and artillery created. A 37mm armed tank was as terrify as any other as long as it had MGs and was roaming through the rear. Infantry were defenseless in many cases and rightfully melted before the tanks. Later in the war, the US practised a modified form of this once it could break out. There wasnt the early war tank fright but there was similar opportunitys. Any holdup could get the air treatment to allow some hardcore defender to really see how hardcore they were. The US artillery, with its optimised techniques, also made many defenders think twice. But the armored war in the later years did depend alot on guns and armor. A stubborn superior vehicle could hold up an armored onslaught till defensive measures could arrive. The will of an attacker could be sapped (perhaps beyond all reason) by superior weapons. The use of infantry AT weapons made tank roaming a dangerous affair and combined arms became the mobile prosecuter. Lewis

I find it interesting that BTS would come scrounging for info about a "crappy" TD like the Elephant (and then get read the "Riot act" by people with info on its success) but feel that a uber-dinosaur like the IS-3 gets special attention and has to make it into the game. The IS3 was a piece of crap. The age of the hollow charge was just beginning and slow large targets full of slow-loading ammo were in decline. The age of gun firepower and excellent ammo and rates of fire combined with automotive excellence ruled the post war years. Any tank with a decent transmission could out run the slow gun on the IS3. I dont know if these ponderous behomeths had any success in any endeavor. I think I recall that the Israelis even KO'd them in the early wars. I heard that they were dug in like static pillboxes facing china in their later years. Good riddance.

The Panzer III with the L60 was a potent weapon till the end of 1943. Its 3 man turret and small size, decent armor and good gun depression allowed it to KO many T34/76 that had 2 man turrets, poor communivcations, inferior gun depression and optics. In a case where the T34/76 were attacking, the PIII longs had the edge. It was a fully developed AFV where the T34 was still on the learning curve. When the allies started producing shermans in record numbers and T34s were upgraded to 3 man turrets/85mm, thats when it was time to ship these old warriors back to the factory for stug rebuilding. In Panzertruppen theres good accounts of what the PIII long/short and PIV short/long mix could do up till the end of 1943. The tungsten situation was a death blow to the 50mmL60 use in tanks. It was only when the 50mmL42 and 75L24 mix in early war panzers, that had lighter armor, was there a real problem. The quick change of tactics of 88mm escorts and Marders, etc helped till the PIII and PIV got there guns. Lewis