Andreas

Jason Could you please address page 41 in the English edition of Jentz please, where it explicitly states in a report from 5.PD, dated 20. March 1943: Somehow this does not jive with your statement. BTW - anyone know which Mark II and III they refer to? Matildas? [ November 22, 2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

I think that depends on which part of the forces you look at. Some Commonwealth formations were fresh out of the UK, e.g. 78th 'Battleaxe' division. Some German formations were also untried, AFAIK. The Americans are probably the only ones where a blanket approach is defensible. The Germans and Commonwealth need to be looked at on a unit-by-unit basis, IMO.

Splendid. I can't wait to hear that pinging metal clip being ejected while while watching SMLEs firing. That should add immensly to the immersion factor. Regards JonS </font>

The pages are certainly not the same in the English edition. Basty is quite right about his quote though, which is on page 41 of the English edition in a table analysing German gun/ammo performance. It would be helpful if you could post the chapter number/heading instead of the page number Jason.

I did that on purpose to show off my tank - which is nicer than yours.

Because I am special. Now give it a rest. Whinger. One could think you are a pom.

Happy?

Brilliant, so if I lose our battle, I can blame it on you being a gamey, grid-using, tank-rushing, infantry-camping bastich? Shame I have no need for that since you are not about to win. I'll keep it for next time.

Ah, thanks Kingfish. I only took a short look at the demo last night and none of my M3s did that. Maybe it was just too limited an observation on my part. </font>

Bump

Rexford That is exactly the result I was getting, so I guess we can say that at least on this occasion Charles managed to take your advice

Hmm, I just tried this again (now to burn out his already knocked out Stug). The distance was actually 47m. I had three partial penetrations as I reported above. Now I had two 'shells broke up'. The Stug is sitting at an angle to my SU85. About 45 degrees, about 50% of the shots hit the upper front hull and fail to penetrate, the other 50% go straight into the upper side hull. [ November 21, 2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

You can always go back and edit your post.

MAUS PUT AN EFFING SPOILER WARNING INTO THAT, WILL YA!

Not sure about that. You still need to get through some sort of armour to get to the engine or transmission, and from what I understand, tracks are quite resilient even when hit, while the running gear has some redundancy built in. As was pointed out earlier, a large part of the gun system is completely unprotected, and other parts of it are potentially vulnerable to non-penetrating strikes. We did a lot of testing with gun damage in the early days of CMBB. This was adjusted down a lot, and the beta testers in general felt it was fine at the end of that process. I did not notice much of a difference between BB and AK, and I would suggest waiting with your judgement until you have seen it play out on a larger map. The demo maps are quite constricted, and that could theoretically have an effect too.

grind grind grind

Nope, according to Jentz it should be five Panzer III, and four Panzer IV in 1942 in a platoon. I would say that is probably just a rumour. Same sort of rumours went round after CMBB came out WRT CMBO. Would be nice though.

Athlon 2.13, 512MB, 64MB ATI Radeon 9000. No problems. G4/400, 384MB, 32MB ATI Radeon 7000 AGP. Fine but markedly slower.

You're going to Hollywood? </font>

Well, that is how I rationalise the losses that suddenly climb when the squads start to leg it. Ever noticed how they suddenly go down from 9 to 2? I just think of it as guys panicked, staying put, whatever, but definitely not participating in this battle again. In operations you get some replacements, and I always saw those as stragglers returning. If you read about Italy, you notice that often units seemed to just melt away a bit during the attack, individual soldiers 'getting lost' in the dark (and who can blame them).

Is that why they did not allow the French to play? </font>

From Jentz: I take it that is what you are after? As for in-game experiences, I have just had a SU-85 in June 44 (non Tungsten) fire three times at >80m frontally at a Stug. Three times partial penetration only. Is that shatter gap at work? Stug died nevertheless.

PvK - I finally went back to my library, and Jentz indicates that the fault is only with Panzer III in 1942 (should be five) - in 43 they should be five. Panzer IV are correct in CMBB (i.e. should be 4 in 42, 5 in 43). Not worth raising, because BFC see CMBB as a finished product, and there will be no more patches.

Is that why they did not allow the French to play?