SirReal

Check your trash/spam folders. You never know with hotmail.

You Got Mail.

FFS, rune, you're digging yourself a hole there. The tanks DO have HEAT rounds. One of them only has one, the others have four each. The tooltips states that they're Gr38 Hl/B.

No, it's not currently loaded into the breech at the time of the screenshot. The tanks do have them, though - I've checked that. (At least one of them - didn't bother with the others). As to WHY the tanks have them, and whether or not it's historically accurate, I leave up to 1C and battlefront.com.

Where do I check that? It's the Battle of Dubosekovo. 1941 sometimes. The PzIVC are equipped with Gr38 Hl/B (rated 86mm penetration).

Ask hotmail why. It got delivered ok: </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">May 3 11:47:36 gator courierd: started,id=00000000004087A8.000000004639AFA6.000073C9,from=<(sirreals_email_blanked)>,module=esmtp,host=hotmail.com,addr=<(normal_dudes_email_blanked)> May 3 11:47:36 gator courierd: Waiting. shutdown time=none, wakeup time=none, queuedelivering=1, inprogress=1 May 3 11:48:33 gator courieresmtp: id=00000000004087A8.000000004639AFA6.000073C9,from=<(sirreals_email_blanked)>,addr=<(normal_dudes_email_blanked)>: 250 <4639B006.3080204@linkdata.se> Queued mail for delivery May 3 11:48:33 gator courieresmtp: id=00000000004087A8.000000004639AFA6.000073C9,from=<(sirreals_email_blanked)>,addr=<(normal_dudes_email_blanked)>,size=4756930,success: delivered: mx4.hotmail.com [65.54.245.104] May 3 11:48:33 gator courieresmtp: id=00000000004087A8.000000004639AFA6.000073C9,from=<(sirreals_email_blanked)>,addr=<(normal_dudes_email_blanked)>,size=4756930,status: success</pre>

On the way. Wanker!

In CM:BB, what would you expect if three PzIVC fire at the flank of a T34/41 at 50m?

I don't think I was being offensive, but I'll be nicer to you, since you ask. Like I stated in a previous post, I wouldn't use this setup in a Combat Mission game, mostly because it's bad tank tactics. I "works" here since the AI tanks just drive right on through, allowing me to shoot at their flanks and rear at point blank range. I realize that the "intended" way to win this scenario is most likely re-crewing the ZIS-2 and 45mm AT guns, as those are the only guns available to the german player that has a snowballs chance in hell to kill a T34 at range. Lobbing HE hoping to track them is bad mojo. Still, I do think that hitting a T34 several times in the flank and read at those ranges should result in a quick knockout. It usually doesn't.

On the way.

I get three-four hits from 75mm at the T34 side or rear. No kill. Repeatedly. Yes, I suppose that's one way for the AI to ensure victory... although I wouldn't say there's much of 'intelligence' in it.

Hmmm.. funny how all the rounds from the PzIV's shatter against the T34, but the T34 doesn't seem to have that problem. I guess the german ammo quality was really bad compared to the russians.

Moon: See above. In CM:BB or AK, I wouldn't have done this setup. Thanks to the braindead AI, this works fine. 2-1 or 3-1 at flanks.

You are incorrect. Thanks to the (not so) brilliant AI, the russian tanks come driving between the train and the houses on the left. I engage two or three to one, at about 50m, firing at the enemy rear and flanks. Next please.

SoaN: You believe that the PzIVC is incapable of penetrating a T34/41 at 50m. Alright. Next please.

On Veteran difficulty. The russians are attacking from the top left. As positioned, those five tanks (all PzIVC or PzIII) are hidden until the russian tanks (BT-7 and T34/41) drive past them at extremely close ranges (<50m), showing their flanks and rears. I would have expected a lot of dead russian tanks, with little or no losses. What would you expect? Well. In this game, it turns out, the standard outcome is five dead german panzers for maybe one BT-7 and one T34 (if you're lucky). Yes. Realistic indeed.

Max engagement distances are map-dependent. Longest I've seen are 1km. I think WW2Online does allow longer distances, though - up to 5km if I recall correctly. Of course, that's a MMOFPS, with higher latencies than other FPS.

You're out of date, my friend. Red Orchestra: Ostfront has some tank maps that are about that size.

I was being sarcastic. Humor. If I offended you, sorry, that wasn't my intention. Let me explain the joke to you: During WW2, the russian command structure was famed for it's inflexibility and lack of initiative at the lower levels. Thus, the joke of having the battlefield commander showing up at individual tanks and authorizing turret fire.

Thanks for the info, Moon. Currently, for me, the game is a huge letdown; but that's mostly because I was hoping for CM:BB with purty graphics. Well, I got over that quickly. But then the AI (or lack thereof) forces me to do so much micromanagement it stops being fun. I do think the game can be changed so that I'd enjoy it, and it's nice to see that your ambitions are high. Looking forward to the coming patches!

More importantly, you'd think most of the tank training programs during WW2 would have included the simple instruction "if you can only see the turret, don't aim for the chassis". Of course, in this particular simulation, they opted for the Truth, namely, all tank gunners must await a personal order by the local battalion commander, before aiming at an enemy turret. Oh wait, it's a russian developer...

If I could be bothered, I'd set up the same scenario in both ToW and CM:BB: One Tiger, immobilized, elite crew with only standard AP ammo, facing towards five immobilized T34/41, elite crews, only standard AP ammo. Run the test at 100m, 500m and 1000m. Compare the results. If there are significant differences between the average outcomes from CM:BB and ToW, we can conclude that one of the games are incorrect.

Play another game? Try putting them behind the trees, that usually buys them a few more seconds.

rune, You saying that the encyclopedia != game data? So there's no way a T34/41 will be able to kill a tiger with normal AP, no matter what the range?

This could be a non-factor; we don't know how the distribution of penetration vs non-penetration is. Could be that it goes from 50% fragments inside to 75% fragments inside within such a short statistical span that using either criteria yields the same result at actual testing.