ASL Veteran

Ah, yes I now see that he was referring to the Quad 20mm flak gun . I assumed he was talking about the single barrelled version. I think it was the single barrelled version that was in the test, but only Achim can confirm that. I would agree that a Quad 20mm spits out a lot of firepower, but the problems of causing immobilization would still be the same as before. The four barrels are also spaced fairly widely apart, so unless you get the range right you are going to be hitting all over the place. That and each barrel will be vibrating too of course. As long as they are good, good, good, good vibrations... sorry, I couldn't resist.

Crates are doodads, just like brush, grain, steppe grass, etc

Are you certain of that ROF? That sounds a little high to me, especially considering that the MG42 has a cyclic of around 1,200 RPM and is considered 'astonishingly high'. In any case, all of the rounds fired by the Flak gun are not going to be impacting on the same part of the track - if they are hitting the track at all. The hits would be distributed all over the tank just from the weapon's vibrations when it fires. The angle the tank is facing will also have an effect. The target area of the track alone from the front facing for most vehicles is fairly small, and with undulations in the ground it would probably be a fairly difficult target to hit. Targeting the track from the side would be even more difficult. I also haven't run across any personal accounts that indicated quick immobilization is normal with small caliber weapons, because in CM it seems to happen consistently in under 2 minutes. Every once in a while I could accept it, but every single time? That seems a bit much to me - especially when considering personal accounts. The personal accounts seem to indicate that it is the cumulative damage from numerous small caliber hits which eventually cause the suspension and track system to fail, not that the track is "snipped clean" and broken after a minute or two of firing. Without more data though we are just engaging in speculation. How about if we just let Steve and Charles look into it and leave it at that for now? We can then test it again and see where we are at.

Yes, I am thinking that the immobilization results are a little too quick for my tastes ... the Tiger in the part I posted above took a lot of damage in the tracks and roadwheels and still kept on going. There are also numerous other examples of Tigers that keep going when their tracks and suspension are getting pounded. Of course, that might just be a peculiarity of the Tiger so ... ? Still, it should take a little more than one or two minutes to disable a tank like that with small caliber weapons. Thanks, Steve, for looking into these issues for us. Here is the rest of the Tiger passage: I'm thinking that the results of immobilization would be a delayed result. The track and road wheel damage doesn't seem to result in immediate immobilization with small caliber weapons. [ September 22, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

Hmmm, I do find this result to be interesting. I'm curious to know if, after you get the immobilization result, can you cancel the Flak's targeting of the tank and hide it to see if the crew of the IS3 will bail when no further fire is directed at it? 3 bails out of 4 immobilizations is not a 100% ratio either, so we now know that the crew will not bail 100% of the time while under fire in an immobilized tank. We just need to find out where the 'breaking' point is. Also out of curiosity, can you see what morale status the tank crew is at when bailing? ie, Alerted, Cautious, Panicked, etc. Is the result the same with one 50mm PAK instead of one 20mm Flak?

If someone who has the game (Northern California isn't northeast enough ) would like to establish some parameters for abandonment in CM, I think some additional tests are necessary. The test run so far has 4 20mm Flak Guns firing on an immobilized IS2 tank or something like 5 50mm PAK(a significant amount of firepower in my mind). Does an immobilized tank that has nothing firing at it abandon (threat level zero)? How about just one 20mm Flak gun? Two? Three? Eighteen? How long does it take for the abandonment to occur? Is there a difference between how long it takes a Conscript crew to abandon vs an Elite crew? If we find that two flak guns cause no abandonment and four do, then does this still fit in the category of "BTS fix or do somfink" or is it just a difference of opinion on how 'uncomfortable' the tank crew would be when subjected to that level of firepower.

I'm only posting examples because they are interesting to me and they do show some examples of how men reacted under fire. These examples are not intended to prove a point, but merely to establish some baselines for behavior - or at a minimum provide some understanding of what these crews were subjected to. In the example of the Tiger, it was not immobilized. Mobility was retained throughout the battle. It was posted to give the friendly readers of this message board an idea of what the crew would face from non penetrating hits. I hope I've illustrated at the very minimum that it isn't a pleasant experience, and that the risks to the crew from small caliber weapons are not entirely non existant. For the Japanese examples, I merely show that even troops who are culturally steeped in honor, courage, and duty can and will bail from a tank if he is subjected to enough stress. This basically makes the regulations angle of the discussion a moot point as each individual is going to reach his own decision on what he is going to do to survive irrespective of regulations. At some point, a soldier's desire to survive will outweigh his desire to do his duty. I also hoped that it illustrated some of the dangers a tank crew faces while on the battlefield. If others have examples of bailing crews or the effects of AT fire on crews then by all means post them. It helps the discussion because it is much more helpful than someone saying "I wouldn't bail out of a tank under circumstance X" because, ahem, unless you've been in that situation you are just talking out of your ... well, you get the idea . Personal accounts are the only baseline that we have for the behavior of tank crews under fire, so any rational discussion of the subject will necessarily require them. If we do not include personal accounts we are either left with a high level psychology discussion that should only include trained professionals, or we are left with a discussion along the lines of "Yeah, well I think X. Oh yeah, well I think Y." I don't think that the latter form of discussion really gets us anywhere. From continued reading I've found that immobilization generally means abandonment. I'm not talking about just cases where the tank is under fire, but in all cases where immobilization occurs. Now, sometimes this happens immediately, and sometimes it happens several hours later, but abandonment generally occurs at one time or another if the vehicle can't be recovered. How quickly this abandonment occurs is probably directly related to the percieved threat to the crew, how much support from friendly troops the crew has around them, and the tactical situation.

So ya think that non penetrating hits on a tank are just like a walk in the park? Here is an account of a Tiger crew in Russia from "Panzertruppen Vol 2", Seems like just getting hit at all, even by non penetrating hits, is a very nerve wracking and intense experience ... not at all like a Sunday drive on a beautiful autumn day.

Oh my! The first two passages I posted above were not connected episodes. Only the last two passages were in any way connected, and even then there is much more material between those passages. I did not realize that those passages could be construed as one continuous episode.

There are some very intense accounts of tanks under fire in the book "Nomonhan: Japan against Russia, 1939." Now I would certainly put Japanese tankers in a different category than … ummm … normal tankers, but I think the accounts are interesting nonetheless. Heat is something that I never really thought of when considering the effects of non penetrating enemy fire on tanks. There would be a sound factor too as posted earlier in the thread, so even non penetrating hits would increase the crew's discomfort level by quite a bit. The Japanese tank crew, staying at their posts to the end! How would you know when such a tank was knocked out if the crew never bails - even when the tank is on fire? Who wouldn't want to command such troops in a Pacific CM? I would also draw attention to the part that says "his immobilized tank, now a sitting duck...." Some things of interest to me in this passage are how long it took the crew to bail out of a burning tank (for those who feel bailing out should always be quick) and the fact that they actually bailed out at all (considering the regulations in the previous passage). To see the gravity of the bailing out at all part, check these passages out, The guy bails out of a burning tank and his commander might be forced to commit suicide!? :eek:

I can produce other accounts where tank crews drove off or abandoned after taking non lethal hits. It is pretty easy to sit around the PC and say "I wouldn't bail out, that would be crazy" but we really aren't going to be able to judge what "we" would do in a similar situation until we've been in that situation and were subjected to the stresses particular to that situation. Perhaps if you were in a tank being hit by shellfire you would be so busy crapping your pants and saying "mommy mommy" that you weren't even capable of thinking logically, let alone doing something as complicated as bailing out! I'm sure there are historical accounts with tank crews doing all kinds of crazy things when under fire so it seems difficult to critique how accurate the morale model is one way or another. You are attempting to put a rational set of parameters on something that is inherently irrational. Human nature. People just do some wacked out and crazy things when their very survival is at stake. When a Landser gets hit, he can't just reload the game and play another quick battle - he is out permanently.

It's going to be difficult to do conversions without the game ... . In any event, the time scale was supposedly 2 minutes per ASL turn, although if you do some testing you will find that around 3.5 to 4 minutes per turn is a little more appropriate. By testing I mean set up a platoon of infantry and time how long it takes them to walk 280 meters in CM (that is how far a platoon can move with a leader including the advance phase in ASL - 7 hexes). There has to be a little fudge factor in terms of time though and that will be a primary balancing tool. There are numerous other factors to consider too. I have written up a five page Microsoft Word document on how to convert ASL scenarios to CM (which I actually just updated last night). If you are interested I can send it to you. I am planning on ... around four or five scenario packs. Each would have between 7 and 10 scenarios, an AAR from my PBEM playtest for each scenario, and my five page "how to" converting document. I'm thinking of a "Classic Pack" which would have scenarios that only use the first five boards, a "Deluxe Pack" which will only be Deluxe scenarios, a "Historical Pack" which will only have ASL Historical scenarios, and maybe a "Early War Pack" or something which will have scenarios set in 41 through 43 followed by a second "Late War Pack" that will have scenarios set in 44 and 45. The scenarios are already selected and half the briefings are written. All I need is the game and some time to work on them. Naturally it would take quite a while to complete these and test them - and write all those AARs. I plan on putting an av (for ASL Veteran of course) followed by a date (like 4106 or somefink) in front of the scenario title so they will all be in one place in your scenario folder (toward the top naturally enough )and sorted by date. This sorting method compliments of a suggestion by Michael Dorosh.

The smaller scenarios generally suffer from force to space ratio. There is also not enough for the player to do in CM with such small forces. CM handles much larger battles much more easily than ASL did because most of the stuff you have to do in CM is done by the computer. I recall a poll done on Col Klotz's site where he asked what size scenario most players enjoyed playing. Very few people selected "Tiny". The most popular size was "Medium" or "Small" IIRC. Huge was just as unpopular as "Tiny" which actually surprised me a little.

I thought it was the Soviet troops who used the axes? They were used as a counter to the Log wielding Finns as protection for their tanks. When a company of Soviet Axe troops met up with a company of log toting Finns the wood chips really started to fly!! :eek: It is actually a myth that Finns used toothpicks to take out Soviet tanks. Most of the lumber used by the Finns were incredibly large trees .... the largest in the forest. I seem to recall a certain hero of Finland who was using trees that were at least 50 meters long/tall so he could attack Soviet tanks from a safe enough distance. The major drawback to the use of big trees was that it was difficult to get good velocity while swinging the huge logs. the user of these huge logs was prone to hit other trees that remained standing between them and the target tank - unless he was using a downward or a vertical stroke. Restricting your means of attack to a downward stroke left you open to Soviet axe troops since they could anticipate and counter this move. Since most of Finland is heavily forested this was a real problem in some areas north of the Karelian peninsula. I think this is where the toothpick myth was created because you wouldn't have to worry about hitting other trees when using a toothpick. Toothpicks are handy enough to be used in the densest of forests. You just have to be more precise with a toothpick than you have to be with a 50 meter tree.

From the new features list, I noticed that you can now "Boresight" weapons on TRPs. I'm guessing that this is for MGs and AT Guns and the like? Does CMBB make any differentiation between "Artillery" TRPs and "Boresighting" TRPs or are TRPs considered to be used for both purposes? I'm rather hoping that the "Artillery" TRPs are different from "Boresighting" TRPs ....... :cool:

I don't know if you were playing vs the AI or against a human opponent but you probably will be disappointed in them vs the AI. I can honestly say that all the ones I've played PBEM vs other players seemed to work just fine, and most of my regular opponents continued to play other conversions as they were produced. Even untweaked all of my local friends were in agreement that the balance on ASL conversions was generally better than the balance on non conversions when played PBEM. Of course they were probably a little biased in favor of the ASL scenarios since I was making the scenarios for them. Versus the AI ... well the scenarios were pretty boring - just as I would expect them to be. The AI isn't sophisticated enough to use the forces to their maximum potential, so a designer targeting the AI playing crowd has different criteria to meet than a designer targeting the PBEM crowd. I would venture to say that it is more difficult to design a scenario that is primarily to be played vs the AI. Having said that though, one does have to be fairly selective about which scenarios to convert. You are right in that many do not convert well. Many of mine were requests by local friends who insisted I do a certain one or another even after I protested its lack of suitability. Since my friend had all the scenario cards and the boards I had to comply . Believe it or not, I started converting when my friend would bring over the appropriate boards and the scenario card and say "I want to play this one - make it so." I also never converted any with the primary intent of posting them on the web for the CM community at large. I was doing them for myself and my friends. If anyone else wanted to try them, well that was fine too. I have much more control over my selection this time though because my friend moved up to Reno and left me with unfettered access to "the goods"!! I think my approach will be different this time. I've had enough practice with converting that I have a lot of the more thorny issues under control. They will still be as exact as possible, but I have a better fix on some minor balance issues. I'm sure many will be doing conversions in the weeks ahead, and after designing scenarios for many different games over the years (TOAW, Age of Rifles, CM) I've found that two people seldom interpret the same thing in the same way. Even two people making ASL to CMBB conversions from the same scenario card making them as exact as possible will differ in many aspects. So, if someone plans on doing a conversion don't feel the need to rush out and "stake a claim" on scenario X or scenario Y because their vision will not necessarily coincide with someone else's vision of the same scenario. We can have ten different conversions of "Hill 621" and they can all coexist in harmony . It is for this reason that I always include "conversion notes" so people can see the reason why something is represented or not. At the request of an anonymous gamer though I'm including per side conversion notes this time around so the conversion notes will not give away info for those who have never played a certain scenario before and want to play it blind. Having thumbed through just about .... no, every scenario card for ASL, I can say that there are more than 100 scenarios set on the Eastern Front that have at least a company of troops on both sides. There are probably another 50 or so (I haven't actually counted them cause I think they are all too small to convert) that have forces smaller than a company on each side. Of those approximately 150 + I have filtered them down to about 40 that are suitable for conversion (no oddball special rules, victory conditions can be simulated, etc). I also intend to spend much more time on these than I did on the CMBO ones using all that I've picked up in my previous 30 + CMBO attempts. Every per side briefing is at least 4 kb in size with many that are 6 kb in size. I hope to add a little atmosphere with the briefings .... which are actually one of the most difficult parts of making a CM scenario (believe it or not). A guy can spend a long time staring at the notepad thinking "I really have to come up with something here!!" A briefing can literally make or break your little creation so don't forget about them when making your conversions!

With all the talk about Karl and Dora etc .... I was just a little curious to know if any of these made it into CMBB Silver Spade I think a few were sent over to the Soviet Union as lend lease tank killers ... they were pretty good at taking out or even creating fortified positions too. Here is a shot of this baby sneaking up on some unsuspecting bulldozers!! Two victims Using it's primary means of attack, it would scoop up King Tigers and dump them on ye old scrap pile. No fortified position could stand up for long when these horrible devices would show up.

Why are we still talking about German sights? Aren't we supposed to be comparing Soviet and American sights? Am I missing something? :confused:

I too suffered three bogs in one playing - one of which ended in immobilization. All three vehicles that bogged were Pz IIIs and all three were using "Hunt" command. All were in "Steppe" terrain.

1. Nobody will be talking about the demo scenarios once the full game is out. 2. Somebody who has never played CMBO will find the scenarios enjoyable to play as they likely will not have to play each one ten times before deciding whether they want to buy CMBB or not. The scenarios are just fine the first time through, and that's all it will take for someone to decide whether they want the game or not. Scenario balance or replayability will not be a factor for those who haven't been exposed to CMBO already. 3. Assuming that the number of people posting in this thread is representative of the opinions of the gaming public at large is a faulty assumption. 4. If the playing of the demo scenarios has caused someone to decide not to get CMBB, then they were probably predisposed not to get CMBB in the first place. Either that, or they didn't like CMBO all that much and they were hoping that the improvements from CMBO to CMBB would sway their opinion of this series of games from negative/neutral to the positive. 5. If someone doesn't fall under point 4 above, then all they are doing is whining about the demo scenarios. The genesis of this pathetic whining is the fact that they don't have the full game in their possession yet and they don't have the stamina to wait another two weeks for it to be released. For those who think they fall under point 5 and say, "That's not it at all, these demo scenarios caused me to decide not to get the game." then see point number four above for your appropriate category - otherwise just accept that you belong under point 5 and you are in denial. 6. The demo scenarios aren't the game. CMBB and CMBO are not scenario driven, they are game mechanics driven. The scenarios don't drive the game mechanics, the game mechanics drive the scenarios. This then means that any scenario, when taken in isolation, is not representative of CMBB as a whole since the potential settings for scenarios is virtually limitless. Anyone who understands this point and is still whining about the scenarios definitely falls under the auspices of point 5. Someone who doesn't understand this point probably falls into the auspices of point 4 because they haven't taken the time to explore CMBO to its fullest.

Poor attempt at humor .... probably best left unposted.

My CMBO used to freeze on my old computer after I installed a Geforce 2 video card. I found that I had to reduce the AGP from 2x to 1x and it would stop freezing up. Apparently my motherboard wasn't capable of handling what the video card could deliver. Not sure if this helps any, but I figured I would throw it out there anyway.

Order number 80579!!! :cool: :cool: . Poor Canadians .... 2 to 4 weeks?? I think I would explode if I had to wait that long.

Who wouldn't like eye candy like swaying trees?? :eek: BTW, thanks Dan - you guys are always thinking two steps ahead!!

I noticed that trees do not sway in the breeze when "Sparse" coverage is selected, but that they sway in the breeze under all other selections (other than none of course ). Nothing special, just figured I would mention it.