ASL Veteran

According to Ian Hogg, the PAK 41 "was principally used in the Middle East, and, to a lesser degree, in the early days of the Russian campaign." So I wouldn't count on seeing it until CM 3. It was really more of a heavy ATR than an ATG. I think the French had a taper bore gun too - 25mm I think it was. Ian Hogg also says that the supply of ammunition stopped in 1942 and that the weapon fell out of use.

Hmmm, reply with quote doesn't seem to be working properly. Anyway, while there are a lot of factors that alter accuracy on the battlefield, I don't think that the inherent accuracy of the weapon itself can be completely ignored. Since all those battlefield factors are going to be affecting all the gunners equally, these various effects can be abstracted and applied to each weapon equally. In that case, the only difference between the guns is the inherent differences between the guns themselves. If the individual characteristics of each gun is not included, then you have a situation where each gun has an equal chance to hit at a given range. This is essentially the case in Combat Mission. However, the firing range data shows that certain guns are inherently more accurate than others. The test range indicates that the 50mm PAK is much more accurate than the 88 Flak at 1000 meters and one could presume that - all other factors being equal - the 50mm PAK is a more accurate weapon and should have a greater chance of hitting than an 88 at that range. When you start comparing the 2 Pounder to the 50mm this starts to become a serious problem. The 2 Pounder really drops off after 500 meters while the 50mm (both of them) remains significantly more accurate. If the inherent accuracy of the 50mm is not included in the equation somewhere, then the British would get an artificial advantage in CM 3 Boy, will we see the German Optics crowd scream then!

Okay, while it is not possible to test the accuracy of Allied tanks vs German tanks from 1944 until some data arrives, it is possible to test the German guns against themselves. I set up a firing range with the 50mm PAK 38, the 88 Flak, and the Lynx at the end of the paved lanes. I placed Shermans at 100m, 500m, 1000m, 1500m, and 2000m and read off the accuracy that the targeting lines displayed. I then compared these readings to the real life accuracy data for these guns as given by Jentz in “Tank Combat in North Africa”. Here is a raw comparison: Combat Mission Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm x87% x50% x26% x13% xx5% 88mm x87% x50% x27% x14% xx7% 20mm x99% x87% x56% x27% xx9% Jentz Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm 100% 100% x95% x68% xxxx 88mm 100% x98% x64% x38% x23% 20mm 100% x87% x37% xxxx xxxx I am going to make some comments on this data and see what you guys think. First, the target used by Jentz’s data is 2.5m x 2m. This is approximately the size of a Sherman, but not exact – the Sherman is a bit bigger. The first thing that I notice is that the drop off CM gives these weapons at 500m seems to be overstated. Out beyond the range of 500 meters the 88 seems to be about right in CM if everything was moved over one column, but the 50mm PAK is really underrated out to 1500 meters while maybe it is overrated beyond that range. The 20mm on the Lynx in Jentz almost matches CM exactly, except that CM doesn’t model the drop off at 1000 meters and is probably overstated beyond 1000 meters. If we apply the 100m accuracy in CM as a base, then we could subtract 13% from each gun at each range to arrive at a modified ‘CM’ accuracy. Perhaps the 20mm should just use the Jentz figures since they seem to match CM so closely. Modified CM accuracy Weap 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 50mm x87% x87% x82% x55% xx5% 88mm x87% x85% x51% x25% x10% 20mm x99% x87% x37% xx5% xx1% As you may note, the accuracy of the 88 Flak using this method is almost the same as it is in CM now. You just have to move the CM accuracy one column over to the right out to 1500m. Since the Sherman’s dimensions are actually a little bigger than 2.5m x 2m one could argue that the modified CM accuracy should be even higher, but these numbers seem reasonable as second or third shot probabilities. Of course, these are just preliminary findings and much more data would need to be sifted before coming up with any type of accuracy ratings for each gun.

I also want to add that Jentz wrote "These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average gunner could achieve the accuracy shown by the number in parentheses after adjusting his fire onto the center of the target - if he remained calm." Unfortunately, this accuracy data is from 1941 and has the 2 pounder and the 25 pounder for British guns so we can't really do any direct comparisons to the game. I just thought it was interesting data to share.

I have located some accuracy data from Jentz’s book “Tank Combat in North Africa: the opening rounds”. In it he says the following on pages 57 and 59: “The estimate of accuracy is given by the probability of hitting a target 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide, representing the target presented by the front of an opposing tank. These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the target. The first number shows the accuracy in percentage that was obtained during controlled test firing of the gun to determine the pattern of dispersion. The second number in parentheses was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. Both the British and Germans considered that ‘doubled dispersion’ was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by the troops in practice and, if they remained calm, in combat. All of these accuracy values were obtained from firing tables published by the respective armies during the war. The British calculated their dispersion based on a 90% zone and the Germans and Italians calculated the dispersion based on a 50% zone. The 90% zone from the British firing tables was used as the basis for calculating the percent accuracy against a 2.5m by 2 meter target so that it could be directly compared with the other nations guns.” Okay, here is the table that Jentz created – it is located on page 58. I am only using the number located in parentheses – the one including the dispersion. Weap mvel ammo 100m 500m 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2pdr 792m xxAP 100% x67% x26% x12% xxxx xxxx xxxx 25pr 472m xxAP 100% x66% x46% x28% xxxx xxxx xxxx 20mm 780m Pzgr 100% x87% x37% xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 37mm 758m Pzgr 100% x95% x47% x15% xxxx xxxx xxxx 47mm 775m Pzgr 100% 100% x89% x59% xxxx xxxx xxxx 50mm 685m Pzgr 100% 100% x96% x71% xxxx xxxx xxxx 50mm 835m Pzgr 100% 100% x95% x68% xxxx xxxx xxxx 75mm 385m Kgrp 100% 100% x73% x38% xxxx xxxx xxxx 88mm 810m Pzgr 100% x98% x64% x38% x23% x15% x10% 105m 395m Pzgr 100% x98% x63% x32% xxxx xxxx xxxx 20mm 840m Ital 100% x87% x37% xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 47mm 630m Md35 100% x95% x46% x17% xxxx xxxx xxxx 47mm 630m Md39 100% x95% x52% xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The first two weapons are British and the last three are Italian. I had to keep all columns four places long so the table would work on the board. The only thing I would comment on is that the accuracy of the 88 Flak doesn’t seem all that fabulous here. The other thing is that muzzle velocity doesn’t seem to make all that big of a difference to accuracy.

Any advantage that is given must be primarily based upon the differences in the muzzle velocities in the various guns. This is consistent with what BTS has already described as being in the game. Now all we need is some real world data for some vehicles at firing ranges so we can compare them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: ASL. I see three edits on your post. Its still wrong. You have a good idea but you are not coming through. 1. Compare "similar" silhouttes in game terms. Sherman and Panzer IV are real "close". 2. Compare similar guns. Use 76mm sherman and 75L48 german please. Now , I think theres a need for discussion on silhouttes and I agree with BTS that spotting can be left for somewhere else. I note a rise in "tenseness" here and perhaps BTS can rise above it and keep this discussion in check and on track. Be a moderator please. Lewis PS "Since the 88 is the gun everyone is in a huff about, I used a tank with an 88. " I see you want to discuss the 88 but I think we are comparing optics. It would be better for a comparision to keep as many variables as close as possible and see the results. Just to be clear, is the sherman a 75 or a 76 in your comparision? [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 10-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not focusing this discussion on optics alone. I am also not on one 'side' or another. I am merely presenting data for everyone to examine and interpret as they like. I also don't detect any tenseness in this discussion. I am merely showing that, with similar sized targets, the 88 has a better chance to hit than a 75 at long range. The chance isn't a whole lot better, but it is there. If you want to test something else be my guest. Show us your data and we can all examine it. BTW, my previous post had a Firefly's chance to hit a Mark IV - compare the Firefly's chance to hit a Mark IV with a Tiger's chance to hit a Sherman if you want to find an optics 'bonus'. I suspect that the Firefly's chance to hit is similar to the Tiger's.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I must conclude that the 88 mm weapon (any variation) may well be able to penetrate 157 mm of armour at 2000 meters but the German tanks I tested (even unbuttoned) CANNOT spot that far. -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure we are at the point where we can conclude anything yet. I would like to see some data for Allied tanks at the firing range before we can start cobbling together an argument or making any conclusions. As far as the spotting goes, well that is a completely separate issue from the accuracy issue. We are only trying to establish whether accuracy is correctly modeled in CM at the moment. Perhaps we can discuss the spotting issue once the accuracy issue has been addressed to everyone's satisfaction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: ASL maybe another edit is needed. You mention three tanks and are comparing two? PzIV, Sherman and Tiger? Compare Sherman and PzIV pleease?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lewis, everything is as intended. The use of the Mark IV is only relevant because it is similar in size to the Sherman. The edits were only to try to make the table read better. The only thing that matters is the target size and the gun firing. Since the 88 is the gun everyone is in a huff about, I used a tank with an 88. In this case the Mark IV has a similar size silhouette to the Sherman therefore it was used as the Sherman's target. The only other way to do it would be to have a Sherman fire at another Sherman and CM won't let you do that. To compare a Sherman's accuracy when firing at a Tiger and vice versa would be using two different sized targets. The type of tank you are firing at is irrelevant, it is the size of the target that matters not the type.

Tom, there is a German targeting bonus in the game. One does not need to do a lot of test firing to see this. One only needs to compare items with similar silhouettes as targets and use the CM targeting line. The M4 Sherman’s silhouette is 100 and the Mark Ivs silhouette is 99 which makes these items very close in size. In my firing range I had the following results from the targeting line: Shooter Target 500m 1000 1500 2000 Sherman MkIV x48% x23% x10% xx4% Tiger Sherman x50% x27% x14% xx7% As you can see, the Tiger does have an accuracy advantage over the Sherman. It is relatively small, but it is there nonetheless. The only question in my mind is whether this bonus is sufficiently large enough to reflect actual battlefield conditions. In my opinion, the only way to tell would be to compare actual firing range data between the Sherman and the Tiger. If it was found that the Sherman only hit a 2000 meter target on a range 25% of the time and a Tiger hit a similarly sized target 50% of the time, then I think it would be fair to expect that this 25% difference be reflected in CM as well. Now the CM hit percentages wouldn’t necessarily have to match the firing range hit percentages, but as long as the difference was modeled then we would have a good simulation. [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-08-2000).] [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-08-2000).] [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-08-2000).]

Okay, I created a firing range that was 2000 meters long organized with three lanes of pavement and tall heavy buildings at 500 meter intervals. I placed four Allied vehicles in each lane at each designated 500 meter interval and placed various German tanks at the end of each lane. I never fired a single shot, I just wanted to see what the targeting line said was the chance of hitting. I used the following vehicles with silhouettes in brackets: Panther VG late (118), Tiger VIE late (120), King Tiger (135), Lynx (74), Mark IVH (99), Hetzer (65), Firefly (101), and the M4 Sherman (100). Shooter Target 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m Sherman King Tiger 54% 27% 12% 5% Sherman Tiger 52% 25% 11% 5% Sherman Panther 51% 25% 11% 5% Sherman MkIVH 48% 23% 10% 4% Sherman Lynx 42% 19% 9% 3% Sherman Hetzer 39% 18% 8% 3% Firefly MkIVH 51% 30% 17% 9% King TigerSherman 52% 30% 18% 10% Panther Sherman 51% 29% 16% 9% Tiger Sherman 50% 27% 14% 7% Mark IVH Firefly 50% 27% 14% 7% Lynx Sherman 87% 56% 27% 9% Hetzer Sherman 50% 27% 14% 7% I could not get the vehicles to be in exact increments of 500m but I was able to get each one within plus 7 or minus 1 meters. Sorry, but neither by tab key or spacebar can I seem to make this table more readable. [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-07-2000).] [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 10-07-2000).]

I would like to see Allied and German gunnery tests on a range compared to each other, and gunnery tests between Allied and German guns in CM compared to each other. We can then compare real range tests to real range tests and CM gunnery to CM gunnery. We then note any differences between the various nationalities in the real tests and see if those same differences are reflected in the CM gunnery tests.

It is possible in CM to fire at vehicles that have already been destroyed. That would give you a non moving target to fire at for as long as you want to blast away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Jeff, you have a serious problem with flaming when you loose arguments, both of me and CavScout, or not reading posts carefully, and of coming into a BTS board and telling BTS they are idiots. Grow up, post reasonable things, and please GOD start breaking whatever pills the doctors are giving you in half, they are seriously effecting your judgement. If and when you post a reasonable, clear, and concise argument I am sure that BTS will do hand springs in joy. Now, with flames and failure to read others posts, you will not convince them of anything except to doubt your sanity. So please calm down, take a deep breath, reread all the posts, formulate a response, and post it in an adult manner, hopefully surrounding the subject at hand. Then you will in return get reasoned posts instead of lectures on deportment from half the board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, after the BTS post that spelled out what they were looking for I thought that I detected a change in attitude by Slapdragon. An attitude a little more conducive to constructive conversation on the issue. Had we continued on in that manner perhaps this thread could be salvaged. Whether you realize it or not Slapdragon, this is a new 'shot across the bow' towards Jeff. In his current state of mind I hope that he can refrain from responding. Jeff, please ignore this personal attack so we can move forward. Okay, I think that BTS had made several very good points about the issue a few posts back. Desert Fox then made some very good observations. I also understand Jeff's logic and I have to say that some of those very same issues that he raised crossed my mind as well. After swaying back and forth in the breeze, I am more inclined to believe that by 44 there was no significant difference between American and German optics. I think rather than having a confrontational 'prove it' argument, we would be better served to have a general discussion of the optics issue in general without the proving part. Let's leave the proving part after the discussion has matured a little. By matured, I don't mean the attitudes, but the data. It took a very long time before someone finally described an American sight. I personally think the discussion should be expanded to include Soviet, French, British, etc sights. What do we really know about these things to begin with? Why just compare American and German - why not all nation's optics? No offense, but I wish BTS was less involved in this discussion. The more BTS is involved, the more this turns into something that is being considered as an official change. Perhaps a pointer here or there to assist the direction of the discussion, but I personally don't want to see a situation where they must defend themselves or their work (which is spectacular). The less involved they are, the less it is necessary for them to defend themselves. Finally, I think that Jeff has been a little hard on BTS and that he can come across in an abrasive manner. Sometimes he gets caught up in minutae, but he generally makes good points.

I tried it with a PBEM opponent to let him end the op with some shred of pride intact during the second battle, but the game just restarted the second battle over again with new set up areas. So, no, Cease fire doesn't seem to do anything in Ops other than make you start over.

I would like to jump in here as a neutral observer. Basically, BTS doesn’t want to add a German advantage for better optics unless the advantage of the optics can be quantified. There really is only one way the advantage can be quantified. The way would be to take a couple of German tanks (or American) and have them all do a test fire at a range with their standard sights. You would then replace all the sights with American (or German) sights and do another test fire at a range. Of course you would have to alternate gunners between tanks and also factor out the contribution to accuracy that the ballistics of each individual gun has. This would give you quantifiable evidence as to how effective the German optics were relative to American optics. You can’t compare the accuracy of a Tiger tank at various ranges to a Sherman at various ranges because you cannot isolate the optics from the various other things that contribute to accuracy. Problem here is that it is unlikely any test of that nature was ever done – therefore we never will have any quantifiable evidence as to how superior German optics were (if indeed they were). Even making the assumption that the various foreign sights could be fitted to the test vehicle, why would such a test be conducted anyway? You see, the problem is in the nature of the object being tested. You can’t see the ballistic qualities of a gun with your eyeball and decide its effect on accuracy – that can best be done mathematically. You can look through a sight though and determine if it is ‘better’ or not. For example, let’s say I am trying to determine the effect to accuracy that a telescopic sight has on a rifle. Let’s say one guy has a Lee Enfield with a 4x scope and another fellow has a Mauser with iron sights. Both fire a succession of shots at a target 500m away and compare notes. In this example, assuming the fellow with the Lee Enfield hit more often than the Mauser, one would be able to argue that “I don’t believe that the 4x scope had any effect on accuracy since the Enfield may have hit more often due to the better ballistic qualities of the rifle itself.” The guy with the Enfield may be jumping up and down saying that he can see the target better, but his assertion is inherently unquantifiable. At the same time, the fellow using the 4x scope would not need to fit the scope to the Mauser and fire that and compare notes with the scopeless Enfield because he knows that he can see better with the scope fitted. If he knows he can see better, why bother testing it? The moment the gunner looks through the scope he knows it is better – no mathematical formula is needed to judge that.

Now I've seen everything ... a Cesspool website [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 09-29-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom Callmeyer: Does no one have an opinion about which tanks are best in CM? I was hoping to hear some opinions on this topic when I wandered into the thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd have to go with the King Tiger or possibly the Pershing as being the best tanks in CM1. Maybe the JSIII will assume the mantle in CM2?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: This issue was brought up before and the answer given was when you give an AFV a pause order it stops all hull rotation during the delay. It isn't a problem with a tank as the turret can turn but obviously that isn't possible with an assault gun so it ends up sitting there doing nothing. It will fire however if the hull is pointed in the right direction initially.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually that isn't entirely true. I had a Stug IV set to area fire at a target 500+ meters away but which was directly to its front. Stug was CE at the time and it still did nothing during the pause before moving off to the new location (yet keeping the area target line the whole time). Bottom line - don't use the pause command with an SP gun.

In one of my PBEM games, I had a sniper sitting in some woods with no ammo. Along comes an allied infantry squad walking straight towards him. I thought that he would be spotted immediately. Boy was I ever surprised when the infantry squad walked right past my sniper without even a casual glance my way. They were so close that the bases practically touched!!! The sniper wasn't even on Hide!!

Wow, that book “Tiger Ace” by Gary Simpson sure is poorly written isn’t it? I mean, I really struggled through that thing. After the first couple of chapters I started to wonder who this Gary Simpson clown was. I mean, where the heck did he learn to write anyway? So, I looked at the cover and saw that he served in the US Army. “Wow” I thought, “I thought it was some foreign guy writing this trash”. A little while later I looked at the bibliography and was duly impressed. Gary Simpson actually interviewed Michael Wittman’s widow!! Not only that, but he had several interviews with Jurgen Wessel Oberstleutnant a.D. der Bundeswehr who was Wittmann’s deputy commander in Normandy during 1944. Simpson notes that he was one of the first SS officers to enter Villers Bocage after it was captured by the German forces. Oberstleutnant Wessel also contacted several Waffen SS veterans for Gary Simpson through various veterans organizations. Although Simpson was unable to get an interview with Bobby Woll due to Woll’s illness, it is obvious that Bobby Woll contributed some of his memories to this book. Bobby Woll was Michael Wittman’s gunner on the Eastern Front. This then convinced me that the writing style is a result of Gary Simpson simply collating and editing the memories of Wessel and Wittman’s widow among others. Now I’m a pretty mild mannered guy, but I felt I had to speak up when someone on this board called Simpson’s version of the events at Villers Bocage “Pure fantasy” and possibly the result of some Nazi glorification from the 50s. Well this just doesn’t wash, and makes me feel a little indignant. I can't find that thread so I was forced to start a new one. The interviews for this book were conducted between 1978 and 1980 – a little after the 50s if I am not mistaken. It is obvious to me that the individual who was calling this work “Pure fantasy” doesn’t really know the extent of the research that Gary Simpson put in his work – and apparently would casually dismiss it as trash without even knowing what was done to put this information together or to even bother to discover the sources of this information. So let us examine this fantasy that exists at Villars Bocage. We know that Gary Simpson interviewed Oberstleutnant Wessel who was Wittman’s XO at the time. We also know that Wessel had personal postwar contact with Bobby Woll who was in Wittman’s turret during Villars Bocage because his own tank was out of service at the time. He also interviewed Major WHJ Sale who was a captain in the 3rd County of London Yeomanry. Major Sale also assisted Simpson in getting an interview with Pat Dyas and Bobby Bramall. Pat Dyas clarified many things about R.H.Q. tanks and his involvement with B squadron. Bramall was commander of a Firefly. Their collective version of events are what is presented in Gary Simpson’s book, and Simpson notes that the British veterans were in complete agreement with the German veterans as to what happened. This only leaves the question of who was in ‘that’ Tiger tank when the Germans came back to Villars Bocage. Wittman’s XO says it was Michael Wittman. Presumably if Wessel was wrong in that regard Bobby Woll would have corrected him. Bobby Woll was in the turret of ‘that’ Tiger when the events were taking place. So we have Wittman’s XO saying that it was Wittman who came back and not some other guy. Well, since HE WAS THERE then who am I to say he is living in a fantasy world. I doubt that there is a single individual who checks this board who can say “Nope, that was not Wittman in that Tiger because I was there and I didn’t see him.” No, you can look at the markings on the tanks and you can look at the photographs, but you cannot say that, “I was at Villars Bocage in Wittman’s turret and I know we didn’t come back for a second go.” because only Bobby Woll can say that and he didn't. Here is Simpson’s own answer to the question of the authenticity of ‘his’ version of the events at Villars Bocage. “Question No.14: Why was Wittman operating in a 1st Company Tiger I and also the other two Tiger Is in his battle group that entered “Villars-Bocage”? This question has been asked many times by many people who are experts in dealing with World War Two German panzer marking systems and has proved to be a very controversial issue. According to Wittman’s deputy commander, panzer crews often used other company’s panzers. (snip) With Wittman’s notoriety, he was able to commandeer any vehicle or vehicles that he chose, and in an emergency it would not matter what markings the immediately available vehicles had; it only mattered if they were battleworthy.” Simpson then adds “Regardless of who’s Tiger I Wittman was operating in during the battle of “Villars-Bocage”, it was SS-Obersturmfuhrer Michael Wittman who lead the attack into Villars-Bocage for the second time on June 13th, 1944. The Tiger I that was knocked out closest to the road junction was commanded by Wittman with Bobby Woll as his gunner.” And of course Bobby Woll was alive (maybe he still is) when Simpson was conducting his research (although unable to interview). I should think that he of all people would know where he was and how many times he went into Villars Bocage. Disagree with Woll and Wessel if you must, but try not to call it delusional fantasies of Nazi glorification – especially if the second battle was a little rougher than the first. Nazi glorification would be better served to say that Wittman wasn’t there the second time and that the reason the second attack was a failure was because the B team was in action that time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911: Hiding in cellars was also something that was usually done during large scale artillery barrages, not small tactical shelling like in CM. It was a pre-battle self-preservation move, not an ambush tactic. The reason is, you don't want to engage the enemy from a small underground room with one enterance(unless the basement has potatos that you can mash up with that present the nice Waffen-SS soldier tossed down the stairs to you). Sewers, cellars, and tunnels in non-WWII wars are below the scale of CM's squad level combat. It's not squad level, as only one or two men can enter them at a time, and it's not usually combat, but slaughter for whoever is slower to shoot. [This message has been edited by Pham911 (edited 09-22-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is my understanding that the cellars in Stalingrad were not like cellars in the West and that they had small windows that you could look out of. In military terms they were more like bunkers with firing ports than rooms with only one entrance in or out of.

Yes, I am with Bullethead. This must mean that BTS will be coming out with CM5 - The Rising Sun!!! I can hardly wait - Banzai Charges, Tank Hunter heroes with Demos strapped to their bodies, and Leaders wielding Samauri Swords instead of just pointing the way. We would also have to introduce the Rice Paddy terrain tile

I think that Intelweenie has probably hit the nail on the head. More than likely those are the reasons for the crests as cover issues. While there are good reasons that have been put forth as to why crests should give a cover benefit, strident demands are not likely to get a 'positive' reaction from BTS. State your case, assume that BTS has taken notice (because either they, or a beta tester, probably have), take a deep breath and move on. If this one issue makes the game unplayable for some individuals, then stick to scenarios with no crest lines - or don't play anymore. Strident demands for change will accomplish very little and will only cause the eruption of flame wars that nobody benefits from. For now, just adapt your tactics to match the way the game does crest lines until a correction is made (if one is made).

I just wanted to make sure that some of you who have downloaded both Franko's version of the battle of Stoumont, and my version which is a conversion of HASL's Kampfgruppe Peiper I do not get our two operations confused. Franko did not use HASL's Kampfgruppe Peiper I - he did all his own research (from what I gather) and his work is original. My version is a simple conversion. If you got an e-mail that described all the various limitations that I had involving the conversion and the force selections along with the actual operation file - then you are playing my (converted HASL) version.