ASL Veteran

<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.

In CM I would guess that the terms Bunker and Pillbox are used interchangeably. In ASL a Bunker is basically a pillbox that is incorporated into a trench network, while a pillbox is not. A pillbox would be a stand alone fortification.

Sounds like this is a popular topic and a lot of different people were working on this. I am sure that the various operations made by others on this topic are different enough that they can all coexist peacefully Yes, Kampfgruppe Peiper is the Stoumont operation. I followed a 2 days followed by one night format per the ASL campaign. Yes, it was impossible to pick fog for the weather, but I found that the system usually picks something that limits visibility sufficiently to get the overall situation right. I will send you all a file when I get home from work today

I have nearly finished a straight conversion of ASL Kampfgruppe Peiper I into a Combat Mission Operation. For those of you not familiar with Kampfgruppe Peiper I, this is an operation about the very tip of Peiper's forces near Trois-Ponts between 19 and 21 December 1944. I would characterize this operation as one where the irresistable force meets the immovable object and is not for the faint of heart. The operation is rated as Huge, and I have yet to type up the briefings or name the various objects on the map. The map is around 2200m by 1800m and is a hex by hex conversion of the ASL historical map. I purchased all the reinforcement groups using the purchase points and tables for each day. This is as close a conversion as I could make. If you would like to do some testing for me and give me some feedback I would appreciate your input.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Sounds like a pretty accurate method. Have to admit that I've never played VASL - always had enough local opponents. Haven't tried any of your scenarios yet - although I've downloaded them. I don't have any of those scenarios to compare so I can't judge them. From the comments that I have seen you make though I am sure they are as accurate as can be. You strike me as a 'purist' like me In our 'gaming group' I was the holder of the sacred SL. I didn't buy ASL - my friend bought it and has every scenario ever published. Recently he has stopped buying them though because he feels that CM has made ASL obsolete. I only have the KGP module because I borrowed it from my friend.

I was going to post this on your message board Col Klotz, but I couldn't get registered I am also posting this out of a deep sense of disappointment so you can take this with that in mind. Anyway, I was going to urge the ASL scenario converters to think of a few things when doing their conversions: 1. ASL purists (like me) are probably going to be trying your scenarios, and any deviations from those scenarios will be noted. 2. HASL scenarios are just that - HISTORICAL. You probably should not be tweaking balance in a historical scenario except in terms of game length, victory flags, etc. The OB should be slavishly adhered to though. 3. If you don't know the rules of ASL or if you don't fully understand the SSRs then you may want to check with someone who does because these SSRs can be very important to the way the scenario is supposed to play out. Naturally, these conversions are your own work and you can ultimately do what you want with them. However, some of us crusty ASL veterans may want to play those scenarios as a plain vanilla straight conversion. Some modifications can be justified if you explain those reasons in your briefing somewhere because some scenarios simply wont work without some modifications. Some might say - well ASL Veteran, go make your own scenario if you want to convert scenarios to your liking - and I may do a few. But, if you are posting an ASL scenario conversion to a website as spectacular as Col Klotz's, just keep in mind that the 'publics' expectations may differ from your expectations and that some may not appreciate a 'loose' conversion as much as you - especially when I see the attention to detail that the Col has demonstrated in his maps and scenarios - very high quality work. Not to pick on anyone, but I am simply going to use two scenarios as an example. I just want to preface this by saying that I am sure these converters did a lot of hard work on their scenarios and have a sense of pride in their work. Mad Minute is a scenario that I enjoyed immensely in ASL and played it numerous times. I still remember the time I got a critical hit on a TD, but since he was HD behind a roadblock my friend said I missed because I rolled doubles. Later it was revealed that a critical hit would have hit him regardless of the HD status I was pretty fired up when I saw Mad Minute on Col Klotz's website. I thought my friends and I could relive fond memories playing Mad Minute in CM. Well the Mad Minute that is on the website has absolutely nothing to do with the ASL scenario Mad Minute. In defense of the person doing the conversion he did say that he thought the ASL maps were boring so he 'spruced them up' a bit (quite a bit actually) and that's fine. Just don't try to sell an ASLer on that scenario being Mad Minute because it isn't. Some of us like the 'boring' maps. Call your scenario something else. Beast at Bay was another disappointment. There were extensive modifications to the OB for both sides. Well, Beast at Bay is a historical scenario and I don't think the OB should be tampered with. If play balance is a concern then make minor adjustments in the victory conditions or objective placement. Also, the SSR says that the weather is clear and that mist DR are NA so the addition of fog (while neat to look at) is also incorrect. Once again, if these modifications are going to be made - note them somewhere so we all know the rationale behind it. One last thing about play balancing. You should only have to modify one side to play balance something - if you are modifying both sides then you aren't balancing a scenario you are making a new one. Okay, now you can all tell me to stuff it and make my own scenarios