Priest

Very nice!

Hmmm how about this as a working theory. Lets take a KT turret. If you put that on a KT chassis and also put that on a PIV chassis (hypothetical only) the turret itself is just as easy to hit if that is what is aimed for. What most of you seem to be talking about is that if I see a tank I fire at the center mass and that target in general. Everyone takes for granted that turrets and other parts of tanks were not aimed for intentionally. Lets look at it this way. I want to hit a T-34. I see it out at 1000m and I am in a KT with pretty darn good optics. So I can aim at the center mass or I can go for something more stylish and shoot for the turret. What I do realistically do is aim for the turret and then "fudge" low so to speak so that if I miss I get the hull. Now over the next hill a T-26 shows up with a T-34 turret (again hypothetical) at 1000m. I do the same. My chances to hit the turret are the same, if anything my chance to miss completely increases but not the actual chance to hit the turret. Hope that makes sense. It does to me at least if it realistic to expect that gunners aimed for more than just the center of mass.

I didn't even notice, still marveling at the smoke gun firing thing. Totally unexpected and ultimately appreciated!

Jagdratt I think that is a case of a grog who happened to part of the "search patrol". Every board has those.

Still using your splash screen for CMBO Gunslinger, it is excellent. A possible follow up?

Well time for me to become one of the Ugly. "Have you ever seen a KT" - Kloss (Looks at KT model sitting on desk, looks on wall at limited edition KT sketch from Battlefront, and then at the stack of WWII tank books) Nope never seen one

Congrats guys.

Kloss The issue is you still have not provided any information that is factual based on research. Not to mention that no matter how bad your English is your rip on the Beta Testers was unwarranted. Regardless get the statisics, percentages, and ratios of turret size compared to overall silhouette ratings for the tanks in questions. Then figure out if the issue is even fixable in the current engine (sounds like it is not) and base your arguements on facts not opinion and the opinions of others (the memiors) soley.

Also as an aside memoirs might not hold the weight you think as they at times can be biased. The destruction of myth about certain UBER Armour seems to be a trend in CM games. As it tends to be back by hard data and physics it is not easy to refute. If you manage to do it, BFC in the past has made changes to their model. But realize it takes more than a "gut" feeling and a memoir to do so.

(rendition of a post from the early CMBO day) There was a lot of discussion about vulnerability of those(Panther,Tiger, KT) tanks, but (correct me please if am wrong) I didn't see any battlefront response and - as battlefront's client - I want to see it! All those tanks have vulnerable turret front, but the game does not take into account that very front turret area (Panther,Tiger, KT)is very very small comparing to the rest of a tank. Effect? 75mm Sherman "peashooter" destroys Tigers easily ( a lot of people argued so I will not come back to this issue now). To my horror recently I figured out that the vanilla M4 Sheramn has quite significant chance (I made tests)- about 40% of winning 750m frontal firefight with Tiger I's! - It must be some silly joke. To betatesters - please do not test any more battlefront products because either you did very poor testing or no testing at all...How you were supposed to miss that tanks get immobilized in open ground so easily? Try playing Korsun scenario (ground comditions good) and you will quickly understand why scenario designer didn't use real historical conditions! In my game 1/3 of german vehicles didn't make ANY progress towards objective because they got bogged and immobilized!(some of them on the road).Tanks were supposed to move well off-road, especially in good ground conditions! How to solve tuuret problem? Just to convert some front turret hits to side turret glancing (high angle) hits. Sorry for interupting your spiritual peace, but I had to break this Admiring Each Other Society. And no, do not try to convince me that Shermans came for frontal firefight with Tiges and that the US 75mm was a Tiger-killer /as it is in CMBB/ I recommed you read some memoirs first (for example The GERMAN UBERHAMSTERS - SS Wallonien brigade soldier and later commander - who fought also against Shermans).

Hmmm a women who can appreciate tanks? Sorry Mike I would have to disagree, I will just take up the slack and find her more attractive.

Hehe those to really like the women, but due to their restrictions in time they have sworn off women to devote more time to the study of uniforms and such. Kitty would be wasted in such a role. Now Kitty in a WWII version of the movie TankGirl would be sweet.

Uhm I am not sure what the issue is here. Now I do not support an elitist attitude (not even sure I can spell it) but let me use an analogy. Most people on this board drink wine. Few on this board can appreciate it though as much as someone say like WineScape. He would notice subtle things and nuances that most would not and probably not care about. Another way to look at it is that if you take out say a Tiger with T-34, you would say "wow nice shot. Man didn't think I was going to make it". Then a guy like Rexford comes along and says the same thing but continues "wow BFC sure modeled the angles properly reflecting the height in which i was with the consistancy of the Tiger plate given the time of the engagement versus the shell type and constuction given that same period." One way is not better than the other, but the way in which Rexford (or WineScape in the analogy) perceived the situation does have a deeper look into the guts of CM. Thus those with the knowledge can only truly appreciate the entire spectrum of what CM and wine has to offer. Does that mean you should stop drinking wine or playing CM? Heck no. It means that the next time you wonder why the Tiger resisted the T-34's round or what wine to serve with a nice romantic dinner you have resources to tap. Just my thoughts but personally I agree with the poster you quoted if meant in the auspices outlined above.

When you wonder about your own penetration value (take it however you want)!

Actually most boards have folks who patrol around and say "DO A SEARCH". It has nothing to do with being a grog and more to do with being on the boards too much! The only time I have really been frustrated was when 3 million threads started up about the CDV release which was IMO (just an opinion) pointless. Anyhow in general I think most are well recieved or at least told to read the FAQ. But every board has those.

Personally thanks Tom, it seems the old line of patience is a virtue is lost on some. Also seeing as it is a free mod, not needed to play the game, presented by work donated to the website and the mod itself, I would be happy to endure a little discomfort for the work all of the modders and webmasters put in. Thanks again.

I play them with a 750 Coppermine PIII a Gig of Ram and a GForce 2 Ultra just fine if that helps.

I like HUGE battles but am quite willing to play any battle (any excuse to play this game)and can totally understand the allure of smaller battles.

And the circle starts anew!

Talenn I did not mean to say that all the folks who are concerned with points are "Kiddies". It was to point out that in games such as StarCraft that amount need to produce a unit means alot to the game, heck people design "strategies" all the time based soley on the comparative prices of units in that game. In CM games the point system is more than good enough to provide battles that are entertaining. Tactics in CM are a lot more important than the relative cost of Stugs versus T-34's. Your example insinuates the "threat" of Stugs right. Well be my guest use STUGS all you want. Against me you will have to spend so much to secure them from the flanks that you could have bought maybe one or two more Panzer IVs. Also do not plan on me running my armour contingent up front initially whether you have STUGS or not. That is what my recce forces are for. Either you will stay hidden waiting for my armour giving me free ground or you will open up on my recce forces and thus give away your position without endangering my armour. Up to you. And why is it players do not realize that it is you who get to do things like refuse to play a game against straight German armour if you do not like it. Everyone gets to see the settings, there really is no hiding it anyway. Hmm he has 10 STUGS but only one company of infantry, I bet he chose armour or unrestricted. Not sure what the issue is. STUGS are great but far from ubeatable. The point system works fine (IMO) and again you are in control, have fun.

Oops I was doing a CMBB PBEM turn at the time I was writing the end of that (See what I mean, at work even!).

Well just to be a true CM fanboy! Technically anything using the basic logical methodology of "science" in general can be said to have a scientific model. Remember in grade school (and high school) you learned that science is about creating a controlled environment to test a hypothesis which if proven under already accepted conditions would thus result in a theory. A theory thus proven over and over again by multiple sources would in fact prove the theory as an accepted truth but as a rule there is no absolute truth in science and all theories are at any time capable of being proven false by another if they follow the methods stated above to produce a different result due to there hypothesis which starts a whole new cycle. Whew that was long winded, what is scary is that paragraph basically teaches the core of what my 4 years of high school science taught. As long as BFC provided a controlled environment or formula based on facts to produce the scores, validated the scores calculated being somewhat with pre-defined parameters and the same being applied to each vehicle without change then they have a scientific model to produce the points per vehicle statistics. Well now that I have solidified my position as UBER FANBOY I will retire back to this thing called "work". I am not sure what it is but my girlfriend keeps demanding that I come and stay here for 8 hours a day! You know come to think of it, I really have not seen here since the CMBB thing came in the mail, what was here name????

Ugh here we go again. I think this should be pointed out. Point based arguements normally go like this... "Hey my ZERG rush is economical due to their low cost in vespian gas" "Yes but my PROTOSS Carriers are overpriced because of that, the ZERGLINGS are too damn cheap" "NO WAY MAN! I OWNZOR YOU!" Or something to that effect. In CM games tactics rule the battlefield. "My STUG IIIF's are really great weapon systems especially in Hull Down" "True but using some fairly basic lightweight artillery I can smoke them and either flank or force your hand and move them from your position" "Yes that is true but there are still good for an ambush position and have enough armour to survive to move on to another." "That is true, hopefully I can track them and pick them out and then true to circumvent them" "That is why we play the game!" See the difference? STUGS, KTs, Tigers, Panthers, KVs, etc. were all killed in the war by multiple weapon systems. Some folks knock the point system but fail to realize it matters little as the actual simulation engine is good enough to allow most match up to have at least some sort of playability. The greater majority actually being really awesome experiences. So for those of you who claim that certain vehicles have "a certain something" well great. Guess what I think the Tiger has a certain something and used them all the time. Against players who let me sit back and snipe them from a nice position they ruled the battlefield. Others who actually became proactive and sought to foil my Tiger raised their chances of being successful in the mission. The answer is not points, it is tactics. Do not complain that you just cannot charge across the battlefield because that is not the point of CM games. Using tactics will nullify any "psuedo" points advantage you think exists. [ October 21, 2002, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]

WHAT??!!!!?? :eek:

Welcome!