Tanaka

"...I am the tank crew, the tank commander, the platoon commander, the company commander, and the brigade commander all in one ..." It's here that our opinion diverge... For me I'm the platoon commander, the company commander, the brigade commander and not the crew, tank commander or the squad/team commander. ( I think that there are other games for that matter ) "...tanks need command and control limitations similar to infantry. This will be especially important to simulate the lack of coordination between Russian tanks on the eastern front in CM2." hmmm... not a bad idea, but I think that would play a major role if the maps of CM were bigger. At the present they are a little small, I think, to simulate the lack of coordination between Russian tanks. João

Hi, "Currently tank's turrets return to the front whenever they loose a target..." This isn't 100% true ,or 60% ... For a wile the tank "remembers" the direction of the last target "...I should be able to command my tank turret to return to front, front right quarter, right, right rear quarter, rear, etc. I think this would greatly enhance armor's capabilities" If it was YOUR tank, yes you should, but as it is your CREW's tank you can't... João PS-The Speel Check found no errors ...hmmm !?

Hi, I must go for "Das Boot" João

hmmm... I guess BTS can't answer to this one in a public forum... thanks anyway. João

Well if it is "normal", then I guess it's ok <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Remember, there's safety in numbers. Imagine, first there are twelve of you. You are all comfy and cosy in your foxholes, having a nice perimeter and all that. Now the platoon commander orders six of you to go and do something else (which may involve being shot at) - the other six can stay and defend a line intended for twelve with half the number. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hmmm, ok ... but the moral lost is the same as I had lost 1/2 of my squad ... Isn't this a bit drastic ( separation=kill ) ? Would that not hurt your morale?

Hi, I've noticed that the split squad order takes moral of your army, is this suppose to heppen ? Thanks, João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: I would think that some oficial (BTS) enlighten would be nice. João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bump bumpy bump bumpy bump...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: I've tried to not say anything, But It has gotten to where I really don't understand what the issue is. I view the Quick battles in CM as kind of a WWII chess match. Try and make both sides as even as possible and then duke it out. If you are having problems facing players that demand to play the germans and then only by uber armor. Then you have just found some bad sports. Write the games off and move on. There are plenty of us out there who play to be fair. Now if you are looking for a material advantage for the allies just for the sake of history, thats fine too. I just think you'll find it hard to play anyone that way. I like games to be fair, (yes I play all sides, not just german). But there is no way I would consider a chess match in which I got a full set, and the other guy got some pawns, and 1 bishop, fair. Hell wouldn't even be fun enough to play. As far as the PBEM "problem" being BTS's fault? what the hell are you people talking about? BTS had one job. To depict the equipment and units used in WWII as close and as accurate to their historic counter parts as possible. To me they have done one hell of a job. But their job ends there. Setting up a PBEM game. With what ever forces you wish to use, ect... That is your job. You just have to keep in mind that if what you want to design is a totally one-sided battle, your opponant list might be real small. Lorak <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right on ! If you want to play historical battles do a "mirrored" type of PBEM. The result of this game is the add up of the points of the 2 PBEMs played in the same map under the same conditions. João PS-You could always play against the AI

bump... this must be a bumpy topic

Bump...

pzvg, "...As for why they didn't code for trucks and the like, in all probability because any weapon larger than a .22 rimfire has the potential to kill/disable an unarmored vehicle, so did we really need to see a 100% kill probability above it?..." Yes, you are right, but currently in CM there is a weopon type (hollow charge weapons) that is included in a more then .22 rimfire group that is very unefective against unarmored targets, it trys to kill the truck, jeep, SdKfz, boat ... with the blast, and as you can guess it is very anoying to repeatadly miss a jeep at 9 m because the guy that is using it, is aiming to the ground Yes you are right RPG-7 is rocket and it is different from hollow charge... but the result it is near the same, at least if the hollow charge projectile finds more then one plate in it's way ( like the engine ). Michael, 1)"..." Yes, but you see that an Infantry firing to an Infantry or a tank firing an HE round to Infantry it still shows some statistics. 2) "..." All that you said sounds reasonable to me. The only thing that I still ask is, when an AT weapon fires, way didn't BTS put unarmored vehicles in the armored class,for example with 2 mm armor ? When HE/Infantry fires they would do as it is. Ok, I guess that is due to CPU limitations, but I'm one of those guys that prefers realaty to graphics. Thanks you two for your answers. now I would think that some oficial (BTS) enlighten would be nice. PS-Jim R... A thing like that happened to me too, thanks for your support in this one. João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-08-2000).]

pzvg, "...Very often ...I know it happens." 1st you said that is often then in the end you sey that it happens. So it's a common thing or it's 1 in 100 thing ? Don't need to answer that... The Potuguese in Angola colonial war used SuperBazookas against human targets in bushes and the results didn't dignify the human race. The guerrilla used RPG-7... in my family I have from a very reliabel sorce that the result of a RPG-7 rocket in a Mercedes Truck is a hell of flames, the kind that you will never forget... hmmm... Anyway in the test that I did,and so far I can remember in my PBEM experience , never sow the projectile of shreck actually hit unarmored targets. Yes I sow them disabel the target, but they all blast in the grond near the target. "...no offense but the armor thickness of an M3 HT doesn't exactly qualify it as an armored vehicle..." Make Ariel words my words (thanks Ariel) Thanks for your answer, João

David, "...Antitank guns are not the best way to kill soft-skin vehicles..." Yes, in game terms it's a waste of resources... But if an antitank gun menaged to hit an AP round in the front of a Jeep, the AP shoot will exit in it's rear... Cav Gunner, "...unarmored targets are just that, unarmored, the probability that a direct hit will take out the vehicle is virtually certain..." hmmm... yes, but unarmored targets have a hit probability, (specially ones with 120 sillhouette ), why is not there ? Armored ones got this statistic. "trucks and jeeps are usually taken out by MG or cannon fire long before they get in range of the launcher" Yes... but the MG must be an HMG and the cannon must be using an HE round, nathing new in these (meybe you are lucky and I'm unlucky). But, I must advice you that in a PBEM to give away your position to the enemy because of a Jeep or a Truck it isn't a good tactic. Thermopylae, "...mounted a full company in halftracks...half of my tracks were dead..." I'm confused, were they Trucks or HT ? If they were HT the post is about unarmored vehicles. Pvt. Ryan, "... I have nothing to add because I have never seen a truck in a PBEM..." Yes but for sure you sow a Jeep ?... If not you are lucky guy, because in my 20 pbems history some times I have found players that love the JeepMG+Bazooka combination Thanks for your postes, but I would like to remind that the 2nd question is only about bazookas and Shrecks and not all AT wepons. João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-07-2000).]

Hi, 1st of all sorry for the long post and the gramatical errors that you mey find. As the subject tells... 1) We get on armored targets the hit chance and the kill probability, on infantry targets the exposure, why we don't get information on anarmored targets ? ( like jeeps, trucks,SdKfz, boats and so on...) 2)I've noticed, after a few testes, that bazookas and Shrecks are very poor weapons to use against anarmored targets ( see note in the end ). This is because they seem to fire to this kind of targets as they were infantry ( using the blast to kill and not the penetration factor as they should ). We all know the efect of a bazooka on a pick-up or any other kind of modern jeep used in 3rd world country wars, so why this situation on CM ? Note. ( Tests resultes ) Test - I Used a Truk ( sillhouette 104 ) for US and a PzShreck for the Germans, the terrain is open and they are both stoped. ( I only counted the 1st shoot of the movie turn, after this one the truck was moving back ) 100 m shot ---> 0 out of 5 50 m shot ---> 1 out of 5 ( The shot that took out the truck didn't hit the truck... was the blast that did the job ) Game experience- The tanks use HE rounds to knock out anarmored targets, most of the time when they menaged to disable the target is due to the blast. While this is understandable, they are saving AP rounds for more dangerous targets, the result is that light armored targets are easier to destroy then anarmored ones. The best way to destroy an anarmored target is within the 50 m range using Infantry or an HMG or yet a well placed artellery barrage. Some of these anarmored weapons are formidable opponents, the SdKfz 7/1 ( sise 120 ! ) is one of them, it destroys with ease any light armored target that the Allies can field, annihilates infantry and above all it attracts to it your tank fire that will likely miss, exposing in this way your tank to the enemy's tank. Use 2 or more of them and your enemy will need to be very lucky to have a chance. The gamey tatic of recon with jeeps is a very good way to reveal all hiden PzShrecks without fear of losing the jeep to a PzShreck, and above all the jeep MG will fire to the PzShrecks and most likely kill them in the first burst ! (I've missed several times 10m ( and under ) shots to a jeepMG) Thanks for your attention, João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-07-2000).]

Hi, This must be an umpopolar request This post is only about artellery in MEETING ENGAGEMENTS.... The Request: Take away the field and of-map artillery ( EXCEPT mortars under 90mm) from the meeting engagement buy options, or forbid it from firing in the 1st 20 turns or yet make it more expensive. Because: 1) The major lemitation of any wargame, the limited combat area.You always know that your enemy is within the map. In real world the enemy can even not show up ! ( A ME is not an assault, where you know that the enemy is there ) 2) In the 2nd WW, the time needed to setup a battery of artillery was greater then nowadays. So how can a meeting engagemet, a fortuitous combat, taking in average 30 mins, always have artillery fire ? 3) Currently some PBEMs are artellery duels . Do you actually believe that a real world (2nd WW) meeting engaemet is decided with artellery and static guns ? Your thoughts in this matter will be welcome thanks, João

"...the velocity of a "C" round doesn't influence it's penetration...major factors influencing the penetration is the diameter of the hollow charge ..." So this kindof narrows it down, a 75mm L24 and a 105 L28 "c" rounds should have diferent penetration values... One question still remains, did the Germans used the same warhead on both rounds ? "Differences in the design of the warhead could be the reason why the penetration of the 10.5 cm isn't higher." or the other way arround. I don´t buy this, is to much, look at the diference between the American 75mm and 105mm (+- 14%) João

C type ammo GERMAN PSW 251/9 HT-----> 75 L/24 vel 450 m/s penet.(100/86/50) differ. 0% (L)+16.6% (V)+10.2% StugH42---------->105 L/28 vel 496 m/s penet.(100/86/50) US M8 Howitzer------> 75 L/? vel 381 m/s penet.( 89/77/44) differ. 14.x % (L)? +24.1% M7 Priest-------->105 L/? vel 473 m/s penet.(102/88/51) So... We can see that, for the Germans the 10.2% increase of velocity and 16.6% increase of the L doesn't produce any alteration on the penetration factor. As for the Americans we can see that a 24.1% increase of velocity (more 13.9% increase then the Germans) produce a 14.x % increase on the penetration factor. In order to compleat the reasoning I need the L measure on the American guns... Thanks, João

Bump...

Hi, Well spoted... I´m curious too João

Taking into acount the angle of penetration... The armor proteccion (ofcorse, what else ? ) is about the same. About the skirts, I like to undress them... humm, shut up ... The panther side armor is weak so you will never want to expose your side. So with or without skirts its the same result if a side shoot is managed at a panther. João

Hi Titan, Differences: Panther VA Max ammo of the main gun--> 79 Side upper hull armor-----> 40/40º It has armor skirts Panther VG Max ammo of the main gun--> 81 Side upper hull armor-----> 50/30º It hasn´t armor skirts João

Thanks, I guess missed that one...

In short...No If you use the Excel Viewer the "best part of the database" wont work, but if you got the "97" Excel it will work well. João

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: ...I can think of a decent explanation. The delay time incurred before a squad starts to move partially represents the time it takes to get everyone's attention, let them know where they're going, and form up to move.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not discusing here the delay time, but the STOP hiding order that exist in this delay time. look at this: 1) Troops in Hiding 2) CO gets an idea 3) CO starts to get everyone's attention 4) The guys come out of hiding (go to prone) 5) The guys start to fire to an enemy that always was there (TacAi order ) 6) "x" secs later they obey the order You can see by this that they receive the stop hiding order in 0 secs... and while they are prepering to execut the original order , the TacAi decides to fire... Not brilliant, at least for veteran troops. Will you realy give away your position only to call the attention of every one ? I don't, and I'm not a profecional soldier. João

Hi, Leave the points as they are. Because: 1)Your suggestion could rise more problems then solutions 2)Loking at these postes,it seems there is no consensus in this sobject. João