Scorpion

My materials science and aerodynamics courses were a long time ago, so I will not pretend to be knowledgeable of the subject matter. However, I fail to see the reasoning (if it is there) behind one side of this debate. BTS has a formula which closely matches the penetration data of several countries, and most guns. The data for one particular gun, the 88/71, is inconsistent and varies wildly across testing, and does not match that which the formula provides. So, among the different reasons why this could have happened, I see three strong possibilities: First, the formula is wrong, and does not model armor penetration close to reality. Second, there is something special about the 88/71 gun which makes it perform differently than the assorted other guns tested and modelled. Third, the formula is a decent model for armor penetration, so there must be an error in the collected data, or the collection method. I feel that the first case is the least possible of the three. If we are to take BTS at their word (and why would they have reason to not be truthful?), their formula data matches that of the assorted countries' collected data for all but the 88/71. To 'prove' the point, others have asked for the formula to be published. What is the motivation behind that? BTS never had to prove anything; their formula stood tall for all guns until someone decided that the 88/71 penetration must be wrong, formula be damned. Could the motivation be that the debator has no means of defending his point other than a long shot hope that the formula contains some glaring error? Or perhaps a potential competitor wants to take a peek at the inner workings of the game, or obvious reasons? BTS has provided their source - I would suggest deriving the formula yourself. However, before looking at the formula, answer this: How could the formula be in error if its results are a best fit curve to the wartime data collected by the assorted countries in ALL CASES BUT ONE? The second case seems more likely than the first, at least it is based on something plausible. However, the suggested differences in the 88/71, that of the high velocity of the round having a special effect upon the penetration at impact, are again inconsistent with data (and formula results) for both lower and higher-velocity guns. Is there some reason that the 88/71, and the 88/71 ALONE (not "high velocity" weapons in general, just that one gun) is different from others? So far, I have yet to see a logical conclusion drawn regarding this. Therefore, to me the third case is the most likely. It is entirely possible for the data to have been incorrect, to have been fudged, or even copied incorrectly for one gun. The possibilities of why this might happen are endless. This is assuming that someone were taking the German wartime data as the best source for armor penetration figures. In this case, BTS' formula stands up to all but one set of test data - the 88/71. Until someone suggests a valid reason for why the 88/71 differs greatly from other weapons, I see no reason at all for BTS to even question the formula they have. While I normally would agree with Helge, that hard data is usually better than formula-generated results, I cannot in this case. This is because the "hard data" is not necessarily fact, when considering the testing was done almost 60 years ago, by various persons of unknown skill and unknown motivation. The data itself has been transcribed, translated, and/or copied numerous times. Perhaps someone, either the engineers performing the tests or those transcribing the data, had reason to fudge the numbers. Perhaps someone just made a simple mistake. Perhaps people in the military at the time "felt" the actual data was wrong because of how effective the King Tiger seemed to be on the field. Whatever happened, I find it much more plausible that the data for a single gun is in error rather than all of the data becoming suspect. In addition, the definition of a straw man argument is when someone chooses to attack an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument. If you choose to say that BTS is putting in doubt German wartime data in its entirety when they are simply implying that there could have been ONE outlier in the whole body of data, that is a straw man argument. I have no idea why this debate has gone on so long. Is it because people have a gut 'feel' that the King Tiger should be performing better, and thus are looking for anything to prove this? Or are people just being contrary? In any case, the burden of proof has always been on those people who are calling into question the validity of BTS' findings. Until now, BTS' formula was accepted as a close-to-reality model for armor penetration. You are saying, at least in the case of the 88/71, that it is not, and thus YOU MUST PROVE WHY THIS IS SO. Cheers, -Scorp

Matt, I sent this to you in email, but I'll put it here for good measure: I suggest going for a small hardware firewall, such as a SonicWALL SOHO/10 or a Netscreen 5 (my personal favorite is the Netscreen). They'll do stateful packet inspection, NAT, and all that good stuff, plus they avoid the problem that software firewalls have (which you discovered the hard way): The underlying operating system is always at risk, no matter how good your software firewall is. Great job in getting it back up! -Scorp

You ARE kidding, I hope?

I never played Under Fire!, but I did play Kampfgruppe - Great game! Also, I remember soon thereafter playing Typhoon of Steel, which was another great game.

I apologize, as I haven't had the foresight to do an extensive search for this information. Hopefully someone will be able to help off the top of their head Is there a ready source (hopefully online) for the units which fought in the WTO (and ETO?) during World War II? Is there another source (again, hopefully online) for standard operating procedures or rules of engagement of the German, American, and other armies during WWII? I am interested in this because I'm joining the CM RPG (and I would have joined the CMMC if it weren't completely full - too bad). While I've read books detailing the war, and generally gobbled up any information I could regarding it, I don't have such reference materials, and am very interested in finding them. Thank you very much! -Scorp

Mountain View, CA, USA (Silicon Valley) Mirage, where in NY state? My wife is from Binghamton. -Scorp

Shrapnel - sorry for posting my 'generality.' However, I have a very close female friend who works for Gas Powered Games, and she has stated that the statistics show that wargames tend to be low on the list of what female gamers like. That isn't what they *should* like and it isn't making a statement as to what they *should* like, it is simply a matter of numbers. -Scorp

In general, the female gamers I have met (and the ones I know in the computer game industry) tend to shy away from wargames. Of course, that is a stereotype, but if you are collecting gender data the way that you are collecting age data, I would bet a lot on there being a huge skew towards males. Loki - Gender is about as relevant to this discussion forum as age is. I believe the poster meant nothing harmful by it, just idle speculation. Fionn - I believe you are correct, my female friends tend to get a lot of attention because of their gender, when it is known, for better or for worse. I have an opinion on the average age of discussion forums, and how it relates to such attention, but I will keep it to myself -Scorp

Thank you for the help! I am glad no spoilers were posted, I'm sorry I didn't make it clear - yes I'm playing a prefabricated scenario, and no I don't want specific spoilers Let me try again, in a more general sense: When coming under attack by unseen units, assuming that by viewing the movie you cannot tell which direction the attack is coming from, what should you do? The terrain ahead is wide open, covered by heavy machine guns, so infantry would get mowed down, especially since there is no specific target. By the area of armor the shots are hitting, there is an arc which covers three or more wooded hills upon which the at weapon could be hidden. What is the best way to flush out hidden enemy troops? Assume artillery is limited... Thanks! -Scorp

The situation is this...I have two infantry support AFVs advancing up a road. I have an infantry platoon on each flank, and one advancing with my AFV's. I have an armored car scouting ahead. My AFV's pass a treeline, and start getting pounded by a low-caliber AT-gun (at least I think that is what it is...high ROF, no penetration, even with side armor hits) and some MG fire. In front of me is a wide open area, no cover. The armored car cannot spot the gun pounding me, nor can my infantry. My question is this - should I back my AFV's up, out of range? Should I pop smoke? Charge my infantry across the meadow? I know they'll get mowed down by the MG's should they try it. Yet, I am at a loss as to what to do at this point. I have an unseen enemy, at least 500m away, perhaps 1000m, quite probably hidden on a wooded hill, with great LOS across this meadow. Perhaps start pounding the surrounding hills with artillery? Thanks for the advice! -Scorp

It's always sad to see something like this happen. I haven't been posting in this forum very long - I just recently discovered the game, after taking a hiatus from computer gaming in general for about a year. However, I have seen exactly what is happening here happen elsewhere, and I think I have some insight into why it happens. The issue does not seem to be newbies vs. veterans. While it is relatively difficult to weed out the bad seeds when newcomers come in a rush, and while forums that start out as tight-knit groups are inherently cliquish, in reality the problem is a simple one. The more people that you gather together, the more problems you have. Whether that be with personality conflicts, with people not knowing the rules, or with people simply out to ruin others' fun (and there are a lot of them out there), the chances that you run into a problem increase with the number of people. In a forum like this, two things seem to work, with varying degrees of success. The first is to begin to heavily moderate the group. While with a small group, this would not be necessary, with a larger (and growing) one, it becomes so. Not everyone will play by their own rules, and often self-policing is not the answer once the size of the group grows to a sufficient size. The second is to create a forum for the clique (and please believe me when I say that I do not mean that in a derogatory manner) to gather in, on their own terms. Perhaps invite only, or at least giving the group (or a moderator from that group) the ability to remove or block unwanted people. The sad (or ironic?) thing is, the reason why so many people are here is because of the fruits of the original group's labor, the discussions that went on. The game which people put so much time into developing has generated such interest that a deluge of people have joined the forum. Is this a bad thing? That depends on why you come to this forum to post, and why you read it. Many of the newcomers do not have the experience or knowledge of the veterans of this forum. Some do. Many will not know (or perhaps ever follow) the rules, both spoken and unspoken. Most, hopefully, will have something valuable to contribute. So, one of three things (or a combination thereof) can help the veterans deal with the fact that this forum is no longer what they originally came here for: Find someone to kick out the undesirables and enforce strict rules; create a forum for the type of discussion they want (what is it, BTW?); or accept that all things change. Isn't this what everyone wanted in the first place? -Scorp

I can live with 5 days! Thanks, TURBO! Actually, I liked the old CC3 statistics. I don't know how accurate they are, not having studied WWII as closely as some, but they sure seemed it! -Scorp

Right, I have been able to see that, but with only the demo, I don't have access to a wealth of information. Thank you! However, what I was really looking for was some sort of table or spreadsheet, maybe a document. Something that I could read over, and see that one AFV was better than another, or used for another purpose. BTW, any idea how long it takes to get the game once you have ordered it? Thanks! -Scorp

Are there any tables out there which list the armor penetration of each gun, the type of gun & armor specifications for each AFV, etc.? It has been a long time since I played any of my older wargames which include this information. It's not that I want to have a reference book that I can look at in the middle of each turn, but it would help to have a base of knowledge to draw from. I'm sure that similar information was gathered and distributed during the actual war... Thanks! -Scorp

I don't have the address for you off the top of my head, but it is an Apple product, so I am sure that if you go to www.apple.com, there will be a link to Quicktime on the front page. I can find it out exactly tomorrow, if you haven't gotten it by then. -Scorp

I am having a ton of problems attempting to win the Valley of Trouble scenario as the Germans, with 50% or 75% Allied bonus. (I cream them if they don't have a total of 8 to 10 tanks) My problem is this - I can't seem to find positioning for my pillboxes that allows them to get the jump on a couple of tanks/infantry before they get destroyed by the Shermans. Since my only AT weapon of note (aside from schreks/fausts) is that 75 mm pillbox, I try to protect it as much as possible...but it seems to die too quickly. The poor panther gets overwhelmed immediately in this case. So...my question is...What is a good strategy to use with pillboxes? Is it better to throw them up on a hill, or hide them, or what? Barring that, how do I fight against an overwhelming force like the one the Americans have in this scenario (with bonus)? Is it even possible? Should I try to hide my troops in places they can back off of, once discovered? Sorry, I'm somewhat new to the concept, since physics are modeled more accurately in this game than they were in the CC games... Thanks! -Scorp

I made a big mistake. I downloaded the Demo on Friday at work (no high-speed connection at home). The first chance I got to play it was yesterday morning. I was so involved, I didn't realize my SO was gone for quite some time. She went shopping, and came back with bags of clothing, etc. (Normally, this is a cause for concern) I vauguely remember numbly preparing some leftovers, so that I had some sort of nourishment, at some point. The first moment in which I actually knew what time it was, was quite a shock. I had taken a nature break, an suddenly I had a very angry SO in my face. "Turn off that game and get your ass in here! It's 5:30 am!" It has been a very long time since a game so enthralled me. I am finding myself fighting the urge to go play it now, instead of writing this. I want to go back and play the scenarios over, even though I've already played them both through from both sides. I would like to know if there are any other scenarios available for the Demo while I wait, but at the same time I'm hoping very badly that there are not, so that I can have a respite from this addiction, for even a few days... So, are there any other scenarios or ways to play the Demo, besides the two included? Thank you! -Scorp P.S. SO can mean significant other or superior officer, take your pick

Timbuktu (For MacIntosh) or PC Anywhere (For Windows platforms) are programs that allow you to remotely control another computer. Your computer 'takes over' the other which you are connected to. This would allow you to essentially play CM 'together,' as each person could alternately take control of the mouse/keyboard. The problem being that you both get to see what each other is doing, requiring a degree of trust and honor. This raises another issue, since the client (computer doing the connecting) can lock the host (computer being connected to) out of commands. You'll need to trust the person who is connecting to your computer, since that person can do whatever they want to it. I am not sure what VNC is, but I have heard of a PC Anywhere-like web-based free program. Have you tried it? Does it work? -Scorp

I followed the link, and BTS makes it perfectly clear that there won't be any beach assaults. However, someone mentioned Western Front above - would this be a fun game to spend some time on while I wait for CM to be shipped? -Scorp

Fionn, Does CM accurately model armor thickness & round penetration, and you're simply 'playing it by ear?' If you're sticking to hard and fast rules the same way a real Sherman TC would, that is pretty neat. Thanks! -Scorp

Pillar, I can help you troubleshoot this if you like. Here are two things you'll want to do to gather some basic information: I don't know what platform you are on, but if you can run and capture the results from a ping and a tracert on carlisle-www.army.mil ,it would provide a starting point for finding the source of your problem. My email is bilekbp@hotmail.com if you want to discuss this further, unless you want to spam the board here with troubleshooting Good luck! -Scorp

Thank you, everyone who replied. I know all too well the dangers of trying to interpret text, and it is my fault for not being more understanding. Sten - This line is the one that struck me: "I suggest we respect their wishes and just drop the subject, ok?" I am not sure why, but that got my hackles raised; it felt as though you were talking down to me. Please don't second-guess your English. For someone who supposedly speaks it as a 'second language,' your English is far better than that of many Americans. (You can take that as a compliment or a knock on the American school system) Forget I said anything; I obviously misinterpreted what was said, and I certainly did not mean to cause all this ruckus. Please accept my apologies. So, anyways, I downloaded the gold demo, and will be throwing it on my PIII-667 soon. Does anyone know if the 'problems' referred to above will surface on an NVidia GEForce? Thanks! -Scorp

Fionn - In researching this game, I ran across your AARs, especially the Sunken Lane one. It was extremely well-written, and one of my thoughts was that if a game can create this sort of tension and detail in description, that it must be fun to play. In no small part, this helped me decide to order it last evening. So, I for one would love to see more! -Scorp

Sten, I had no idea what BTS has made perfectly clear. If this is the case, I will drop the subject. I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but the way that post came across was extremely condescending. Thank you for the information, but next time I would appreciate it if you approached the situation with the understanding that I do not have the in-depth knowledge of what the management of BTS feels that you seem to have. -Scorp

Thanks for the replies! I placed an order this evening, without downloading the demo. This is based on the fact that from everything I have read, this game is a digital version of one of the best miniatures games I have ever played. I believe it was called "Battleground," but I can't remember at this point. However, I do have a question: Why would the sales numbers be considered "confidential business information?" Should I be asking that of the publisher? Usually, number of units sold is a public number - it isn't as if I'm asking for their cost structure, or a balance sheet. In many industries where the developer (or author)/publisher relationship exists, units sold is a public number. In this case, why would the company want to hide it? If anything, publishing that number can help companies like Atomic see that it isn't necessarily a pretty interface or bells and whistles that sell a wargame - it is a dedication to realism and gameplay. Unless it is a 'fluff' game like Panzer General. Anyways, I would tend to think that the success of CM could be used to champion the cause of not only historical realism & gameplay, but the appeal of turn based wargames, and even the success of the independent publisher. (Much like Steven King's attempt to stick it to the big book publishing houses) Of course, all this is speculation if the developer/publisher refuse to release the number of units of CM sold. I just can't think of a reason why they would do so... Thanks! -Scorp