JoePrivate

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Vanir said: I realize you may have been joking here. Otherwise if you have any actual data showing that Shermans are incorrectly modeled in CM, print it here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's been stated already by Charles the slope modifiers for 76HVAP and the armour resistance for the Jumbo need to be corrected.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Americans produced something like 10,000 tungsten core AP rounds (HVAP) a month from about July '44 to the end of the war. Of these, probably only 2-3 rnds would make their way into the hands of yr average Sherman gunner, as preference was given to Tank Destroyer units. TD's would average around 5 HVAP rnds per.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks von Lucke, that seems to reflect what I've seen in the games I have played. I also setup a few QB in Sep44 to satisfy my curiosity, the US TDs would range from 0 to 8 rounds of tungsten with an average of about 3 per vehicle, the British Firefly averaged about 4 rounds per. I like the new points allocation for both sides, the US is less restricted in their selection which makes for more interesting play overall I feel. The increased use of tungsten has had a significant effect on play, I wouldn't say it is a problem however as CM is trying to reflect the historical. When playing as the Germans it is just another factor you have to take into consideration when purchasing and maneuvering your force, for me that equates to more fun.

What was the historical availabilty of tungsten for the Allies in the fall of '44? Specifically for the US 76 and the British 17lb gun. IIRC CM allows tungsten starting Sep44.

Thanks for the link to your site Michael Dorosh, excellent work from what I have seen so far.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>TeAch said: We arent here to talk about our battlefield exploits <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No no, never that, else all threads would become Pengian threads

From Steve's last comments it appears CM:BO is pretty much fixed, apart from a couple data fixes, so I wouldn't expect any action on that front, especially since this has been brought up before, perhaps for CM2. Like Major Tom I don't see fixed turns as a problem or being gamey. I like the idea of a variable turn ending though, say +/- 0-2 turns. It would add a bit of uncertainty without unduly helping or hindering one side.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JH wrote: Last night I saw something that I thought was fixed back in the 1.03 patch. I lost a Panther that, despite my orders to rotate forward, insisted on engaging a infantry target 350m away to its side, ignoring the vast numbers of (momentarily unspotted) enemy tanks to its front. So it swung the entire vehicle 90 degrees to the right. Of course a Sherman parked a round through its side armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I forgot to mention earlier a possible solution to your above example which you may or may not be aware of, take it for what it's worth. In the past I have ordered tanks to area fire, sans main gun, the general location of the enemy armour. It served to 'focus' my tank in that direction. The tank would quickly break the area fire if the enemy armour popped back into view. I'm not sure how viable this is with 1.1 but may be worth exploring.

Elsdorf is a balanced scenario and winnable as the Germans against any human opponent, decent or otherwise.

A couple points here as I think this discussion is broadening into something other than simply hull rotation. It is good tactics to engage an enemy from multiple angles. It is good tactics to *avoid* being engaged from multiple angles. I don't think that's in question or needs going into. CM is a game, a great one, but still a game. The TacAI, IMO, has been programmed to act reasonably well for all units in most situations, for which it does a commendable job of. The TacAI doesn't act intelligently in specific circumstances, it has limitations. It is not aware of the battlefield as a whole, units act idependently of each other, not as part of a force with specific roles. I sympathize with Jeff's example, I have seen it myself. It can't be written off as bad tactics, it *is* a limitation of the TacAI. His solution of putting certain decisions into the player's hands sounds reasonable and simple, yet we aren't the programmer or designer. Only BTS is familiar with the code as a whole and what net effects a change will have on the game, or even what is possible. Is CM 'broken' as is? Hell no, it works very well overall, the best I have seen. We as the players can work with the current limitations, suffering no loss of enjoyment, and still advocate for further improvements. Hopefully BTS is listening and sees it as a concern also.

There's workarounds, say on turn 1 plot the hunt path for your armour with a 30s delay initially. On turn 2 the armour will have advanced a little then you can give it another pause before it continues on the original path. One warning with giving pause orders for TDs, they won't fire outside of their firing arc while 'paused' even if being targetted.

The highest hit percentage I have seen was 99%. The situation was a M4A1(76) firing down against the side of a Panther at 40-50m. IIRC the Sherman had already fired one shot.

I just finished playing three 1.1 armour battles, minimal support from artillery and infantry, with the US as a fun exercise. Your game with M4A1s sounds *significantly* harder. The results were Axis Major, Axis Minor and Allied Major. I used mostly Hellcats and M476s, no Jumbos or Pershings and the like. Conversely to what was stated above, I had the most success when the map was open. I think because when the map was restricted I was forced to engage on a limited axis, this 'keyholing' actually favored the Germans because of their advantage in survivabilty and high velocity weapons. Optics aren't modelled in CM so there is no advantage either way. Some observations, 76 HVAP can knockout HD Panthers, Hetzers and JgPzs from the front. Panthers are effectively as fast as Shermans so can easily counter your moves. Flanking to envelop positions is an excellent idea but the enemy isn't blind to that either. In the later half of one game I thought I had broken through so committed my reserve of 3 Hellcats to roll up his flank. I soon discovered 2 previously unknown Hetzers who turned a moment of brilliance into 3 hulking wrecks. Armour acting alone and especially when moving fast has a very hard time spotting anything. In the example above, I never identified the Hetzers until the third Hellcat was destroyed, even after several shots had been fired. At least the crewmen knew what got them in the end While firing on the move may not have been WWII SOP, in CM tanks will fire and do score hits. It would be much easier IMO with a combined arms force. Then you could use arty, smoke, and infantry to secure the flank and envelop, forcing the panzers to displace or be flanked in turn and engaged by your bazookas/tanks. The 'trick' is to engage from two sides simultaneously. One thing CM hammers home is the most effective force is the combined arms one.

I'm almost 100% positive a KO'd tank crew will be identified as 'crew'. I'll have to double check tonight. In my current games my tanks may fire their hull mg at moving crews but they didn't target them unless I ordered them to or the crews were very close, say 50m or thereabouts. I don't want to speak in absolutes because your mileage may(will) vary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JH wrote: Last night I saw something that I thought was fixed back in the 1.03 patch. I lost a Panther that, despite my orders to rotate forward, insisted on engaging a infantry target 350m away to its side, ignoring the vast numbers of (momentarily unspotted) enemy tanks to its front. So it swung the entire vehicle 90 degrees to the right. Of course a Sherman parked a round through its side armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What your describing has existed throughout the various patches, ie the distraction of an AFV by infantry. A few had posted their concerns and examples. What's new, to me anyway, is how the rotate command is being overridden by the TacAI to engage 'lesser' targets and even area fire targets. The awareness of the limitation of the TacAI has led me to compensate for it in my play by avoiding, where possible, situations exactly as you described. However it isn't predictable, after playing a few games with 1.1, I have seen a few examples where the tank TacAI has ignored lesser targets to it's flanks. That could be attributed to the reduced spotting ability(my perception) of AFVs in 1.1 though. Jeff Abbott, In 1.1 I don't think you need to worry about crews distracting yout tanks, they will almost always be ignored unless you attempt to run over them or something.

"How can we outflank them when all they have to do is pivot and keep their frontal armor towards us" Sgt. Chester J. Marczak.

John's right, the US 4.2" mortar has roughly 1.5 times the blast, IIRC, than the Brit/Can 4.2". The US FO also calls in fire much quicker though I'm unsure if that's factored into the price or not. I believe the Stuart M5A1 and Stuart V are two different models, the M5A1 having slightly better armour and a better ROF though I can't check the specifics at the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hehe... guess you missed a HUGE thread where a BBS newbie was asking for some advice about how to deal with a guy he was playing against. This was a long discussion and the guy he was playing against fit this definition 100%. He only wanted to play as the Germans, in perfect weather, with few trees, on flat maps, in late 1944. Many people gave the guy advice, but after 2 or 3 games like this most of us were just advising him to stop playing the guy. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes , I must have missed it or more likely saw it for what it was and ignored it. Really though, the majority on this board and the people I play, are concerned about the historical accuracy (of both sides!) in CM and how it is portrayed in play. These vague references and innuendos of German only players and their 'influence' doesn't sync with the overall impression and is just a bit much for any intelligent person.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Who are all these people who think that German tanks should never be destroyed? They get referred to a lot, but I am not sure that I have ever seen someone actually make that claim. Could someone point one out for me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hear hear! I have been scratching my head over that one too. One thing is clear is it's the same people repeatedly making that claim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't worry, when you start playing enough you are bound to run into them. They only play Germans, they get really mad when any of their heavies get geeked, and usually they are not much fun to play. I ran into my first at Sun Coast Skirmishes something like 15 years ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pretty ingenius what? I have been playing CM since the Beta came out and have an address list of over 100 people I have played in that time, not one has fit your neat stereotype. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, this whole discussion is dangerous because it brings out the trolls like nothing else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol, you have a *funny* defense mechanism ingrained, damned convenient.

I always assumed reloading simulated the time needed to setup the gun/mortar in a new position, not a bug, if that was your question?

A most enjoyable clue Dan Looking forward to the finished product, I really like the 'used' look.

I guess because each has their own preference or favourite 'setting', what may be the greatest for you is mediocre for another. There are a lot out there, many of which I haven't played, however South of Sword, Meyer's Wrath, Epsom Counterattack and L'Elle River Crossing were all balanced(pbem), fairly large and enjoyable scenarios.

How about a clue into the several clues you do have? Provided of course, divulging such a clue would reveal nothing to those without a clue.

These are some excerpts from Doubler's 'Closing with the Enemy'. "Although the HORSEFLY air control system employed in Italy in the spring of 1944 showed great promise, communication problems hampered air-ground operations. FBs and ground formations still had no way of communicating by radio because the VHF radios used in aircraft did not net with the sets used in infantry and armour units." As a result of the severity of the bocage fighting.... "General Quesada(CoIXTAC) set the standard for cooperation by collocating his HQ with General Bradley's. IX TAC staff personnel permanently manned an Air-Ground Operations center that worked closely with 1st Army HQ. Each 1st Army Division had an AAF air support party and every corps had an air control element. Thirty ground liason officers from 1st Army's G-3 Air staff worked on a permanent basis with every wing, group, and squadron within IX TAC." "The difficulties aviators had in differentiating enemy targets from friendly forces was the first coordination problem solved in Normandy... Soldiers determined that the best way to mark CAS targets was with artillery smoke shells... Early combat experience showed that FBs could not always appear over the target in time to observe the smoke missions. Direct VHF radio communications between FBs and artillery units solved the problem." "In Normandy the most common use of CAS was as preparatory bombardments for ground attacks." "The most important development in air-ground operations in Normandy was the creation of new types of FAC parties and the concept for the effective use of FACs with frontline units was General Quesada's own brainchild... Only an experienced aviator could convey to another pilot in familiar terms the kinds of information needed to guide FBs to their targets." Prelude to the COBRA offensive... "The initial plan was to provide each armored column with a VHF radio and an experienced FAC. Eventually Bradley agreed to provide Quesada's IX TAC with Sherman tanks, installed with VHF radios, that would carry FAC parties among the lead elements of armored columns." "The autumn campaigns led to improvements in the HORSEFLY system of forward air control... expanded air-ground liason teams produced a functional system of airborne FACs. Each TAC dedicated several L-5 Sentinel aircraft to HORSEFLY operations. (mentions earlier fast flying fighter aircraft weren't very successful at spotting the enemy) The typical airplane carried an extensive set of VHF radios that allowed the FAC to talk simultaneously with a FB formation, the corps or division air staff, and the ground units directly below... the improved HORSEFLY system solved almost all of the communication and target identification problems American forces had experienced since North Africa... were a standard practice by the time US divisions were advancing east of the Rhine."

All good advice, you could also try leading with your infantry so your armour doesn't suffer from any nasty suprises.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hellcats have never sucked for killing German tanks (but don't let them get hit...). Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree Henri, the Hellcat has always been a great AFV. However, pre-tungsten it would have been suicide to confront a HD Panther from the front with just 76 AP. From my game last night that can be an effective option now... if you have tungsten