Reaper

Ok, request time! C'mon Tiger, do your magic on the German SP Guns! Hi-res Hummel, Wespe and Marder III would kick. Great work. Reaper

Hey, If you can handle more than one, send me a setup as well. I prefer Axis, but will take whatever. Don't care about setup options, but I do like a realistic game. jagdcarcajou@home.com Reaper

Hey, Just finished listening to the 1.4 sounds. I really like the new stuff, except the 1.3 MG42 was waaayyyyy better. The 1.4 sounds, hmmm, wrong. Anyway, just my opinion. I'm keeping the 1.3 MG42, but switching the rest for the newer versions. Reaper

Hey, I have played one QB every day since I got the game; I have played 7 of the packaged scenarios, 1 of WBW's scenarios (Ramelle), and have been slammed in 3 PBEMs so far, won 1, and have 3 ongoing. I have managed to get in 2 hotseat games as well. I do most of my forum reading from work since I can't exactly play from here... At night I also pop into the CMHQ chat for a bit to see what everyone is up to. My wife is a CM widow now (she is used to losing me to games though). Of course, CM has also got me reading WWII stuff now. My library is already growing... And she thought I had a lot of books on WWI! Ha! Now, I just need to convince my wife that $300.00 on books is not a problem... Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: Just switch the purchase units setting to "Allow Human" in the QB screen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, That doesn't work. I always allow for the Human purchase element, but I can't pick Regulars and Elites in the same battle because you have to pick Low (Green and Conscript), Medium (Regular and Veteran) or High (Veteran, Crack, Elite) at scenario setup. There is no "ALL" option. Thanks anyway. Reaper

Hey, So I am still a relative newbie here, and I've been reading Fionn's AAR for the last few days on CMHQ, and I have a question. How did Fionn get units from Regular to Elite in the same battle? I can only assume that: A.) This was a feature of 1.03 that has been eliminated B.) It was not a quick battle. I received my copy of CM right about the time that 1.04/1.05 were released so I have been patched ever since. There have been occasions when I would love to buy "scattered" qualities, but QB won't allow it. I noticed that the scenario builder lets me pick whatever I want, but I got the impression that the AAR was from a QB. Thanks for any insights! Reaper

Panthers, and Tigers and Bears... Oh wait, no Bears. You rock, sir. Thanks to the makers and the host! Whooo hooo finally get those Panthers! I don't even use 'em all that much, but that could change! Now lets see some high res SP guns (Nashorn, Wespe, Hummel) and a winterized Jagdpanther! Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg: What do you guys think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, Well, in my experience Sneak works very well. The issue you are experiencing is that your unit does its best to follow its orders as given. When it was sneaking it does not know the enemy can see it back (necessarily) so it continues to try to complete its orders. Usually my units will return fire in that type of situation, but not always. You are better off just using Move orders when contact with the enemy is imminent. Use Sneak when you already have the enemy's attention and you are trying to get around his flanks, etc... I also use Sneak in buildings to avoid detection while I set up ambushes. Good luck. Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philistine: The 5 out of 20 guns knocked out can be a high or low number, depending on what percentage of hits it was. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, Since I didn't write down anything but gun results, I did another test tonight. I set up a Panther G (late) vs. an M4A3 (W+) in an open field at 692 meters. Both were regulars; Panther's chance to hit = 15%; Sherman's chance to hit = 16%. I let each get 50 shots (over several games - I just kept reloading the saved setup). Here are the results: Panther ======= Kills vs. Enemy - 7 Richochets - 5 Misses - 38 Sherman ======= Kills vs. Enemy - 2 (1 vs. weak point) Immobilized - 2 Gun Damaged - 1 Richochets - 10 Misses - 35 So, overall, the Panther was definitely getting better kills. As I said, I'm done with this argument. I am very happy with the game, and one little thing like this isn't worth losing sleep over. I just responded because you asked, and I didn't want to come across as lazy. Take it easy, Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: Where is the mention of fitifully waiting each and everyday for Santa Matt to update CMHQ? Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! So Santa Matt, when do we get Tiger's Panther collection? Reaper

Wolfe (and/or Fionn), Any objection to my copying that chart and putting it on my web site. I have been getting a lot of people I know into CM, and I think that would make a nice reference for the less historically inclined when playing QBs. I don't mind the occasional armor slug fest, but its nice to take the workhorse tanks every now and then! Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Man, is it ever hard to get a gun hit in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL, Well I did the same thing last night (10 vs. 10 on flat open farmland. I had 3 german tanks get their guns knocked out, and 2 allied tanks suffered the same fate (just before dying) all in one battle. The German losses were 2(!) Tigers and a Panther G. They were up against Jumbos and M4A3s. I also talked to some friends in the army last night that serve as armor crew, and they found the idea of a sight or internal gearing getting knocked out by non-penetrating impacts ludicrous (they have never been in combat, but they have beaten the hell out of their 30 year old tanks). And finally I checked up on the T.Z.F.12 sights used on the Panthers, and they were in fact swapped out primarily because they switched from a more sensitive binocular type to a more rugged monocular (T.Z.F.12a, etc..) type. All late war vehicles used monocular sights. I think this helps explain the field report that Bastables shared with us. I also decided I just don't care enough to argue about it anymore. I have yet to find a better simulation, so I'll just go be happy with what I've been given. Anyone up for knocking my guns out in a PBEM? Reaper

What, no hi-res Panther G's? Thanks for the mods. I presume these will be debuting at Madmatt's soon? I have the battered A already, but I would like to get the Gs. Nashorn, Marder and Wespe next? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Reaper

Hey, Something that we have been sort of dancing around here is that the "defenders" are asking that those of us questioning the current mechanic to provide proof that there is a problem. Proof normally consists of reports, etc... from primary sources. I think what many of us are citing as "evidence" is the nearly complete lack of any record of gun damage as a significant issue. Our proof is that its never mentioned as a problem in the texts we have read. Quite honestly that (and my instinct) is all I have to go on. I make no pretenses of knowing more than the developers, but I would certainly be interested in seeing evidence that I have yet to encounter that indicates these percentages are accurate. Hell, I could just be having extraorinarilly bad luck with the sim, so the math could be fine and I am a statistical aberation. My point is, I think the best we can cite without extensive research is "I have never seen any evidence to indicate that gun damage occurs at the rate experienced in CM". I have read histories from several sources, but I make no claim at being an expert. I have consulted books by Melenthin, Chamberlain and Doyle and I have nothing to indicate the level of damage one way or the other. I will quietly sit back now and see if BTS responds, or wait for someone to give me a book title so I can do my own reading. I thank those that took time to consider this post, and those that presented evidence for each side. Without further data we are dancing around speculation and conjecture and that rarely produces useful results. Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: If anything, the Panther tilts it in the German favor, since I need to touch my nose on its butt with my Sherman to do more than scratch its paint (as was the case in real life.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless you get a gun hit... Reaper

Hey, Well the point difference is intentional. The presumption is most situations is that it is far easier to defend. Your troops begin dug in with foxholes, and you get a much larger deployment area to carefully plan ambushes etc... This being said, I don't disagree that listing handicaps in the AAR isn't a bad idea. The ability to print the AAR to a text file would be nice too. Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I suppose the change over from T.F.Z 12 to T.F.Z 12a sights is purely anecdotal (combination of reasons including increased strength) and the redesign of the cupola. Or the decision that the stabilized gunfights (SZF1) of the Panther F were to be arranged to open thru the roof of the turret much like the Abrams’s of today, in part to lessen the damaging effects that having a delicate sighting instruments located rigidly in an area which suffers repeated high velocity strikes. This also lessen the weak points which extend far more than just looking at the hole would have you believe. The same reasons why the drivers vision ports were omitted in favour of driver periscopes. These are not just statistics these are actions taken by people worried enough by anecdotes within context and statsics to actually do something about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, Well, your data was from '43. So if all those changes occured, and the game takes place in '44 and '45 then doesn't that make the information from '43 invalid? If steps were taken to address these issues, there should be less occurences of serious gun damage, right? Why does everyone have to be so hostile? This is a discussion. If you have relevant evidence, please present it. Don't presume that everyone has access to the same information you do. It is entirely possible that there is an error or an out of proportion average for gun damage. I greatly admire BTS for producing a highly accurate simulation, and I love the game. This does not mean that every calculation in the game is perfect. Most references I have read are too large in scope to address specifics about causes of casualties, but those same sources do address issues such as engine troubles. If your data can prove that there is some large proportion of gun damaging hits, then great. One report doesn't cut it though. We could always drop this and go back to discussing really important things like hamsters... Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: Instead of bestowing examples of superior logic upon us and demanding someone else do the work of research for you, why don't you dig up some data on this issue yourself to make your point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummm, Why so hostile? Relax. I asked for the data, what is the big deal? I asked no one to do any research for me, I just want references. As I said, relax, you have nothing at stake here. No need to provoke in an otherwise civil discussion. I realize this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to see this discussed, not screamed. Reaper [This message has been edited by Reaper (edited 09-12-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I also feel this has little to with "realism" as much as it has to do with some folks wanting to have more powerful armor. Everyone wants to park a Panther and smash a dozen Shermans. They get pissed when when the Panther gets a "gun damage" hit and is effectivly out of the game. IMO, people have been a little lose with the armor. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, Perhaps for some. I am actually interested in the realism factor as well. I have enough threats on the battlefield to contend with without a possibly erroneous percentage chance of losing my armament. Personally, I am now very curious about the factual data at this point. Bastables last post had a source from '43 regarding sights, but without a significant amount of corroborating evidence it is just an isolated incident. If these types of reports are littering war journals, then I'll happily shut up and treat my tanks with more kit gloves. Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Only because, so far, there has been nothing to "refute". Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, Well, I for one don't disagree, but if you'd look at all the posts I have asked if we could at least be shown what data sources were used for this calculation. I don't assert that Steve and Charles have anything to refute, I just want to know what the source was. As has been said before, gun hits certainly happened, but did they happen as often as the simulation would have us believe? Based on my reading I would suggest no, since no meaningful statistics of this nature are ever mentioned (that I have seen). If some statistically meaningful data backs up the rate of gun damage results that we currently see, great. One photo of a blown barrel here, and a diary entry there are not statistically meaningful. If every abteilung reported large numbers of tanks lost to gun damaging hits in most engagements, well then, there is a case. Would BTS care to comment again at this point? Reaper

Hey, My gut instinct also tells me that gun damage happens far too often in CM, though I have no data to back it up. I have seen, as was pointed out, pictures of guns destroyed by rounds richocheting off the front armor, but unless shown otherwise, I presume that this was a very rare occurance. The bogging issue, while certainly annoying, is documented well enough that I accept it as a hardship to overcome, and one of the many unpredictable facets of the battlefield. The "glass guns", however, seem well out of proportion with reported incidents. (For example, its widely known that Ferdinand/Elephants bogged all the time and had engine troubles. Gamers would expect that to be modeled. However, I can't remember ever reading significant loss statistics due to gun damage for any WWII armor.) I was not around during the Beta phase of this game, so I don't know how forthcoming Steve and Charles are when it comes to the math behind the game, but perhaps they could explain the percentages, and show us the data they derived those numbers from? I know that no penetration charts are used, and that physics determines results, but there has to be some formula that assigns Gun Damaged results that could be a little unforgiving right now. Reaper

Hey, I am starting to concur. Problem is, I keep bumping into Jumbos and other monsters, so having an 8.8 seems like such a good idea when buying my forces. Seems they always die to trivial crap though. Either bog/immobilized, take a gun hit, or that supposedly hard to hit weak spot does them in. I have only had a few "die hard" german tanks that just sat there and took it on the nose. I usually take assault guns, and not tanks, so maybe I'll try my luck with Tigers. It seems that lady luck just out-and-out hates my in PBEM though. I can crush the AI like a soda can, but whenever a human jumps on the other side, my luck goes to hell before I have a chance to give bad orders. =) Trying to sack up and take it on the chin, but not succeeding very well... Reaper

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: Bad news reaper..... your Jagd is now an overpriced Machinegun Bunker.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <crys> Crap, that is what I thought. I prefer to think of it as a tractor myself. I am going to go back to my PBEM and give the Plow order. =( Crap, crap, crap, crap. Reaper

Hey, Is the gun out forever, or does the result mean reduced accuracy, slower reload, or something along those lines? If its out, how about changing it to read Gun Destroyed to remove all doubt. (Clinging to a shard of hope that my Jagdpanther didn't just get taken out by arty falling nearby...) Reaper

Friend of mine said that too. I don't hear it that way. I've watched it too many times to count. I'll listen again, but I still think its definitely. Defilade makes sense, but definitely is cooler! (Edit: I do respectfully stand corrected. I realized "Hey my DVD has subtitles!" I just went and checked and you are correct sir. Crap, that ruined what I thought was a really cool line... Now I gotta find a new sig.) Now about those uniforms... Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan [This message has been edited by Reaper (edited 09-05-2000).]