Scipio

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Any suggestion on how prevalent these should be, e.g. for US vs. German? And matter of fact, I have. I would class US 76mm breaking up as a dud. Was in the beta.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Breaking shells are breaking shells, not duds. It still happens. And 'I would class ... as ...' is a 100% abstraction Anyway, maybe I haven't expressed my thoughts right - yes, there is some calculation for single (gun) shots. But it's still abstraction. Gun xyz has for example a 50% chance to hit a tank on 1500m. It fires 5 shots per turn. In reality, each shot goes usually closer to the target. In CM it does not. A number of shells hit, the others go somewhere else. Maybe shot one 10m away from the target, shot two 100m, shot three hits, shot four 50m away. It's absolutly unrealistic - a gun that has hit once will hit the target with a VERY high chance again. It only make sense if you see it as abstraction. A specific % will be hits, the rest not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: ...I really think you're wrong on this one, man !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you ever seen a dud? No?

In all the discussions about armor penetration, gun accuracy and whatever else the people seem to forget a simple thing. CM isn't what it looks like. What we see is not what happens. Everything is only abstracted. If CM would use 2d maps and generic unitsymbols, but the same internal calculations, a lot of the discussions would never start. But the truth is, CM works like a 2d tactical game, the 3d movie is only the interpretation of the results. It's like the way we see a colour : we see for example 'red'. 'Red' doesn't exist in reality. There is only a specific electromagnetic frequenz that our eys are able to perceive and our brain interprets as the colour 'red'. In CM, we see for example a gun that fires 5 times per turn. Now we read somewhere 'this gun can fire 15 times per minute' and we start a flame war about the gun ROF. If we would see the same in a 2d game, we check a units table and read 'gun xyz can attack 5 times per turn' and 'the unit can cause 10 damage points to this target unit', we are contented. But CM works the same way. The 'XYZ gun' don't fires 5 rounds a turn, it has 5 attacks per turn... Well - after the genial 'we move' technique that BTS has developed and the outstanding 3d invironment, this is be the next big challenge for BTS: make CM 'real' - show us what really happens. Death to abstractions!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: That is, of course, a boundary issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure. But we are not talking about experimental guns - all guns in CM were fired for thousands, even millions of times both on shooting ranges and in combat. Their accuracy is known history, also the side effects that influence the accuracy, like optics or ammo quality. All this can be implemented in the formula with an abstracted base factor for gun accuracy. Same for the general abilitys as AT weapon. If the 37mm AA was a better AT weapon then the 37mm AT, why did the 37mm AT exist? It would have been better to convert it into an AT gun. Beside that, the factor of the crew experience has much more influence then it seem to has right now. About the spotting - nice idea, but unavailable in QBs, and Tigers are a little bit more expensive then a gun. [ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: It does not really all come down to math. There is a difference between the 8,8cm gun in a tank and as an AA gun. The difference is the training of the crew, and the spotting, which AFAIK would be done through stereoscopic range-finders on the AA gun, while the tanks did not have that particular equipment. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germanboy, do you know how a computer or a program works? ALL comes down to math as long as we are talking about computers. Don't believe any longer that there are little electronic people like in the movie 'Tron' . You are right about the 'realworld' effect of different optics. But as I said, we can discuss this forever and a day - it makes no sense. Do you know if this is is used in the calculation? First - In a program is the probability for a hit ALWAYS calculated as a % chance. To know if this calculation is realistic (as good as possible) we would need to know the formulas and parameters used for it by CM. I don't think that CM uses very much factors in this calculation, I assume range, target speed, muzzel velocity and maybe as secondary factor the crew experience. BTW, my own experience and different tests I've run in the last 12 month has shown this: a smaller gun with a high ROF has a higher chance to kill a tank then a bigger gun. Why? Math! The chance to hit something with two shots is smaller then the chance to hit with 10 shots in the same time. More hits means directly higher chances for a penetration. This is the reason why the 37mm AA is a deadly tankkiller in CM, while I can't remember that I have heart much about it in this role in the real world. I have also noticed that guns are very fast out once they are spotted. I can't say if the spotting is realistic (another unknown calculation), but what I have read (and my own eperience in tanksimulators) has shown - a buttoned tank is nearly blind. You have relativ good front view, but already the sides are problematic, and the rear can be ussually seen as dead angle. If someone fires on you, you often don't see it - you often even don't HEAR this roaring tank. Even an unbuttoned tank has only limited spotting abilitys. It appears to me that guns are spotted very easy in CM. Of course, they usually don't operate on this small range as in CM, and we also have this 'borg spotting' problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: Just because a gun is bigger does not mean it is more accurate. What is your reasoning for this assumption?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume he meant 'longer'. A longer barrel gives more accuracy for some reasons.

Gun accuracy has been often discussed here. The 88 was known to be one of the accuratest guns in WWII. IRRC even untrained troops were able to hit with it on distances of 1000m with the first or second shot. Well, we can discuss this until the hell freezes, it doesn't helps. The only way would be that BTS publish the calculations and unit datas they use for gun accuracy, so we could compare it with the 'real world'. Of course there are always some things that influence the gun accuracy, but at last it comes all down to math.

You have always a chance. But to be true, without AT weapons you better run for cover. With some luck you can maybe immobilize the tank or damage the gun with handgrenades, but you risk to loose several men for this.

...and the only one...

Which tanks were destroyed on the Allies side? (type, experience)? Had the Allies an exit zone? How many VLs?

Can someone tell me which BMP are used for the hellcat, and BTW for the US 75mm Pack Howitzer?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: I don't use anything but I've got Corel Photo Paint.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I use Paint Shop Pro. You can download an evaluation copy here Jasc

We all remember the Y2K panic! All powerplants will go down, food and gas is not longer available, the intercontinental rockets will start on their own, the deads will rise, fire rains from heaven etc. Now what can we expect if CMBB will be available? The BTS online order will be overrun by a horde of crazy addicts (us), a short circuits blows the server on the moon, an uncontrolable feedback brings the powerplants down, food and gas is not longer available....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: No it's not too much to ask but doesn't seem like anybodys up to it. Too bad! I was actually going to try to learn to do mods myself but after installing the program and getting all ready I started the program up and found out I didn't even know where to begin. I spend several hours trying this and that and finally gave up. I sure wish software would come with manuals and step by step instructions but they don't. I don't suppose you would care to get me started? Hey no harm in asking, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which program do you use? The first thing you must learn is : forget manuals. :cool:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: You amaze me Scipio. Your uniforms are always so cool looking . I really enjoy looking at them. Another excellent job. I personally just wish you would add web gear so I would use them but I know you don't like doing web gear but I just had to mention it - again. But hey that doesn't take away from the fact that you do outstanding work and that I enjoy looking at them. Thanks again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you . You remeber the scene in 'Saving Private Ryan', before the attack this SMG close to a radar station? They first dropped their gear! But I already offered some time ago that someone else can mod my mods and add gear. My only stipulation was that he should let me know where he post and add my name and a link to my site. Is this to much? It seems so, cause no one contacted me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Scipio, I think what Doug is trying to say is that currently you get exactly what you are asking for when the counter says '5 men okay - 4 men casualties'. That could break down in one KIA, one WIA, one lying prone praying the Vater Unser, and the last one off to pick some of those nice yellow flowers yonder. When the whole squad breaks (which can happen with no or almost no casualties) it just means they all decide together that they have an urgent appointment elsewhere. So to an extent, what you ask for is currently modeled as I understand the system. The final screen headcount is pretty much irrelevant in that respect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germanboy, I know what Doug want to say, and it's not what I mean, and I never spoken about the final results. Once again: Status quo: the squad is displayed by two numbers, on the left side the healthy soldiers, on the right side the 'dead' soldiers. 'Dead' just means 'This soldier is away, he will not return during the battle'. This is NOT influenced by my idea. Forget the 'dead' soldiers. I only speak about the 'Healthy' soldiers (short HS). HS change their moral status always and only as group, it doesn't matter if they are 3 or 12 men. IMO, this is as unrealistic as to find 10 members with the same opinion on this board. So, instead loosing a whole squad to 'Panic' as Gen-x87H described it, I want to part the HS into 'capable' and 'currently incapable'. With 'currently incapable' I mean not 'dead'=gone for the rest of the battle, I mean able to return to 'healthy' soldiers. The status 'currently incapable' can abstract various things like: 'stunned', 'shocked', 'panic', 'broken' 'routed', 'weapon jamed', 'out for a cup of tea', 'find fresh panties', 'sewing a lost leg on' etcetera The sense is, you have the rest of the squad available, even if the greatest part is 'dead' or 'currently incapable'. You can give orders, you can move it. Maybe you have the luck to have a MG or some SMG in the remaining part of the squad, so you have still a valuable unit. NOW (for the first time) about the endresults: it is (very)likely that not ALL 'currently incapable' soldiers will return. I assume some of them will just disappear. Those can be seen as MIA, and MAYBE influence the endresult.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Scipio, the current model makes no distinction between the various reasons a soldier is combat-ineffective, for the very appropriate reason that it doesn't matter, in CM's scale, why a soldier is combat-ineffective. Whether he's dead, badly wounded, mentally broken, or is helping a wounded buddy, he's out of the battle. I don't see any value for players in knowing whether he's dead/wounded or what. If there is something that I'm not seeing (maybe you and your human opponents track this or something as part of your scoring?) let me know. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, you've indeed misunderstood the idea. I won't know what has happened to the 'KIA', you're right, it doesn't matter. From my starting post: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...In other words, currently not able to fight, but able to recover during the battle...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The sense is : Even if 4 men are 'killed' and 4 others are 'currently incapable', I have the rest of the squad operational. This can be very important if one of the rest has a machinegun, for example. Isn't it more realitsic as a whole squad that panics or breaks in the same second? Sometimes it's the last men standing...

Yo, this time I was very idle, I used the same pattern for all US Army 44 & 45, Free France and US tank crews. Sorry.

Yes, this is something I've noticed, too. If I order my Inf. to fire on a close tank, it seems to be self-evident to use a rifle grenade or Panzerfaust. If we would need an additional micromanagment, then to tell the men to use their AT weapons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: 233 is the number of the Tiger in that picture, meaning Kitty based her mod on that particular tank. Here website is here; look under mods/serious mods.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, now that you say it... Yes, I confirm to have Kittys (very good) KT on my drive. But it looks a little bit different. I just want to have an alternation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bfamily33: Here's the link to that Tiger: http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/tiger/tiger_3.html [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: bfamily33 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, is it a screenshot of CM III ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: Kitty's King Tiger was based on 233. You can pick it up at her site. And Kitty's fine btw. Mace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is a 233? And were is the site?

Mr. Johnson, this is a misunderstanding. I've written in my starting post: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well, it's not necessary to model each single soldier, but maybe it would be an idea to add a third number to the unit status : one for 'good' soldiers, one for casualties, and the third for 'currently incapable' soldiers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just want - beside the dead/wounded - additional tear the capable from the incapable soldiers. This is NO additional micromanagement, because - you can already proof how many soldiers with which weapons you have in the unit on the 'Detailed Unit information' screen. And even if it end up that each soldiers get a personal status flag (in program terms), it would only rise realism. Humans are individuals - even if some say that they are borg (Am I a borg queen? :cool: ) But I don't want BTS to let me command each single soldier. The CM level of control is IMO perfect. [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Can't be sure from that squint-o-vision pic, but it kinda looks like the King Tiger mod that Kitty did a while back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, I have the Kitty mod on my drive. I need some fresh stuff. BTW, what's happened to Kitty? Haven't seen a post of her for a long time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Since I can not see it from your profile - how many NWE towns and cities have you seen, and what do you know about building standards in these?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I live in NWE (Germany). We have building standards? Have I missed something :confused: