Scipio

What I have noticed in ALL!!! my games, H2H and also vs the AI: the tanks of my opponent shot always much better than my own! The side doesn't matter. But what is REALLY funny - my opponents usually think the same - about MY tanks :eek: I guess as long as no side has an opportunity, it is a relative question how realistic it's modeled. Another thing, when I play a pure tankbattle vs my prefered opponent, the calculation needs sometimes 1 minute or two - on a Thunderbird 1000 processor. I assume the calculation is complicated enough. Anyway - the 'fire when move' was not usual in WWII, and that's reason enough why it should be changed. About modern tanks - in my military service I saw a group of German Leopard tanks on a shooting practice - it's difficult to say how fast they were driving, but they were surely faster then I could run - and they fired & hit in movement. HA - deutsche Wertarbeit [ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Thanks aka_tom_w I read that all, and I hope this will be corrected - like some other important details. I guess the worst with us wargamers - we will never be contented

And the Maus??? What about the Maus? I can't wait to see it bog in every terrain and break throug every bridge

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marcus Braun: **** Another rariety setting will be variable, with some units more "available" than others, and thus relative bargains, price-wise. **** This rariety setting will be important; Otherwise in a QB we would see 5 or 6 T-34 command tanks with radio instead of one command T-34 and 6 regular T-34's without radio!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We will have command tanks?

I had a threat about it just last week. The general opion was : no. Another question is - I'm not an expert about it, but I'm sure someone here is - I see most tanks move & fire (and hit). But I could swear I have read that the WWII tanks wasn't able to shot accuratly when moving. They usually must stop to aim and fire. Only the few models with gyrostabilizer had a realistic chance to hit on the move. Can someone enlighten me with his wisdom?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood: Scipio can confirm or deny, but I think his claim (one that I've heard before) is that a hit should DRAMATICALLY enhance follow on hits - more so than a simple near miss. I agree with your call for real evidence of this (no matter how reasonable an idea may be, the bottom line is "can you prove it"), but I think it's a different claim than that to which you attest ... to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I confirm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kmead: In addition, would it be possible to limit the likelyhood of getting the Puma and its coiterations to something like the actual usage and general availability when the computer purchases units. It seems I always end up with several of them in my QBs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An orientation on the real availability is exactly what I have in mind, and excactly for this reason. Some units like the Puma are very cheap and effective, and so they can be seen often in CM - but they were very rare on the real battlefield.

Currently we have all units available in Quick Battles (human purchase) - maybe it would be a nice addition to let the computer restrict this? It was - especially for the late Axis forces - normal that a lot of units were only limited available. Of course it's possible to make an auto purchase, but IMO that feature doesn't work very good. I prefer to select the forces on my own. To avoid an advantage in PBEM for the one who make the setup, an additional file transfer would be senseful. After calculating the map and the available units, the files goes to the opponent, and he make the purchase first.

Modell 151 - ~16000 were build til December 44,with 5.000.000 rounds of 15mm and 55.000.000 of 20mm available in 12/44. Modell 131 - ~8100 with 25.000.000 rounds available in 12/44 No infos how much were used in groundcombat, but both were usual used in all types of aircrafts.

I hope to see sandbags and trenches.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Manx: Yeah, i think i do? There's one Tiger did about 3-4 months ago, but the sites down at the moment and i don't have an alternative link for this mod.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problemo - I can wait til tomorrow :cool:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Is there any chance or consideration of modeling the M.G. 151/20 in future CM's? Specificaly CM2 but not limited to CM2? From the U.S. Handbook on German Military Forces: M.G. 151/20: I realize that if this gun is considered being modeled in CM, it opens up an entire discussion on all improvised weapons. So I understand why this gun should probably not be modeled. However, It was interesting to see the Germans did have an equivelent MG to the U.S. 50 caliber in the 151/15. Does anybody know anything more about it's use and quantity made?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They fired 700 rpm and were used in ground combat at the end of war...but I guess they were very rare. Anyway - the Modell 131 would be another nice addition - 930rpm of 13mm ammo, HE & AP - pure Iwan :eek: BTW - how about the Panzerbüchse?

Manx, do have a Pershing Mod? I noticed that I still use the original graphics :eek: What will mom say if she see me using an unmoded tank???

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Ok, thanks for the responces. I didnt realize there was such a huge discussion about the matter. I didn't base my guess on running MG teams on Saving Private Ryan as much as basing it onthe fact that the LMG 42 and the HMG 42 weigh about the same as a shreck. So I was trying to understand why one could not run with one, considering that the HMG is a six man team giving plenty of free hands to carry the other stuff including the tripod. But I see that it is answered in more then full for the most part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Allow me to add something. The German Bundeswehr uses the nearly identical MG-3. A Heavy MG is the gun, a tripod and a lot of ammo, and it's is intended as a stationary defense weapon. No, you can NOT run with it. The light MG-3 (it's the same weapon, but without the heavy tripod) is for combat support. It's the gun, a second barrel and the ammo. With the gun on the shoulder, a ammo case in the left hand and some ammo belts around the neck it's possible to run. I was allowed to test it for several times. It's possible, even when you wear your gas mask. Of course you don't make a marathon with it, but I guess it can be compared with a running Bazooka team...100m, then it looses a lot of fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I can say with a great confidence that the answer to the question: A) If a tank is hit is it easier to hit again? Is yes, for the same reason that it becomes progressively easier to hit a tank that you miss. I tested this with Jumboes and 50mm AT guns and came up with a data set that I will post tonight or tomorrow. If a tank is hit, will one at the same range be easier to hit? My theory here is the answer is no, because I do not believe the AI has, and my testing has shown that this to be the case in other tests, a memory once it switches targets. To test this, I am going to take my normal firing range and put 4 Shermans in front of each Pak 43. The Pak 43 has a 99.9% chance of killing one tank in 4 shots. I will let each gun fire at a tank until it hits, then see if shot 1 at tank 2 has a significant difference in to hit from shot 1 at tank 1, and so forth through tank 4. I will also test for significance in shot order to see if it continues to get better in progression despite the switched shot. If the answer is no, the first tank is fired at with about a 25% first round chance to hit instead of something better than 50%,, and if it is a significant finding, then we can assume the AI keeps no memory of shot ranges for adjacent tanks. The question then would become, should it, and if it should, in what situations would it happen. Finally, accepting that it cannot be coded into CM: BO and CM: BB, can it be coded into CM-II, and if so, how would that be done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not necessary, Slap, that's what I tested in Test 1. 98% of the hits were deadly, so the gun switched to the next target. And you see the result. Well, it's a difficult question if it's possible to get that level of realism without extraordinary efforts. This would also rise the question for using landmarks with known distance to the gun (a standard procedure in reality) etcetra... Of course it would be fine if we will see something like that...someday. But I guess I can wait for it. As it was already said - the conditions in a battle has also a great effect. About question two : I guess that could be realized much easier, as for example with a bonus to the hit propability? dNorwood, I've sended the files.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: As for your cluster of tanks, it raises the interesting question: does hitting at range carry over an advantage when firing at an adjacent target. I can think of some logical reasons why it would, and some logical reasons why it might not actually cause an effect that can be seen. On the one side, in the case of a line of tanks with a predictable interval, an AT gunner should get a bonus for the ranging shot similar to the bonus of an established ambush point. On the other hand, a set of tanks moving to attack, through dust and smoke, firing back at the gunners, I am not sure what sort of recording keeping they did in the heat of battle (as opposed to prepared ambush). I will have to think on this and get back to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course that's a general problem of those tests - they can't be compared with battle conditions for many reasons, only to find out the gun accuracy on a test range. We can try to compare the CM test range with the results from real test ranges how they are shown on the 88-page (link posted somewhere above). Compared to that, the results are okay with 2 - 4 shots needed for the first hit. To bad that I can't find a table with results for the following shots.

dNorwood I hope my bad English won't cause problems The numbers 1-8-9... means this : 1st shot hits 8th shot hits 9th shot hits... In other words The gun shot 1 time and hit. Then the gun misses for 7 times and the 8th shot is a hit again... Indeed you shouldn't compare the results with Slapdragon's results, cause Slap doesn't answer the question (I hope I understand him correct. This is very difficult for me to explain in English, I guess he will correct me if I'm wwrong) His results show: If you shoot one time one target, you will hit it with a propability of 25% If you shoot two times on the target, you will hit it once with a propability 33% I have no doubts that his results are correct,but the problem is Test 1: Several targets close together with the same distance to the gun (the greatest problem to aim with a gun is an unknown distance to target). If the first target was hit, the distance to the next target is known. Because of that, the probability to hit the second target with the first or second shot should be higher then in was to hit the first target with the first or second shot. Test 2: if you have the same target hit once already (so the target datas necessary for the aiming are known), you have an much higher chance to hit it again, usually with the next or next but one shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: Yes, but not all at once. The guy who stepped on it knows a second or two before everyone else. Also, the severed leg flying thru the air serves as a useful indicator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But what in dense wood or other difficult terrain? Something explodes, the victim is maybe unconscious or dead or has something else in mind then 'Ooophs, I hit a mine', his comrades maybe havn't seen what hits him...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: a) Yes, because they observe it much more closely, since they are not locked in a steel cage. they don't, they know they are in it, but they don't know the extent, shape, or whether it is all one type of mine. Endless games were played by the Afrikakorps with tin-cans, when they retreated. According to one book I read a long time ago it worked like this: put in some mines, that stops the pursuit, when they start digging, they find very few mines, and many tin cans. After 30 yards of tin cans they decide it was just the few mines, get back in the truck, drive 50 yards, hit mines. Lather, rinse, repeat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aha - so I guess that's something that should be changed (point . In CM, the size and position of an uncovered minefield is know exactly - the TacAI calculate a path to bypass the minefield.

Okay, here are the first testresults. The numbers are the numbers of shoots that were necessary to hit the target. All test were made hotseat, ammo for all guns: 50(a), all guns Crack. Test 1: 8 targets in a row, all with the same distance to the gun. Do the gunners have an advantage because they know the distance to the other targets after hitting the first target? Gun 88mm AA, Target 8 x M4 Sherman, Distance to target 2000m, chance for a hit 10% (Target were mostly killed with the first hit) a) 3-4-2-2-3-9-1-15-4 6-5-4-3-1-7-5-3 c) 20-5-6-5-2-7-5 d) 2-5-7-5-4-6-5-5 e) 1-7-6-7-6-7-3-6-4-3 ************************************** Test 2: When a target were hit, do the gunners have a higher chance to hit the same target again? Gun 88mm AA, Target 1 x Churchill VII, Distance to target 2000m, chance for a hit 10% (No lethal hit on target) a)6-4-4-8-1-1-8-1-1-2-1-2-3-8 b)2-1-3-1-8-6-1-1-1-1-1-3-3-1-4-13 c)13-2-4-3-2-2-4-1-3-4-1-1-8-1 I didn't run more tests, I guess the tendency can be seen already. Test 1: A known distance to target doesn't seem to matter. Test 2: Difficult to say. A series of perfect hits is broken by a series of misses. The result is better then in Test 1, but I also don't see a general rise of the hit chance. So, now let the lynch mob go.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: About the mines... As a child, a friend of mine's Dad was a Korean War vet, a tanker. A story that always stuck in my mind was when his tank hit a mine. Everyone bailed immediatelly fearing artillery or direct fire. They did not know it was mine field until several minutes later they noticed the driver was stuck in his hatch, unable to get out, and still alive, thus proving no direct fire was involved. They called the engineers to confirm and remove the minefield and recover the tank. [ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Wilhammer ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So much about that. Thank you. If it was necessary to call engineers to confirm a minefield, then I have two other questions. a) Do infantry know that they hit a mine (maybe that depents on the type of the mine?) How do they know the exact position of the minefield after hitting ONE mine? [ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Okay, a) please excuse me all, my extremly bad knowledge of the English language makes it often very difficult to know what I mean. I assume this, because I know how difficult it is to understand someone from the 'English speaking world' when he tries to speak German. Slap - I know my arguments are very vague. Yes, I have the 'feeling' that the 88 and the guns in general don't shoot so accurate how they should. (I already said I will try to proof this, bud those test need some days.) To blame me for this is something that can be done by everyone. But if you want to show that my arguments are generally wrong, than you should run your own tests, and show us your results. If your only goal is to win a discussion, then you are maybe on the wrong forum, and surely in the wrong threat. c) Anyway, some things are known about guns - (Slap, don't bore me with a question for the source of this knowledge, go and try to find a source that disproves me). The first shot on target usually don't hit it. The most important reason for this is the unknown distance. If they hit a (not or slow moving) target once, the chance to hit it again is MUCH higher then at the first shot. This is not correct modeled in CM. If two targets are close together (=same distance), the chance to hit the second target is much higher. The reason, if target A is hit, the distance to target B is known. This is not modeled in CM. Testresults will follow.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Of course not, but your vague feeling that the 88 is wrong is just that, a vague feeling with no support in reality of demonstration that the game is like that. Throwing out "I think that machinguns should have wings and be paisley colored" is cool and all, but it is worth pointing out that it is a worthless suggestion. Rather than spending a lot of time explaining why something works the way it does, it is just better to ask you to come up with a good reason why you think it is broken supported by a few facts. If you cannot come up with them (like the 88 thread) it save a lot of time and effort on people's part. So, with mines, what is the chance of a vehicle moving through a minefield getting blwn up, what is the historical deadliness of minefields, and why do you think these two figures are not related. Cite your work and give us any hard evidence for your feeling so we can discuss it seriously, you may have something. May I suggest that you ask Andreas (Germanboy) in German why I am writing this. He is an excellent member of the board and a strong thinker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This goes again off topic, but... If you think threats like this are bull**** talking - nobody forces you to share your expensive time and valuable wisdom with an asshole like me. The only effect it has on a mental inferior man like me is that I loose the interest to post here, cause I get sick and tired to hear always 'hey, you should know this already' or 'please run three hundred tests before you open your mouth, and don't forget to upload the blueprints' or 'read that dozen books in a foreign language to find an answer' Please excuse that I sully this forum with my presence. I will hopefully never again feel the need to return.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: If you note my request on the previous page for some back up to the "feeling" that something is wrong with the game, I think most of this is just that, feelings. Nothing is really wrong with mines except they are a bit abstracted and do not work like they do in the movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mr. Slapdragon, Sir, does this mean that it's not allowed to request and discuss something?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: What specifically is your problem with minefields? They seem to work correctly to me<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I refered to my former threat. My doubt was, why does a vehicel not trigger off mines in an AP minefield? Maybe it wouldn't be damaged (exept jeeps, maybe trucks), but the minefield would be uncovered.