Little_Black_Devil

Is ALL of the Tiger RHA? No FHA at all? Wow...I didn't know that. :/

Any chance that the CMBB penetration values are based off of Soviet ammunition used in the American 75mm L/38 gun?

Hmmm, I never considered that it could have been a gun hit. As he never fired once his turret was "jammed" or otherwise prevented from traversing - I guess I can't be sure. I didn't realize that a gun hit (or a specific manifestation of one) could produce these kinds of results - which would explain much. It would also seem to indicate that this isn't a "new" feature. Nevertheless, it was cool (and lucky for me) to see this PzIIIM moving about wth his turret locked off to the side. I do wish though, that it would have happened to me as opposed to an AI unit, so I could have had a better idea as to what it was that happened. Can't have it all I guess. Thanks all

So does anyone else know if this is new - or have I somehow managed not to have seen this before in CMBO and CMBB?

I don't believe I have ever seen this in CMBO OR CMBB. Is this new - or have I somehow beaten the odds of not having seen this till now? POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW; * * * * * * * * * * * * * I'm certain that I saw a PzIIIM with a jammed turret in the "Fruhlingswind" scenario. I played as the Yanks, and advanced up to the ridge the German's initially start behind. I rushed their tanks as they were appearing as re-inforcements with my M3's and upon smashing all of the German armour - the last tank's hull, was originally oblique to me, with his turret traversed, aimed directly off his left side (and at this time - aimed at me). As I advanced towards him, he pivoted his hull to his left so his front was now facing me, but the gun - instead of traversing back to the tank's front - remained pointing immeadiately to his left. My initial rounds seemed to kick up some dust that my gunners couldn't see through....though I could still see the enemy tank. My M3's took an additional two turns to finally begin scoring hits again - as the enemy tank, reversed into some low ground behind the dust, and as my M3's advanced again - only then were they able to score the finishing blows. During this whole time - the enemy tank's turret never moved from its position facing immeadiately left (where it had absolutely no targets and did not fire). This lead me to believe that I either caused a turret jam (presumeably with one of my many partial turret penetrations) OR that I had killed the gunner who would otherwise operate the traverse (if this is now somehow modeled). In either case - I seem to have managed to prevent the enemy tank's turret, from traversing back onto me and returning subsequent fire. Again - I've never seen this before... Anyhow - I haven't seen anyone else mention this yet, so I thought it worth posting about.

Excellent - a screenshot!! I've been playing the demo like made to re-create the issue. It hasn't been as easy as I initially thought. I can recreate it, though - not to the extent I first saw it (which is well reflected in the screenshot). The text, or graphics bug - or whatever it is appears to slowly accumulate in bits and pieces. I also noticed, that when I alt-tabbed out of the demo to print screen (and paste) a screenie of my own - which only had a few fragments of text, or the graphcis bug, that when I came back into the game - what was there, was entirely gone. I have yet to try reverting video drivers, but if it comes down to that for the retail version of CMAK - honestly, I'll just learn to live with the issue as I have too many other games which stand to benefit from the latest drivers. Besides which, I don't think this is a show stopper - well - it isn't for me anyways, but I certainly figured it was worth mentioning in case it was representative of a larger issue. Later

hehe, oops... Yeah - I'm also using 52.16 without fsaa. I'll try 30.82 when I get home and report back with the results.

Ooops, my bad for not posting in the correct forum. Glad I'm not the only one afflicted by this. I'll see what I can do about posting some screenies when I get home. In the meantime, before I forget (again) - I'll post my pertinent system stats; WinXP Pro Direct X 9.0b AMD Athalon XP 3000+ 1 Gig Kingston Hyper-X, PC2700 Dual Channel RAM MSI K7N2 Delta L Motherboard MSI 128MB GeForce 4 Ti4200 Video Card

I'm having great fun with the demo...even if the computer has handed me my but a few times. One thing I noticed though - is that while the turns are loading, I get a peculiar graphics issue in the lower left and lower right of my screen. It appears as though there is partially obscured text...or something stretching from each respective corner, in about 2-3 inches towards the centre. If it is text, I'm not sure that its English. The picture, or game picture - what I can see of the battlefield, is what is partially obscures this text or whatever it is, as it overlaps it. When turns aren't loading, the text is still there - but not moving, and therefore less visible. Anyhow, not sure if this is just affecting my rig, if this is already a known issue or if this is some sort of intended feature - but I thought I'd mention it. If necessary, I'll see if I can't post some screenies when I get home.

I'm having great fun with the demo...even if the computer has handed me my but a few times. One thing I noticed though - is that while the turns are loading, I get a peculiar graphics issue in the lower left and lower right of my screen. It appears as though there is partially obscured text...or something stretching from each respective corner, in about 2-3 inches towards the centre. If it is text, I'm not sure that its English. The picture, or game picture - what I can see of the battlefield, is what is partially obscures this text or whatever it is, as it overlaps it. When turns aren't loading, the text is still there - but not moving, and therefore less visible. Anyhow, not sure if this is just affecting my rig, if this is already a known issue or if this is some sort of intended feature - but I thought I'd mention it. If necessary, I'll see if I can't post some screenies when I get home.

Yeah, I was kinda disapointed not to hear 'Lili Marlaine', but still impressed with...whatever track you guys opted to use. Still though....for me - there is just something about 'Lili Marlaine' and WWII North Africa.

Having been in the Artillery - and worked on field guns, I have often wondered whats taking my gun crews (in-game) so long to come into action some times. I mean - you have a crew, which works together and executes a number of drills which they have done to infinitum in training - you'd think they'd breeze through their initial deployment. For an anti-tank gun, I would believe that from the time the prime mover stops, it would only take seconds to get the gun layed, aimed - and begin putting rounds down range. I mean - all thats involved, is un-hooking the gun spreading the trails, pivoting the gun towards the enemy, lowering the trails, dropping sight sight into the sight mount, traversing and elevating the gun onto the target, loading and firing. Sounds like a lot I guess - but then again, consider that a crew is doing all of this as part of a well rehearsed drill. One of the loading numbers, could continue to unload ammo off the prime mover, the other loads the gun as required, another crewman - the gunner - aims and fires the gun while the gun commander observes fall of shot, and searches for additional targets. Of course - I guess I'm also talking about smaller guns, like the Pak36/Pak38/Pak40. Obviously - larger guns (like the Flak18/36/37 or Pak43), by virtue of their size and wieght are slower and more cumbersome/difficult to move. Moving them may have been slow, but once in position setup would have hapened quickly - especially with the larger gun crews involved executing their drills with a degree of ergonomic superiority over their smaller gun crew counterparts. Moving any gun, is not easy by any stretch, but the smaller guns - under the manpower of a crew, could have moved relatively quickly on flat ground. Its moving guns up hill, no matter the incline, or on soft or uneven ground where things slow right down. This is especially the case, if the gun is moving a substantial distance without the aid of a prime mover and has to carry on its trails and even gunshield, additional ammo as well as any gun stores (pioneer tools, gun tools, personal kit etc.). Anyhow - to make a long story short - I agree that smaller guns in particular should be sped up slightly in the amount of time it takes them to set up. Current movement rates are probably pretty reasonable, considering all of the variables. Its just the setup time I think that needs to be sped up a tad. That having been said - I DO think crew experience should be taken into account. I mean a green or conscript gun crew should not function as efficiently, and therefore as quickly as a "seasoned" crew, because the newbies are still to some extent - getting their act together. As such, perhaps less trained/experienced gun crews should take a hit when it comes to the amount of time it takes them to move and setup. I imagine their relative accuracy is already accounted for...then again, perhaps their relative "speed" is also accounted for. I can't say I've ever really monitored this between Crack crews vs green crews. Something to try when I get home from work I guess. Anyhow, thsts just my take on how long its takes guns to get setup.

I recall having seen pictures of T-34s, which had been knocked out - and recovered. I'll see if I can find out what it was I was looking at. Anyhow, part of these tanks particular recovery, saw the holes which the penetrating rounds created, sealed over and the tank brought back into service. The pictures, made it look as though whatever filler they used to patch the holes was bondo. I know it wasn't, but thats just how it looked. I assume they had some means of slapping metal into the hole, and inevitably welding it into place. However - any of these repairs, would have obviously taken a great deal of time to make, and would have required specialized facilities. These types of repairs most certainly would never have been done under front line conditions. As such I'm not sure what your getting at when you say it would be "fun". What would be fun? Playing with tanks, with weak spots (sealed over penetration holes) or attempting to fix/seal/cover-up penetration holes in your own tank in battle (which again - would be completely unrealistic).

Anyone have an ideas then, as to when the Scenario Depot might carry both parts of the Barbarossa Pack? Like some of the others here, I can easily download the first pack, but I'am "forbidden" from aquiring the second. Panzerman - any chance you could also offer a single pack containing all of the battles? Thanks

Thanks Rexford - thats what I was looking for.

So basically, HE armour penetration is heavily dependent on the diameter of the projectile (and subsequent mass) to penetrate armour then - as opposed to hardened noses/bodies?

makes sense.

Well - I've got Rexfords book as well, and while I'm at work at the moment - I don't recall seeing anything specific regarding HE rounds. Were HE rounds penetration abilities on par with AP - then I don't think there ever would have really been a need for AP. Aside from measuring the weight of the projectile, its velocity, the range, the relative facing of the targets armour (and what kind of armour it is), the armour's thickness, I think HE rounds also have to consider things like the fact that they are not solid shot, and also utilize a variety of fuzes - which may ultimately dictate a variety of behaviors on or after impact. I'm only really interested in the reaction between an HE rounds set on "superquick" or detonation on impact and ones set on (standard) delay of about 5 seconds (the standard settings on an M739 fuze for a conventional HE round as fired by a 105mm Howitzer for instance). While it would be iteresting to consider other projectiles and fuzes - I'm only after HE at the moment. I think its great that the game offers HE penetration statistics vs armour. I'm just curious as to how they determined those figures - what formula(s) were used to calculate them? Thanks again

I don't wanna know how Cadbury gets the caramel into their chocolate bar - I just wanna know how to figure out HE penentration for myself. Anyone....?

Okay - this question has plagued me long enough. How do you work out the penetration capability of HE rounds? Are they just treated as solid shot (until a certain point at which they finally detonate)? At what point during the "penetration" process does the fuze pack it in and detonate the explosive filler - or do we always assume that the ranges are so short so as to preclude the fuze from arming yet? I think its great that we have this feature in game, its certainly served me well a couple of times - I just wish I knew how to mathematically work it our for myself. Anyone know what the *secret* forumla is? Thanks

I believe that tune is called "Aces High" Monty. I really love that tune too - but for me its too "Luftwaffe-esque". What about that Italian tune they play at the begining of the movie "Stalingrad"? Bah! what àm I thinking - Lili Marlene!! Lili Marlene!!!

Any news of this yet? I searched, but couldn't find anything. Applying my best Jedi mind trick; "Lille Marlene WILL be the theme music for CMAK" there....Did it work?

Well, I guess what both of you are saying makes sense. Hopefully though, in one of CMs many add-ons and sequels to come - we'll see a bit more of this "common sense" injected into the game, without compromising the "reality factor" - which Moon touched on, and I wholeheartedly agree with. Thanks for the rounded perspective and engaging discussion.

Exactly Michael, Tools for Fools, if I have explained part of this idea to suggest that there should be some facet in the game to compensate for a blunder on the players behalf - then I appologize, this isn't what I've been attempting to convey. Like Michael, what I'm after is a reasonable means with which to give "orders" to my units so they can conduct themselves with competence on the battlefield. As I mentioned above - modification of the "shoot & scoot" order is with the idea of injecting a little more common sense intop my tank/vehicle crews - particularly the leadership units. Of course, this "common sense" has to be abstracted - but I think the best way to do this, is to build it into the orders system, so as to permit the flexability in orders that allow the player to in essence issue anticipatory orders. In real life - a commander, christens the ground - which is to say, that he identifies key features of the ground ahead of himself and his unit. This is a constantly ongoing process, whereby prominent features are identified to the crew/formation. The idea behind this, is that as the commander is christening the ground, he is also telling his troops/crew what their actions upon contact will be. Within the game - I think this type of SOP can successfully be "abstracted" by issuing these types of variation orders of "shoot & scoot" to accomodate the intent of the commander (player). The bottom line is what equates to the appearence of more common sense on the behalf of your units in action. Well...hopefully anyways. Upon further reflection - I think the shoot & scoot order is only an example of the type of "orders" or "orders system" I'm after. What I think is really at the heart of these ideas - is the combination of orders to produce a specific result, which currently - isn't as flexible as it could be. As can be seen in thie thread there are what, 3 or 4 examples of different ways to utilize "variations" of the shoot & scoot order? Some of these are generic, and could be used for all units, where others are more unit specific. I think the shoot & scoot order stands out from al the others - and is being discussed here - because it is a two part order - a combination. Essentially - combination orders inject some degree of flexibility into the unit - via these types of orders, with either focus on intent or specific actions (like driving to waypoints at all costs for instance). What these orders would do - in essence, is take away some of the mechanical aspects of the current orders system, and augment them with additional, more precise/flexible orders that don't concern themsvles so much with waypoints and mechanics - but rather adpot the intent of the commander. I think this is possible, by either adding a number of different versions of the "shoot & scoot" order, OR by providing some means for the player to create "order combinations". I kind of liken it to playing something like "Mortal Kombat" Right now - we can only kick and punch. I'm just asking for a few "special moves", combos and maybe a nice "fatality" or two. The REAL question is - how practical is this for BTS to model in CMAK/CMX? I don't know jack about coding etc. - so from a lamen's perspective, I don't have a clue as to how involved these changes might be. Hopefully, they aren't too involved - and we might see orders like these in CMAK/CMX. ...Hopefully

Sir Augustus, I like that too. I'm begining to see that there could be a myriad of different offshoot orders for "Shoot & Scoot" - with their own intent attributed to each. Some of what I think we're covering here, is a means to give an order to a unit - which best accomplishes your intent and also to partially overcome some of the mechanics of the game/orders system. I also think that we could partially be discussing standard operating procedures (SOPs). Now - this isn't to say that some of the "intents" we're discussing, are all "standard" operating procedures persay, for all nations armies - but rather "unit" oriented SOPs that allow the player to inject some common sense into his units on the battlefield. Obviously - the reality is, that the tank commander, or squadron commander is going to have christened the ground for his tank or the rest of his unit respectively, communication facilities permitting. As such - I think some of these "Shoot & Scoot" offshoot ideas, are a way of fixing your "actions on contact" (SOPs) to your units in the game, through a simple movment order (or hybrid thereof). I'm not sure if its necessarily feasible for BTS to implement all of these types of offshoot ideas of the "Shoot & Scoot" order - or if its possible to somehow modify the "Shoot & Scoot" order so it can be tailored to accomodate these different "intents". Hmmmm, food for thought. [ August 10, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]