Marlow

I’ve played the v4 demo over the last couple of nights (while waiting for the CMBB release), and have had quite a bit of fun with it, and will probably order it. That said, a couple of observations and questions. What I liked: Overall feel of the game. Wego turn system. SOPs. Great idea. Number of unit types available, and the detailed information about each unit. What I didn’t (please don’t take these the wrong way. I did like the demo): Command and control. This is probably my biggest problem with the game. There are two aspects to this, no command structure (company and battalion HQ’s are just another unit), and no out of command units or command delays. Limited map elevations. The limitations of having only two levels, combined with the tabletop flat of each level, provides less covered (unobserved) ground than would likely be present in many real world environments. Movement rates. I read in a past post that all vehicles have the same movement rate because all would use a similar movement under battlefield conditions. While this may be true in some circumstances, it is not always. Movement behind the front line, moving through/out of a danger area or beaten zones, etc… One of the reasons given for replacement of the M113 was that it couldn’t keep up with the M1 on the modern battlefield. That is not the case in Tacops. Limited moral effects. Suppression alone is not enough, there needs to be more levels. Also, even suppressed units appear to take movement orders without delay. Quality and training levels of various forces should be incorporated. Questions: How did you determine the armor protection levels for first line tanks and APCs? I was under the impression that the protection levels for many vehicles (Abrams and Bradley in particular) were still classified. Would it be possible to put in a button bar for some of the more used items (e.g. air support and artillery)?

A tank's frontal armor is by far the most important. Look at the Panther (best tank of the war) as an example of what a tank with good front, and marginal side armor can do. The front hull of the T34 was only slightly more sloped than the Sherman. Armor thickness went from slightly more for early shermans to twice as much for later varients. The hull of an uparmored Sherman is significantly more resistant to 75mm/Pak 40 hits. The turrets of both the Sherman and the T34 are about equally vunerable to German AT hits.

US sights may not have been as good in the target ranging department as the German ones, but (especially in the later years) there was nothing wrong with the quality of the optics. The M4 and other basic versions of the Sherman were as well protected as the T34/85. Later versions had better protection.

Beating a dead horse, but here is my two cents. The two scenarios in the demo are fine. I believe that Yelina will appeal more to the long time CM player (I preferred it), as it takes more knowledge of the game system to effectively manage various arms, and successfully have them work together on the attack. On the other hand, for someone who is new to the game, the all tank force in Citadel will have appeal. I remember that when I started the first battle I played (the tutorial on the CMBO CD), the main “cool” factor was the two Shermans. Yes, I knew that the infantry was important to the game, but I really couldn’t wait to mix it up with some Panzers. The first time through, I left the grunts sit, and started off down the road with my tanks. I carefully moved them into a hull-down position at the first rise thinking to myself, “how cool is this, a game where the player can actually move his tanks with this kind of precision. Next think I know, I spot a mark IV, and we slug it out. Killed it after a few shots. I watched that turn about a dozen times. Bottom line is that a battle with an all tank force (i.e. Citadel) is exactly what many new folks would want.

Most briefings give some sort of an order of battle. Yelina Stare gave you exactly the type of information you were looking for, and teh briefing can be called up with a hot-key.

I think this whole Roxy business is a trick to try to fool old Foul Jo Xia into taking Treebust into his harem of morman wives.

Mel Gibson, Conservative Not directly related to his pro/anti American stance, but, IIRC he is at odds with the typical Hollywood views on patriotism and the U.S. [ August 30, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Hey Buzzy, I've got just the ticket for your game with Terry. A little somefink originally dreamed up for Slopeknoggen and some other SSN. I'll send it your way.

Bad neighbors are poopy. Sucks to be you.

Should we demolish the "Deutchland Uber Alles" post above, or ignore it?

Panther G has a shot trap. Panther G late does not. In any event, I think you were the victim of bad luck more than anything else. Shot trap hits are not very common, you just tend to remember when it happens to you. I did a quick and dirty test, with 10 Daimlers against 1 Panther G at about 400m In 5 trials, the Panthers won each time, with no shot trap hits. Hardly scientific, but it does show that (at least at 400m) shot trap his don't happen all that much. [ August 20, 2002, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Some Rent-a-car you are. Why you were busy sleeping at your post, I nipped this treachery in the bud. Exactly what are we paying you for anyway? There was a time when you would come swooping down at the first imagined hearesy, but now, when a real threat emerges, where were you Jo, where were you?

Well now, it is official then. Word has come down from the mountain. Mike, you are the poolboy. ... [an inaccurate statement followed by much presumptuous drivel]... There are several rules you must follow. You must live by these rules … [Roxy has delusion of grandeur]... 1) You may never address Knights, Squires, Serfs, or even SSNs. Your posts must be directed only to the Ladies. You are OUR poolboy. </font>

Depends on the range. aprox. 2.3 to 1 is for the best range for the Stu. The 39 to 1 at 1500 seems a clear advantage.

The size probably isn't big enough to justify claims that "A Mark IV will always kill 3 exactly times as many Stuarts at X meters." But it is certainly large enough to make general claims that the Mark IV is a far superior tank in a straight up shoot out. The more pronounced the effect, the smaller the sample size needed to provide evidence of that effect. Thus, it would probably take a larger sample size to determine whether a Sherman M4 or Panzer Mark IV was better at 400 meters than id does for the Mark IV and Stuart.

Ok, a valid point. I did the mass on mass test to compensate for the lower point value of the Stuart, and set up a 10 on 8 fight. But, I just did the tests again with one on one firing lanes. (3 tiles wide, separated by 2 tiles of woods). There were 8 lanes on the map, and I did 5 trials from each range. The results were not too much different from the previous test: At 250m, 11 Mark IVs lost and 32 Stuarts At 400m, 14 Mark IVs lost and 33 Stuarts At 800m, 6 Mark IVs lost and 34 Stuarts At 1500m, 1 Mark IVs lost and 39 Stuarts As you can see, the results for the Mark IV are still significantly better than for the Stuart (certainly more than "slightly better"). Oh, and on the 1500m range, a couple of times, the Tac AI ordered the Stuarts to hug the woods, which blocked LOS to the Mark IVs (it seems the Tac AI doesn't think that a Stuart is credible threat, at least at that range). I had to order the poor digital crews back out into the test lane, and to their death, for the greater good. [ August 19, 2002, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Well, Buzzy, I shall welcome you to House Ruin with open arms and steel toed boot. You will be as much a brother to me as Able was to Cain. As for the instrument of your pain (i.e. the parameters), I’ll let you decide so long as it is not too outlandish (though I prefer scenarios to QBs).

What the hell is Marlow?!? I must have kicked your ass one too many times (3 and 0. w00t!!) and given you amnesia. So to refresh your memory ... CrodasUx0rS!!!!! IS3 OwNz J00 F3wL!!!!!!!

Ok, as I already posted: I did a quick test to confirm my experience. I used 1000 points of each tank (10 Stuarts v. 8 Mark IVs), at a variaty of ranges, 5 trials each. At 250m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 17 At 400m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 15 At 800m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 6 At 1500m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 4 [/QB]

Far be it from me to interfere with Jo's "Mentoring" of his Squire. However, the proper Pool way of aquiring another's sig line is through the ritual Blood Hamster challenge. As enforcer of tradition, Jo should know this.

Papa Smurf, Show some backbone. Don't do it.

Out of the mouth of babes. Buzzy, since you are soon to be joining the illustrious House Ruin, let me welcome you with a nice warm Kick to the Head. Send me a setup, somefink nice from the Scenario Depot will do.

No real arguement over the two man turret. I just think that the Stuart is not too far off base, and not nearly the Mark IV killer that I have repeatedly seem people claim that it (and the M8 Greyhound)is (not only in this thread).

and it isn't in CM either. Again, tell me why the "real life" Stuart is so much worse than the CM Stuart. Specifics, not just "it can take on the Panzer IV" (which in cannot do reliably anyway). [ August 16, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]