dieseltaylor

Thanks. Very nice Sergei.

Expressions like rock and hard place come to mind .... : )

Are you going to record time to spotting also for both tanks?

Spotting by naked eye was actually the preferred method and the Tiger manual states that the driver and the commander both estimate a distance and the middle figure is provided to the gunner. A gunner might have a monocular sight which is not ideal. German binoculars 10*50's were superior to the 7*50 issued to the US Armour according to a report by Sgt. G A Barden, 2nd Armored, who claims he was able on two occasions to pick out an ATg, and a mortar position at a mile using German Binos which he could not see using the US bino's. Testing a Tiger 1 88mm in UK trials showed at 1200 yards [1100metres] a 5 shot grouping of 16" by 18" so we can take it that the gunnery sights were pretty darn good.

Well initial test shows that Tigers go as fast in reverse as they do in fast forward. For a "realistic" game this sucks mightily. Surely everybody knows that WW2 tanks were very slow in reverse and should be modelled as such. Surely as far as coding goes it should be trivial in the extreme.

Amizaur. I am very surprised with your results.

Vanir Ausf B Quote: Originally Posted by Zebulon Pleasure Beast II So I bought a King Tiger in a QB. First shot fired in the battle is a 6 pounder hitting the shot trap and causing a penetration. No joke. dieseltaylor will be along shortly to express his outrage Nope, anything can happen. I thought it pretty funny : ) And with so few Porsche turreted Tigers I am sure there is no real data to play with.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA162208 Pages 78 on are the simplest to understand. It may be possible to extract mean times to spot but you probably need a statistics degree, The player who gave me the link says he recalls 20 seconds as being a par time from other sources. I assume he meant from trials where it is reasonable daylight etc. This is the quote: "i think it's very unrealistic. there's nothing in the scenario that prevents the tanks from spotting each other on second 1. some spotting lagging till around second 10 could be tolerable, but not being able to spot in the whole minute is ridiculous. there are numerous field trials about this very subject and none of them show anything like this. buttoned tanks (without using thermals or similar), do routinely spot enemy tanks in 20 seconds in complex real world terrain and at considerable ranges. undead reindeer cavalry Vab - A huge Lottery as "A good description of real combat, which CM's spotting model is presumably based on rather than gunnery range testing conditions. I don't see the problem." I can well appreciate that you don't see a problem judging by your replies. : ) In combat there are reasons why it is a huge lottery however staring down a single road with nothing but bocage either side would seem a simple test of whether BF's system for spotting is mainly accurate. You have a driver, a gunner and a TC who one suspects are all looking that way. The gunner and the driver having little choice. So we have spotting at 1,2,3 seconds etc and the slowest 2.17 when it has been fired on by the enemy tank for 80+ seconds without seeing it - down a road, at 1000 metres, at midday, in the summer. However if you can provide details of any study to back up this huge difference in spotting times I would be very pleased to see it.

You mean its a set-up. Blimey that passed me by. Of course I know what tank battles were like in WW2 both in Northern Europe , Russia, and North Africa. I have had the pleasure of being in Tunisia and most countries of Europe so have some familiarity with terrain, vegetation, and light. I have recorded hundreds of games of CMx1 against humans over the last 11 years. However one of the great pleasures in playing scenarios, or tournaments where you can compare results and feel that they should play reasonably the same When spotting 1000 metres down a road bound by bocage can take anything between 1 second and over 2 minutes most people might feel that the difference makes games a huge lottery. I am happy to admit that the CMx1 series did have lottery moments in terms of hits but generally speaking the overall effect made the games worth playing. I am afraid CMBN is majorly flawed in respect of the armour as evidenced in V1.0 where the sighting and targetting and firing on the move appeared to be from CMSF. I can only assume in correcting that slightly for V1.01 things have gone out of whack. However if BF feel this randomness is highly realistic then we may aswell forget about scenarios and tournaments as meaningful comparison of results will not happen.

Thank you for confirming something for me Noob. The average is bearable give or take a few seconds. Looking at the figures 16 of the sightings for the Sherman are under 20 seconds and 6 over 40 seconds. I suspect that would be higher apart from the Shermans are dead more after 40 seconds.. SO with 20 not spotting and 16 earlier than 20 seconds, and 6 after 40 seconds that means a minority are near the average. SO a tournament where people play the same scenario is going to be pretty variable if there are not many tanks anywya. And of course Lady Luck knows no sides and is just as likely to give the same side the quick spot as not. *However we appear to have one missing line of figures for the Sherman and also I have 20 occureences where the Sherman is not shown as sighting the MkIV which does not accord with your last post Can you send me your spreadsheet? You have my e-mail address : )

Perhaps you should have considered your quotation VAB. This shows heavily engaged tanks being bounced compared to two tanks facing each other down a road. Cannot get much simpler than that.

What I find disturbing is the variation in spotting/non-spotting time. It is disturbing on two counts: A if I design a scenario with a few tanks each side player skill may be negated by big variation in spotting B they are on the same road with not much else to look at c in one case athe Sherman must be firing for over a minute without the German tank noticing . WHAT the **??!! hell was going on. My impression is that the spotting model is possibly not realistic and certaainly not helpful in play.

I am idiot I thought it was laser coding that allowed the tanks to move and fire accurately broadside at speed. Thermal imaging aswell seems logical. : )

If you do a search of the archive on CMAK for "bocage" you will find a least two threads which discuss bocage in detail - my name is in both : ) There is detail and opinion and pictures.

15 mph! Though I would half it cross-country.

http://northirishhorse.net/ Lots of detail showing the Churchill could be a useful tank. And for the German infantry it was probably the most feared Western Allied tank - most didn't like Crocodiles. : )

I agree with Myles : )

Far Side / Gary Larson = genuis

X X is not that difficult surely? Literacy can muck things up though.

They sure took the detail seriously in the training manual! However the actual training at targets was at 25 yards on a shooting range .... though the mounted cavalryman did have separate instructions on mounted use! I must admit I would be training my crew for tank action not duelling with pistols.

Who would think an inch makes that much difference ? ....... - well in this particular use : )

Interesting stuff Sublime. It is very easy when reading a post to forget that real life and what happens in game are not always the same. I tend to have to check myself from assuming the writer is talking of RL and remeber it is advice on how to play the game system. As a general point it is helpful if the writer says they play mainly PBEM or RT as I suspect some advice makes a lot of sense in one variant but not necessarily in the other.

If I am correct that in CMBN there are no restrictions on turret elevations then the levelling factor to infantry of firing within buildings seems reasonable. If it is a case of two wrongs making a right result in urban fighting so be it. If one wanted to make it more realistic then you might restrict use in the smallest buildings. Incidentally there is a note somewhere that alleys and rubble areas are actually dangerous for the loader or other troops when bazookas fire due to flying debris or channeled blast. : )

PIAT very effectively used against houses etc - a 350yd grenade thrower. Oh Jon you can't believe everyones like you : )

Whilst looking for bazooka action Pretty good huh! Macarthur and Roosevelt, Jnrs are MOH also