dieseltaylor

POS has posted an interesting jpg. showing a Sherman with a very short arc ignoring a StugIII come out from behind a building immediately in line from it up a road a few hundred yards away. The Stug straightens up and kills the Sherman. OS arcs obviously are effective for stopping firing .....

Seems to me that people have some different ideas on learning/teaching. However to make my method clearer; How to do scenarios are always written by people who have more than the basic knowledge. Breaking down the steps does not necessarily make it fun or particularly useful, For example for fun why not start wiht driving a Jeep around a course and give people a rough idea what a good time would be. We could throw in some parking/reversing moves. Then get them to try other vehicles. Suggest they try cross-country moves .... experimenting is fun. Ditto infantry. Oh it could be fun Artillery run a FOO [or take him] to point x and see how fast he can hit a moving dummy target. Then go to scenarios where they shoot back and see how units last. DO NOT try to play through scenarios until you have done the fun things and have timing, exhaustion levels, and your own destrucibility reasonably well assimilated.

Well I have been playing military games for decades, and CMx1 for the last decade [over 300 games I guess] and yes you are right it is hard. However it does strike me that I probably off the top of my head feel reasonably confident on how armour matches up and what it should do to infantry. However not everyone perhaps has that sort of confidence. My learning method for this game is actually a suck it and see approach as I am unfamiliar with the contriols and the way the game actually plays. SO what I doo is in the first scenario, and not really having spent much time with the manual, is pick up a SHerman and drive it down the road playing with the available orders. Now it should die, but t hat is fine because I am establishing how to get my tanks killed. I am trying to learn that as fast as possible. I shoot up bocage, I fire smoke with my remaining Shermans, I see how quickly they turn etc. As a rookie tanker I would not get sent to a battle to fight to learn would I?. Playing a scenario and failing is a very slow way to learn. Pick your mortars play with them, play with your infantryasnd get them all killed. Now you know what to avoid. Having done all that you can then start the next fun by playing with the tanks and the infantry, or perhaps all three. But keep playing the dsame scenario until you are reasonably happy you know what sjhould happen in any circumstance. And of course by this time you will be inflicting hurt on the enemy. Don't get too wound up about it as with a majoer patch coming there may well be some alterations of significance so there will be some re-learning for all anyway. But just have fun - start with the Shermans and just play for laughs until you want to get serious. I reckon a fortnight of play, reading the forums etc, means I have reached a level where I think I can lose gracefully to a human. : )

Please can you provide source material linkies . MikeyD

Given the small size of many of the maps, and the possibility a scenario designer feels that trucks add nice colour I am miffed to be giving away points - I assume here that trucks killed will probably be added into the score along with the rest of my units. My guess is that trucks would not be encouraged to be withing a mile of action where rifles or HMg's let alone artillery would destroy them forever. Eeven moreso if there is no usefulammo onboard. BF fix or somefink. Players should have the ability to retreat.

Enemy fire is making me nervous but I cannot see to drive off map. Is this a default setting for scenarios ? Or what!!

Oh so it can be re-crewed then. What would you do? Now if it were a burning wreck do you think they would have bothered? Anyway I thought it was good practice to destroy enemy tanks totally to avoid confusion such as this.

To class the French Armies report in with "It's like so many anecdotes that one reads.,,,,,,, , it's not very useful" seems rather dismissive. BF have not modelled it and have no intention to do so but I suspect it is a commercial decision rather than anything being wrong in the French report. I was not aware that the report was mentioned a decade ago - I assume BF never obtained a copy/translation of the report as there were other things to sort out. " The report stated that the target was already identified by the Commander, so the 20-30 seconds stated is simply for the gunner to find the target to engage" I think you should have also mentioned the specific relates to a moving Panther/Sherman so coming to a halt I suspect IS an important part of the timing. The other aspect is that the Sherman, apart from the wider view and shorter barrel, was also possibly aided to a degree by the gyro-stabilisation. However I don't have a copy of the report either so that is moot.

I'll raise your 360 degs in 18seconds with You will note that rotating the turret at full speed does not impress me as a meaningful combat tactic and no matter how many times it is repeated I would still prefer a time for coming to a halt and picking off a designated target. And that is what I think the French were also interested in.

True. There are limits to what is achievable in a game engine. Using TRP's though would simulate the effect : ) However I suspect that spotting the aircraft did was not normally for areas where action was going on and the lines intermingled.

And grognards : ) Your previous comment. I thought the French report suggested the Panther gunner could not effectively use his sight whilst the Panther was moving. Are you suggesting they are wrong?

Which was the best argument from the thread found by Capt. Cliff.. I must admit to missing the point about speed of traverse to decelerating a 20ft pole to lock on to a single degree of arc. If anyone has played with pistols and rifles we all know the shorter the barrle the easier it is to get it pointing in the right direction - and elevation. : ) So I am more than happy that the French got it right. It is quite interesting to see that it is the traversing rate which seems to get all the attention - and always in seconds for 360. Rather a bizarre sort of measurement when most of the action would be hopefully in the front 180 at most , or even a lesser arc. So to my mind the interesting statistic would be how long to move say the gun 12 degrees and acquire a target 500 metres away. And then try that with a moving Panther and a moving Sherman - oops perhaps someone did that. Is the vision provided to the Sherman gunner whilst moving a help, is the reduced mass/length of the Sherman gun easier to lay quickly, and is using the wider field of vision provided on the Sherman ana dded bonus. Basically one would think there are three yeses there.

https://sites.google.com/site/cmbnnormandy44/ there is this

Study suggests police officer wrongfully convicted for missing the 'obvious' June 9th, 2011 in Psychology & Psychiatry Enlarge Boston police officer Kenny Conley was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice because he claimed not to have seen a brutal police beating as he chased a murder suspect. The conviction was later overturned for technical reasons, but a new study re-examines his claim. Credit: Kenny Conley In a new study, researchers tested the claims of a Boston police officer who said he ran past a brutal police beating without seeing it. After re-creating some of the conditions of the original incident and testing the perceptions of college students who ran past a staged fight, the researchers found the officer's story plausible. The study appears in the peer-reviewed open access journal i-Perception. Psychology professors Christopher Chabris (Union College) and Daniel Simons (University of Illinois) often explore the limits of visual attention – in particular how people regularly fail to spot the obvious. Their most famous experiment involved a video of a "gorilla" walking through a group of people passing basketballs. The unexpected gorilla stopped in the middle of the scene, faced the camera, thumped its chest and then walked off screen. When study subjects were asked to count the number of passes by players wearing white and ignore those of players in black, half of them did not notice the gorilla. That experiment is an example of what researchers call "inattentional blindness," the failure to see something unexpected if one is focused on something else. Not only can people miss obvious unexpected events, but almost everyone assumes, incorrectly, that they would notice the gorilla, the researchers said. Chabris and Simons open their recent book, "The Invisible Gorilla," with a discussion of a 1995 case in which police officers brutally beat an undercover officer they thought was a murder suspect. Another officer at the scene, Kenny Conley, did not participate in the beating but ran past it in pursuit of the actual suspect. Conley, who had climbed a chain-link fence to chase and capture the suspect, admitted that he ran past the spot where the police assault had taken place. But he denied seeing the beating. For this, he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and sentenced to 34 months in prison. (The conviction was later overturned for technical reasons.) The verdict hinged on the belief that Conley must have seen the beating because, by his own testimony, he ran right past it. To test whether someone could actually run past a fight without seeing it, Chabris and his students set up an experiment in which subjects had to "chase" a researcher for three minutes on a college campus. The subjects, who were tested individually, had to follow the runner at a distance of about 30 feet and count the number of times he touched his head. On the way, the subjects passed a staged fight about 8 meters (26 feet) off the pathway they were using. Enlarge Union College psychology professor Christopher Chabris and his students staged an outdoor fight to study inattentional blindness, the failure to see something unexpected because one's attention is focused on something else. Credit: Matt Milless "We tried to set up conditions that were as similar as we could to the situation Conley faced while still maintaining experimental control," Chabris said. "Two students were beating up a third, and they were kicking and punching and yelling and coughing." A first study was conducted at night to simulate the original incident. The researchers then repeated the experiment during daylight. "At night, which was when officer Conley had his experience, only about a third of people noticed the fight," Simons said. "When we did it during the day, over 40 percent still missed it." "One of the hallmarks of inattentional blindness is that increasing the demands on a person's attention decreases the likelihood that he or she will notice something unexpected," Chabris said. To verify that inattentional blindness was involved, some study subjects were asked to keep separate counts for the number of times the runner's right hand and left hand touched his head. "Keeping two counts made them much less likely to notice the fight than keeping no counts," he said. "Physical exertion can also change your cognitive processing," Chabris said. "Doing something while your heart rate is 140 beats per minute is different than doing it with a heart rate of 60. Officer Conley was chasing a murder suspect at night, scaling a fence, and presumably watching the suspect to see if he had a gun or was discarding anything along the way." "We can't say with certainty that Conley didn't see the fight," Simons said. "But the study shows that even under less demanding conditions than he must have experienced, it's possible to miss something as obvious as a fight." Former Boston Globe reporter Dick Lehr, who followed the police brutality case over many years and wrote about it in a 2009 book, "The Fence," said the new study "further reinforces the conclusion I eventually reached regarding Kenny Conley not seeing anything," he said. "I think people generally have no idea how much we don't see and perceive." Had the jurors on the Conley case seen this study, "they would have had the benefit of this kind of science," said Lehr, who now is a professor of journalism at Boston University. "They would have had ample doubt, reasonable doubt, about whether or not Kenny Conley saw the beating." Provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "Study suggests police officer wrongfully convicted for missing the 'obvious'." June 9th, 2011. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-police-officer-wrongfully-convicted-obvious.html

So not a long time to get to the theatre to get the patch. I would think the US Army should have a database where you can feed in your Dad's name to get a hit.

I have had a STUG III penetrated by both the German and US medium MG and ranges around 100 metres. This is a bit of a surprise! In CMAK the 20mm was very very unlikely to hurt a Stuart even in the side but in CMBN it can knock them out - which is goood. Knocking out MkIV's from the rear with a 0.5" I did several times in CMAK so it is nice to see it carries through.

Stoppelhoser - Actually it is pretty complimentary on the good points. So i see no reason to feel it is just being picky for no reason. It identifies a major weakness. gunnergoz - tanks firing on the move AND HITTING another tank I would maintain was rare particularly later in the war when even the British had given up on pre-war fire whilst moving. May work with a 2pdr gun but not something 20ft long. As for tanks moving, of course they did and that is why we had shoot and scoot in CMAK. Essentially it is Fire and Movement, the "and" being the important word. I suspect some people, through games or training, thought tanks in WW2 could reliably fire on the move. * *Given a large hill in the distance, a minor palace at 500 metres with a smooth road and a slow speed no problem. In fact even a Panther gunner would probably be able to aim under those circumstances ad hit where he wanted in the palace example. You allude to the clip you linked to with the Panther and the M-26. The idea that he thought the M26 would stop to fire seems very much more likely given what we seem to know now about Panthers and tactical problems. When the game was released we had threads mentioning Panthers moving turning their turrets and nailing Shermans at range whilst continuing the move - it does seem quite CMSF. I have not seen any film of that example though.

O/T My brother did freeze frame a 50mm shell passing between a Jeep driver and his windshield. And like an idiot he did not take the screen print there and then.

Actually the translation is very fair. The barrel is the minute hand pointing to twelve o'clock [1200 hours] and the chassis is pointing to 1 o'clock around 30degrees. I actually think that preferable to 45 degrees which seems not glancing enough. In fact taking zero as 12o'clock 45 degrees is halfway to 2 o'clock which seems too far. From what I can see 30 degrees is a favoured figure so lunchtime position looks good. Mealtime might be breakfast or supper which would be bad : )

http://www.gizmag.com/relaxing-video-games-make-players-happier/18860/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=92d38b98f8-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

I just feel revolted, and in fact insulted. Well thats the last Gearbox gmae I will be buying. Is there no depth of awfulness that designers and distributors will stop at. http://www.gizmag.com/relaxing-video-games-make-players-happier/18860

Tanks firing on the move. I hope that made the BF to do immediately list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joy_of_Sex : ) or you can search under German kitties.

Perhaps you missed the latest evidence TA! SO the french report Seems to suggest otherwise. So waving the gun backwards and forwards may be fun and frighten the enemy but until the tank stops the gunner is not doing much.

womble - how do you explain a Panther 75 shot apparently travelling through three lower parts of halftracks? And incidentally killing a dozen or so infantry. My suspicion is that lower means anything in the first 8?ft Anything over that is upper and thats turret land. But obviously it is barely worth the time agaonising over this if v1.01 is going to make changes.