The_Capt

I don't believe laser guided munitions were available in the 1940s. You're really just arguing semantics, though. Call it what you like - it's a "Get out of Dodge" command which happens to be called "Withdraw" on the command menu.</font>

Damn..the dreaded double post. [ December 03, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

Heh, actually I called you a "really really bad liar" OR the worst authority uber grog, wargame expert on the Eastern Front..etc..so forth and so on. Ok let's bring this one out because you are so much fun. So your stance is that the Russian tank crewman was too brave to be doing what you are seeing in CMBB. You have listed some really extreme examples to support this thesis, tank ramming, Wittman hunting Cromwells etc. So just to be straight, the idea of Russian tank crews standing firm regardless of the fact they probably will not survive, is so universally proven and accepted that BFC should make them more aggressive? Should BFC model the TacAI "taking the wheel" and ramming even though I told them to stay put. Or perhaps my T-26s should charge en masse when I told them to try and flank..because they are so full of bloodlust of course. I have no doubt the Russian soldier fought bravely. In fact they were noted by the Germans as being incredibly tough. I do think however you are going to have to provide more than "credentials" (what you provided was a brief background on yourself, credentials would consist of educational degrees, published papers/book/wargames, testimonials from people who have actually used your "expertise" and the like..but of course you knew that) Anyway, you are going to have to provide some links and some reputable studies which prove your point. Remember you are not proving it happened once, twice or even a dozen times BUT it happened so universally that BFC should remodel the game. In fact you should show that retreating under fire (we are talking behind a hill here, not off the battlefield) was in fact such an rare occurance that it was noted. Papers on Russian tank doctrine which show that crews were trained to ignore certain death would also help. You come back here with all that and if it passes by the grogs on this forum, I am sure Steve et al will listen to you. Until you do that, all these teenage "Well they were brave, I know they were..I just know it" is not going to get you anywhere. Why? Well first of all there are a lot of real grogs and history buffs here who will want to see proof. And of course there are more than a few warhorses like myself that have served with tanks (Armoured Engineers..CHIMO!!) in professional militaries that know your statements are in fact total and utter crap. The only crew I would even consider behaving like you have stated are conscripts. Because they simply wouldn't know any better. A trained proffessional crewman will not let his tank die unless there is one hell of a good reason. He will ensure he gets a chance at another shot and will do his level best to ensure his vehicle lives to fight another day. In extreme circumstances he will sacrifice his vehicle (and most likely himself) but these are very few and far between and normally are followed by posthumous MoHs/VC/Knights Crosses etc.

I have a bit of a problem with the "withdraw" command actually. The act of pulling back or withdrawing in military terms is a controlled action involving LGMs covering and then moving in bounds with the rifle teams. Gernades are used while in range and smoke should be used as well. That is the theory mind you. I still think the withdraw command shouldn't mean "rout" which is the feel it has in CMBB. Perhaps I don't understand but the order to pull back should be controlled so long as you have regular and up. They should have the mechanism to fire in the opposite direction of their movement and there is no reason why they should panic more easily. Again dependent on experience and training. I thought the command in CMBO at least allowed for quick pull back but it also had dangers if you were caught under fire while trying it.

Heh well I think I my tactics aren't subtle enough.. Find enemy..kill him. That is about it. Of course I could flesh it out a little...

Ok, I know this is not suppose to get personal but c'mon!! I am only human. Mr Fool, Well considering the number of misinformed and simply..ahem.."foolish" post you have made, I think perhaps your clientele should begin to look elsewhere. I am not a grog and the London Embassay hasn't sent me anything of late but even I can tell your full of it. Here are your contributions to this topic so far..I looked em up "The bottom line is,some AFVs in the game retreat when they shouldn't,hence the game seriously lacks realism until its put right." "With respect,Battlefront can talk til they're blue in the face defending the A.I. but the inescapable fact remains that CMBB has a serious flaw in that AFVs slam into reverse far too often at the sight of an enemy AFV even though their vehicle is quite capable of standing and slugging it out.If it happened just rarely I'd accept it as a foible of tank crews human nature, but it happens too often by far.This is not good." "Perhaps the A.I. makes AFV crews TOO intelligent to the point of unreality? In the real world,given their tough national character trait a typical gutsy Russian crew would open fire immediately on any German AFV they saw if there was a halfway-decent chance of nailing it. Are Redwolf and me and a few others the only sighted dudes in this forum of the blind?" "When I got CMBB a few weeks ago I thought WOWEE this is great stuff,but then I started noticing tanks reversing at the sight of an enemy tank,and I thought NAH that can't be right ! It happens so often that it completely RUINS the game for me and I've hardly any more enthusiasm for CMBB until Battlefront fix it. WATCH MY LIPS--IT'S A SERIOUS GAME-DESIGN FLAW! Which part of that don't you kiddies understand?" "Okay okay!-I'll read and digest every single thread on this topic to get to the bottom of why my tanks are slamming into reverse when they shouldn't be!(CMBO doesn't seem to do it) Or will the manual tell me? If it's my tactics that are at fault surely the manual wasn't clear enough in the first place anyway? And if there's nothing in Redwolfs original claim,why has it drawn a massive 276 replies?" It is amazing that you managed to portay absolutly nothing from your self-styled resume in your posts. You are either the worst grog/writer/wargame designer/expert on the Russian Front/with all sorts of friends who served OR you are a really, really bad liar. Either way I suggest you start another career..your nickname is a perfectly good starting point. [ December 03, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

Well it is good to see whatever govt agency which actually issues "fool licenses" is doing it's job and has you squarely under federal regulation. I assume there is some sort of fool professional development program and career path for you now..good to know. Ok, my child. I will try and save one lost soul on this thread...and it shall be you. First off..pick your engagement ranges. On a map with mod trees and hills, stay away from tanks with slow ROF no matter how big ans sexy they look. Unless you can get 1000m + ranges from a map stick to the knives in the drawer. Late war the T34/85 is just simply sweet. The SU-100 is another beauty and it loves a 500m punch out. And let us not forget the plain old T-34. She is often forgotten because she has the beauty of a peasant girl but my boy, she is built for a scrap. The late '43 T34, is made for sub 1000m knife fights. She is fast, low profile, light as a ballet dancer and damn near impossible to bog. She'll take on everything up to and including the PzIV. She is also cheap as cat meat in Chinatown. A platoon of three will cost you 323 points and that is with radios in house. Suit your tanks to the ground they are fighting on and quite trying to carve turkey with a hammer. That is my advice to you. Don't sweat backing up, just send em up in "Hunt" the next time to a good hull down spot. If they reverse, they probably have a very good reason so be thankful. If you want a personal tutorial send a setup and I will be glad to demonstrate.

------------------------------- How nicely our betatester contributes to discusscion again. Indeed you cast a new light on the subject.You might not understand that, but subject devolved/evolved and some quotes are simply out of place. Well, contrary to some I learn and I know where I was wrong and where not. Simply ask yourself: Why I am responding to a post where guy is right /you did not even read the original post I replied to/quoting his earlier statment, where obviously he was wrong. To finish with another abuse of course. Believe me little sorry petty bootlicker - you cannot touch me. RULE OF A THREAD: STEVE'S FAVOURITES CAN FREELY INSULT OTHERS, AND ANY DEFENCE RESULTS IN 'FORMAL WARNING' FROM STEVE[/QB]</font>

Uh I was speaking of the T34/85 as compared to the ISU-122 or IS-2. I don't accuse you of "knowledge lack" but instead "reading lack". Or perhaps it was my "writing lack" either way hope this clears it up.

Heh..well I won't buy a guide from Steve or Charles till they beat me.

Having taken a look at this from many angles..I would have to say no. If BFC does make the ISU-122 more agressive and more willing to go toe to toe, the result will be an unfair tendency of ISU-122 to be penetrated and said surviving crew running for their little lives. The biggest reason is the ROF. The ISU is a big guy with a sledgehammer..if he hits you, it is lights out BUT the PzIV is a small guy with a nasty lil knife. If the ISU misses, the lil bastard will shiv him six ways to Sunday before the fat guy can get the hammer back up for another swing. The key is to stay at the far range of the hammer where the knife can't reach then you can take your time and swing away. Same goes for the IS-2. Take a T-34/85 and put it into the exact same sit as you have been talking about and it won't back a foot. It has far less armour and a weaker gun but it can a) kill the PzIV and match its ROF.

Well I think we have just about beat this one to death but I think it is a clear case of not knowing your equipment and making some BIG assumptions. For those who doubt the ferocity of the Russian armour, take 4 T34/85 and have em face off against 4 PzIVs at about 850ms. The PzIV can quite easily kill the T-34 but in the three trials I just ran the russkies backed up twice (that is two seperate tanks once apiece) and one had his gun blown off. Obviously the TacAI think the T-34/85s high ROF will make it worth going toe to toe where "uber tanks" back off. I think we should all be greatful for this little debate..it has taught me a heck of a lot about soviet armour and which tank to buy and where to employ it. For those who think there is still a bug..well I suspect it is one you will have to live with. Hell, I won't weep for you though, as I lived for two years with puny MGs and somehow made do.

Ah but doe the amulomulet (isn't that a haircut?) come with a tripod. I STAND ALONGSIDE MAJ KONG!!!

The_Capt, I really appreciate your contributions. Let me just politely mention that nobody so far could reproduce the retreat-before-first-shot behaviour in an isolated test placing some tanks on an empty map. The retreats for reload you see I can live with. It took me the effort to remodel the actual battle scenario with terrain to see the behaviour that I call "bug". But we had three of these threads now and that indicates that in actual complex battles it is not that uncommon. So who here honestly thinks that retreat before first shot is a good idea for a ISU against a Mk IV ever? And who doesn't find it fishy that the Mk IV never retreats before first shot? [EDIT: Off to work, I'll not post from work. I hope the personal attacks don't get this thread locked - I'd hate to have to open a new one ]</font>

Ok here we go again. I just ran a few of my own using the IS-2 1944 edition. At 900ms the hit chnace is still "Low" which from exoerience means about 1 out of 4-6 hits will hurt. In this case the IS-2 did the following. Took one aimed shot and backed off. This is exactly what it should have done. I did this three more times and in each case it took a shot and backed off...why. Well first of all it isn't invincible against the PzIV even at 900m and the PzIV can put out a hell of a lot more lead than the IS-2. Is the IS suppose to sit there and take lead while it reloads..lead which can kill it? Not once did it back off without firing first. Now I tried again with the PzIIIM x 4. BFC MY TANK DIDN'T BACK UP!!! The IIIM were putting out 4 shots to the IS-2s one. First the IS-2 had a TC cas..still didn't move. Then rounds were bouncing off it like crazy...still didn't move. Took a shot and got one of the IIIMs..then got it's track blown off and bailed. Now here is a cae where an obvious unbalanced match yielded what we all consider "normal" behaviour and the "uber tank" still lost. Look fellas..we are all pretty much amateurs here. I am not saying the TacAI is perfect but I think this is not an issue. MGs in CMBO were definitely not acting properly. I ran a lot of tests and it was pretty glaring. All of the cases here have reasonable and in redwolfs case downright logical explainations. ROF is obviously a very big factor and make the big russkie tanks cautious, at least after the first shot...as they should be.

redwolf, You are either being obtuse by nature or on purpose either way it is growing old fast. Your basic premise is that the PzIV is the "weaker" tank, when compared to the ISU-122 and as such why does the ISU reverse when faced with this punny AFV at a 500m range. Well beyond the fact that Steve and others have all shown that the PzIV is not "weaker" than the ISU and is in fact some ways superior particularly wrt to fire control and ROF. You somehow fail to grasp this and cling to your belief that "my Tiger..whoops that was CMBO..my ISU is invincible and should be staying where I tell it". Despite numerous test and rebuttles you still refuse to realize that a tank on tank duel is a very complex thing with many factors, beyond "big gun..thick steel..why he run away" AND you seem intent to whine on until BFC makes tanks chess pieces and infantry fly, complete with golden wings and flaming swords. TacAI in this case is not a bug..it isn't even an accident. It is a design feature and a selling point because it will try to increase your chances if winning even when you try your best to lose. IF your ISU stays put like the brave tank you want it to be..it will die. And I am willing to bet it will die more times than it will live at 500m against a lone PzIV. Then I am sure you would be first in line with the "ISU TOO STUPID TO BACK OFF" thread.

Because isolated tests, neither at 500 nor at 1300 meters, ever showed this bug. I could only reproduce it by importing the actual quickbattle terrain and moving everyone into the same place as it was int he actual battle incident.</font>

Sob!! Please no! Don't make me!! I can't EEEP! Sigh...e-mail sent.

I STAND ALONGSIDE MAJ KONG!!!

I still don't get it. The ISU is staring down a tank at a range it is not comfortable (500m) with and where said tank can easily drilla hole into it. It pulls back (I think I would too). BUT at the optimum range 1300m it stays put and slugs it out...can someone explain why this is abnormal behaviour?

Well if that isn't a case of being handed your hat and walking off in a huff.... First we get the title which suggest a dirty little secret of CMBB units acting as yellow cowards..THEN a Zapruder(sp?) fimlesque run down of the offence...THEN Steve proves quite completely that the example is not and "example" at all...THEN we make sniffing noises and leave. Well if it means a week of no more "blaming the pool stick", I for one will take it.

I think I will throw in with Steve here. His examples show that the ISU can and does get killed. The veh comd decided to pull back in a couple examples BUT Steve clearly showed this is not common problem. On a PZIV"?" no less. You fellas realize that jockeying is a foundational tank tactic. One shot..reverse and move up again for another. You want chess pieces, go the game, but CMBB does one hell of a job of modelling command of cbt troops, far more realistically then CMBO. Perfect, nope but better than the last one.

Ok try this... Go out in the woods with a piece of stove pipe. Paint said stove pipe camo-pattern and put leaves and branches over it. Have a friend hide with stove pipe armed with a bag of flour and baseball bat. Get in a car with a sunroof. Drive past area with stove pipe at about 15-20km/h. Have friend wack bag of flour with baseball bat. You will see flour but can you see the stove pipe? Now imagine large piece of steel coming at you (this can be simulated by having another friend fire a BB gun at you in the car, WEAR EYE PROTECTION)...see the stove pipe? Maybe for instant but now BBs are bouncing off your head....oh ya stay up for 48 hrs straight before doing this. Now you have a very slim idea of what the game is trying to simulate. A hidden gun is incredibly hard to find..CMBB is far too generous in spotting guns and killing them, this process took a lot of time..entire 30 min games would be wasted trying to find the damn little buggers. Area fire is not only effective it is realistic. We know there is a gun in the woodline..blast it!!

Ahh the famous White Lightn'n... [ November 22, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

Heh..well conscripts out of ammo...I think you should count yourself lucky they didn't just surrender. Rockey terrain in RL is hell btw. Bullets richocette and shatter making life living hell if you get caught there..but that is another story. MGs are designed to be placed in enfilade positions if you can find them of course. Stuck in a lone foxhole, even in rockey terrain is asking for trouble. The Dance of Death is a pain but hey they ARE panicking, which by definition means they are not quite in control of themselves in the situation. Jumping out of foxholes and trying to run is in fact not an unrealistic reaction. Can CMBB do some tweaking? Yes I think they can and will. For example, I think the Red Light of Cowardice comes on way to easily. I can understand momentary loss of control but squads rattle a little too easily. I would encourage everyone who thinks CMBB is broken to run some comparison tests. Take a coy and run it thru a defile with MG pillboxes covering said defile in a crossfire. Run the Coy thru open ground. Do this in CMBO and CMBB and tell me which is the most realistic. You can do the same with tanks. I think you will find that the performance in CMBB balances out the game. Armour/Infantry cooperation is now critical. I can remember pls rushing my tanks in CMBO and actaully getting thru to kill. In CMBB a pl of tanks will stop a Coy cold...8 MGs and Guns should be able to do that. What gets me is when people come on the forum and whine about CMBB being broken because their pl couldn't rush a Tiger over 300m of open ground! In the end it is not about one feature or a combination of features it is about realitic results. There weren't realitic results in CMBO re:MGs and counter inf weapon systems. CMBB goes much futher to producing what we should be seeing. Here is one for you. An 150mm arty shell has a 300m kill radius and 1000m danger radius. Do some test to see if anyone reacts to a 150mm shell at 300m in CMBB..they won't because shrapnel is not modeled Reality is even tougher than what CMBB is doing, although I think at that point it won't be a very fun game.