Panther131

Looks good. Needs a little weathering to fade the "just factory painted look." But still looks good.

I had posted this in the "rock paper scissors" thread, but I think it belongs here. Posted by Slap: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In order to explain why it is impractical for BTS to defend the game each time someone wants the Tiger's armour beefed up because Sherman killed it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But Slap, that is not what is being questioned by Jeff H. I agree with you that when players of CM start to whine about a Tigers armor when that player gets brewed up by a sherman. But this is just not the case in Jeff H. 's argument. This argument is not what you are stating. Again, while I do find that it is probably even on both sides to win especially with skilled players, my point of view is that is is too bad that one cannot use a King Tiger in a 1000 point battle. I enjoyed using the KT and having to suport it with infantry and suuport units. It wa alot of fun to do, and it definitly did not ensure a victory for the germans. Now with 1.1 that is not possible. I do not think that having one KT against say 3 allied tanks is a advantage to the axis. And this also seems to be a historical engagment, at least in unit numbers ie: 3 allied tanks to 1. However given the difference of the superiority of german mechanized division, obviously it would seem that the germans have some sort of an advantage to fight infantry. However in the name of historical accuracy, it would seem that 1.05 to 1.1 threre really is not much of a difference. With germans loading up on the quick and nimble pumas I would have to say that historical acuuracy goes out the window. Also, some might say that the germans have an advantage in the mech units by such a wide length, that CM may not really be any closer to balance then prieviosly before in the 1.05 version. So in the end, I say that it would be nice to see BTS really comment on this do that there will be some finality to the issue. I sure would like to see one dispite the previusly posted short explanations by BTS, it seem there are enough people upset about the change to warrent a response from BTS. Of course they could let the fire die out eventually by not commenting at all. So again, I would like to say that I do not see any significant improvemnt in balance of play. Only it has been shifted to incorporate other units. I do not see any improvement in historical accuracy except that the historical inaccuracy has shifted to differnt units (the puma). So again I ask you or anybody to address these comments on why BTS has made a change. It just seems, and I may be going out on a limb here, but IMO, I believe that BTS has made the change to indirectly change the profound amount of players choosing axis over allied in CM. By making the "Big Cats" less available it lessons the appeal of playing the germans, which, has been historicaly CM's more popular side to choose. You can disagree with me or not but more and more this is becoming a bit more clear, as it seems that nither play balance or historical acuracy has really been improved, merely it has just shifted. Again, the reason for the change seems to be just to "fix" the abundant amount of players picking the axis, by discouraging it by reducing armor points effectively ruling out or reducing the availability or amount of "big cats" that a german player can use. I also do see the reasoning behind this. As I said, there is a dominance in people liking playing the germans over the allied, so with the change it is quite possible that BTS was hoping to change the continuance of players choosing axis over allied. After all, it is quite known that the german side is more popular then the allied. Not sure if BTS has really changed anything in terms of balance, but it is obvious that the change has or will swade players to use the allies more. BTW I know alot of you will diagree with me here but this is just an opinion, so please no flames in response. Panther131

Posted by Slap: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In order to explain why it is impractical for BTS to defend the game each time someone wants the Tiger's armour beefed up because Sherman killed it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But Slap, that is not what is being questioned by Jeff H. I agree with you that when players of CM start to whine about a Tigers armor when that player gets brewed up by a sherman. But this is just not the case in Jeff H. 's argument. This argument is not what you are stating. Again, while I do find that it is probably even on both sides to win especially with skilled players, my point of view is that is is too bad that one cannot use a King Tiger in a 1000 point battle. I enjoyed using the KT and having to suport it with infantry and suuport units. It wa alot of fun to do, and it definitly did not ensure a victory for the germans. Now with 1.1 that is not possible. I do not think that having one KT against say 3 allied tanks is a advantage to the axis. And this also seems to be a historical engagment, at least in unit numbers ie: 3 allied tanks to 1. However given the difference of the superiority of german mechanized division, obviously it would seem that the germans have some sort of an advantage to fight infantry. However in the name of historical accuracy, it would seem that 1.05 to 1.1 threre really is not much of a difference. With germans loading up on the quick and nimble pumas I would have to say that historical acuuracy goes out the window. Also, some might say that the germans have an advantage in the mech units by such a wide length, that CM may not really be any closer to balance then prieviosly before in the 1.05 version. So in the end, I say that it would be nice to see BTS really comment on this do that there will be some finality to the issue. I sure would like to see one dispite the previusly posted short explanations by BTS, it seem there are enough people upset about the change to warrent a response from BTS. Of course they could let the fire die out eventually by not commenting at all. So again, I would like to say that I do not see any significant improvemnt in balance of play. Only it has been shifted to incorporate other units. I do not see any improvement in historical accuracy except that the historical inaccuracy has shifted to differnt units (the puma). So again I ask you or anybody to address these comments on why BTS has made a change. It just seems, and I may be going out on a limb here, but IMO, I believe that BTS has made the change to indirectly change the profound amount of players choosing axis over allied in CM. By making the "Big Cats" less available it lessons the appeal of playing the germans, which, has been historicaly CM's more popular side to choose. You can disagree with me or not but more and more this is becoming a bit more clear, as it seems that nither play balance or historical acuracy has really been improved, merely it has just shifted. Again, the reason for the change seems to be just to "fix" the abundant amount of players picking the axis, by discouraging it by reducing armor points effectively ruling out or reducing the availability or amount of "big cats" that a german player can use. I also do see the reasoning behind this. As I said, there is a dominance in people liking playing the germans over the allied, so with the change it is quite possible that BTS was hoping to change the continuance of players choosing axis over allied. After all, it is quite known that the german side is more popular then the allied. Not sure if BTS has really changed anything in terms of balance, but it is obvious that the change has or will swade players to use the allies more. BTW I know alot of you will diagree with me here but this is just an opinion, so please no flames in response. Panther131

Good post Slap. Lets play some games and settle this thing for once and for all. Plus...at this point, I do not care as much I had once before about the german armor issue. I can win with the germans, and I have won with the allied, so lets have a duel. It should be fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I love it that the Germans are considered so weak and impossible to win with. Makes me seem like the best player in the world that I can win playing them so often! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Slap, I was never of the opinion that the germans were impossible to win with. My thoughts are that while both version 1.05 and 1.1 are different in point allocations, the fight is relatively the same in eveness. My only concern with the points was that, when I was playing the germans, I like to use the big cats...so naturaly I was/and am still slightly upset at the new reduction in armor for the germans. Oh and, I like to play 1000 or under battles most of the time, while never really exceeding 1250 pt QB. So, now if you will indulge me at some point, I would be happy to show the ways of a commander. Of course, you have your hands full, so I suggest you take your time and prepare for a...well...I let you imagine that part. But anyways, let me know when you are ready...I play both TCP/IP and PBEM. Remember I like smaller battles, so we can do 2 out of three or heck lets make it a lifelong record of wins and loses. I challenge you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Something we should all keep in mind is that this board belongs to BTS and is here to service their customers, old and, is becoming obvious, many new. We should not be doing anything here which would piss off even one customer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There you go. Thats why the CP'ers should refrain themselves out here in the open and stay in the Cess Pool if they want to continue to use profanity or treat new users like dirt. They scare off new customers.

•nfm•

Slapdragon: I expected better from you. Especially you being a college professor and all. I'll let this one slide. Shame shame.

Hear hear! Just adding to my posts! (total) [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-20-2001).]

GTFBIT.

Thank you clubfoot. Now, YFCP's,GTFBIYF'nC.

I think what space thing is trying to say is if he wants to have a post about armor points he has the right to do so, unless BTS says so. Last time I checked, this was a combat mission meessege board There really isnt anything wrong with discussions about armor points or any other facet of the game, as long as it remains a discussion and not a shouting match. To those who are sick of, or uninterested in a whinning topic, then either ignore it, or move on to the tips and tactics section as Pillar suggests. It seems that whinning is an accepted behavior on this forum. As Pillar, BIG DD, Elijah Meeks, and Compassion, have so eleqently shown us, we all have that right to express. Thanks guys.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However -- and this is a big caveat, the issue is not really if this change is historical or if it is fair, it is both historical and fair. It is just that changing anything that appears to affect German Armour is taboo. If you made the Panther unable to be killed by the 76 at any range, some of the same people arguing against this would be happy as clams.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In this case it appears that ignorance is bliss. On the contrary, It also seems that changing anything but german armor is taboo, as so many of you (cavscout) concluded The thing is, I dont see anybody (slap?) presenting any swaying documentation on why the change from 1.05 to 1.1 was made. Also, as slappy pointed out, there have been alot of people over the last few months clammaring for this change in armor points to be put back to its original state. The only logical assesment of this is that there must be, or might be a problem of "unfainess". I dont see how you can see this any other way. I mean people are voicing there opinions about it and you disagree. Why not start a thread of your own, or better yet why hasnt there been a thread of "combined arms ME's now even with armor point reductions"...?

Posted by Forever Babra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They aren't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Much wit from you

Posted by Forever Babra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CM I have had zooks and schrecks set their own cover on fire. I have also had them pin friendly units in a building with them. So the effects of the backblast are modelled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did not know that 'zooks and schrecks' are recoiless rifles. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-19-2001).]

Von Lucke... agreed.

Looks great Tiger! Can we have an optional bmp to have the track links on the side of the turret? Look great though!

I dont think that it is about who can win with what or how good you are. There is a percieved difference in the armor allocation, infantry allocation...etc in a combined arms meeting engagment. It seems that certain people (and I do not know how many) want the points allocation turned back to its original. I dont think saying that "becouse I won a few german 1000 combined arms meeting engagments battles" can cut an argument either way. Just my 2 cents.

If you want to see a hellish warfilm, see 'Stalingrad'

Originally posted by MadMatt: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He was still lucky and were he under my command I would publically applaud him for his daring and then privately kick the living crap outa him for taking such risks and being such a renegade. Bad example to the younger tankers, you know. Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No you would'nt Matt.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You'll have to forgive some people. They grew with the folktales that German panzers were invincible to Allied tanks. It is sometimes difficult to seperate "story telling" from fiction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This tells it all. Thankyou cavscout! If the allied tank can stand up to the german floktale tank then why the hell are the points NOT even? If this "german supiority in tanks" is a myth, then what the freakin hell is the germans out gunned 50% in points to represent that? If allied tanks are just as good as axis one's why are the points uneven??? Tell me this with a logical answer and I will drop this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Posted by Polar:So you think that having MORE german tanks will help given the tungsten advantage? Here is a hint... tungsten isn't nearly as effective versus infantry."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutley. I do think that having more tanks will help the germans given the tungsten advantage. But, take into account that on top of more effective tungsten(which I do not dispute) the allies get 50% more in armor then the germans in a combined arms meeting engagments. This give a great advantage to the allies in armor in combined arms me's. I do fail to see your point that tungsten is not as effective at destroying infantry. What does destroying infantry have to due with destroying tanks? How is an He round going to be threatening to a german tank? And that is what we are talking about here. Not what a tank does to infantry but tank vs tank. The allies have one of if not the best infantry tank in the world during WWII. Use it in combination with the tungsten tanks, I will not stop you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tungsten in CM 1.1 means that I will in future never buy Tigers, Panthers or KTs. Tank destroyers all the way for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is quote is by Mace and was entered in the thread entitled "Fed Up With UberTank Battles!" I just thought that this is very relevent to the argument that allied armor are at an advantage in combined arms meeting engagments. With added Tungsten availability the allied already has an advantage in armor, thus adding more points to allied armor gives it more so of an advantage. I posted this in that thread: This is exactly why the armor point reduction in combined arms meeting engagments should be reversed back to its previous state. It is quite obvious to me that with Tungsten the advantage is swayed back to the allies, thus giving the allies more (50%) armor points only results to an even greater advantage in armor on the battlefield. I don't think it take much to see the obvious in this thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tungsten in CM 1.1 means that I will in future never buy Tigers, Panthers or KTs. Tank destroyers all the way for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is off topic but would like to add to the thread. (this topic is covered in a another thread entitled CM1.1armor Points) This is exactly why the armor point reduction in combined arms meeting engagments should be reversed back to its previous state. It is quite obvious to me that with Tungsten the advantage is swayed back to the allies, thus giving the allies more (50%) armor points only results to an even greater advantage in armor on the battlefield.

Good post Leonidas. I have seen what you speak of a few times. First, I just sent Krazydawg a screenshot of a sherman targeting and firing a shot directly through a building, right through the middle of a building. Ut was during a test QB vs the AI. I was just playing a test of a hetzer vs a sherman and the game proceeded with no enemy contact until I came up upon a church. I had my hetzer manuvere directly behind the church for cover, unbeknowst to me was the sherman on the otherside of the hetzer. So here I was watching to my amazement, a hezter and a sherman on opposite sides of a church and the sherman targets the hetzer through thee church, and the hezter targets the sherman through the church, directly through the church roughly through the middle of the church, and the sherman with its fast turret gets off the first shot quickly, bouncing the shot off the hezters side/front armor. Anyway...I had seen similar frustrating situations with Veteren wespes where the decide to take a shot through a building ultimatly knocking themsleves out. I have been told that this is impossible though, and that unless its a bug that was not seen before, then it is not shooting through the building By the way...it seems more and more, that unless one carries some sort of weight around here, any mention of irregularities are mooted and the fire is extingished quickly. I don't mean to be mad about it, but it becomes very frustrating to bring up something that "does not exist" when I see it with my own eyes time aand time again. Maybe, as Slapdragon has recommended, I should present my view/case with more evidence for consideration of change, or more interest from other parties that have wieght to look at it more seriously.