Txema
-
Posts
121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Txema
-
-
Where can we download that shader fix now?
-
Juju,
Could you please include also this flag for the German HQ as an option:
Pretty please?
Txema
-
There is not going to be any customs because we're shipping out of our EU warehouse in Germany. So this is a "domestic" shipment if you're within the EU.
Moon,
Thank you very much !!!
Txema
-
Are you going to ship all the games and books from the USA ?
Or are you planning to ship the orders for Europe from Ireland as you did some years ago?
It is an important question for the European customers because the custom fees are usually quite high... (not just the taxes, but also the fee they charge just to process the item at the customs).
It would be really nice if you could ship from Ireland...
Txema
-
Recent post from Moon:
**********************************************
I can confirm that the release date will NOT be May 20.
What will happen is this (it's how these things always work here at Battlefront):
1) all pre-order customers will receive an email that their downloads are enabled (make sure to whitelist sales@battlefront.com in your email program! If you entered your email incorrectly during the order process, you're screwed )
2) one of the pre-order customers will ignore the friendly plea to NOT post on the forum that they are already downloading (this happens usually within 2 seconds after the emails go out), and will start a thread here saying something like "OMG OMG OMG I AM DOWNLOAD NOW!!!!"
3) the official release announcement will go up on the front page a couple of hours later, and the pre-order offer will be removed, and replaced with the usual "Download Only", "Mail Only" and "Download&Mail" options.
The latter, btw, still include a very few Steelbooks (we may run out today, though). We're almost out (and the only reason we are not out yet is because a stock count revealed that we have received more Steelbooks than we had ordered, for no extra charge. Thank you Scanavo )
Martin
**********************************
Thanks guachi, great work.... first and second points fulfilled....
-
I think of a situation where it would be probable that a gunner would aim at a specific point, and that would be when he sees his previous shell hit the target, but not killing it.
Confident of his aiming point (though probably very nervous), he might then adjust a bit to go for the turret or other weak point.
Did tankers have the equivalent of the small arms Mozambique technique, (double tap/hammered pairs, centre mass then one to the head) used for a definite take down or when confronting opponents who might have body armour. I'm thinking along the lines of crews getting off some rapid centre mass shots to buy time for a more carefully aimed 'killer' shot at a known vulnerable spot (like the PzIV Turret, Char B1 ventilation grill etc).Steve,
Any comments on these situations? I think they could be reasonably common in CMBN...
Txema
-
OK, I will rephrase my previous post eliminating the two "offending" words.
The german tank crews were trained to know the weak areas of their enemy tanks. I have not been able to find pictures of the training materials that they used on internet (and I have looked for them intensively !), but in the english translation that I own of the Tigerfibel manual a detailed "Armor penetration chart" for the Tiger's 8.8 cm "KwK" 36 gun is included, featuring the main enemy tanks that the Tiger could find in the battlefield and including drawings of each enemy tank indicating the different areas that could be penetrated by the Tiger, and the maximun shooting distance to achieve penetration at that area.
A photograph of these supplements found in the back of the Tigerfibel can be seen in the middle of this web page, although it is too small to see the drawings properly:
http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml
Similar information is included in the Pantherfibel manual. You can download it here:
http://megaupload.com/?d=DYMSU0C6
Please, check pages 105 to 120.
In my opinion it is reasonable to assume that if all this information was included in the manuals the tank crews knew it and used it, aiming, when the situation allowed it, for the most faborable areas of the enemy tanks. It is clear that this stuff was in the training of the german tank crews.
In my opinion, if the target is at short distance (300 meters, for example) it should be easy to aim for the turret and to hit it... Why do you assume that a tanker wouldn't do it if he was trained to do it, and if he knew that it was much more easy to achieve a penetration there?
-
Wasn't it standard practice to aim for the center of mass? Did WW2 crews have the information we have now and *know* the weakness of a Sherman?It's not likely to happen any time soon, if ever. The reason why is that center mass is still the right place to aim. The deviation of a shell's flight path from even a perfectly aimed, point blank shot is still enough that if you aim for the turret you can fling one over the tank entirely. Or if you aim for lower belly have the round buried into the ground. The reasons for this? Many, but two common ones are:
1. Barrel wear
2. Boresight out of whack
In other words, even the best crew in the world, in ideal non-battleifled shooting gallery setup, at close range could miss a turret if the weapon they use was slightly out of adjustment. Tanks in the field were pretty roughly handled, even when great care was taken by their crews. After a few shots, in fact, all bets were off. Especially for some guns, where a couple of quick shots apparently were enough to heat the barrel to the point where accuracy was noticeably affected.
Anyway... my point is that crews were trained to shoot for center mass because it has the greatest chance of doing something. A hit on the glacis can still cause a crew casualty (as it did to one The_Capt's M4A3s), it can still cause damage, and it could very well penetrate. At the very least it will likely cause the targeted tank to be rattled and probably do evasive maneuvering (which we actually increased the chance of because of this AAR battle). A shot sailing 1500m to the rear of a target or one on its way to China does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
As others have pointed out, center mass is what law enforcement and militaries are trained to shoot for. Everybody knows a center mass hit on a Human might not put him down, while a headshot definitely will. But the chances of making an effective headshot are far lower than the chances of an effective torso hit. And if your target is down on the ground, with a non life threatening gut wound, you're definitely better off than a live target with a little "zing" sound ringing in his ear.
Steve
The german tank crews were trained to know perfectly the weak areas of their enemy tanks. I have not been able to find pictures of the training materials that they used on internet (and I have looked for them intensively !), but in the english translation that I own of the Tigerfibel manual a detailed "Armor penetration chart" for the Tiger's 8.8 cm "KwK" 36 gun is included, featuring the main enemy tanks that the Tiger could find in the battlefield and including drawings of each enemy tank indicating the different areas that could be penetrated by the Tiger, and the maximun shooting distance to achieve penetration at that area.
A photograph of these supplements found in the back of the Tigerfibel can be seen in the middle of this web page, although it is too small to see the drawings properly:
http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml
Similar information is included in the Pantherfibel manual. You can download it here:
http://megaupload.com/?d=DYMSU0C6
Please, check pages 105 to 120.
I am sure that if all this information was included in the manuals the tank crews knew it and used it, aiming, when the situation allowed it, for the most faborable areas of the enemy tanks. It is clear that this stuff was in the training of the german tank crews.
Txema
-
Wow, Steve, very interesting explanations !!
Of course, the main problem that I see is what you explain here:
Standard aim point is center mass. Which is one reason a hull down tank, with poor turret armor, is actually at a disadvantage because the only thing that can possibly be aimed for and hit is the turret. Obviously the reduced profile makes the chance of a hit less likely, but if there is a hit it's more likely to be disastrous.I agree that higher experienced crews should have a chance of aiming for a tank's weaker areas, but that's not something that's got in yet.
Steve
And this fact is the final ingredient necessary to explain perfectly what has happened in the AAR with the duel between the Pz IVH and the M4A3 Sherman. (The Pz IVH can not decide to aim for the turret, that is more easy to penetrate. He always try to aim for the center mass - the upper hull in that case, that is more difficult to penetrate).
However you are obviously fully aware of the problem and I am sure that you will fix it in the future.
Steve, thank you very much for all your explanations. It is a pleasure to debate about this topics with you :-)
And thank you for these AARs. I can't wait to play the game !!!
-
Texma,
Nope, I don't agree because your statement is too vague. The math seems to indicate that the Sherman has a minor advantage over the PzIV when they are literally facing each other straight on at fairly close range. Each has a pretty good chance of knocking out the other. But rotate the Sherman's hull just a bit and everything changes. The PzIV is still dead meat because the Sherman is striking it dead on, but the Sherman has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit because it is oblique. The matchup we see in this AAR seems to indicate that is indeed what is happening.
Steve
Steve,
First of all, thank you very much for your quick answer !!
Could you plese re-read the post by ShakyJake?
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240274#post1240274
As you can see, his calculations reveal that the Sherman needs a lateral angle around 30 degrees to make the penetration by the Pz IV-H 75mm L/48 unlikely (in the upper hull front).
On the other hand, ShakyJake’s calculations show also that if the Pz IV-H has a lateral angle around 30 degrees the penetration (in the hull) by the Sherman’s 75mm L/40 APCBC is also unlikely.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240414#post1240414
Therefore, at this short range, no tank has a-priori advantage over the other. As you say, “the PzIV is still dead meat because the Sherman is striking it dead on, but the Sherman has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit because it is oblique. The matchup we see in this AAR seems to indicate that is indeed what is happening.” I fully agree with this statement.
But if you reverse the situation interchanging the position of both tanks in such a way that the PzIV strikes the Sherman dead on (in the upper hul), and the Sherman strikes the PzIV (in the hull) with a lateral angle (of around 30 degrees), then the Sherman should die easily while the PzIV should have a high chance of surviving.
My point is that we have found a very good explanation for the facts that we are seeing in the AAR, but the Sherman tank is not surviving because it is inherently better than the PzIV at this short range. It is surviving because it is being hit with a lateral angle, while the PzIV is dying because it is being hit dead on. If we interchange their positions the result would be the opposite.
So, which tank is better head to head at 300 meters? The calculations done by ShakyJake suggest that both of them are roughly equivalent a-priori, but of course if one of them is in a significantly better tactical position than the other then it will have a significant advantage (as it happens in the AAR).
-
However, I think that if you do the same calculations (tank lateral angle around 30 degrees) for the opposite case (Pz IV-H being hit by the M4A3 Sherman in the upper hull and in the lower hull, and therefore 96mm vs 80mm and 93mm vs 80mm respectively), then the compound angle would increase significantly and probably the penetration would become also unlikely. (Could you please do the calculations ???)
Sure. Calculating the 0° penetration of the 75mm L/40 ABCPC against FH armor at 300m gives us a figure of 98mm. We'll look at the PzKpfw IVH's upper and lower hull only (the 50mm turret front will be easily penetrated here barring any extreme angle). I'll use a lateral angle of 0° (head on), 20°, and 30°, and show the compound angles for the hit and effective resistance for those 80mm plates.
Lateral Angle 0°
Upper hull @10° = 82mm
Lower hull @15° = 84mm
Lateral Angle 20°
Upper hull @22° = 91mm
Lower hull @25° = 96mm
Lateral Angle 30°
Upper hull @31° = 104mm
Lower hull @33° = 108mm
So at this range the average penetration of the Sherman's gun can handle about a 25° lateral angle from the PzKpfw IV before penetrating the upper hull is no longer better than average, and a 20° angle before penetration of the lower hull becomes less than ideal. At 30° lateral angle, only the exceptions at the upper range of the variable penetration should be getting through.
ShakyJake, thank you very much for your calculations !!
They confirm very well my previous statements.
There should be no significant difference between the Pz IV-H and the M4A3 Sherman head to head at 300 meters. They should have roughly the same probability of destroying the other.
Battlefront, taking into account all the calculations done by ShakyJake, do you agree with my statement?
-
I think you might be misunderstanding the way he's using the term "marginal" here, Txema. Having a marginal advantage in penetration here means that there is slightly over a 50% chance of penetration, since the penetration value for the projectile is an average of the upper and lower range it can fall between. So, under an ideal circumstance of being directly head on to the target and at that range, it will probably penetrate, just as he has said. However, once any kind of imperfect conditions start creeping into the equation, things start to become more iffy.
Using the calculations out of my copy of "WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnerery", the 0° resistance of the Sherman's 51mm glacis @56° comes out to 123mm, or 110mm with a 0.90 flaw multiplier (is this what's being used?). So the 75mm L/48 APCBC with 127mm penetration at 300m and 0° will most likely penetrate in this shot. However, if the tank were to have a 20° lateral angle to the firing tank, the compound angle would become 58°. Only two degrees can't make much of a difference, right? Not so. With the flaw multiplier, the 0° resistance for the 51mm glacis @58° becomes 120mm. That's a 10mm increase in resistance from just 2°. Give the tank a lateral angle of 30° and the compound angle becomes 61°. At this angle, the plate will have an effective resistance of 136mm, and now the 75mm L/48 has become unlikely to penetrate, all from just a 5° difference in shot angle. It's hard to judge from the screenshots how much this plays in this specific AAR, even the tank being just a few degrees nose up to PzKpfw IV and with some small lateral angle can give this much additional protection.
Btw, I am very saddened to hear about Lorrin Rexford Bird. I had been very excited to find him on this board after buying his book (and the principle reason I registered!), and had wondered why the E-mails we were exchanging dried up several years ago. He was definitely an expert in this, and all the calculations I made above were done straight out of his book.
OK, this is a very good explanation about what can be happening in these 3 Sherman hits without penetration: perhaps the tank lateral angle is around 30 degrees and the compound angle becomes 61 degrees, making the penetration more unlikely.
However, I think that if you do the same calculations (tank lateral angle around 30 degrees) for the opposite case (Pz IV-H being hit by the M4A3 Sherman in the upper hull and in the lower hull, and therefore 96mm vs 80mm and 93mm vs 80mm respectively), then the compound angle would increase significantly and probably the penetration would become also unlikely. (Could you please do the calculations ???)
My point is that in a head to head combat between a Pz IV-H and a M4A3 Sherman at 300 meters, taking into account all of these calculations, both tanks have roughly the same probability of destroying the other. If one of them hits the other straight on (without tank lateral angle) in the turret, gun mantlet or in the upper or lower hull, then it is very likely to achieve a penetration. If the tank has a noticeable lateral angle (30 degrees or more) and is hit in the upper or lower hull (in the case of the Pz IV-H) or in the upper hull (in the case of the M4A3 Sherman) then the penetration becomes unlikely.
BTW, at this very small distance (300 meters) an experienced gunner could always aim for the turret or gun mantlet and achieve an easy penetration. Therefore, the first tank that hits should get the first penetration.
Taking into account all of these data, there should be no significant difference between the Pz IV-H and the M4A3 Sherman head to head at 300 meters. They should have roughly the same probability of destroying the other.
P.S. Why the Pz IV-H of the AAR is not aiming for the turret or gun mantlet of the M4A3 Sherman to achieve an easy penetration? Why is it hitting the upper hull 3 times?
-
Originally Posted by Charles
All else being equal, a group of M4A3 Shermans should have a modest advantage head-to-head at 300m against an equal-sized group of PzIVH.
Here is why. While the German 75mm gun is better than the US 75mm, the Sherman has superior frontal armor. The PzIVH has an obsolete turret front and virtually no armor sloping anywhere. Further, its frontal armor is face-hardened which is a liability against the capped armor-piercing ammunition (APCBC) used by the western Allies in 1944.
Let's first examine the PzIVH shooting at the M4A3 Sherman straight on, non oblique hits:
M4A3 Sherman frontal armor:
76mm @ 30° turret (treated as 69mm due to mediocre armor manufacturing quality)
89mm @ 0° gun mantlet (treated as 80mm)
51mm @ 56° upper hull (treated as 46mm)
51mm @ 15°(avg) lower hull (treated as 46mm)
German PzIVH (75mm KwK40 L/48) armor penetration (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
0°: 127mm
15°: 120mm
30°: 99mm
56°: 53mm
Hit results:
M4A3 Sherman turret: easily penetrates (120mm vs 69mm)
M4A3 Sherman gun mantlet: easily penetrates (127mm vs 80mm)
M4A3 Sherman upper hull: usually but not always penetrates; majority of killing energy absorbed by armor (53mm vs 46mm)
M4A3 Sherman lower hull: easily penetrates (120mm vs 46mm)
Summary:
If the Sherman is hit straight on in the turret or lower hull it's in bad shape, but if it's hit in the upper hull (aka glacis plate) it has a decent chance to survive. Not great, but decent. And the glacis plate is the largest and most central of the potential target areas so many hits will occur there.
Now let's examine the M4A3 Sherman shooting at the PzIVH straight on, non oblique hits:
PzIVH-late frontal armor (all face-hardened, which is a liability versus US APCBC shells -- this is very important!):
50mm @ 10° turret
80mm @ 10° upper hull
80mm @ 15° lower hull
M4A3 Sherman (75mm M3 L/40, firing APCBC) armor penetration versus face-hardened armor (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
10°: 96mm
15°: 93mm
Hit results:
PzIVH-late turret: easily penetrates (96mm vs 50mm)
PzIVH-late upper hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (96mm vs 80mm)
PzIVH-late lower hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (93mm vs 80mm)
Summary:
PzIVH armor cannot withstand a straight on hit from a Sherman anywhere. Its best hope is for a hull hit where some of the energy is absorbed, but often this won't be enough to save the tank.
When oblique angles are taken into effect the picture changes. The more the shot deviates from a straight on hit the greater the chance of deflection instead of penetration. Sloped and rounded armor enhances this chance more so than vertically aligned plates. If the chance of a penetration from straight on is marginal, then a less optimal angle of impact likely means the round does not penetrate. When examining the numbers above, it's pretty clear that the Sherman is far more likely to survive a hit from a PzIV than the PzIV is to survive a hit from a Sherman.
…there are some really deeply entrenched assumptions about what German (and American) equipment should and should not be capable of. And yet when we dig down a little, it seems that these hardened assumptions are not based on anything real.
The above is a perfect example. The assumption is that PzIV = Sherman. Case closed?
Well, the assumption is wrong. These two tanks are not quite equivalent. They have significantly different strengths and weaknesses. In some situations I'd want a PzIV, and in others a Sherman. And at 300m head to head, give me the M4A3 please. The armor on the PzIV is obsolete by 1944. Even to American guns, it just can't hold up, and Combat Mission reflects this.
First of all, thank you very much for all these detailed explanations. I really appreciate them !!
However, there is something that I am not understanding properly: when you speak about the hit results on the M4A3 Sherman, you state that:
“M4A3 Sherman upper hull: usually but not always penetrates; majority of killing energy absorbed by armor (53mm vs 46mm)”.
And later you also state referring again to the Sherman
“If the chance of a penetration from straight on is marginal, then a less optimal angle of impact likely means the round does not penetrate.”
But the chance of penetration should be quite high. 53mm vs 46mm should mean that most of the times the shell should penetrate. (53/46 = 1.15, penetration capability is 15% larger than the thickness of the plate). Then why do you speak about marginal chance of penetration? I think that in this case we have a high chance of penetration… and consequently if the Panzer IV hits the M4A3 Sherman three times with this high chance of penetration, it must be very unlucky not to penetrate it at least once. Not to achieve a penetration with 3 hits is possible, of course, but it is a very unlucky result for the Panzer IV.
Moreover, although the majority of killing kinetic energy would be absorbed by armor in case of penetration, the AP rounds used by the Panzer IV have an explosive filling to increase the destruction after penetration and therefore they should be able to produce important damage to the M4A3 Sherman.
Battlefront, could you please comment on these?
P.S. BTW, the ratios for the M4A3 Sherman hitting the Panzer IV at the upper hull and lower hull are quite similar: 96mm vs 80mm -> 96/80 = 1.20 (penetration capability 20% larger than the thickness of the plate) and 93mm vs 80mm -> 93/80 =1.16 (penetration capability 16% larger than the thickness of the plate) and in both cases you state that there will be a penetration.
-
Which operative system is better for TOW 2 Kursk and Caen ?
- Windows XP (32 bits)
or
- Windows 7 64 bits
Which operative system do you recommend to get better FPS ? Or both of them provide the same performance in TOW 2 Kursk and Caen ?
Txema
-
Sneaksie,
I have just bought the Caen addon.
Thank you very much for all your help !!
Txema
-
Sneaksie,
First of all, thanks again for your answer !!
This is the list of the new bugs fixed in the 1.3.3 russian patch (the previous russian patch was 1.3.0):
Link http://forums.games.1c.ru/index.php?type=thread&msg_id=2375499
- Fixed errors found online play
- Changed the options for the duration of a network game (now possible
choose from 10 minutes to 2 hours in increments of 10 minutes)
- Improved algorithm to find ways, refined algorithms AI
- Added hotkeys for immediate gain or loss single mission (cheat)
- Removed the limit on the number of sectors and visibility of unit number of types of aircraft weapons
- Increased the experience of mortar default
- Fixed an animation of firing rocket-propelled grenade in the trench
- Fixed connection missions in the campaign in the generator
- Refined editors
- HDR mode is enabled by default
- Fixed minor bugs in the interface
This is the list of the new bugs fixed in the 1.3.1 battlefront patch (the previous battlefront patch was 1.2.4):
Link http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=245&Itemid=384
•Infantry now takes damage in hand-to-hand combat properly
•Several AI bugs fixed (repeated rapid stance change, infantry not looking in the direction prescribed with the "Defend' button, rare freeze while mounting a vehicle, aiming while in a trench, facing rearwards after completing a move forward command and more)
•Multiplayer routines improved
•Re-calling an artillery strike doesn't require victory points
•The dead end in the first German mission has been fixed (it occured when player eliminated all Russian troops before the counterattack)
•Passability corrected on some maps
•Interrupted vehicle engine sounds fixed
•Molotov cocktail fire effect now linked to the impact point
•Molotov cocktails are now effective against open-topped and unarmored vehicles only
•Users are now able to fine-tune the bogging down probability (see below)
It seems that the new bug fixes of the russian 1.3.3 patch are NOT included in the battlefront 1.3.1 patch. Therefore it seems that the current 1.3.1 battlefront version is missing ALL of these bug fixes:
- Fixed errors found online play
- Changed the options for the duration of a network game (now possible
choose from 10 minutes to 2 hours in increments of 10 minutes)
- Improved algorithm to find ways, refined algorithms AI
- Added hotkeys for immediate gain or loss single mission (cheat)
- Removed the limit on the number of sectors and visibility of unit number of types of aircraft weapons
- Increased the experience of mortar default
- Fixed an animation of firing rocket-propelled grenade in the trench
- Fixed connection missions in the campaign in the generator
- Refined editors
- HDR mode is enabled by default
- Fixed minor bugs in the interface
Sneaksie, please, correct me if I am wrong but I think that the changes in 1.3.3 vs 1.3.1 are all the items listed just avobe and therefore they are quite significant and a 1.3.3 patch should be also released for the battlefront TOW 2 Kursk owners.
Anyway, if I buy the Caen add-on, can I assume that my battlefront TOW 2 Kursk will be upgraded to 1.5.0 version, and therefore will be patched also with the 1.3.3 bug fixes?
Thank you very much for your help,
Txema
-
Sneaksie,
Can you comment on this, please?
Thanks in advance !
Txema
Arzok,You are right !!!
That feature was introduced in the 1.3.3 patch:
- Changed the options for the duration of a network game (now possible
choose from 10 minutes to 2 hours in increments of 10 minutes)
The Battlefront TOW 2 Kursk version is 1.3.1, and is currently outdated. The Steam TOW 2 Kursk version is 1.3.3, and it is the updated version that includes all the new bug fixes and features.
Battlefront, please, make sure that the 1.3.3 patch is released soon for the Battlefront customers. The Steam and the Battlefront versions are currently NOT compatible for MultiPlayer, and this happens because our Battlefront version is currently outdated.
Txema
EDIT: Actually the 1.3.1 patch for the Battlefront TOW 2 Kursk was released on May 18, 2010. The 1.3.3 patch for the russian version of TOW 2 Kursk was released on July 21, 2010. Obvously they are not the same version !!!
Link for the russian 1.3.3 patch for TOW 2 Kursk: http://forums.games.1c.ru/index.php?type=thread&msg_id=2375499
-
Thank you very much for your answer !
Txema
-
SNEAKSIE, BATTLEFRONT ?
Can you answer my question ??
Which are the new features included in the 1.5.0 version?
-
It is not possible to play MP between battlefront version 1.3.1 and steam version 1.3.3
as far as I can remember :
In the version 1.3.1, you can select the max time for MP mission, up to 30 minutes.
In the 1.3.3 version, you can select the max time up to 120 minutes
So for me, it is not the same version.
Arzok,
You are right !!!
That feature was introduced in the 1.3.3 patch:
- Changed the options for the duration of a network game (now possible
choose from 10 minutes to 2 hours in increments of 10 minutes)
The Battlefront TOW 2 Kursk version is 1.3.1, and is currently outdated. The Steam TOW 2 Kursk version is 1.3.3, and it is the updated version that includes all the new bug fixes and features.
Battlefront, please, make sure that the 1.3.3 patch is released soon for the Battlefront customers. The Steam and the Battlefront versions are currently NOT compatible for MultiPlayer, and this happens because our Battlefront version is currently outdated.
Txema
EDIT: Actually the 1.3.1 patch for the Battlefront TOW 2 Kursk was released on May 18, 2010. The 1.3.3 patch for the russian version of TOW 2 Kursk was released on July 21, 2010. Obvously they are not the same version !!!
Link for the russian 1.3.3 patch for TOW 2 Kursk: http://forums.games.1c.ru/index.php?type=thread&msg_id=2375499
-
Txema,
patching in Kursk is done via the Auto-Updater, and you can patch the Battlefront version without problems. The 1.3.1 patch is released separately because there was a bug with the auto-updater from what I recall which needed to be fixed in it.
Moon,
First of all, thank you very much for your quick answer.
I have (Battlefront) TOW 2 Kursk installed in my computer and patched to 1.3.1.
When I start the game I click to "Autoupdate". Then I get the following message:
"Checking for the updates...
Current game version is up to date."
But when I start to play the game I can see that my game version is still 1.3.1.
It seems that it is impossible to update the game to the most current version 1.3.3.
Could you please check it?
Is anybody else experiencing this problem?
Thanks again for your help !!
Txema
-
I have read in the TOW 1C forums (in russian) that a new pacth (1.3.3) was released for TOW 2 Kursk at the end of July, 2010. It seems that the TOW 2 Kursk version offered by steam already includes that patch. However, the Battlefront customers can only apply the 1.3.1 patch to their TOW 2 Kursk version.
Battlefront: are you going to release the patch 1.3.3 for TOW 2 Kursk ? Is it already fully included in the Caen add-on that updates TOW 2 Kursk to 1.5.0 version?
Here you have the release notes of the 1.3.3 patch offered for TOW 2 Kursk in the russian 1C forums. I have translated it using google translate:
"The Art of War. Kursk" version 1.3.3
===========================================
This archive is a complete assembly of the game, it includes
many changes.
Archive size 1.3Gb
Changes in the game:
- Fixed errors found online play
- Changed the options for the duration of a network game (now possible
choose from 10 minutes to 2 hours in increments of 10 minutes)
- Improved algorithm to find ways, refined algorithms AI
- Added hotkeys for immediate gain or loss single mission (cheat)
- Removed the limit on the number of sectors and visibility of unit number of types of aircraft weapons
- Increased the experience of mortar default
- Fixed an animation of firing rocket-propelled grenade in the trench
- Fixed connection missions in the campaign in the generator
- Refined editors
- HDR mode is enabled by default
- Fixed minor bugs in the interface
This version includes fixes of previous updates:
- 5 new maps for multiplayer and scenario generator
- 10 new units (tanks T-34-85 and IP-2, SU-85 and SU-100, heavy
ACS ISU-152 tank Pz. VIB "King Tiger, assault
instrument "Brumbar, tank destroyers Jagdpanzer 38t
"Hetzer", "Elephant" and
"Yagdpantera)
- Added utility AutoUpdate.exe for automated updates
Games
- Reworked the AI, bugs AI
- The crew of intelligence units (Sdkfz. 222, Sdkfz. 232, BA-64)
and intelligence level of the same skills increased to 50-100 points
(In the campaign, this change will only occur after the beginning of a new game)
- Recall the shelling after his suspension does not require
Points
- Corrected logical deadlock in the first German mission (he was advancing,
if the player destroyed all of the defenders before the counter)
- Increased visibility for units in the shot
- Units in the "Do not shoot" will not open fire
themselves, but they will hit the target by the player
- Changed the aiming of the trenches
- The effect of burning incendiary grenades now moves with the
object, in which she came
- Soldiers fired automatic weapons shorter
Queues
- Fixed a cross at the intersection of the road with anti-
moat in the first German mission
- Extended the passage through the anti-tank ditch in the third German
Mission
- Added ability to set the probability of jamming equipment
(See below)
- Fixed a bug that caused it to crash the game when exceeding
maximum number of units on the map
- Fixed the mission "Southern Outskirts Cherkassky,
"Verhopene", "Novoselivka and
"Kalinovka" for Germany and "Southern Outskirts
Cherkassky, "and" Defense Syrtseva "for the USSR
- Fixed a crash causes in the process of placing the troops under
selection of weapons and the issuance of certain communications, improved
stability of the whole application
- Added a training mission
- Multiplayer: revised data transmission system and the system
AntiCheat
- Added "Ambush" for the armored cars and ACS
- AI: finalized the firing of the trenches, the soldiers did not run out of houses under
fire
- AI: in the "Hold position" the soldiers attacked the specified
goal from the spot, but move if given the team an attack or assault on
positions
- AI: fixed a bug with the frequent changes in body position
gunners during the battle
- Multiplayer: refined mechanism that limits the total amount of troops
in the alliance and the statistics panel
- The mission added messages about the availability of air-and art-supporting
- Allow renaming of units on screen, "Personal
composition "
- Fixed a mass of tanks KV-1 and KV-1S, and 45-mm M-42, and 76-mm
Regimental guns
- Reduced frequency of firing a sniper rifle SVT
- Implemented handling the Enter key, and Escape in the panel mode
Statistics
- Fighters will no longer move on hold position
- Allowed to force firing on targets in the regime of prohibition
Shooting
- Improved survival of the infantry in the trenches and on some types of
surface
- Fire at the position is possible, even if the target is not visually seen
- Soldiers actively running away from thrown grenades
- Fixed the command "smoke screen" of the soldiers
- Corrected trajectory of firing mortar shells at close
Distance
- Tanks can give the order to protect the infantry
- Fixed epilogues at the end of campaigns
- Fixed killability RPG-43
- Fixed animation gun DShK
- Fixed transfer of units between missions
- Refined the logic of the mission "Verhopene" for Germany
- Fixed a gun trenches on the first Soviet mission
- For the destruction of passengers cars are now correctly receive points
experience
- Improved compatibility mode
- Updated the mission editor
- Fixed display of renamed crew members in the panel
information technology
- Improved game stability
- Improved and enabled by default compatibility mode (it can be
off in the game settings)
- Fixed the mission "Southern Outskirts Cherkassky,
"Cherkasy" for Germany and "Defense Syrtseva"
"South of Verhopenya" and "Verhopene" for the USSR
- Improved form of a German infantryman, optimized textures for all
soldiers
- Optimized texture techniques and effects
- Added support for mods
- Optimized sound system
- Reduced the radius in which the soldiers react to getting shot
- Fixed the lack of grenades, some German soldiers
- Improved display sectors fired anti-aircraft guns
- Improved the display of the number of crew Technology
Encyclopedia
- Improved handling of empty shells, while maintaining game
- Fixed a bug when adding support for rocket artillery in
a simple editor
- Roof Armor T-34 plant № 174 fixed with 45mm to 20mm
- For mods added support for new types of armor
How to change the probability of jamming equipment
=====================================
Open any text editor file from path
Games> \ Data \ Settings \ Navigation.ini. It contains many sections
with the titles of the form [Halftrack 5x5], which stores the options
speed for different types of surfaces, such as:
SpeedSWAMP 0.3 0.01
The first number - a modifier speed for this type of
units, the second - the probability of getting stuck on the surface of the
type.
-
So when we install the Caen package, we also upgrade TOW 2: Kursk to the 1.5.0 version.
Which are the new features included in the 1.5.0 version?
Txema
-
Broadsword, Wargo,
I would appreciate it very much if you could comment on the strategy guide.
Does it really take advantage of the possibilities offered by the computer? I mean, does it include features that would be impossible in a conventional written guide?
I am asking it because in the demo the "tactical lessons" (village attack) are not really taking advantage of the computer capabilities... it consists just of two images, and it includes no animations... the same could be offered by a conventional book... it is a pitty... and the rest of the guide seems similar...
On the other hand, is it easy to print the main texts to be able to read them away from the computer as a conventional book? How? Do you have to copy and paste them in a Word file, for example?
Thank you very much for your help !!
Txema
Print friendly manual?
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
I would appreciate it very much if Battlefront could release a version of the manuals with 1 page per page, so to speak.
I prefer to see it that way on the tablet AND on a printed version. I would like to have that PDF version with 1 page per page to be able to print it in that way, with much larger letters and drawings...
Any chance to get it, pretty please ??? ;-)
Txema