c3k

Rune, Several points. First, you are correct in that Jentz' table is expected firing range results. Second, your posting highlights your typing skill (or are you taking the easy way out and merely scanning or clipping all those long-winded passages? ). Thirdly, the 75 yard miss means nothing. That was a snap shot situation. They came around a corner, were surprised, oops. I'm talking about a stationary situation with time to observe a target. Remember that part in Jentz about a gunner expected to fire 3 shots in 30 seconds and hit a moving target at whatever range? I do not believe in the uber theory of all German tanks should destroy all their targets. I do believe that BF.C consistently undermodels the real effects of superior sights and weapons. Ken

Perusing Jentz, op. cit., p.77, "First round hits were usually achieved wtih the 8.8 cm Kw.K. gun at ranges between 600 to 1000 meters..." More, "Sprengranaten were fired at a moving artillery column at a range of 5000 meters. A direct hit was achieved with the third round." Obviously exceptional, or it wouldn't have been singled out. Yet, try to hit a target at 5000 meters with HE in CMBB and tell me how many rounds it takes to get close. Also, only "minimal expenditure" of ammo to hit tanks at 1500 meters. Perhaps 3 rounds? Over, under, hit? I can't see a combat unit calling "minimal expenditure" to be too many. Certainly in the single digits. Probably the lower half of that. CMBB/BO/AK are great games. They're not perfect. I think they undermodel the true accuracy of certain weapons, the Tiger I and II among them. Ken

Quick test complete. I setup an 800 meter by 4000 meter shooting range. A northern, platoon range with 4 firing spots and 4 individual ranges. I will email the setup for anyone interested. Every 1000 meters is a small pavement surrounded by water. . First, the platoon of 4 veteran Tiger I's opened up at a T-34 at 2000 meters. By Jentz, the second round accuracy should be 50%. After about 6-8 rounds, accuracy was only 28% for round 7-9 (or so). Individually, veteran Tiger I's vs. T-34's at 1000 meters. By Jentz, second round accuracy of 93%. Remember, these are assumed COMBAT performance numbers. In CM, after 4-6 rounds, various accuracy of 59%, 65% or 73%. Rune, I'll be happy to share this test. Email me at the address in my profile. I'd also like to run it with Tiger II's. It seems obvious that Jentz' table 7.1.2 and CMBB do not correlate well. (A note on the test: I did not edit the ammo supply. Because of that, the Tigers fired until they destroyed the target. That led to various numbers of rounds expended. Jentz' table is predicated on second round accuracy - assuming the first round is sensed. To do a more accurate test, the Tigers should only fire 1 round of AP, and then have some left over so that the to hit percentage of that type of round on the second shot can be determined at the beginning of the next turn. Since you cannot interrupt the game in mid-turn, parceling out limited ammo supplies wouldn't work. The to-hit percentage would only apply to the remaining, different, ammo type.) Regards, Ken

Rune, Thanks for the citation from Jentz. I'll use the same. In "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I and Tiger II: Combat Tactics" by Jentz, p11, "The expected performance of a Tiger I on a practice range was that the gunner would hit the target by the fourth round at ranges between 1200 and 2000 meters." BY the fourth round (not necessarily just ON the fourth round). A miss after 4 shots may be a failure of the gunner and back to the infantry for him. If so, that would be the minimum, poorest performance. Or, it may not. Continuing, "Concentrated fire from the platoon could be used to engage stationary tanks out to 3000 meters." Here we seem to've left the practice range and we're in combat. A Tiger platoon is 4 vehicles. How many CM shots would 4 Tigers take to hit a stationary target at 3000 meters? Even more, "The expected performance of a Tiger I gunner on a practice range was one hit out of three rounds fired within 30 seconds at a tank traveling 20 kilometers per hour across the front at ranges from 800 to 1200 meters." Again, by "expected performance" does that mean EVERY gunner must do that in order to BE a gunner? Or is that the 50% bell curve point? I don't know. But how does CM model that? (I'll do tests next week. Time issues.) Talking about the Tiger II, "The Tiger II could open fire for effect without bracketing at ranges up to 2000 meters and engage stationary tank targets out to ranges of 4000 meters." Okay, 4 km. How does CM do at that range? (I'm not expecting first round hits, but I am expecting reasonable hits, say, after the 3rd volley from a platoon of 4 Tiger II's.) Now, looking at the table you used, 7.1.2, at 2000 meters my Tiger I should have a 50% hit chance on its second shot. Not in CM. (I'm using Pzgr. 39 figures as a standard AP round.) Okay, let's choke the range down to 1000 meters. Second round accuracy should be 93%. Hmmmm. Dammit, man! Now I'll HAVE to run a test...... Ken

Gents, First, I do agree that combat kill claims were often exaggerated. Also, some weapons achieved myth-like status which was not backed up when the cold eye of science was applied to scrutinize the results. Given all that, it still seems to me that these games ARE flawed when the sighting algorithms are looked at. Several points follow, in no particular order. Each of these are, I believe, overlooked (or undervalued!) by the good folks at BF.C. Every projectile has several properties. Muzzle velocity is one. The round's Center of Gravity is another, and a critical one when determining accuracy (look at what the German's did during the Abram's gun competition - weighting the round to beat the British 105mm entry). Ballistic coefficient - a measure of how the round's trajectory is resistant to atmospheric effects. I don't think these have been accounted for very well. Round drop. As hinted at in the posts by our tankers, round drop (a function of velocity and drag) is important. If, at 1,000 meters, my round impacts 1 foot lower than the aimpoint at 600 meters and 1 foot higher than at 1,400 meters, then I simply sight in for 1,000 meters and make sure I aim within 1 foot of the target edge. Given a slower velocity and higher drag, that technique cannot be used. So, with a high velocity weapon, I can set a standard battlefield range, put the sight on target and hit at just about any range. Let's talk about sights. One of the members of BF.C (sorry, forget who) has experience in the field of optics. Beating on this dead horse, he stated that the various optical properties of sights don't make that big a difference in hits. (That's MY summary, so don't run off with that as a BF.C quote!) I disagree. Let's take two weapons, identical rifles. Put a welded bead on the muzzle of one. That's your sight. The optics are pure, grade A, mark I human eyeball. The other rifle has a cloudy, 1/2 mag (yes, one-half) RED-DOT sight, but it's zeroed in. Optically, the welded bead is MUCH better than that dusty 1/2 mag RED-DOT. In a 200 meter duel, who thinks they'd win with the bead? Yeah, that's right: there's MUCH more to weapons accuracy than optics. How the sight is designed and used is critical. Also, weapons design is a mix of science and art. There is a sweet spot for accuracy. It's got to do with projectile shape, size, weight, etc. Also, powder properties, rifling rate, muzzle length, weapon frequency (they DO vibrate!), etc. The sweet spot is hard to find. That's the art. When it is found, that weapon is accurate beyond what the raw numbers of our sciences can predict. (Perhaps, with more research and knowledge, some of these factors will be discovered and described. But we're not there yet.) I've written a lot, but these are just the tip of the iceberg as to why I think BF.C missed the accuracy boat. I applaud their desire to keep the game as scientifically based as possible. I do believe that they have overlooked some critical aspects as to what yields improved battlefield effects. Thanks, Ken

Rexford, Your post seems to state that the T-34 armor can be more closely modelled using MEDIUM hardness resistance factors rather than HIGH hardness numbers. What is the approximate ratio of resistance between MEDIUM and HIGH hardness? (I.e., is medium hardness only 80% as good as high hardness against solid penetrators?) Thanks, Ken

Gents, A nickname given to the U.S. half-tracks by the troops who rode in them was "the purple-heart box". Indeed, the 7.92 round used by German MG's could pierce the thinly armored vehicle at range. I seem to remember that after a round got inside, it would not have enough energy to exit, so would ricochet around the inside. I wouldn't think it would be a good idea to be one of the G.I.'s crammed inside a half-track with machinegun rounds rattling around with you. Ken

Yes, I know the early sabot rounds were inaccurate, but a flintlock can hit a target at 200 yards (not well, but it CAN). That's not inaccurate, that's a crapshot. Literally. Ken

Whoa!! Look at this from Mr Tittles. (Parts omitted for brevity.) Okay, with all this talk about weak spots and all, how do you miss your aimpoint at 200 yards? This is , after all, a controlled shoot with no incoming fire. Difficulty obtaining hits at 200 yards. That is important. Thanks, Ken

Michael, EXACTLY!! How do I know when I want to use a pre-planned artillery strike? (By that, I mean one I set during the set-up phase.) Once the set-up phase is over, it's too late to set one up. That's often when it's also too late to use an on-call artillery module. You, the player, HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW LONG - EVEN ROUGHLY - THAT IT WILL TAKE TO GET THE ARTILLERY ON TARGET. That is, until the game is underway. That's what I'd like to see rectified. Give me a little window of availability, say, "10-18 Minutes". Something. Ken

Gents, I'm familiar with the increased delay with higher echelon artillery. I'm familiar with decreased delay with TRPs. Great. Big cheer for me. How do I KNOW what to expect from my FO's during setup? In a 25 turn game, will that 204mm strike ever land? Or as soon as I press "GO", have I forsaken that ability if I haven't used it as a pre-planned strike? Sure, I _may_ get a chance to use my corps level artillery in a 60+ turn battle. I'll probably get to use that 81/82mm mortar FO in a short battle. What about everything else? I'm not looking for a hard and fast number. I know that various factors, e.g. visibility, LOS, fitness and experience will delay and cause variability to the actual strike time. I'm looking for a time to use during the setup phase. Click on the FO and, in the unit information window, in addition to caliber and tube count, why not put a range of times? "Division Level, 6 tube, 150mm battery: 6-9 minutes." SOMETHING!! There is nothing much more frustrating than starting a scenario, and then, on turn 1, you realize you've messed up due to a coordination issue to which any RL commander would've had a clue to ballpark times. (Okay, there MAY be one or two other things in life more frustrating than a game gone bad.) Thanks, Ken

Vineyards? I'll tell you my experience with vineyards so far. My troops move through them. They come under fire. They alert, caution, pin, then, "sneak" TOWARDS the enemy, under fire the entire time, in a doomed attempt to get out of the vineyards and into the scattered trees about 200 meters distant. The same trees from which the enemy is shooting. In short, the vineyards act as some sort of life-draining force field, spasmodically discharging my spent troops into the very laps of their enemies. This has happened too many times. Stay away from vineyards. Ken

I pronounce it the way it's spelled: "smack". Of course, it MAY offend some Canadian types that I do so, however, I'm okay with that. In fact, when I read the profligate posts by someone named "Michael Dorosh", mentally I pronounce his name "MiDo" (mee-doe). Ken

Gents, An interesting discussion. An important element of a any optics system is the TARGETING element. To clarify that statement, it does you almost no good just to see the enemy unless you can tie that into where you point your gun. This is where the reticle, focus, and ranging adjustment methods are CRUCIAL. The typical allied optic had a simple reticle. Imagine a ladder standing upright visible when you view through the sight. The sight itself is fixed to the barrel of the weapon. Each rung of the ladder corresponds to a certain range. It's a very simple sight, requiring some skill to use effectively. If you judge or guesstimate the enemy to be at 800 meters range, you simply elevate the gun barrel until the rung corresponding to 800 meters is on the target. You adjust elevation after that based on where your rounds are landing. The difficulty is that the ranges rarely lie exactly along a rung and the target is rarely motionless. Now you need to interpolate. That's where the skill comes in. German sights chose a different path. The sight is complex requiring less operator skill. As you adjust the range knob on the sight the internal reticle (a triangle, not a ladder) moves. THE AIMPOINT IS ALWAYS THE TIP OF THE TRIANGLE. That's kind of important. The reticle moves, the sight moves. You elevate gun to match reticle to target, fire. The differing magnifications, light sensitivity, reflectivity, viewing angles, etc., are part of the equation, but it's more important to realize how the sighting system is tied into the weapons system and how they're used together. The advantage is clearly in favor of the approach used by the Germans. (In fact, every modern weapon system uses the same technique: the operator puts the pipper on the target. The weapon system adjusts for range and lead, not the operator.) It is my opinion that BF.C has consistently under-modelled the effectiveness of the advantage of the German optics systems. Thanks, Ken

I would also like this feature to be added. Many times I use the LOS tool to see where I need to move to get a clear shot, then I plot the move, then I need to use the LOS tool again to ensure that the move point is where it needs to be. Repeat as needed. Ken

Panzerwerfer42, Yes! That would be excellent...some sort of camera angle adjustment in-game. In fact, I owe a great thanks to BF.C and their exemplary customer service. It seems that they read this thread and saw your wonderful suggestion! Betwixt their reading of your posting and my reading of your posting, those little BF.C elves somehow managed to install that very feature in my game! I don't know how they managed to hack into my machine, but I'm glad they did. I am now the proud owner of the ability to use "Shift-A" and "Shift-Z" to adjust my camera angles! Thank you Panzerwerfer for developing that shortcut and thank you BF.C for sneaking it onto my machine. Ken "who pledges to read _EVERY_ hotkey description on Christmas day"

Gents (and BF.C), I find that the various camera angles are not quite where I'd like them. Frequently, I find that I'm only using Level 1 views, one intermediate raised view, then, rarely, the highest view. Each of these are less than optimal. In view Level 1, if I zoom, the camera digs into the dirt pretty quickly. About 3 or 4 levels above that is a decent view for most work, but, again, the tilt adjustment isn't quite right. In fact, in all the other intermediate levels tilt control is the primary limitation of the views. I would LOVE to have a control of the tilt. (I won't even go into full camera control, such as the Myth series introduced.) Would anyone else like to see an improvement in camera flexibility? Thank you, Ken (BF.C, note that this is NOT any kind of thread to collect ideas for CMx2 - since it's too soon for that sort of thing! )

Trommelfeuer, Yes! Absolutely! With motorbikes we'll be able to more quickly spread the word of the need for the DEDICATED CMx2 FORUM. Once we have motorbikes BF.C will be brought round to our view that much sooner. Ken

Didn't the Bren have easily swapped barrels? It seems that the British could've had a huge wartime advantage if they'd only invented and fielded a tripod for the Bren. Ducking and running! Ken

Denwad, Many has been the time that I wanted to do that very thing. Your support is appreciated. The throngs which surround me welcome you with open arms! Next, we march upon BF.C! Thank you, Ken

Gentlemen, It is hard for me to keep up with the amount of support coming in for THE DEDICATED CMX2 FORUM. If I do not address your concerns specifically, it is due to the overwhelming influx of emails. It is NEVER too early to help mold the intentions of our esteemed and august game designers. The very time to field ideas for the new engine is BEFORE the new engine is encoded. Haven't we heard an outcry for a convoy command? We're told, "Good idea, but the current engine cannot support it." Prophetic words, indeed. Are we to wait until AFTER the next engine is encoded before we request what it can do? Nay, the time to bend them to our will is now! Er, I mean, this is a good time to offer suggestions. Imagine if, when BF.C gathers in that smoky room around the table upon which sits the brain in the jar, they already have many innovative ideas, designs, and wishes from their customer base? The public cries out for a dedicated CMx2 Forum. The time is now. Thank you, Ken

V-DHdV (If I may be allowed that privilege), Thanks for adding to the tremendous support which has been flooding in... I too, think the floating OOB screen with interactive unit listing is a good idea. Of course, that has NOTHING to do with this thread! Now, if only there were a (drum roll) dedicated CMx2 Forum, your idea would dovetail nicely into a thread there. If, in your wanderings, you stumble upon a thread about a dedicated CMx2 Forum, you may wish to find time to add a measure of support to it. (The central core of this thread is the organization of the unit interface in the purchasing stage of a Quick Battle or the Scenario Editor.) Thanks, Ken

MikeyD, But how many apples or oranges does it take to fill a vacuum? Seriously, it's not putting ideas out into a vacuum. It's an open loop communication. Sure, they may be working on oranges at the time that apples are in vogue on the (drum roll) CMx2 Forum, but when they go back to apples, there'll be some fresh ideas out to look at. A coherent set of ideas, collated in a single easily searched area, could not help but be useful to BF.C. I do not think this would be a fruitless endeavor! (Okay, that was a bad pun on top of a butchered metaphor. I had to.) Ken

BF.C, We're all eagerly waiting for whatever CMx2 may be. We know you guys are hard at work on it. In fact, a lot of us are trying to help. We do that by posting various ideas about CMx2 here. It's time to consolidate all the different thoughts for additional features, units, improvements, etc. Can we start a Forum dedicated solely to CMx2? That way players can post an idea and not have it get lost in the various threads about active games and issues. A dedicated CMx2 Forum. My heart sings at the thought. Imagine, as Charles gets bored and doesn't know what else to code, all he needs to do is browse the CMx2 Forum for innovative ideas. Accept or reject them as his whim dictates. A dedicated CMx2 Forum. It could even have dedicated threads to interface issues, models, mods, language, armor penetration algorithms, etc. A dedicated CMx2 Forum. It begs to be brought into this world, springing forth, fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. Or whatnot. A dedicated CMx2 Forum. We need it. You want it. Let's do it. Thanks, Ken

Thank you for adding your support. BF.C, as you can see, there is a veritable ground-swell of public opinion rising to support this idea. You cannot hope to fight the increasing tide of consumer desire. Ken