c3k

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

Gents, I know BF.C is busy coding up the next game iteration. In the current series there's a very serious issue with QB's and the scenario editor. Right now the myriad types of armored vehicles are organized, not by NAME, not be CALIBER, nay, not by any inherent property of the vehicle at ALL! No, they're listed in order of increasing _rarity_. Hmmph. Sure, that's nice to know, but if I'm looking for the Pz IIIL2(bis.3, lang), why, for the love of all that's holy, can't I select the list to be alphabetized? Instead, I've got to remember reading in Glantz, "The Entire War" in volume XIX, page 892, footnote 7, that the Pz IIIL2 (bis.3, lang) was approximately 75% rare in April of '42. Sheeesh. C'mon BF.C, stick a little button up there on the unit lists so I can select HOW they're organized. Couple quick ideas: - Rarity Factor - Alphabetically/Numerically - Date of Introduction in Service - Caliber of Main Gun - Maximum Armor Equivaleny - Anything else that someone thinks is important Oh, and while we're at it, instead of the little thumbnail info screen for the units (you know, when your cursor hovers over a unit you get that 4 line blurb at the bottom of the window) let's use the REAL information screen. The stuff we see IN GAME when we select the unit. Details baby, details! Thanks for jumping right on that. Good job. Ken

Welcome the CM universe. I'll toss out the snide answer first: it's in the manual. Whew, now no-one else needs to post that. Select the unit you're interested in. Hit "enter". That brings up a window with various unit stats. In the upper right hand corner of the window is an icon, labeled "Info/Kills" (or something similar). It is, in fact, a selectable switch. Hard to tell, but if you click on it, it will cycle between either "info" or "kills". The "kills" information will be affected by Fog of War. At the end of the scenario or operation the correct information will be displayed. For example, your tank destroys a target identified as "Armored Car?". Later, at the end of the game, the kill information will be changed from "Armored Car?" to, say, "BA-64B". Hope this helps. Ken

CKibler: I would assume it's not "gamey" at all. Who's to say there wasn't a stock of smoke rounds ready for that offensive/defensive action? Off topic, prompted by your sig: very nice job on the GCACW series maps. Works of art. Thanks, Ken

GillFish, Good question. Regardless of game type - scenario vs. AI, QB vs. AI, QB PBEM, scenario PBEM, I always try to win the first time. If I lose vs. the AI, I'll try again if the scenario was good. Usually I'm trying to tweak the AI higher. I really enjoy going in blind in a new scenario. Thus a repeat play is only for lessons or increasing my victory level. Ego and all that. The most enjoyable style for me is a well crafted scenario played PBEM against a fun/courteous opponent. To sum, I play all the different styles you mention ed, and each holds its own attraction to me. Ken

Eichenbaum, Keep up the great work! Thanks, Ken

Rexford, Thank you for considering my hatch request with your usual thoroughness. Sergei: your question about _inward_ hinged hatches is, of course, quite interesting. You obviously are confused with the rotating, middle-hinged hatch of the early war period. The Soviets knew that any hit on either the top or bottom of the middle-hinged hatch would cause it to rotate freely and quite rapidly. Because of this they placed the driver far enough back so the rotating hatch would not hit him. The Germans designed the MG-34 specifically to take advantage of this. The cyclic rate caused the hatch to spin so rapidly that it appeared invisible to the driver. This caused the driver to feel inadequately protected, and, after 5-7 seconds, the rapidly spinning hatch, continuously hit by a stream of 7.92mm bullets, caused extreme nausea and disorientation. Many sickened drivers veered away, ramming other T-34's, which would result in catastrophic, mushroom-cloud, explosive detonations. Hence, the redesigned hatch, which only opened _outwards_. Thank you for your suggestion. Again, thanks for taking this up. Ken (Edited -again- because sarcasm causes me to forget how to spell. ) [ November 24, 2003, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Gents, Regarding T-34 glacis resistance computations. It's all well and good to consider the slope, thickness, etc., but let's keep this in perspective. The glacis was the front of the tank. In the middle of the glacis was a big hole. The Soviets made 'em like that. It was the driver's hatch. Okay, since this is my main point, I'll repeat it: in the middle of the glacis is a big hole. The glacis was not some infinite-sized, flawless field. Let's delve more deeply, shall we? The hole represents a certain, definable, area of the entire glacis. I recall an earlier poster saying 14%. (Relying on memory. If anyone has an accurate drawing, it should be a simple exercise to determine the real area.) This brings up two zones of, I assume, greatly weakened glacis resistance. The glacis area near the edge of the hole will resist with a lesser ability than other glacis areas. This is the "edge effect" noted by Rexford. How far from the edge does the "edge effect" zone go? What is it's resistance? I assume some sort of gradation from near 99% theoretical maximum resistance to, as you approach the edge, a drop off to 0% resistance as you enter the edge. This _increases_ the area of weakness of the glacis. The other zone of non-glacis resistance is, of course, the actual driver's hatch. Does anyone have any figures for thickness? BHN? Edge effects? How does the hinge arrangement modify resistance? Et cetera. Given an assumed weak zone centered on the driver's hatch, what percentage of German shots, aimed at center of mass of the glacis, will disperse towards, and impact upon this weak zone? What is the total area of the weak zone? What is the total area of the _likely to be hit zone_ which is weak? These are non-trivial aspects. The problem here is NOT how the T-34 glacis resists penetration, but WHAT IS A SAFE RANGE FOR A T-34 TO BE FROM A GERMAN TANK. Obviously, glacis resistance is a, if not the, major determinant. Again, in good military taught manner, I'll repeat my main point: IN THE MIDDLE OF THE T-34 GLACIS IS A BIG HOLE. HOW THIS HOLE RESISTS IS SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE T-34. Thanks, Ken

Woo-Hoo I posted first!! Free game for me? Ken

Nice test, JasonC. Ken

What I've learned from this thread: there's a whole lot of arcane stuff going on when HE hits something. Also, it seems that better HE effects would be produced by shells made of pretzels. Is this all correct so far? Ken

Gents, As always, very interesting. I'd like to add some emphasis to a few points and see if the various grogs care to develop them. The driver's hatch on the T-34 glacis would seem to be a true weak point - both anecdotally and empirically. It also makes up a rather large area of the central zone of the glacis. Would that area not be specifically targetted by the Germans? Aimpoints seem to be somewhat important. Gunners aim at center of mass, _unless_ there's something more visible, or even better more visible AND located near a weak spot. (Soviet Hinds in Afghanistan - oil cooler near red star; U.S. M113's in Vietnam - white star in center of side armor; German adaptation of balkenkruz (sp?)(+) by painting out the center portion because it was used as an aimpoint.) My point? What's the penetration data for various German guns which achieve hits on or very close to the T-34's driver's hatch? What is the ability of the various German guns to hit an aimed point? What is the shape of distribution of hits of German guns vis a vis Soviet guns? If a T-34 must aim at center of mass and its hits land in a random scatter around that aimpoint, that would be less effective in penetrating than would a German gun which aims at a weakpoint and achieves a tight shot pattern centered on that aimpoint. (Edited to repair basic grammatical errors.) Regards, Ken [ November 17, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

I must admit that I'd have never thought of a player modded AI, or different versions of the AI being usable, but the idea intrigues me. Imagine the bragging rights to "I played 'To the Volga' vs the 'Zukov' AI and beat it!" Or, "The 'Rokossovsky' build crushed me when I gave it a 50% force bonus." "'Paulus' surrendered on turn 99!" JasonC: be happy that you've gained a special place in Steve's heart. It may not be a GOOD place, but it is special. Steve: a lot of players are pulling hard to help you. These ideas - misguided, naive, immature, whatever - are all meant sincerely to improve the game and help BFC. Ken

Ahh, it's great to see Steve and JasonC trading CIVILIZED posts. Thank you two for keeping antagonistic personalities out. It's obvious that the desire of all engaged here is how to create a BETTER AI. So, Steve, will CMx2 use an AI which has a memory of previous turns? It seems, based on your posts, that that would be the single greatest improvement on the AI's behavior. Thank you, Ken

The CMBB player reads the post. "Oh", he thinks to himself, "a question about unit compositions and tables of organization." Ahh, how many tanks in a German tank platoon? Slowly, the CMBB player swivels his seat. He gazes at his bookshelf - at the dozens of volumes on German wartime tactical organization. He thinks about the years of research. "How many tanks in a German tank platoon?" The CMBB player is emotionally drained just _thinking_ about trying to answer that question. Exhausted, he decides not to add to the thread.... (Edited because you can't see anything included inside angular parentheses.) [ October 29, 2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Nice discussion. I've been playing a series of Axis assaults versus the AI. The AI gets a +25% bonus, no experience tweak (in CMBO I was able to get to the +50% and +2 level eventually). If I don't get a MAJOR VICTORY, I consider it a loss. I've had to down-tweak to +10%. Overall, a good AI. As for JasonC, I very much like his suggestions in the post just a few above this. I think that would make the AI much better. I have NO idea how hard or time-consuming it would be to put formations and HQ changes into code. (In the last QB vs AI - which was one of the most enjoyable I've ever played - indeed, the AI set up platoons with 100's of meters between squads and HQ's. Company HQ's were no where near their companies.) Now, Battlefront, it seems clear: existing AI is good - but make it better. More coherent and more tactically "sensing". I will solve your time issues: I hereby publicly volunteer as a beta tester for CMx2. Regards, Ken

Gents, getting back to the subject.... I do not consider this a beneficial "feature", nor is it a "bug". It seems to be a mistaken way of programming targeting priorities. (Of course, we'll need to ignore Joachim's lunchtime targeting priorities for this discussion....) If I set a covered arc command, then, within that covered arc I set an area target command, I do that to fire upon a _suspected_ enemy position. When, and if, I flush that enemy from cover, I want to shift my targeting priority off the area target and on to the actual unit. If I set only an area target, then, no matter what else (other than an immediate, direct threat to my unit) I want to continue to fire on that area for the entire turn. If I set only a covered arc, I only want to fire on any enemy unit which may appear within that covered arc. As I've played it, the combination of covered arc and area target does not work well. In fact, it does not work like I'd expect it to, at all. The only work around seems to be to use two units: one to area fire, as the "flusher", the other as the covered arc-er, to fire upon any "flushed" targets. Ken

Kaiser, Nice point. But what if I don't understand what _my_ men are yelling? The point isn't to see/read what the other guys are saying, it's to comprehend your own men. (If you toggle off the EFOW option, sure, then add in the translations for the enemy.) Ken

I thought I'd resurrect this from deep in the bowels of the bulletin board vaults. Does anyone else, like, say, BATTLEFRONT.COM, have anything to add to this? Battlefront? Martin? Steve? Matt? Ken "Okay, even JasonC would be okay"

Guys, I'm confused. I can't tell what the different icons mean - the ones that are included in the battle/operation description. Sure, if it's a red square with a star, I figure there're Russians. Similarly, if there's an "SS" or balkankruz (sp?) I know that the Germans will be around. Now, some smart-*ss will say, "RTFM". Okay, fine. Go look at page 12. There's a beautiful grey-scale image there, followed by a perfect example of how NOT to describe something. My god, can you make that list MORE confusing? Can anyone direct me to a full colored chart, one that shows each icon - followed, right next to the icon, by its description? If not, I'll make one myself --- but I need to know what each icon represents. Thanks, Ken

Scott, B&T has been, and continues to be, one of my favorite sites for increasing the enjoyment I get from CMBO and CMBB. Thank you for all the work you and your team have done. Regards, Ken

More ramblings along these lines. Shell splinters have certain physical properties: size, mass, velocity. Perhaps the differing shell case thicknesses would change the damage they inflict or the cover which would protect a unit from a nearby detonation? Another subject: I think it was John Waters who either studied this or posted about it, but it seems that the proximity of certain energetic rounds cause infantry to react differently. Small rounds with low energy must be very close to induce an "alerted/cautious" behavior, whereas larger rounds with more energy (velocity, explosive filling, etc) will cause the same behavior from a greater distance. This distance is how close the rounds pass to the individual. Something to think about for CMx2. Ken

Makjager, Thanks: one guide ends at 4/90, the other on 4/80. I will now burn the guide with page 4/90 and ensure that the other one gets put in its nitrogen-atmosphered, acrylic block, overpressurized safe. Ken

Guys, I bought the original Strategy Guide. I kept it, even after BFC sent the replacement version. Now, I got them mixed up. Without reading through them to see where the typos are, is there any way to tell the two versions apart? Thanks, Ken

Guys, Thanks for the responses. I think full power rifle cartridges (which in most armies were also their machinegun, both light and heavy, ammunition) should get a benefit. As you've posted, trees do not give good protection against rounds like that. Another thought: have the TacAI determine the most effective round and then use it. I'm referring specifically to bunkers and pillboxes. My units seem to like to use HE against these targets. Historically, AP would be used. Ken