Vanir Ausf B

BFC has said it is because programing the AI to know when to stop, fire, then continue moving is too hard/time consuming. And since it was this way in CMx1 also I think we can exclude RT as a factor.

CM appears to model off road ability and power to weight ratio (hill climbing ability) separately. My tests were designed to test off road ability specifically. That is why the test area is perfectly flat. Testing more than one attribute at the same time tends to muddy the waters, if you'll excuse the expression. If some one wants to test hill climbing ability and compare that to real world expectations that would be great, but that isn't what my data is about. In muddy terrain it certainly could make a significant difference. It could also make a difference in QBs when judging what types of vehicles to purchase if you know bad weather is possible. Whether one sees this as a "major" or "minor" issue would likely depend on how one plays the game. Needless to say I feel it's important enough to have spent a considerable amount of time on it. Given the time requirements I don't think I'll be doing that and I don't feel it is necessary. We have data on soft ground performance in the game and good numbers on expected real world performance, so it's a good apples to apples comparison.

It does look kinda fun

Emrys! We need you! ....

41 :eek: ...........

"The capability of the Panther to negotiate obstacles and cross terrain was better than all other German and Allied tanks encountered by the Panther." -- Thomas L. Jentz, German's Panther Tank pg 127. I know that. "On the whole, NGP has proved useful as a measure of the ability of tanks to move over soft soils and in particular for assessing their relative capabilities. Thus, tanks with a low NGP have generally performed better over soft soils than similar tanks with a high NGP. However, NGP is no more than a gross approximation to the pressure exerted by tanks on the ground and fails to take into account the fact that the pressure varies along the length of the track. In particular, it fails to take into account that peaks of the pressure, which occur under the road wheels, can be considerably higher than the average values." Which is perhaps why I included Mean Maximum Pressure values? "Physical reasoning leads to the conclusion that the maximum pressure under a track P(max) must be directly related to the weight acting on each of the road wheels and inversely related to the width of the track, the pitch of its links and the diameter of the road wheels... Such an expression was derived by D Rowland who correlated it with pressures recorded during the experiments carried out in Britain with some 21 different tanks and other tracked vehicles, mostly in cohesive soils. Rowland proposed that MMP should replace NGP as a design parameter and be used as the basis of comparing the soft soil performance capabilities of vehicles. This has happened to some extent since the use of MMP was first proposed in 1972 and comparisons of the values it calculated with known records of the performance of a number of tanks have shown that it is a far more accurate measure of their capabilities than NGP. For instance, the NGP of 84.9kN/m² of the German Panther of the Second World War and the 94.6kN/m² of the contemporary US M4 medium tanks did not reflect how superior the performance of the former was generally considered to be in relation to that of the latter. But their respective MMPs of 157 and 272kN/m² reflect this very clearly" http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/soil-mechanics/ On their own they may not mean much. But in this case they are not on their own.

I wondered the same. But the in-game off road ratings suggest the game does not consider the Panther to be as good as the Tiger I, at least, and my test results certainly back that up. Unfortunately the 1-5 bar system lacks granularity so outside of test results we don't know how the game views the Panther, Sherman and Tiger II in relation to each other. In fact, IIRC every medium and heavy tank in the game has a 3-bar rating in the game except for the Tiger I. Straight run. BTW, I found that the best way to test this was in real time (scenario author test). I just set it up and let it run and then checked back in an hour or so. The real work is measuring the distance traveled for every immobilized tank... and not many made the full 4km.

It could help. The only fly in the ointment is the Panther, which was not a rare vehicle at all.

.................

From: United States Vs. German Equipment: As Prepared for the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force: "I have compared the depth to which our tanks sink along side of German Mk V and Mk VI tanks in soft ground. Before the addition of track extensions our medium tanks sank six to eight inches while the Mk V tracks were not over four inches... The new E8 suspension with the wider track is about equal on our M4 tank to what the German Mk V has always been." "Wherever we have seen Tiger and Panther tanks they have not demonstrated any inferior maneuverability. Near Puffendorf, Germany, several Tiger Royal tanks were encountered. These Tiger Royals were able to negotiate very soft ground and their tracks did not sink as deeply into the soft ground as did our own." "The Mark V and VI in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the American M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least ten Royal Tigers make a counterattack against us over ground that for us was nearly impossible."

I've was intrigued by the observation that the Tiger I has a 4-bar Off Road rating while it seems every other medium or heavy tank in the game has a 3-bar rating. This would suggest the Tiger I has the best off road performance of any tank in the game. In reality the Tiger I was surprisingly good off road, but was not the best in that category. So of course I had to test this. Test is 20 vehicles -- Regular/Normal/+0 -- moving Fast over muddy terrain for a distance of 4km or until immobilized. Test was repeated for each vehicle until a total of at least 100km had been traveled. Tiger I: 153043m traveled, 66 immobilizations, 1 immobilization per 2318.8m Sherman Firefly VC: 132122m traveled, 73 immobilizations, 1 immobilization per 1809.9m Panther G: 107427m traveled, 76 immobilizations, 1 immobilization per 1413.5m Tiger II (Porsche): 100347m traveled, 77 immobilizations, 1 immobilization per 1303m Hummm. We may have an issue here. In CMx1 vehicle bog and immobilization rates were based on the nominal ground pressure rating. Nominal Ground Pressure There is significant variation for German vehicles from different sources, but the rankings are generally consistent. Panther 12.5psi (.88kg/cm²) (CMBB) - 12.8psi (.9kg/cm²) Tiger II: 14.1psi (.99kg/cm²) (CMBB) - 14.6 (1.03kg/cm²) Tiger I: 13.9psi (.97kg/cm²) (CMBB) - 15.0psi (1.05kg/cm²) Firefly: 15.1psi (1.06kg/cm²) Ground Clearance Panther: 56cm Tiger II: 50cm Tiger I: 47cm Firefly: 43cm A better measure of off road performance on soft ground specifically is Mean Maximum Pressure. http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytravels/militarygp.html http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/soil-mechanics/ Long ago, a helpful soul calculated the MMP for most common WW2 vehicles. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=38553&page=2 Conclusion By any conventional measure the real world off road performance of the 4 tanks tested should be ranked as follows, from best to worst: 1. Panther 2. Tiger II 3. Tiger I 4. Sherman Firefly The way they perform in game is much different, ranking as follows: 1. Tiger I 2. Sherman Firefly 3. Panther 4. Tiger II This calls into question whatever mysterious methodology the game uses to gauge vehicle off road performance. I'm not trying to bash the game, which in general I find to be addicting to roughly the same degree as crack cocaine, but to point out that his particular aspect seems to be whacked. Or perhaps my tests are crap, prove nothing, and the game is correct. I hope to find out...

If a round lands close enough to blow up the HT then it stands to reason that had the squad inside been on foot they would have been similarly discomforted. HTs are certainly not invulnerable to indirect fire but I have had them weather prolonged 81mm mortar barrages with much lower casualties than I would have expected laying prone in the open. They can also move out of the barrage much quicker than if on foot.

I have found half tracks to be pretty good at protecting infantry from artillery, which is what they were primarily designed to do. They are also reasonably resistant to small arms fire as long as you don't get too close and keep the front end pointed towards the enemy.

Does any one still use Fionn's Rules?

I wasn't suggesting that US 76mm is a good choice against Panthers and KTs, only that there is not a lot of difference in it's effectiveness against them (the mantlets of the Porsche KT and the Panther are the same thickness, although the KT's has more curvature). But you are probably correct in that if players know Big Cats are a possibility they will always choose to play as British anyways.

I was going by Moon's announcement also . I suppose you could interpret his wording to mean by June of this year. But that would mean they plan to release the East Front game, Shock Force 2 and the Market Garden module all in the next 6 months. I don't see that happening. But I don't know anything more about it than what you have read.

In CMBN the Porsche turret on the KT can be penetrated by US 76mm and the 88L71 is overkill against anything presently in the game. My view is that this makes the KT only marginally more effective than the Panther. From a pure cost/benefit standpoint there is no reason to ever buy anything other than Jadgpanthers unless for some reason you feel the need for a turret, in which case the Panther is best. However, if bad weather and poor ground conditions are a possibility there is a small complicating factor. My testing has shown that the Panther -- and probably the Jadgpanther -- is nearly twice as likely to bog and immobilize as a Tiger I. KT is even worse.

No. Bagration and Shock Force 2 are planned for 2013 (not but not necessarily before June). There has been no time frame announced for the Bulge game AFAIK.

Experience is the best teacher, but you should almost always lead with your infantry because they are more resilient than armor. Tanks should be treated like egg shells armed with hammers. But don't lead with your infantry in a bunch like a reenactment of Pickett's Charge. Split off a small number of 2 or 3 man scout teams and send them ahead. Yes, they will get shot up, but better that than a whole squad or one of your few Sherman tanks. Position the following infantry in overwatch positions, meaning places that have 1)line-of-sight to the area the forward scouts are moving towards and 2) have decent cover. Bocage is perfect for this. Ideally you will also have some heavy weaponry in overwatch so that when the enemy starts shooting up your forward scouts you can respond immediately. Machine guns are good, on-board mortars even better. Light-armored vehicles can be used for this as well. EDIT: LOL, ninja'd x2

Whooosh! .....

We definitely need to get lubricant viscosity nailed down.

... or place any radio-equipped vehicle near the mortars and they will be accessible to any spotter on the map regardless of C2 status. C2 & on-board mortar Bible

As another person who played and enjoyed the game since the day it came out I find you definition of "unplayable" to be strange.

TWC Bloody 110th at Marnach http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107902

Explosives in CMx2 are so lethal I have found the even the smallest caliber to be very effective. 37mm will take a few more rounds to get the job done, but it will do the job. The high rate of fire makes up for the lower blast.