Vanir Ausf B

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: I'd be happy to see both parts of the argument answered. If it has little physical effect, its still evident that many crews believed otherwise and visually it needs to be represented, if it was present.<hr></blockquote> The reason BTS did not use visual representations of these field modifications is that most tanks did not have them, but if they had been included in the game ALL tanks would have them i.e. if the stock Sherman textures had had sandbags on them, ALL Shermans would have been show with sandbags, which is even more unrealistic than none of them having it. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Of course, we could all fall back on the "its abstracted" thesis but if that was true, why has so much effort been expended on 3-d wireframes with bitmapped "skins" and the "modding" of those skins? If everything is to be "abstracted" then I'd suggest it would be quicker and simpler perhaps to have settled for cubes with symbols on them.<hr></blockquote> Some things were left out to cut down on polygon counts for performance reasons. You may have noticed that the AAMG on the Sherman is not shown, nor are the "Rhino" attachments, even though both are assumed to be there by the game engine. There is little point in asking BTS to start producing new artwork for CMBO. There is no chance of this happening. It is also pointless for the reason that any 3rd party mod maker could do what you are asking. In fact, there are Sherman/sandbag mods available now. If you are handy with Paintshop or something similar you could modify the existing textures yourself to add bedsprings or whatever.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: The only copyright notice I have ever seen is on the MDMP mods. Thanks for the education. Treeburst155 out. © copyright<hr></blockquote> Crap! I think I just violated your copyright by quoting your post in full in my post. I'm broke, please don't sue. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>AndrewTF: BTW, the German company offering the CD with mods stolen from the web was doing so FOR PROFIT. I think most people were outraged because this company was trying to make profit by using and not acknowledging the hard work of people here in the CM community. It's a totally different issue, as far as I'm concerned.<hr></blockquote> Yes. The fact that they were distributing it without the authors' permission isn't why BTS got involved. They got involved because they were selling it for money.

Good point. I remember BTS catching grief for not modeling US Shermans with sandbags on the front. Turns out the sandbags were mostly a psychological aid, and added little or no protection.

John, thanks for the heads up. It was an excellent show, and I would have missed it had I not seen your post here. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: I think I'll just start posting Australian TV schedules. I'm sure all the non-Australians will be fascinated with them.<hr></blockquote> As long as it is about WW2 related programs, please feel free. You may not be aware, having not been around here for long, that people have been discussing these History Channel programs on this forum periodically for a long time. They are usually American shows, but not always. This is the first time I can recall anyone being offended by one of these posts. Well, the second time, I suppose, after Iron Chef [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: i just want to know how others view this trend? thanks in advance for the input!<hr></blockquote> You're late to the party, Chad Check this thread out from last year: Fallschirmjager Trend What do I think? Well, I happen to also be on the RD ladder, so I see them all the time. When playing as Germans I pick them maybe half the time or a little less, and use vanilla infantry the rest of the time. Unless there is some agreement before hand, I don't have a problem with them. One thing I don't do is mix them together in the same game.

The reason your M18s did not fire tungsten is because regular AP can penetrate the Tiger sometimes. And that's the problem. The way the TacAI works, if there is even a small chance regular AP will work, even if it is fairly unlikely, it will not use tungsten. This is also true of the use of HEAT rounds. Run a test with a 105mm armed Sherman against a Mk IV. The 105 HE can only penetrate frontally through the turret, but that's good enough for the TacAI, which will not use HEAT.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>What's A Good Scenario For Fair PBEM Ladder Play?<hr></blockquote> A Second Job - Vossenack Move It or Lose It Reut Canal To The Last Man 49th Recce Into the East Last Defense The Sunken Lane

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wreck: Steve, the use of price alone as a means to implement rarity is not an ideal system.<hr></blockquote> I had this exact discussion with Steve in a thread a long while back. A search may turn it up. Suffice it to say I agree with your reasoning, but Steve did not. A number of rarity systems were proposed and discussed at length, including the one you are proposing here. My proposed system was a bit different than yours, but in the end BTS went with their original idea. We'll just have to see how it works out when it gets here. The saving grace may be that the whole thing is optional. [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

Random turns #s are in CM2.

BTS has said that few if any CM1 vehicle mods will be compatible with CM2. The CM2 models have more polygons, so the textures wont fit right.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Out of a matter of interest, is windage modelled in CM? I'd expect the 95mm CS How. to be quite badly affected windage, as it was quite a low velocity weapon.<hr></blockquote> No wind in CM. I'm not sure if ballistic coefficients are modeled "under the hood", but with no specific wind modeling I doubt it. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add this to CM2. Perhaps they already have?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by moosehead: Now now, thats not true. I got one of your tanks with a zook. <hr></blockquote> Yep. I corrected myself. It was our game I was talking about. You probably remember my long range shreck hit on that M8 sitting on the road. It was not a good day for tank crews

I wish this were possible for QBs (hint, hint).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I don't think that applies to HEAT, neither in reality nor current CMBO modeling.<hr></blockquote> True, but then you have 2 different armor thickness values, which is cumbersome IMO. A thought just occured to me. According to a post I saw by Rexford a while back, German armor thickness was often thicker than what official spec required, sometimes by as much as 5mm. That right there may explain the KT vs. zook debate as CM seems to use official numbers. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: wait! when is CM II the engine re-write of the ETO going to happen? Within CM3 of after it?<hr></blockquote> Originally, it was to be done after CM3. However, in recent months BTS has been hedging on that, saying it may be after CM2. I don't think they know yet themselves.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: In the time I have been playing CM I have never lost a tank to a zook, and have only lost 1 to a shreck (this is against human opponents). I am paranoid and that keeps my tanks alive. I've also been a little lucky at times.<hr></blockquote> Minor self correction here, due to small brain fart. The tank I lost was to a zook. Mk IV at 150m. Oddly, it was in the same game I got the 185m shreck kill.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Penetration stats for 0 degree obliquity From: L. Bird & R. Livingston’s “Armor & Gunnery” UK 95mm HES….127mm<hr></blockquote> CM number: 125mm Rexford has spoken. I don't see a problem here. CM has the bazooka at 90mm at 0 degrees. Does anyone have a sourse with a different value?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: To Vanir - Well, in a recent outing against a human player, I killed a "Super-Sherman" (76mm W+ HVSS) with a green schreck, and gun-damaged its mate (same model), with the same team. Both with turret penetrations, and both within about 40 seconds, firing from the second floor of a tall wooden building. The range was 100-125m, and there was some smoke about (he put it there, not me). A green schreck costs 18 points. Those tanks cost my opponent 424 points; one was KOed, the other crippled. Methinks infantry AT teams can work a bit better against humans than you would have it.<hr></blockquote> So are you saying that shrecks are overmodeled as well? They are more accurate than zooks. You also were a bit lucky. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But inside buildings you get the full accuracy, unlike shooting from woods.<hr></blockquote> Wrong. Firing from a building does degrade accuracy vs. firing from open terrain. BTW, you don't need to tell me how effective AT teams can be. Although I have not been keeping track, I would estimate that of all the tanks I have KOed vs. human opponents, about 1/4 of them have been by AT teams (all types). A few were to lucky long range kills, like the example you gave above (my personal record is a 185m shreck kill vs. a M8 HMC), but most were at less than 100m when my opponent got careless. But I don't need 2 per platoon to do this. A couple of other quick points: The 22% number I gave above may be too high. It assumes a 10% weak point penetration chance vs. the whole tank then using a Panther with a shot trap. If the shot trap only works when struck on the turret then the chance is closer to 16%. Of course, ideally the shot trap should not even be a factor with shaped charge rounds. CM rates the Tiger side turret to be at a 0 degree slope, but in fact the armor is not flat. It does curve along the horizontal plane, which could effect rounds that otherwise are marginal in their ability to penetrate that area (Sherman 75 and zook). It would perhaps be more accurate to assign a 10-15 degree slope to the side hull to reflect this (that number is a guess based upon nothing more than eyeballing overhead pictures, so don't take it to heart). German ubertanks also have very high silhouette ratings, which makes them much easier to hit. I suspect CM does not weigh vehicle height as heavily as it should. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

The odds of a single zook round penetrating a Panther frontally in CM is either 13% or 22%, depending on what model of Panther you are using and whether CM models the shot trap as having the same effect as on AP shot (I don't know if it does or not). This is assuming the tank is not hull down; if it is the chance is either 1% or 10 %, as above. CM rates the Tiger I as having 80mm side armor at 100% quality and the bazooka as penetrating 90mm at 0 degrees. Does anyone have any information that either of these figures is incorrect? KT is delt with in the other thread. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: Zooks are great. Regular ones only cost 14 points; they get 8 shots; they can be expected to hit things out to 100 meters pretty consistently, and you can let fly at 150 meters if you shoot from buildings or behind walls, watch the obstructions, or have several to open up at once. They also ignite woods and buildings at 100 yards, three times the range of flamethrowers, more often than you might think. They can knock down buildings with sustained "area fire", and they KO wooden bunkers with ease.<hr></blockquote> This is an exaggeration. If you shoot from a building the zook will suppress itself with the backblast, and there is a significant chance it will set the building on fire. In fact, zooks (and shrecks) are far more likely to set their own position on fire than the area they are firing at. Also, with a blast rating of 6 you would need a large number of them to knock down a building. In real CM games the tanks do have HE and the good players screen them with infantry so that you never get your zook within 100m. In my expirience, it is rare for a zook or shreck to get off more than 2 shots before it dies. In the time I have been playing CM I have never lost a tank to a zook, and have only lost 1 to a shreck (this is against human opponents). I am paranoid and that keeps my tanks alive. I've also been a little lucky at times. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Buy lots. Two per platoon, at least.<hr></blockquote> I buy one per company. That's all you need to keep the other guy honest and to punish him if he gets sloppy. [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

I am not Steve (surprise!), but as some of this has been commented on before... <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Incidentaly, will the CMBB be downward compatible with CMBO in any respect ?<hr></blockquote> No. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Are there any plans to make a CMBO Mark2 out of the CMBB game engine ?<hr></blockquote> No. Any CMBO remake would be with the all new CM engine coming up sometime after CMBB. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Is it even possible without months of recoding ?<hr></blockquote> No. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> How deep are the vehicle specs involved in the arithmetics ?<hr></blockquote> The heat of the meat is inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Here's another question - as I understand it, CMBO and CMBB will be completely seperate games. Isn't that a little strange? Will there be an effort to integrate the two, so that perhaps Korea, as another poster has asked, could be modelled?<hr></blockquote> It's not strange at all when you realize there are a number of changes being made to the game engine that will make them incompatible, as Slappy said. However, BTS has said they may release a CMBO/CMBB combination game, redone with the CM TNG game engine, sometime after CM3.

I'm going to stand up and say that I too prefer the "clean" look. Caking a layer of mud over the tanks makes them look ugly. I don't like looking at butt-ugly units. Also, if I were a modder I don't think I would enjoy cranking out mod after mod in various shades of brown. It's like someone else said, if you want all these different types of mods, we will have to find some more modders. In other words, if you don't like the way it is, do it yourself

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: I just noticed a HQ unit will hold on to the pistols rather than retain the rifle when it sustains casualties.<hr></blockquote> I suspect the reasoning behind this is that the officer is always assumed to be the last man killed in a HQ unit.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tanaka: Just remember, in the all war, "only" 250000 Americans died in both battlefields (Europe and Pacific), so leave at lest a few thousand for ETO...<hr></blockquote> The US lost about 407,000 killed (from all causes) and 670,000 WIA during WW2. Combat KIA was about 292,000. US Casualties

Well, in an attempt to mollify the disheartened, I will mention that BTS has expressed an interest in doing a Korean War CM at some point, probably for CM 5 or 6 if they do it. No Japanese, but it's the closest you're likely to get to the PTO with BTS.