Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: Just think of the IS-3 as Russkies version of the KT: an unreliable pain-in-the-backside<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As John has pointed out the IS-3 had more extensive problems than just breaking down on the way to the front. It's front hull welds tended to crack open when hit. This is a problem during battle, not before. Taken from the Russian Military Zone: "The IS-3 was in mass production until mid-1946. Overall, there were 2,311 tanks produced. Unfortunately, at the beginning of its career, the IS-3 suffered from many serious problems related to design flaws. The most serious were: an unreliable engine, an extremely unreliable gear-box, and defective hull elements. Thus, in 1946, a special commission was formed which analyzed the deficiencies of the IS-3, and offered a Program of Modernisation and Improvement, also known as UKN (this abbreviation means "Ustranenie Konstruktivnykh Nedostatkov" - Fixing Construction Faults). During 1948 to 1952, all of the tanks were modernised. The engine and gear-box were strengthened, and the construction of the main friction clutch and side gears was improved. The roadwheels were replaced with new ones. The 10-RK radio was replaced with the more modern 10-RT. After all modifications, the weight of the IS-3 had increased to 48.8 tones. Despite all the changes and expenses of modernisation, the tank still had many deficiencies and remained unreliable." I have nothing against including a few "what-if" vehicles as long as their combat performance is properly modeled. I also don't see any reason why the Panther F would not be included as a what-if. Note what John said about confusing the Panther F with the Panther II. They are 2 totally different vehicles. Panther Fs were being assembled as the war ended and it is possible a few saw combat. The Panther II never made it past the concept stage IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: The moral of it all is merely that the technological dominance thesis is quite completely wrong. It simply was not true that the side with the better tanks won and the side with the worse tanks lost. Almost the direct contrary, in fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with the basic point you make. It's true that Germany enjoyed it's greatest success while facing tanks with generally better armor and armament, but there is more to a tank than armor and a gun. A three man turret and a radio go a long way towards evening the odds. So I guess it comes down to how you define a tank as "better".

One of my pet peeves is how easy it is to spot tanks in trees that haven't moved yet. I have read accounts of how difficult it was for US troops to spot camoed German tanks in trees, even when firing. I wish tanks that setup in trees would be much harder to spot before they moved.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The IS-3 was produced in the thousands, but of course only after the war concluded. That means we really do know that the vehicle worked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have to chime in on the side of John Waters here. Everything I have read indicates the early IS-3s had serious problems that made them fit for little more than parade duty. If they are in I think the Panther F ought to be as well.

Steve has stated that CM2 maps will be bigger, but what I am more curious about is their shape, not their size. Specificaly, will large pt. QB maps be deeper and more square for attack/defend type games than the curret long and skinny shape we get (long and skinny is fine for MEs)? Deeper and more square with VLs staggered front to back as well as side to side would be ideal for attack/defend or assault. Also, will the PBEM format be slightly altered so that the second player's computer generates the map (and units in computer pick games) so the first player can't "peek" and make a new game if he doesn't like what he sees?

Colonel, go over to CMHQ and take a look at the CM2 screen shots there. Looks to me like there will be plenty of hills and trees for those who want them. As far as "the whole battle over there taking place in winter"... Umm, no I'm looking forward to the East front because of the huge variety of units and equipment. CM covers 1 year of warfare, CM2 will cover 4 years. The only down side is that I won't understand anything my units say.

One little thing that has always bothered me and I would like to see fixed in CM2 is the gun on the Tiger I. Looking at the model in CM and comparing it to numerous photos, I can't escape the impression that the gun is a bit too short. It looks stubby compared to the real thing. It's a little thing, but it would be easy to fix.

CM actually began as a computer version of Advanced Squad Leader. The deal went sour early in developement and BTS decided to keep going anyway with their own new design and funding, but with ASL as a sort of inspiration. IIRC Steve at one time was the head of the QA department of Sierra On-Line. AFAIK Charles did not exist before he began work on CM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: #1 CM2 will NOT repeat N O T include relative spotting!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoa. Well, I was rather surprised when I heard it would be in as we had always been told it would not happen before the engine rewrite. I can see the writer must have confused CM2 with CMII. Now we have to feel disappointed that we are not getting a feature that we had been told all along we would not get anyway I'm going to go read the ISU-152 thread to cheer myself up [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I believe that Steve's remark about the Elephants abilities and the SU's atributes started this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The funny thing is that it was actually a misunderstanding of what Steve said that started this. I went back and looked and Steve did say 1.5 shots per minute, not one shot per 1.5 minuets as the original poster thought. Good discussion anyway [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: However, that beehive telepathic force entity does not seem to be universal in CMBO. Specifically, it seems not to apply to buttoned up tanks cooperating with infantry in regard to enemy regular infantry or tanks. Or am I wrong? To me it seems as though the butoned-up tank does not benefit from the spotting capabilities of a nearby infantry squad should an enemy tank appear at it's rear etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true. There is a built in delay between when an infantry unit spots a unit and when armor will react to its presence. The delay is greater if the tank is buttoned. I'm surprised people are just learning about the Borg spotting model. It has been the subject of much discussion here since the game came out.

Wow! This Kitty's got claws

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: Which brings up another question I have: Do they work on CM everyday?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Mondays, Wednesdays and every other Friday.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: I don't see anywhere in the article that they are doing relative spotting. They say in CGW (fair use, etc)....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Different article, different magazine. This one is in Computer Games Magazine (CGM).

People cannot expect BTS to release an updated CMBO every other year. I'm sure when they are making CM3 they will have fans of the Russian front begging them to retrofit CM2. Doing that would get them stuck in a rut where they become a company that spends most of it's time retrofitting older products rather than making whole new ones. For die-hard fans of the old products who have little interest in anything else, this would be great, but it would not be healthy for BTS. By the time CM2 comes out, that vast majority of people who are going to buy CMBO will have done so. I'm sure BTS will revisit the ETO someday, but fans of the ETO will have to realise there is more to wargaming than that.

A few points, my opinions only. 1. No way will relative spotting be toggleable. That would require 2 different TacAIs. Also, being as it seems relative spotting is being incorperated into CM2's all new C&C model, playing without it would break the game. 2. No way will it be backwards compatible. Robert laid out the reasons pretty well. They would have to basically remake CM1 all over again for free. I know Steve said they would try to make it backwards compatible last year, but he has been backing away from that recently. Personally, I think this is a good thing. It would be a serious mistake for BTS to make future games less than they could be for fear of making older games obsolete. That is called stagnation. If you're not moving forward, you're moving backward. 3. From what Steve said in another relative spotting thread a few months back, the way it will basically work is that the player will always see all spotted units as he does now, but when he selects one of his own units all units spotted by that unit will be highlighted (different color base or something). It's true that you can never get 100% real C&C as long as one person (the player) controls all the units and has a god's eye view of the battlefield. You do the best you can and get it as close as you can instead of throwing your hands in the air and saying "We can never achieve perfection, so why bother." All in all, great news. It's good to see that CM2 will be more than just CMBO with Russians. [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks: so... why are they included in CM at all?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After putting the Pershing in they already had the model done, except for a couple of small modifications, so it was easy to put the SP in. I would have prefered the M16 myself, but so it goes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: But I'm sorry I have to Ask: what is "76mm APCBC"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap IIRC the shell has a flat cap on the tip that improves its performance against highly sloped armor by digging into the armor a bit on impact, turning the nose down into the armor instead of letting it richochet off (in theory). Groggier folks than me will correct me if I'm wrong. [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I have a feeling we're about to have a Fred sighting.

Then maybe the LMG should be made more powerful. No one has yet provided a logical reason why 2 men cannot opperate a MG at full or near full efficiency given that the necessary equipment is near at hand. I restate that MGs are under modeled in CM under some circumstances as is, so a lessening of MG effectiveness would not result in increased realism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FFE: Two men cannot operate a HMG as efficiently as Six, especially if one casualties was carrying spare barrels, optics, or whatever else is needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As long as the spare barrel and ammo are close at hand, I see no reason at all why 2 people could not opperate a MG at full efficiency or close to it. HMGs don't move around much, so it's logical to assume that if the guy carrying that stuff if hit, it will still be nearby. I agree that a MG reduced to one crew should be severely handicapped, and should probably just abandon the weapon instead of becoming immobile. I'm forced to agree with Lewis that the last thing CM needs right now are less effective MGs. [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Would probably require the graphics engine to support dynamic lighting, which it currently does not and will not in CM2 either. DL is fairly CPU intensive unless you have a graphics card capable of hardware T&L (transformation & lighting.). It would be an awesome addition to the game for night fighting but we are not likely to see it until they do the complete rewrite of the engine (CM4 at the earliest). [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

IIRC they were never used in Western Europe. Only in Italy and the East.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: Steve: We released a "hardcore" wargame a while ago that was knocked pretty hard (webzine, not big mag) because they got someone who was more of a RTS fan to review it. That's just the kind of thing I was talking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Notice he said "(webzine, not big mag)". There are countless little podunk online review sites of various quality. We're only talking about the Big Three magazines here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My only complaint would be the perhaps too opimistic previews but that is a pervasive issue with both websites and magazines. exactly my point. Everything's gonna be goody-goody-goody.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Notice he said preview, not review. I have seen many games get glowing previews and then negative reviews when it came out from the same mag. [ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef: Or, I can issue a paused movement order and a target order. If it targets and destroys the target on the left, and then, on pause, 30 seconds later, turns to engage the tanks on the right, it will attempt its only real chance at survival.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the one you use, except as I stated earlier, you do not use a paused movement order. You use an unpaused hunt order, so the delay is 13 seconds, not 30. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no intentional reason that BTS would simply make a hetzer sit there and do absolutely nothing to protect itself, completely ignore a target order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I will repeat myself: The 13 second delay you are forced to wait for the Hetzer to start turning simulates the time it would have taken a real Hetzer to back up then pull forward to change facing. An imperfect abstraction to be sure, but more realistic than no delay at all IMO. I don't know how to say it any more clearly. [ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]