Iron Chef Sakai

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: YEAH, WE KNOW YOUR SOURCES ARE COMIC BOOKS, WHAT IS THE POINT???? Sorry Madmatt, but this guy is the ultimate in hypocracy - and has to be a fake. No one in their right mind can come on here and laugh at other people for the sources they consult in the same breath as citing "some program on the History Channel." See Steve's response above. He pretends to be an intellectual but the dog just don't hunt. And yes, Steve, we have all fallen in the Jason trap, I commend you for your restraint and your approach to the problem (sincerely). Looking forward to CM2. Hey, anyone who picks King Tigers is a cheating gamey bastard anyway, right?<hr></blockquote> haha, yeah check spiderman number 327, -nuff said

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Iron Chef: It is. However, there are better and worse ways to do this. Claiming that other people need to educate themselves while citing a nameless History Channel program to support an (obviously) incorrect statistic isn't a good way to make a favorable impression. Steve<hr></blockquote>that stat is correct though, i beleive the show was simply called achtung tiger or tiger or something i didnt make that up and there are many books as well that state it, i didnt claim anyone needed ot educate themselves, i only encouraged more reading wich is'nt a bad thing i don't think, it's not like i called anoyne a moron or anything. i only suggested more then once sourse is all wich he probably will anyway

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Generally, the Tiger crews were hand picked veterans. In fact, many Tiger aces became well known for massive enemy destruction prior to manning their first Tiger. This was true for other vehicles, such as the Jagdpanther and I would assume Elephant. Therefore, even if they had been placed in the same tanks as the "regular" German tankers, they probably would have racked up impressive kills. Most of the losses of big stuff in CM can be attributed to "user error". I suspect that if you took the cream of the crop German side CM players, and gave them a situation that was somewhat likely in the real world (i.e. NOT going up against Jumbos and 95mm HEAT rounds!), they would do just fine. Even considering that the game itself pushes players to suffer higher losses than their real world counterparts would ever endure before quitting. Steve<hr></blockquote> i agree

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: I don't see what "in what capacities" has to do with anything. There were an additional 35 King Tigers that fought in the west at one point (through part of the Bulge), but lived to be transfered to the east, and were KOed there. Besides those 35, the KOs in the west and the King Tigers used in the west coincide, naturally. It is not like Germany is still in the war with a fleet of 300 King Tigers remaining. All of them were taken out at some point, east or west - the only question is where and when. The above is all of the "where" and "when", facing the western powers.<hr></blockquote>i was not aware that all the king tigers were "taken out" where did you read this?it simply is not true, most of the ones that were counted as "knocked out" were simply abandonded by their crew due to running out of fuel and ammo and not being able to be resupplied, the western allies simply had no reliable way of knocking out these tanks without an attack from aircraft, and why bring the soviets into this conversation? their armor and assault guns were completely superior to that of thewestern allies, your talking about apples and oranges

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: As few suggestions: People should stop taking single events like "my Sherman toasted the King Tiger at 500 meters". CMBO models weak spot penetrations (with 1% chance of all hits), so single events are by definition covered by than, and noone has a problem with that. Steve, can you give me a clue what the good 95mm HC penetration numbers come from? Less rotation is the only thing I can imagine. I cannot find any info on the rifling of this weapon, somehow it is less covered in the literature than the 88 I don't think that combat reports will be useful for the 95mm versus Tigers, since they probably never shot at one, penetration or not. Iron chef, it is a matter of politeness to read a forum before posting to it. There are zillion of threads that would make it clear to you that all other people in this thread have read all the compat reports you read, and obviously much more.<hr></blockquote> that was pretty polite of you thanks, you will be my inspiration in manners from now on redwolf. yes it is obvious that other have read more because we disagree. i thought that point of the forum was for a discusion in wich different points of views can conversate.

well i'm not going ot hold your hand thru it, if your realy interested in ww2 wich you seem to be you'll come across it eventualy just a matter of time, i don't feel the need to prove facts when thats what books are for. i don't mind if you won't take my word for it, you'll read it for yourself eventualy,not a big deal, this is a cool forum. mabe you can find a fast reference on the history channel website i dont know, i would give a few book titles if i could rmeember the exact names of them, i havent read any books on this for a long time

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sorry, according to Hap Arnold's bio he estimated less than 30%. The book "Cab Rank" peddles a figure of 50% and is the highest responsible figure I have ever seen although it is actually high. The major Tactical study on the subject "Tactical Air Command: Policy and Success 1942-1945" gives an ETO rate of 35%, plus a book on the 814th TD command commented that tactical air, while effective, made up around a third of tanks kills. Please cite your own source for 90% of all tanks killed by aircraft in ETO 1944-45), I would be interested in reading it since even the modern Allied airforces did not get that in the Gulf War.<hr></blockquote> also i did not say all tanks, i specificly was refering to the heavies with the 90% figure

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sorry, according to Hap Arnold's bio he estimated less than 30%. The book "Cab Rank" peddles a figure of 50% and is the highest responsible figure I have ever seen although it is actually high. The major Tactical study on the subject "Tactical Air Command: Policy and Success 1942-1945" gives an ETO rate of 35%, plus a book on the 814th TD command commented that tactical air, while effective, made up around a third of tanks kills. Please cite your own source for 90% of all tanks killed by aircraft in ETO 1944-45), I would be interested in reading it since even the modern Allied airforces did not get that in the Gulf War.<hr></blockquote> well i'll state the easiest source for you to find, the history channel actualy had a show on it and that wher ei got my 90% figure, from the historians they had on it. there are many other places you can find it as well, you have ot read more then a few biased books, and there are plenty, just keep reading, dont come across one random guys opinion and carve it in stone, you have to look arounbd, i found many comicla books written by marine so and so who claim the japanese were no match for himm and his 3 buddies balh blah blah. i even read in the local paper last year around here of a veteren of world war 2 who basicly got evey medel and had tons of war stories of great things he did and finaly last year it was discovered that everything he claimed was false and he actualy never was even near any of the battles that took plave let alone accomplished all the heroic deeds he claimed, so don't trust every "true acount"

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Iron Chef Sakai, coming off sounding like you know everything and we are just a bunch of bumbling fools that missed out on some very obvious fact does nothing to advance whatever argument you are putting forward. In fact, since we spent 3 years developing the simulation and over a 1 year defending it against the übergerman crowd, assume we know more than you. At least assume that we have had this debate at least 1000 times before and we have found little reason to change the game's modeling. If you don't believe me, ask some of the older Memembers or do a Search. It is a painfully long read, but the record is clear The game models German heavy armor just fine. But we can not force German and Allied players to do things as was done in the real war. And THAT is where the game moves away from reality. You also grossly underestimate the vulnerbilities of the big German vehicles as well as the ability for the Allies to knock them out. To me this demonstrates that you aren't as well educated about this subject as you appear to think. There is nothing wrong with that, except when you forget that others might in fact know more than you do. If you think there is a specific problem with the game's modeling, then state it VERY clearly and back it up with evidence. Otherwise, your comments can not be taken seriously. "Make German tanks better" is about as usefull as asking someone to "make water wetter". The modeling is based on a detailed simulation, not some random stuff pulled out of our backsides, so if changes are needed they have to be scientifically based. So that is how criticism needs to be communicated. That's the way it has worked for 3 years and 275,000 posts so I don't see any reason to lower the standards now Steve [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote> i didnt mean to sound pretentious or anything, your game is the best, heck i was stuck playing panzer general before this game. it's just like i said earlier, i am not hard core against the modeling of the vehicles as much as some are, though i think there could be a few tweeks. my only point was i think more shells should bounce off the german heavy tanks is all. the shermans had a realy hard time knocking out the german heavies, they had ot get dangerously close ot do so wich ended up in the germans losing 1 tank to the western allied 5 shermans is what is basicaly came down to. the german heavies were no indestrucatable. its just they were the toughest overall tanks of the war.were they the fastest? no. did they break down, in the case of the tiger2, often. but it's just that the german tankers had a harder time scrounging for fuel and supplies and food the dispatching a sherman tank. i dont think that the german heavies were indestructable. its just that i have a realy low opinion of the shermans is all. there one saving grace was the simplicity in the design adn the speed they could be manufactured. if your looking for quality go somewhere else, quantity was its only strenght against enemy tanks at the time, wich it had by a great deal. they overwhelmingly outnumbered the german tanks thankfuly, its just that iw ould like to see a little less sherman tiger 1 on 1 matches end up in favor of the sherman more often then not. tigers were more of an asset on defense as well firing from fixed postions, they could handle a slugging match one on one with a sherman, wich rarely happend in real life but in the game it seems to occur wich i dont have a problem with. i would just like ot see the german heaveies a tad more durable, and mabe the 88 gun in general a little more accurate as it was the best overall gun of the war. dont take me the wrong way,as is combat mission is the best strategy game ever, i'm just trying ot add some constructive criticism not start a flame or anything

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This is wrong, it was nearer 35%.<hr></blockquote> no that actualy isnt wrong try checking again

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Yes, the report was probably speaking only of Tiger 1s. However, the point is clear. And that is the offensive qualities of the Tiger, while unchanged, were now no longer as potent because the defensive ability had dropped. By instructing Tigers to use "normal" tank tactics it is, in no small way, confirming the fact that Tiger tactics were more risky than tactics used by other tanks. The driving up to the ridge without recon is a perfect example. In 1942/43 it could probably have done this and not had a serious risk of being KO'd, but those days were gone by mid 1944. My point of quoting this was to demonstrate that misuse of a heavy tank will get it killed. Period. There have been plenty of complaints about Tiger 1Es being too easy to knock out, so this is not an issue JUST with the King Tiger. User/AI tactical errors or gamey beahvior are probably the two biggest reason for a knock out. The post that started this thread off is a PERFECT example. 600m and 300m... King Tigers (and other heavies) weren't supposed to engage this closely as SOP. But my point remains unchallenged so far. And that is to compare apples to apples BOTH objects need to be apples. So unless you are looking at a large number of Combat Mission engagements which closely mimic real world situations, you can not with any degree of certainty compare this to real life. The higher up your conclusions the safer the observations. My observation that German armor is misused is something that can be more validated than arguing about a particular head to head example. Jason, sorry... I've been down the round and round road with you in too many previous discussions. All I have to say is that if you think we don't know how to code up HEAT and AP equations, kindly remind yourself that you don't know that. If the results you see aren't to your liking there are two possibilities. One is that you are wrong, the other is that the equations are wrong. There is no third possibility, such as we don't know what the heck we are doing. Charles has defended the results of the equations for 2 years now. So far they have stood up to criticism quite well. They aren't perfect, but the test data people believe in as if God Himself wrote it down on a tablet are kidding themselves. And boy... aren't we sick to death of explaining why that has a bearing on these discussions [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>ok here is a small fact for you, on the western front, during 44-45, 90% of german tiger tanks were knocked out by aircraft, and the others that were not were usualy found abandoned by their crew due to lack of fuel and ammo, their was very little damage done to tigers by western allied tanks, even the sherman crews didnt like the tank. it was in a sense a death trap on the western front, you have the thing modeled like it is going up against italian armor or something, the playing field was far form level between the tiger and the sherman, 75 ,76 no matter. if you don't beleive me look it up, though i am not compaling to much since this is the best game of this genre and is truley a one of a kind. just because your american don't feel guilty about making the tiger the machine that it was, i'm not saying it didnt haveits downsides, but it made short work of shermans ona regular basis, keep up the good work guys

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I have not ordered a copy yet but does anyone out there have Rexford's WW II amrour penetration book? Does it address this issue? It is my own sense or "gut feeling" that the US 'zook seems a little over effective against the KT. I enjoy the thrill of KO'ing one of these monsters with a well placed 'zook shot as much as the next Allied player, but sometimes it all seems a little too easy.... -tom w [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]<hr></blockquote> bazookas were not very effecitive in real life, they had a tough enough time with panzerIV's armor nevermind a tiger, they harmlessly would bounce off of tigers, just like most of the shermans shells would literly shatter on impact and not penetrate its armor wich does not happen enough in this game

of course shermans can smoke kinkg tigers, stuarts too, because they were american so they had to have been better,hehe i agree that the king tiger is not modeled completly right, but i dont think it's as bad off as some other people do, 300m is pretty close quarters for tank warfare, stop letting the allies play on hilly ground with lots of trees on every map and you'll see an improvement

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Wasn't most German artillery horse drawn by design, rather than shortage of tractors? Or maybe it's a chicken and an egg thing, but they never had enough trucks to begin with - IMHO saying there were shortages of trucks implies that they had them from the beginning.<hr></blockquote> yes that was the case up until 1941, where on the outset of barbarossa most everything the germans and romanians brought in their was horse drawn, but then again so was the soviet forces, i think he is wondering about 1944 i assume and in that case the germans produced quite a large number of tractors to tow their guns with

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The Commissar: Well, tss mentions that some 200 of the things were destroyed in just one bombing raid. That already beats the production numbers for such beasts as the SturmTiger. Mix these glorified go carts with ski troops, and it could make for a really cool recon/flanking force in a winter scenario!<hr></blockquote> no it realy would'nt since the russian tactics if you want to call them that were so brutal, all they basicly did was tell mass amounts of people to run forward and die but make sure you kill a gemran before doing so, i don't see any units themselves as "gamey" if you see anything as gamey it should be how people deploy and use them, for instance have 1941 russians troops use advanced german tactics and blitzkreig there way thru the german front lines, hehe

ok, i don't know about you guys, but prior to this game if i wanted to play a world war 2 strategy game i was stuck with panzer general. this game is the best game of this genre to date so you don't need to go over every little thing with a fine tooth comb, it's a computer game, if you want a totaly realistic experience go join the army or something

anyone remember combat for the atari? that was a fun game back in the day. games have come along way i'd say in the past, 20 years

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pak40: Are you aware that XP has a Win 98 mode? Why don't you try and run it under that mode. If it doesn't work then come back and let us know.<hr></blockquote> from what i have read, that is only for the interface, the oe and it's issues will remian, thats just a feature for people used to the 98 setup who like it better

why did it blend what i said into what you said?, i only said mabe, mabe not on

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I don't think there is any debate that as the war progressed Hitler became even crazier and that in general his interference in military matters only increased the bloodshed to no good effect. What is disputed is the notion that Germany could have somehow won the war if only the generals had gotten together and ousted Hitler at some point (1942?). My argument would be that if the generals had ousted Hitler, and if they had been able to consolidate political control of the country, and if they had rounded up the Nazis and put them on trial and hanged them, then they might have been able to negotiate a peace with the nations they were then at war with. But even that peace would have been very unstable, as at a minimum it would have required Germany to return to its 1938 borders and largely disarm. This would have left it in a vulnerable condition with a lot of very pissed off neighbors on its borders. mabe? mabe not? it's only speculation, one example of many possibilites that could have happend but we'll never know Michael [ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: I all buy it becuase...is the Eastern Front the largest theater (one land) of war ever in the 20th century.<hr></blockquote>that was the largest conflict in the history of the planet, unless their was some huge dinosaur war that pitted the country of Stegasormania vs T-rexica, wich turned into a prehistoric world war that spread across the planet like an insect palque leaving the warring dinosaurs extinct from years of unrelenting fighting?

ah i see i am not the only guinea pig that beta tested world war 2 online for 50 bucks. i hear the game was finaly patched as to work how it was advertised, too bad i got so sick of paying 50 bucks to beta test their game to even want to play it now, yeah that was a rip, i am running windows 98se, with a geforce2mx 64mb video card, and the game runs perfect. when a new windows comes out. i like to wait for not one but a few good reviews before i buy into purchasing whatever upgarde i may be looking into, just because some rep at dell tells me their computers rock, does not make me buy into it

i'm just happy with beautiful 3d graphics in a game of this genre, it's the first of it's kind, lighten up guys, though your idea i'm sure will be takne into consideration by mod makers and sequels of this game

the first one is the best game i've ever played and i can't wait for the 2nd because if anyone can capture the eastern front in a computer , wich no one to date has accuratly, bts will, this is a cool forum too

also go to nvidia.com once in awhile, they do drver updates as well on a failry regular basis, try and check about once a month, i have a Pentium3 700, nvidia geforce2 64mb, 256mb of ram, and the game runs perfect, just wiat a couple weeks for the new dirver updates