Cpt.Kloss

Panthers were faster cross country due to better suspension.] As K'tiger alludes to the Sherman turret was not much faster than the Panther, Sherman 15 sec 360 deg Panther ausf D 15 sec 360 deg Panther ausf A/G 17 sec 360 deg Plus it's more survivable and has a much better AP gun and greater accuracy. Lack of Sherman level reliability did not stop the Germans marching through France/Austria/ Soviet Union nor the Soviet Union doing the same with their unreliable vehs.</font>

You would be jumping through a whole map without delay. YOU see enemy, your spotter does not. But according to your logic your spotter says: correct 1000m because my uber commander (player) told me there is an infantry unit in that forest!And I want no delay. Althoug your logic is correct, CMBB is a radar game (you as commander see all - and you -not your spotter - give coordinates and issue fire order). regards

---------------------------------------- I had similar problems with multiplayer CMBO. With low speed connection and communicators and other internet accessing applications running I experienced corrupted graphics.

-------------------------------------------- I love "Artillerymen, Stalin gave an order" - in Russian of course

Yes. You should have mostly reg, some green and vet thrown in for spice. I'm sure I couldn't find it either, probably, but it's been noted before- unless they're almost *all* green, no bug on the play. To quote the lady at Harold's Chicken Shack, "You gits what you gits!", even for auto-purchase. Eden</font>

------------------------------ Andreas,I haven't criticized you for some time...because I see no reason to. More, I agree with a lot of your recent thoughts on various threads (although I still do not like you). regards

---------------------------------------- Steve, please accept my apologies, I was wrong. From a time this thread started I run a lot of armor - only games, just to further backup my opinnions. And perhaps it is due to a significant random seed - but results were not as I expected. Very rarely a tank or TD reatreats without shooting while being on advantageous position and even more rarely when rate of fire is similar(it appears to me that flanking is for TacAI much more advantageous than hull down and rate of fire is one of many, but VERY important factor). I must also abandon my opinnion about russian crew's CMBB cowardice - indeed recently my broken green SU85 crew (after 2 penetrating hits form 2 Panthers)did retreat, but after destroying one. The only claim I sustain is that numbers do affect unit's behaviour -even if for attacker it is not important (or he does not know) how many vehicles attack, for defender it IS important how many enemy vehicles it faces. regards

Another possible difficulty is modeling weapons. During 44 upraising Polish partisans were armered mainly in German eqipement with some addition of british stens (dropped and smuggled) and custom-made weapons. To all who do not know: Polish Home Army was loyal to Polish government in London (not that in Moscow) and therefore many people claim that Soviets deliberately stopped their offensive to let a "problem" solve itself. After the war many partisans from polish Home Army were sentenced, imprisoned and even executed by Polish communist goverment for "hostile activities".

------------------------------- Rune, make a scenario with 44 upraising - it will be very interesting to play with Sturmtiger on German side and overtaken Panthers crewed by Polish partisans.! regards

Steve, I've got a question Is retreating the only self-preservation mechanism's option? I observed some vehicles actually moving fast forward despite my orders. Is it an outcome of the same s-p mechanism? regards

------------------------------- Hm....but don't you think here could be modeled opposite situation? Target is weak, I can kill it...maybe another shot? Anyway I agree with you on usage of this order. But shouldn't a crew asess situation and shoot befere "designated" shoot point if it gives a better tactical situation (hull down for example) ? Isn't that order a bit "artificial" given an advanced (and correct as many people claim)self preservation mechanism? Perhaps if other order than shoot'n'scoot given we, (and tank crews)should undrestand this as (engage because it is a reason to). What do you think?

------------------------------------------ Exactly, but in CMBB 37mm "doorknocker" coudld easily kill T34 ( improved in patch), still short barelled L24 75mm mounted on early PzIV can make a job done easily. German frontline officers suggested copying T34 but you know - in CMBB it proves that T34 was a piece of junk and those german frontline officers were wrong... Ask Andreas - guy with extensive knowledge and CMBB betatester -he will kindly expalin you why.

Let's make it clear. I agree on difficulties modeling typical horses used for transportantion in a similar way than trucks did. And perhaps Andreas is right that on tactical scale (direct combat) they were used rarely as equipement carrying assets. But Russians did have large cavalry units and as personal carriers for cavalry units...I think thaey might be an asset in next battlefront engine. regards

------------------------------------ Yeah...and russsian cavalry DID charged on retreating german columns during winter offensive in 41. Anyway they usually dismounted while threatened by direct fire, but as maps in CMBB can have several kilometers it would be interesting to model them (we have skies after all as means of transportation)to outmaneuver enemy!!! -------------------------- Am I right Beta-Andreas? Or not?

Steve, That was good idea with leaving - at least for a while - a problem here is like a piece of cheese. There are so many rats...you cannot get rid of them remotely... So better leave them for themselves. Andreas, Something went horribly wrong in your life, pity you try to overcompensate your failures at this forum. Bye, bye do not cry

------------------------------- How nicely our betatester contributes to discusscion again. Indeed you cast a new light on the subject.You might not understand that, but subject devolved/evolved and some quotes are simply out of place. Well, contrary to some I learn and I know where I was wrong and where not. Simply ask yourself: Why I am responding to a post where guy is right /you did not even read the original post I replied to/quoting his earlier statment, where obviously he was wrong. To finish with another abuse of course. Believe me little sorry petty bootlicker - you cannot touch me. RULE OF A THREAD: STEVE'S FAVOURITES CAN FREELY INSULT OTHERS, AND ANY DEFENCE RESULTS IN 'FORMAL WARNING' FROM STEVE

------------------------------------------ unless on elevated position or completely flat ground driver RARELY sees enemy at all. regards

--------------------------------------- Steve, You wanted to say "personal defence"? And I will remind you that YOU actually made it personal by insulting me (and your favourite beta followed) and you are quite responsible for warming up this discussion. You seem to forget where is a difference between us: you are Battlefront and I am your client (anyway appreciating your product).If you continue to behalf in this way none will give you a sincere feedback. After giving me a warning please think about giving a warning to yourself (I suppose no one else can do this)and stop be aggresive wheter I deserve this or not - learn patience towards guys like me or redwolf. And who appart from redwolf "contributed" to THIS thread? This is redwolf-battlefront discussion. We say that self-preservation mechanism is too harsh and usually affects only one side (even if other is seriously threatened also)and see that as a problemm.We do not talk about established war doctrines (american TD's were designed to fight tanks but mainly supported infantry). Regardless of doctrine all available assets were used according to situations and needs. "OK let's get back we have sligtly worse penetration data" is a misunderstanding.Correct statement would be "do not engage enemy tanks unless situation requires". And who if not commander /human player/ is to decide wheter situation requires using asset in a bit different role or not? Of course what I write is worthless BUT if you give it one more thought -without prejudice - I will consider I achieved what I wanted. Anyway you decided to decrease 37mm gun eficiency in patch despite 101 andreases claiming it was not necessary. regardless, I DO respect your hard work and your presence here. regards Troll

Yep. Panzerfaust was able to penetrate 200m armor with its heat round! I do destroy tanks with infantry very often. Key word is here: SURPRISE. Lay in wait and when he gets close enough your infantry will give him a very hard time

----------------------------------------- Steve, you called be a troll but you seem to blinded a bit. Replying to redwolf's example you stated that it was ok to retreat against PZiV because it could penetrate ISU's frontal armor. But why PziV did not retreat? Really a question of statisticks? According to your logic, two meeting tanks able to destroy each other should retreat both. I played a lot of CMBB games. And while ZiS-5-53 gun was able to penetrate Panther's frontal armor I have never seen in CMBB Panther retreating against late T34, but a lot of late T34 retreating against Panthers even <400m. Coming on the flank, probably unspoted yet, able to destroy enemy - what your tank usualy does? r e t r e a t s. Self pres. mechganism is too harsh and now you behalf like a troll. More, even like a heroic Troll fighting to the end in a lost case, which is obvious to all apart from you. regards

------------------------------------- That's what I want to say: Russian tankers are cowards in CMBB. I can agree that any single russian IS or ISU AFV COULD retreat facing Panther or Tiger (rather due to reputation earned by german elite crews than equipement qualities). But fear of PzIV is.... I think Battlefront should rethink self-preservation mechanisms for tanks. Present work well for fighting obvoiusly superior foe. Have you read that link about IS2 destroying several KTs? Not to confuse subjects, but there was also courage on battlefield and knowing that chances were high and position advantageous they did tried their luck, not always retreated. You are are professional "disturber" redwolf, and I am simply a "Troll" But I beg Battlefront: give all these things some thought. And start worry when you have bootlickers only.

---------------------------------- Well, it's extreme example. I think that Panther's crew should have wet pants against a few IS2's.(assuming the same level of morale and experience). While IS crew (as Steve says) does not care that there are other friendly tanks, Panther's crew CARES that there are several, not just one enemy. But anyway, this mechanism acts very well against clearly superior enemy. But against not-so-clearly-superior in does not. Panther's crew says: we have more or less substantial killing chance percentage advantage We will NEVER retreat./which, particulary during 1:1 duels /equal morale, experience and fight conditions/can MOSTLY be true/ IS2 crew says: more ours then theirs died in such duels. We must ALWAYS retreat!- it is not true. "Many of ours destroyed them. We can penetrate their armor, actually we did it once. Maybe he does not see us? -" So my conclussion is: mechanism is needed, but it should have a higher treshhold against only slightly better enemy.

---------------------- Rune just read what Steve wrote. Two IS2 retreated against Panther, Panther did not. Taking into consideration your real war exaple and Steve's game example it appears that in CMBB those 2 german tanks whould stay on the field (because inidividually they had better chance of winning)while a whole russian tank corps would retreat (because numbers does not matter in CMBB self -preservation mechanism).