Cpt.Kloss

--------------------------------- Conclusion: yes, it is unrealistic that Panther did not retreated against two IS2, but two IS2 retreated against Panther.

Steve, We got a bit sidetracked. I see you claim self -preservation mechanism in CMBB is right. I say no, it is wrong. Under CMBB rules russian tanks would have never left their starting positions during the Kusk battle (and any other). I repeat once again: as far as I know most russian tanks were destroyed while advancing not retreating. regards

1.And the change of D5T gun for D25T after Kursk battle. Small difference, isn't it?. 2. Much cheaper were ISU assault guns. Why bother to produce IS2 then? Concerning usage of HE ammo: Most WW2 AFV's used MUCH more HE ammo, even american M10/M36 which were designed to fight tanks. 4. "No other choice" is a key phrase here. What you wrote is an obvious truth while defending, but after 1943 russians were constantly pushing. Russians tanks DID engage german because they had to (and a lot of them was destroyed - not while r e t r e a t i n g/CMBB/but while a d v a n c i n g). Anyway "NOT to engage" did not mean escaping while having a clear side or rear shot. 5. After deeper thought I must say you MAY be right here.

No Steve, you are wrong. Inexperienced crews were often more reckless and daring. The same situation was on Western Front, where (just before Overlord) american and british green tankers were told their tanks were actually equal!

-------------------------------------- Is it a joke? IS2 was DESIGNED to fight Tigers! I suppose any cowering crew (especially against weaker german armor)would be shot without any martial court sentence... Sometimes I think that someone from Battlefront has a great love for german army to the extend of bending history (much has been discussed about 37mm "doorknockers", short-barelled L24 knocking T34's in 41,PAK 75 massacring IS2 platoons by front turret hits etc.) A lot of people like to stress high russian armor loses forgeting that attacking side almost always loses more. During German offensive in 1945 (Hungary)german loses were 10 times higher.From almost 400 destroyed german tanks and spguns inspected after a battle (including 19 King Tigers, 6 Tigers, 57 Panthers) majority of them were destroyed by 76mm and 57mm fire. And the best which russians had at all was SU 100... IN CMBB I think under ANY conditions this would be IMPOSSIBLE (CMBB SU76 would never think of engaging Panther even under very favourable condition). What's the conclussion? CMBB german are UBER. Get use to it. I do not know whether fault lies in accuracy and shell quality/penetration data. As far as I read on this forum a tremendous work was put on collecting this. Perhaps it is a time to verify? (and Battlefront do this - see patch readme). But there is more...

I do not see this as a serious problem, HMG is a very heavy stuff. However I do not understand why HMG crews never abandon it! In some situations you may actually want your HMG to be immobilised - no sneaking/running away etc...and this pretty unrealistic - last man and his HMG - till the very end.

Very sensible: I'd just like to add the words "and selection". AIUI the difference between paratroops and glider men in both the US and the UK, and between Army Commandos and Royal Marine Commandos, was that although all received comparable training, Paras and Army commandos were hand-picked, whereas glider men and Royal Marine Commandos were drafted en bloc. To some extent one might regard Territorial or National Guard units as more highly selected than draftees, because of the element of self-selection implicit in volunteering. A very astute comment, and just what I was going to suggest. It should, I think, be the training level rather than the experience level that determines how extensive a repertoire of orders troops know how to obey. It might even be worth attempting to separate out skill-at-arms training and motivational training or selection; I imagine the early war SS, for example, and Russian infantry for much of the war, as fiercely well-motivated but tactically inept. All the best, John.</font>

------------------------------- But no delay.Your troops may rally later. Better to have panicked - but -alive than to leave your troops in the middle of heavy artillery barrage.

------------------------------------------------ It's somethink like "prevent Germans using Panther until SU100 and IS2 are available" or "prevent Germans using aircraft in 1941 until some decent (and without rarity extra cost) AA is available for Russians." Or prevent Germans using assault gun (StuG) supporting infantry and able to destroy any russian tank - for a price lower than 100 points..and so on Play this scenario twice switching sides and compare results to declare winner. SMG squads a problem? use area fire and blow whole buildings with your fine engineers! Then assault with flamethrowers...

if they did notice and reported this issue to battlefront..well it would mean I was unfair. If they didn't...well...

-------------------------------------------- the question "how to measure" is up to the guy who called me a fool.Surely this wise man will have no problem with this. :cool:

--------------------------------------- That one was very good (much better then this one actually), but I didn't see any reaction nor comment from battlefront. I dared to evaluate some people's work instead of letting them evaluate their work by themselves. And once again to all my adversaries: you are not able to touch me, you accuse me of being rude and offensive and now you are doing exactly the same! Your further opinnion is irrelevant. I admited I was being too harsh but that is no reason to call me a fool unless you know any comparative test or contest to prove who of us really might be called "fool". What you mean? Knowledge? IQ? I will gladly accept any challenge if you are able to create some reasonable measure. regards

This is typical selfish crap of "I know you don't" coming out of you... How can you possibly know what he or any other did/didn't do during beta test? I honestly hoped that after you cool down your attitude would change, but in the bottom, it didn’t It has been told in this and other topics, the engine uses a 30% chance of a front turret hit once a hit has been scored. Ok, it is a limitation, but at least for CMBO the variations in turret size weren't that "important". Obviously now (in CMBB), at the limits of this variation interval, (Panzer IV, T-34 and KV-2 for instance), problems will show up. In my view the problem can be solved with some kind of "bonus" given to vehicles in this situations. Obviously it isn't for me to decided if the bonus should be applied or not, I don't have the full data and I also don't know if the investment needed to put a correct bonus in compensates the effort. I tell you, there are other "important" game engine limitations, which somehow in very particular (or not that particular) situations reproduce a distorted reality... I will not tell wish ones are, as you seam to me to be the "know all" type, and for sure you already must have noticed them </font>

--------------------------------------- And that is a very good point. I read about Russian tank crews who where easily able to hit gun of moving tank from a distance of 300m. I know how difficult it is to model real tank firefight, but I think all should strive to do this as close to history as possible. And -contrary to some posts - I believe that forontline experience should also be taken into account. if a man whose people destroyed a lot of T34 says they didn't do anything against IS2 (spring 45)it is hard to believe that 1/3 of their shots did not hit a turret and -as it is in CM - destroyed a tank. Maybe armor thickness and quality data are worth investigating again, maybe something is wrong with a shell quality? I do not know. What I am sure is that something is wrong here and I do not accept explanation like: look at game data, if its in CM it was in real history (what many people try to do). To some other guys: no one forces you to reply to my posts. Just take your own advice and do not reply if this is the only thing you want to say. Anyway I am glad several people came with issue -oriented posts (not person -oriented)and those I would like to thank. To betatesters. I didn't want to offend anyone I just stated I evaluate your work as a poor one. Good betatesting is not what you believe it to be, but what client believes it to be. And frankly I do not care whether Steve stated this or that,because apparently - look some posts above - there are means of improvement within engine limitations (as it was done with Tiger I fornt armor).And you should have said: "ok Steve, let's think how to do this because its a major issue" intead "Steve says its impossible" regards

---------------------------------- And this is ok. I drew attention to a serious game problem (which you did not as a betatester). May I have my own opinnion?

This one was very popular in Poland although it is glorifying Russian soldiers. Real Russians were differnt. They were dirty, poor, hungry..and savage. Once my father told me a story about Russian "liberators" stealing everything from their house. Then, one of them took a big clock out of the wall and demanded to make for him 100 small watches out of it /it is not a joke/

---------------------------------------- Please accept my apologies I do not want to insult anyone. I have a lot of friends in US. All I want is to see the game better. My first post was a bit aggresive - I was driven by emotions. I will not return to T34/IS2/KT issue again - please someone do this however (someone more patient).

------------------------------------ Bad for them. They should because -excluding slightly aggresive tone of my post- I wanted to draw attention to a seroius game problem. Do you remember Close Combat and Steel Panthers? They didn't bother with arguments to improve - they explained this as "game engine limitations" CM is still the best tactical ww2 game but someone can make better.It is also their (battlefront's)interest to improve the game and remove what is wrong. Pretending everything is OK leads to predictable results.

1.I will do as you say if only I can find some time. Anyway, just look at KT (have you ever seen one? -or you stick to statistics?), I do not need any ratios to see that turret's front is not as big as 1/3 of the silhouette. Indeed it is about 1/10. 2. It is not only in my interest to see this game as close to history as possible 3. I see it is not allowed to complain here (and this is a reason I receive e-mails /not posted here/ confirming my point about betatesters' work) 4. Excuse me, I didn't use the most popular english word (especially in US movies) so I thought the post would not be offensive. 5. I wish you abillity to communicate in several non-native languages. Can you? 6. I am still waiting for battlefront's reply, arguing with guys like you is a waste of my time. Farewell, smile and enjoy

Worked hard? Or played hard? KT front turret area 1/3?

In general, I agree with the proposition that BFC should model turrets using the actual turret size, rather than the generic 30% size (IIRC) that they use now. BFC should always strive to be as accurate as possible. But I don't think that the 30% abstraction makes a big difference in gameplay. If you use the T-34 as an example, its turret is probably more accurately described as comprising 25% of the tank, not 30%. This means that 5% of the shots that hit the turret in CMBB now should really hit another part of the tank. That's well and good, but translated to the game, that means that if you lose 20 T-34s to 37mm hits now, after the improvement, you would lose 19 tanks to 37 mm hits. Even if the T-34's turret were only 20% of its front, you would still lose 18 tanks rather than 20. Once again, not that this isn't a change worth making, but it won't make games dramatically different. Oh, and I would exclude the IS-2 from your small turret club; its turret is actually pretty big. Cpt. Kloss wrote: You should really learn to do actual research (or even internet research) before complaining about other people's research. Which of the three IS-2 versions in CMBB did DeGrelle fight against? I would also note that an early 1944 report from the soviet central scientific research institute reported that the JS-2 would need to have its hull armor increased by 20-30mms to be invulnerable to 75mm hits from the front. After this report, certain changes were made to improve the JS-2's upper hull protection (mostly making the entire hull angled at 60 degrees, rather than having the top part of the upper hull be angled at 30), but they were unable to improve the protection on the lower hull or turret. I wouldn't think that your PIV vs. JS-2 results would be typical, since any hit by a 122 mm shell should knock out a PIV, but only hits in certain places by a PIV will knock out a JS-2 from the front...but as the soviets recognized, the IS-2s, especially the early ones, were far from invulnerable to 75mm hits, even from the front.</font>

--------------------------------------- Thank you. My intention was to criticize not offend.I owe you all explanation why I was a bit aggresive: when it is obvius that something was made wrong in the game, dozens of people try to convince you it was right and intentional. It is right to say: CM is a great game although its engine has some limitations (still I am waiting for battlefront's response)and definetly the best ww2 tactical game ever, But it not right to say: 37mm AT gun was a great weapon, due to its rate of fire scoring hits at weak (but small) T34 front turret as often as in CM..and so on Can you see my point?

----------------------------------- Breath of relief. Somone understood at last what I desperately wanted to say. And not only disadvantage, but contrary to historical experience. I have a lot of pictures of destroyed early T34s - and according to CM 90% of them should be taken out by "front turret hit" -while some of them have even their turrets blown out majority is taken by side hits... In fact the only pictures of destroyed KTs I have are those destroyed by aircraft, taken by side hits and those abandoned after destroying their gun or tracks...

Ok..you are all great, betatesters did very well, vulnerable T34, IS2, KT areas are being hit with a right probability, vehicles were immobilized as often as in CM, I was rude and offensive...and so on My only fear is that some people will try to learn history from CM and say: Panther as response to T34? Impossible! PzIII was such a good tank! And who called PAK 37mm a "doorknocker:- it was a very good gun! - it could easily take T34! Koenigstiger - a piece of junk! Aircraft? Rear turret shots? Those allied tank commanders must have been very poor!Armor diagrams showing where to aim to have a chance of taking KT? For what? just shoot several times, you have higher rate of fire, 1/3 of your shots should hit that vulnerable area (so CM says)...88mm AT gun? what a siily design! 75mm PAK40 could destroy any russian tank with ease. Thank you all and be well. Keep smiling. Always.

Yup, I think the silly joke must be your "test". I set up a little test myself. 10 PzIV J against 10 IS2. Distance: 750m. Regular crews. Run the test 10 times. Result: After a maximum of 5 turns all Pz IVs are destroyed, maximum soviet losses: 3 IS2. Average loss: 1-2. So I guess you have another version of CMBB or your testing methods are kind of, well, interesting... And your comments about the beta-testers are way off, BTW. If you want some serious discussion you're welcome, but the way you present your arguments (what arguments btw? You are aware of the fact that vet memoirs are often not too accurate on technical matter?) makes me think you're just trolling a bit...</font>