Stavka_lite

I think that all of the definitions listed so far are applicable. It is up to the players to agree upon the level of "gameosity" for their game. If two players want to have at each other in an "unrestricted" (consenual combat) QB, then I hope they have fun. Same thing applies to playing the scenarios with no "gameosity" at all. Oh yeah, my definition of gameyness...unrealistic situations. I just want to say a word or two about Borg spotting... Every unit on the map may know that a certain unit has been seen but this is mitigated to some extent that every unit may not be able to bring fire down on it. This is less so for indirect fire units. But s'la guerre simulation. I also rationalize this as the unit in question having an" OH S***" moment. Vlad says to Igor, "I think we are in deep borsht."<G>

Thanks Panzerman!!!!! Yes, I was refering to '41. Should you and your team find the time I am sure they will be doosies<G>

After you finish with that how about something from Kiev or Smolensk????? PLEAEEEEEESSSSSSE!

STOP IT!!!! :mad: All of you!!!! :mad: Don't encourage the making of any more operations, scenarios, mods or anything else that will keep me in front of the computer :mad: This game is addictive enough :mad: Next thing you know BFC will be making a game that covers the Med!!!! and what will that bring???? :mad: God help us

As you can see Cranky, this can be a very in depth subject and alot of people have put alot ot time, money and effort to create good armor. The quality of the plate makes a great deal of difference as well. Is the armor bolted on or welded? Is the turrent cast? As the war progressed the armor improved as well. When the Germans ran into the first T-34s they discovered that its sloped armor was hard to punch through and their little 37mm just couldn't do it. Speed (manuveurability), Armor and Firepower are the three most important things that a tank has. By increasing Armor, Speed is decreased. Sloping the armor reduced the the thickness needed and the speed was kept. A good example of this is the Tiger, great gobs of heavy armor but slow as a turtle. I'll shut up now and thanks for doing the math

"Is it the added thickness that must be penetrated, or the increase in area the force of the round is applied to?" By increasing the angle of the armor you increase its effeciency, thereby decreasing the amount of plating needed to do the job. I don't have the equations handy so these numbers are not accurate, just an illustration. Say, for intance you have 60mm of armor at 0 degrees, 60mm of plating angled at 45 degrees would give twice protection. You can substitute thickness by angling your armor. The inverse is also true you can decrease the thickness of the plating and still have the same protection. But back to your question...the thicker ( or more angled) the plating the more energy is required to penetrate. At the risk of contradicting myself and muddying the waters the thickness(and angling) is more important. You can have a very small round (37 or 20mm) fired at a very high velocity and it will not penetrate because it will lose its kinetic energy very quickly. If you shoot a large round( 75 or 88mm) round at the same velocity, it will have more kinetic enegry due to the increase in mass making penetration more likely. Please forgive my verbosity and I hope this helps.

In a word, no. The whole idea of angling the armor is to decrease the amount of force applied to a specific spot. The AT gunner always wants to hit his target as close to perpendiculr as possible. This serves two purposes, 1. the maximum amount of energy is applied to as small of an area as possible, 2. there is less material for the shell to have to penetrate. Chemical reaction shells that use shaped charges or HEAT are an attempt to overcome the angle and thickness of the armor. What these types of ammo are most successful at is reduceing the amount of enegry needed to get the round to the target.

"It is true that over England the Spitfires wiped the Stuka out because of the speed diferential (which is why I could never understand why the US purchased A-10 Warthogs. The Fulcrum would have done the same thing to them.)" Any ground support aircraft is going to be chewed to pieces without, at least, localized air superiority. The speed differential that you speak of is not why the Stukas didn't survive, its because the RAF was able to control the air where the Stuka were operating and because the Luftwaffe did not employ them properly. Another case in point, The Soviet Il-2 did not fly much better that the Stuka. It was better armored but still very vunerable. The Soviets employed it properly and in areas where they controlled the sky. As a result the Il-2 least attrited aircraft in WW2 (at least the 2 seater was) due to fighter action. Air Superiorty is the key, just ask the 8th Air Force .

When I first started reading this thread I agreed that the defender had the upper hand. After looking back at my games I can no longer agree. I win (vs the AI) perhaps 60-75% of my games as the attacker and never ever get trounced. Against a very limited amount of gaming vs humans I have never lost a battle either, had several draws but no out and out losses playing the attacker. I guess what I am trying to say is planning my attacks before I hit the initial "GO" button has won, or not lost, more games than by just charging forward. I don't lose squads when they break, rout or panic either. I keep them in command and they always seem to recover before they leave the command range. It may take a couple of turns but I can usually get them back in the fight.

Very nice :cool: , I think the standard black and white cross on the turrent and maybe some kill rings on the main gun would be ok

Joining the crowd that just loves to speculate on what BF.C is doing, maybe they are saving this theater for game that the new CMX2 engine will be running.