slysniper

I would prefer to create a scenario a little like that with one or two kings taking on an Ton of armor, now with the AI, you can at least make the Allies a challendge and make the game for AI play. Not many real players that want to watch 20 Shermans go up in flame before they might have a chance to do something about it. But first I have to find the range that a Tiger is Truely king, , it should show up at some point. whether realistic or not is another story

No, I played one battle, wanted a infantry fight, had some fun and played one in real time. But I prefer playing armor battles H to H, so setting up and running the test was only about a hour, plus I was able to see how the unit would do without having to find out the hard way in a game.

was not trying for a duel, one on one. Dont know what game you are playing , but I have found I am able to get 2 or 3 long 76"s together very often to attack a panther or tiger from the front if I need to, I figure I will be able to find at least that many fireflies, if needed. As for 5, you are correct, overkill. All I wanted to see was if they can cut through the Tiger in the Game. Considering that most of the King Tingers were lost with in the first few shots within my test, when they were lost. They were not proving to be as tough as I thought they would or should be even at 500m

At 500m, there is really no misses happening, lets see what happens farther out

Oh, I will when I have a little time, I do not test to prove that the game is only a game, I test to see how I will use units in the game I tested that range first, because a majority of engagements are going to be in or around that distance within the game. Yes I would expect to see some change towards a king Tiger side when I run one at 1500m But lets face it, do I want to engage a Ktiger at that range, no matter with what I have. Not many maps will force me into that situation. And the ones that do, I better have 20 Shermans to that King to make it interesting.

First test with Fireflies vs King Tiger Just had to see if the fireflies will have what it takes in the worst case situation of taking out Heavy armor. Test was simply One King Tiger vs 5 Fireflies at over 500 Meters apart. on real time , Warrior setting. Veteran crews except for the Tiger, I gave him a crack unit. Results If I played the German, which was I was Micro managing his shots. Shermans killed -Tiger killed 1-1 5-0 5-0 5-0 1-1 total 17 fireflies lost, Two King Tigers Playing the allied side, Which I had to do nothing. ( only the King Tiger did stupid things when the AI manages it.) 3-1 1-1 1-1 0-1 1-1 Total 6 fireflies lost, 5 King Tigers So, the King Tiger is not totally invinciable, even from the front. It appeared most of the penetrations came from apds rounds, But the shermans fired both type of rounds and I am not sure why, since they all had 5 apds rounds on Board, but some were not firing them. Second, the King Tiger will Suck in Wego since most of the problem was with the AI, it would not hold steady to fire its shots. Was wasting time rotating tank and Turret where as, in Real Time I could get it Rotating only its Turret and that increased it fire rate. Also left on its own, it was wanting to move forward at a angle, which was exposing its flank some. Which was not a good thing. I will let the expert Grogs say if they think them numbers seem good. Look weak to me, but it will just let me want to play the Allied side more, I seem to have plenty of success on that side in this version of the game.

Hey slick, no one ever claimed they were gunned down by the tank crew very often as they were coming right out of the tank, but once out and organized, they are preforming too good as a fighting unit, that is the point. But in some cases, they can be very soon after jumping out of the tank

Downloaded great, had it in about 15 Min. now on to playing and hope things go smoothly

I am glad he went to the effort also. As for the 8M head shot, yes too generous, but better than the 45m shots in the test, Because face it, they should only be exposing their head and shoulder region in that test, so my suggestion would be trimming down the accuracy plenty:eek:

Lets see, how many fire fights have I been in that has infantry against each other on both sides of a hedge, Plenty How often in thick woods does the enemy come to within 1 or 2 action spots before anyone spots each other, plenty. It has been in these type of situations where I have actually seen the pistol units go wild. I am not claiming to see tank crews run across open fields and defy death and then overrun their enemy. I just see men who are too brave being that their only weapon is a pistol with really no ammo supply and that they act as good as any other soldier on the map and it is not uncommon to see them win a firefight against a normal combat team about their same size. None of which should hardly ever happen in my opinion.

Yankeedog, I just sent you my email for the test file. Now looking at your test, I am even more concerned. Part of my point has been how hard it should be for a person with a pistol to hit a man at the range you are testing, now I see, you have them behind low walls. With that the target area is greatly reduced. Now this should make the shot very unlikely. But from the sounds of it, you find the battle is won or lost within the first minute and the rest of the battle is pretty much who ever has the advantage finishing the job. So I take that to mean in a battle the pistol wins, they likely hit two maybe three men in the first minute. Not in the real world my friend, forget all the other factors. They just should not be coming close to getting that amount of hits at that distance. Without you running a single test, no question the pistols should improve on victories as the range gets closesr. If they do not, something else is wrong. For me, the question is accuracy, The only examples given of real world knowledge pretty much shows people like me trying to point out that a pistol should be about worthless at these ranges. In game terms, I dont want to see a pisol doing much over 24m and that is against a fully exposed person. At 8m, then they can start killing at will, picking off men that only have a head exposed or something. And even then, it is likely better than what happens in real life, but it is just a game, I dont expect it to be perfect. But it would be nice to have things somewhat realistic, since that is what this game is about.

That depends on how you look at it, I for one do not expect pistols to be hitting what they shoot at at 45M, so that for me is already showing a flaw. But I am more than willing to see anyone give me some proof that is founded on any real life stats that there is a desent chance at that range. So for me, your test showing it is a even fight at that range is a flaw to me.

As part of your test are you looking at how many shots each side fires. First, 45m is a super long distance for a pistol, But If enough rounds are fired, they dont need to be good, they just need to be lucky. Then when you close that distance, to like 20M, I wonder how much the comparison will change. But it sounds like you are on track to be able to submit something to help maybe get a change within the game. Good Job

Not sure, But I would think so until he gets a free update that will be available for CMBN, but from the sounds of it, it normally releases a little later than the next Module. But I do not think the difference is much, but it might be a week.

I play scenario's only, really no QB's, so far most of the games I have played have a good balence. Plenty of Shermans to help you with the need to flank against that nasty front armor of the Germans. But when that has not been possible, I find 4 or 5 Shermans can wreck a stugs day very quickly even from the front, A panther also, but not wanted unless I have some 76's in the mix.

When my Supertankers take action, they are normally in the open , standing up Yelling at the enemy foul words about how they have wrecked the paint job on their ride. Well, all that was true except for the paint job part.

I agree, I love the game, actually do not find it all that hard to kill tanks or crews with infantry, but still find enough events when playing that when we see some hard data as to how the game is playing will likely show how unrealistic it is in some actions. This being one of them

YankeeDog has it already under control, but at this point it will not help the next release unless they have already fixed the issue. If not he would need to run the test again likely anyway. If they do, then we could see how much it is adjusted. Just like I would like to see tank spotting adjusted. Mortars adjusted. Sniper fire and concealment and so on and so on. I really love the game but it would be nice to get some adjustments.

Lets see, is this supermen, or BF has great research about the amazing pistol that we do not understand, the game is perfect. Actually I have been a little disappointed this time that no more updates have come out on the coding, now we are to the module add on and I am starting to wonder if we will see any tweaks to the issues that have been pointed out for the last 9 months. I still have hope, but that Beta video really makes me question it. And this is not major programming that I am talking about. accuracy and spotting should be simple adjustments as to how well a unit does.

Now, there is something I really did not know, I need to check into this. That iis a interesting fact.

Oh, someone is playing it, its just is not us. Their group of test rats that Beta test it have been busy I hope. Just wish I could figure out how to get on that group, then find the time to really do some serious testing. Because the pay is terrible, and I am not wealthy or lazy enough to not work for a living.

Agree, he needs to learn to not let his units fire until like you said his units are within about 50m.

I agree with this, but also would add that I feel the main reason shotguns were not found was for more common sence reasons. The most logical one to me would be, where am I going to get Ammo to keep my weapon stocked. Its like trying to use a enemy weapon without a supply line. When supply trucks come up, they sure are not packed with them 12 gage shells I will be wanting??? So no weapon is of value unless your supply chain is providing you ammo. Now as to what you might find on real units that had been in combat, the assigned equipment that the army said you should have was almost the last thing you would find. This one old true soilder I knew from that era was a co-worker that had been a scout in a unit in Pattons Third Army. I recall him telling me his 4 man unit carried Two MG and two Thompsons, they also had a Enemy MG 42 that they would switch out for one of the 30"s. when they had gathered enough ammo at times Now they also had a carbine and bar for when they were on certain missions on foot. But most of their scouting was done in the Jeep except for night missions into enemy lines.

There might be some truth in that statement, But I still would prefer a bunch of backwood boys that have hunted most their lives than any stuck up trained marksman. Oh, just to add to that point, in the sniper unit I was in. Out of twenty four men. I can think of only two that were not around guns until they entered the Service. Also our two best snipers ( which were world class Marksman), both grew up on farms and had skills that all the training we received never could match. So for Snipers I will say that statement is not true. For quick close combat shooting, then I will say your statement has some truth. For that they brought in some non-military trainers that were quick draw shooters, that is a whole different skill set. Speed and firepower becomes much more important, hunting skills generally do not lend to that. But I recall all that jackrabbit shooting with a 22 for fun sure did not hurt.

Glad to see someone else step in and try to teach these guys how pistols really are as a weapon. I figure it comes down to many just do not have the personnal expearence to understand how hard they are to use and how the game does not seem to portrey them correctly .