Amizaur

It would be really nice, if a target command issued from a waypoint for an AT team was interpreted as: "go to the waypoint, if there is a target command then take a shot at the target and THEN continue to next waypoint". And not as now: "go to the waypoint and exectue the order WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY proceeding to the next waypoint" Even better solution would be to add an optional "number of shots" parameter for "target" command. Then the unit (any unit) would go to a waypoint, stop there, execute the "target" command by shooting as many times as the player requires, and only THEN move to the next waypoint. It would work good for both tanks and AT teams - any unit with a "primary" single-firing weapon. We usually doesn't want tanks to fire while moving, so the above behaviour would be exactly what is needed - the tank would stop at the waypoint, extecute the "target + number of shots = 1" order (take a shot) and immediately resume it's route. I t would be much better than giving it a "target + pause" order because a 10s pause is usually too long for single shot (and too short for two), but on the other hand sometimes it could be just too short. If after arriving to the waypoint with "target" order, the target is not visible, or the target can not be shot at - the unit would try to locate it (or try to take the shot) for "one pause" so 10s and if not succeeded - then proceed to the next waypoint. Of course there are different solutions possible. For example - the first "pause level" instead of "10s" would be named a "pause for shot" or "5s" or just "pause", and we would issue an "target + pause for shot" order and the unit would only stop for as long as required to take one shot - and then continue movement. The "normal pause" (full xx seconds stop) levels would start from "second pause level" - so it would go like "pause for shot", "10s", "20s", 30s" ect. It would require no changes in the UI - the only changes would be the list of "pause levels" and the way the "pause for shot" command works for units.

Well, then I'll chose PBEM when I like to be more time-flexible, but still would like to be able to choose TCP/IP WEGO play at least half of the time

I prefer WEGO. I only try RT with small scenarios or to do some testing. I can't be in two places simultaneously. WEGO with selectable turn legth would be ideal. 1 minute for PBEM and something like 30sec for playing against AI, future TCP/IP and TCP/IP-like PBEM games.

35 and few months

Well, PBEM is for sure more reliable. But in TCP/IP both players could do some things simultaneously (see the action phase, plot the orders) so there was much less one-player-waiting time...

If it's really too hard to code "firing from short stops" for AI tanks, then still it would be better if the moving tanks were not shooting armor piercing rounds AT ALL than what is now. Currently my tank often wastes his AP shell firing on the move, just second before a planned stop/pause point - where it is sometimes killed while wasting time for reloading. I hate that. I am not able to precisely know at what point - for example after crossing a hill top - my tank would see/notice the enemy and plan my tank's stop point in such a place that the tank would for sure see the enemy (with a free line of fire) and yet has too little time to shot on the move before it stops ! Tanks should simply not fire AP on the move (they may fire HE) so they are ready for make a quick aimed shot after they eventually stop. There may be exeption for targets inside 50m - firing on the move allowed. If that would hurt AI tanks in some way, then let the AI tanks fire on the move like it is now, but please block firing AP on the move for human controlled tanks. I do not want my tanks to fire AP on the move AT ALL. And ESPECIALLY - my turretless tanks. It's ridiculous. I already saidn about the exeption for targets inside 50mn. Better yet - fire on the move allowed for targets inside 50m IF there is no "stop" order on tank's path few seconds ahead. If a nearby stop or pause order is plotted, it's probably planned by the player that the tank is to go there, stop and then shoot. It's not perfect solution, but WAY better than free shooting on the move and little better than not shooting on the move at all.

The idea of creating a second, uncrypted, .xml type savegame format is brilliant ! As was said, this should be relatively simple for BFC to create and add it, it would not compromise integrity of the main savegame format or the game itself, and would allow the community to create various operational-level tools or even games. Sounds just great! The CMBN would be still required as the engine of the tactical level. And even more fun to play . And maybe some people could get interested in CMBN just to participate - on the tactical level - in those large, operational level battles - like in many other sims/wargames . For some people (like me) it would be much more interesting to play a battle, that is not a quick battle, not standalone scenario (or even "campaign" scenario), but a part of a larger, operational plan . The goals, own and enemy forces are determined by skills in the operational phase, and the win or lose on the tactical level would actually mean something .

From my observations: A "weapon mount hit" doesn't damage the gun. Never seen such thing. Weapon mount hits are happening quite often but are not doing any harm (and it would be nice if they did - SOMETIMES - damage things like the gunsight or gun elevation trunnions/mechanism) It's a "wepon hit" that damages it - almost every time. And a "weapon hit" actually looks like muzzle brake hit or - for some tanks - a gun barrel hit. They are also happening from time to time, especially if tanks are aiming at each others. It's very unlikely to get a gun damaged by enemy tank that is not firing exactly "head on" against the turret.

I read many arguments, why a table - possible to display in "unit data" screen - can't fully show and describe the complicated CMx2 ballistic engine and all possible results of calculated hits. But I believe that's not what everyone is asking for. Many people would be quite happy if the "unit data" screen showed just.... UNIT DATA. Where he could find some basic data for armor thickness, plate angles, performance/penetration of AP ammo for that vehicle. Showed in simplified way - but not too simplified, not some "armor strength bars". It could consist of table with thickness and angles of all major armor plates - like we, wargamers, are used to. For sake of tradition . As a thing like "front upper hull" may consist of several plates, set on different anges, and also having multiple weak-spots and shot-traps, then for thickness and angles both the highest and lowest number could be given - for example: front upper hull - thickness 60-100mm, angle 0-45deg. Also some basic info about what quality of that armor could be expected - high, standard, substandard, poor. The gun performance could be given as an usual range-penetration table, calculated by game engine against some standarised armor plate of "normal" quality. It could also consist of two numbers, like min-max or "initial penetration" and "sure penetration" - so every player would understand that it's not 0-1 system, and there is some random factor involved. Yes, most of us knows that real tank's armor is more complicated than some plates at some angles. But this is a type of data we, wargame players are used too (thicknes and angles). We understand that's not all, but we still like to know those basics, representing "most of hits would hit those plates". Less data would be disapoitment for most players, more data would be too complicated). Such set of data could be quite easily composed. It would not show every possible outcome of gun vs armor in CMx2. But that's not what we are asking for. Not for complete CMx2 ballistic guide and "penetration simulator", not for complete maps of vehicle armor. Just for some - more or less basic - unit data. Same, or a bit better than in CMx1. And IT IS possible. It would just be more loosely connected to in-game outcomes. One could not predict the results of 650m X vs Y duel just looking at unit data and tables. But one could get idea what is possible, what is probable, what is not likely to happen. While being aware that it's only basic data, and the actual ballistic system is much more complicated and using lots of factors not presented on "unit data" screen, so - just like in real life - strange things can happen. But even in real life - a tank commander usually got some tables about actual and/or guessed own/enemy tank armor and performance of own/enemy guns. And he didn't expect this to be exact and 100% sure, and if he did - he learned the hard way that real life allistics are more complicated. Players should have similar data available, and a chance to learn that data is not everything . ( of course there is a difference - no sane person would complain about realism of real-life outcomes or about the life having bugs . Players can and will do that . ) I know that most of hardcore players know all the needed data in more detail that could be presented in "unit data" screen. Personally I would also not need practically any data about easter front tanks. I know them all. But there is lot of players that would be glad if they had absolutely BASIC "unit data" screen with BASIC armor, weight, speed, and penetration numbers. Because in the other case they have to start browsing the web or looking in books. And there they would find many differences in various sources. A standarised data - data that is used in the game (armor) or calculated by the game ballistic engine (standarised penetration) would help to compare the in-game tank models. Of course, at the same moment the "source" armor data and standarised penetration results are published in game - in "unit data", lot's of people would start to complain and argue that this value is wrong and that is unrealistic. And this is I believe one of main reasons we don't have "unit data" screen yet. But there is a qite simple solution to that - it could be just ignored and not commented. Just like all present requests and arguments about introducing "unit data" screen in the game . The other reason that we don't have "unit data" in the game is - I think - that somebody would have to spend quite some time actually coding the "encyclopedia" into the game and composing all the data. And of course there are more important things to do. Well, personally I think that having ANY type of in game vehicle "encyclopedia" or "unit data screen" is one of most important things that the game lacks now, and is preventing many younger or inexperienced players from getting deeper into the game and loving it. I'm not sure if I loved CMx1 as much and at all if I had to dig out from books every little piece of data I wanted to know about all the tanks I played with. I got easily available basic data in game - and could use them to better plan my actions and to efectively use less common vehicles. I'm sure many new players miss exactly the same thing in CMx2.

"2. all the rounds with HE charge (GE:50mm,75mm,88mm,Italy:47mm,US 76mm 57mm) do harm to the sub-system especially the radio and optics when the rounds hit the target without penetrate it." Seems that the game treats the rounds with HE charge like HE projectiles regarding to non-penetrating hits damage calculations. And the simulated damage is done with simulated blast and shrapnel. BUT an HE burster of AP round is so small, comparing to HE round charge, that the effect (chance of something actually getting damaged by shrapnels from HE burster detonation) should be let's say 1/10th of chances provided by true HE round. Have you compared, by chance, chances of subsystem damage for AP rounds with burst charges vs chances of true HE/fragmentation rounds ? The second thought was - how a shrapnel can damage a radio ? Well, there is some part of the radio that is outside of the armor - the antenna. I think the game simulates damage done by shrapnel to the external elements - optics and antennas. Only, that it makes it well, in a very simple way... Hits in lower front armor really shouldn't damage optics or antennas. I wonder also, if hits of small AP in side armor are still causing Tiger optics damage in 2.0 ? Or is it fixed ?

You can't save LAN game ?? I didn't realise that.... And... that unsaveable game in LAN mode has also tendency to crash....? :/ I loved LAN WEGO games in CMx1....

I think that for tanks that had known problems with armor quality, the quality should be RANDOMISED at the start of the scenario to be between 100% and some value - let's say 85% for Panther G. Of course - the actual value should be unknown to the player. This would be the best way to model it. Even quality of each armor plate could be randomised independantly, but of course it would take a bit more coding .

Nice list of improvements. Now - after new CMFI features are fixed/finetuned - I really hope to see CMBN 2.0 upgrade soon.

And this is how it would work in CMBN, I think. Crews should quite easily abandon penetrated vehicles (fully penetrated ones), and then - if they survived in good condition and when situation has calmed down (for example other tanks from the platoon eliminated the enemy) - they should go back and continue fighting. Penetrated tanks - if they didn't catch the fire or don't have some engine/gun damage - should be still ok. It's far more easy to kill "soft" people inside, than to really make the steel tank mechanisms inoperable. Remember that in reality (not in CMBN scenatrio) temporary elimination of a single tank - which crew jumped out even after paritial penetration - is not that important, because tanks are not fighting alone - but in a group, or better yet - in lage formations. The crew would calm down and return to vehicle if it is still in working order - and would join the fight. On the other hand - in CMBN scenario we can be (and I am too!!!) extremaly irritated if one of our few precius tanks (our ONLY tank!!) is eliminated by crew panicking from stupid partial penetration . But it's just reality !!! And in this reality tank crews tried to fight in a way that the enemy HAD NO CHANCE to hit them at all, because EVERY hit is risky, even with good armor. They set ambushes, flanked the enemy, did everything to have the first and second shot on their side and kill the enemy tank before it even realised where the fire is coming from. Crews when fighting enemy tanks rarely relied extensively on on superior armor of their tanks - exeptions are Tiger tanks on early eastern front - that felt relatively safe and used armor of Tigers as tactical advantage. Second exeption are desperate battles of heavily outnumbered Panthers or Tigers in late war. But then they HAD TO rely on their armor somewhat and risk taking some hits, becuase this was the only way they could fight numerically superior enemy. Anyway it was very risky and critical damages or (un)lucky penetrations were happening. A wise tanker would never engage the enemy head-on on equal terms, even in superior tank, if there was any other possiblilty. It's just stupid - if you want to survive the war. It can work few times, but any luck has it's end. Wise tanker would rather flank the enemy, or fire from an ambush position. Or work out some other advantageous position/situation. The good armor should be only your insurance that protects you from unexpected threats, or when something in your plan has gone wrong and suddenly you are under enemy fire.

Most Panther crews would abandon their tanks after first penetration they got. So, those duels should end after first serious penetration done to Panthers. The outcomes would be little different and more realistic then. They could stay inside and fight if they were extremely well motivated, or if it was a partial penetration only or penetration by APDS round that did't do much damage. In other cases - the crew would (most often) get out quickly, and (most often) there would be some casualties after the penetration. Sherman crews would evacuate from their penetrated tanks even more easily, as if they survived the first penetration, they could be almost sure the second hit would penetrate too and very likely kill them. Tank crews are showing too little self-preservation instinct IMO. I hope BFC will fine-tune this in next games or patches.

It's a common misconception, probably because the exact way of working and physics of the shaped-charge detonation are not obvious. It may be beneficial for future discussions to straighten it out. The effect of the shaped charge is PARTIALLY directional - only small part (I guess from few percents to no more than 20%) of the chemical explosion energy is actually focused and directed. The directional part is generated usually in the form of thin metal jet moving with very high velocity - that on very close range is also accompannied with slower jet of some very compressed hot gases that can be also "injected" into the fighting compartment by the penetration hole. There is also flying some other post-explosion stuff that is directed, but it is less lethal and not interesting). For every soldier that happens to be too close, the explosion (with the exception of concentrated high velocity jet) is just omnidirectional and can normally kill him by the blast/overpressure effects. It's can't be as "directional" as you think, because the high explosive of the shaped charge is somewhat self-confining - there is no heavy, thick steel outer shell that would confine and focus the explosion force - instead the whole outer part (thick outer layer) of the charge is there just to provide support (by the pressure of it's detonation) for the smaller inner charge part/layer (and - eventually - the metal liner) to be effectively compressed and focused. While outer layers of the charge are detonating, the pressure of the explosion is compressing/confining the inner layers but at the same time nothing is preventing their explosion products from just normally expanding outside! So most of the high explosive in the charge is exploding just normally, omnidorectionally, and most of the explosion energy is released omnidirectionally too. Explosion of Panzerfaust (or RPG-7) warhead with 400g of C4 or RDX/TNT would have just the same (well, almost, but the difference would be minimal) blast and pressure wave effect to the sides and to the rear, as a normal charge containing 400g of C4 and would kill you just as well and on the same distances. And I'll bet if you seen two explosions, one of RPG-7 warhead, and the second of equivalent normal C4 charge, you couldn't see of feel any difference other than existence of the high speed jet produced by the shaped charge. The shaped charge warhead is less effective in anti-personal role than dedicated anti-personell high-explosive warhead (with the same charge mass) only because the first produces very little shrapnel (the outer shell is made of thin metal or even plastics). There is no other difference.

It would be also nice if the gun would not have to entirely pack up to move just 3 meters forward or back. It's just a normal tactical maneuvering ability of a (wheeled) gun. It could just move without packing, if it doesn't leave it's action spot. And would be nice if it was able to move backwards 2m without first rotating 180deg...

Several. About six times. The Shermans won only 1 of 6 duels. This is not very statistically strength result, but enough for me to draw some private conclusions. I'm no betatester to spend more time checking and veryfing something absolutely sure. I'm curious about some game mechanics and sometimes I'm testing to check some things. When 6 Shermans are losing about 5 from 6 duels against 3 immobilised, buttoned Panthers that are showing their sides to Sherman gunners, then I draw a conclusion that something is not right. Yes, it COULD be a coincidence, but it's HIGHLY unlikely.

You are saying "nonsense" to the result of one of my tests, JonS. I tested 3 immobilised buttoned Panthers showing their side, vs 4 or 6 Shermans, unbuttoned, facing the Panthers. Shermans of course got first shot before the Panthers even noticed them (usually most shots were hits, penetrating sides of the Panthers). The funny thing is, Panthers ALMOST ALWAYS won this uneven duel. Sometimes one of the Panthers was killed, sometimes even two, but usually they were penetrated, but still - with or without casualties - just rotated their turrets and simply executed the Shermans in 2-3 salvos. This result is ridiculous. There is no point in ambushing, getting advantageous position and first shot, if the attacked tank - even penetrated - immediately gets full situational awarness, notices the shootier and counterfires. Historically crews of tanks that were ambushed from the side or the rear, even didn't knew what hit them !!! They usually didn't even manage to locate the enemy, the position of where the fire is coming from, before all or most of the tanks in group were knocked out. And if being suddenly penetrated from suprise, by unknown enemy, with casualties, they just retreated from their tanks. Even if they wanted to counterfire, they couldn't because they didn't know what hit them and from where !! All they know was they were advancing and suddenly a bright flash and an explosion in the crew compartment happened, after which there were shocked, some wounded or even killed, there were lots of smoke, maybe fire, sometimes blood everywhere... They just opened their hatches and jumped/crawled out... Now, compare this with my Panthers...

Addtional spotting-checks each second against any working door that is closer than some specific distance ? Or maybe only IF the door is inside a Cover Arc cone of this unit? I wish a narrow cover arc ment that the pixeltruppen are really focused on this direction - even if they pay less attention to other directions, so more vunerable against threats outside of their cover arc. If there were more frequent spotting checks inside the arc, at price of less frequent spotting checks outside of the arc - then the overall number of the spotting checks for this unit would stay same resulting with no game slowdown, hopefully. For now, maybe setting one team with an area fire order exactly at the bunker doors would do for a workaround ? Anyway, thanks for reporting this in my games I will pay close attention to such situations and try to secure against sudden SMG surprises .

Absolutely ! I agree completly ! I think about something like Sherman penetrated by 75/88mm shell - because this is what is most irrytating - that after 3-4 penetrations from Panther gun, a Sherman can return fire or retreat. Or a Panther after being penetrated twice from the side by Sherman, usually just rotates it's turret and kills the Sherman. Such thinks should happen, but only extremally rarely. They are quite common, unfortunately. Some probabilities should be changed, or some functions reworked. Two penetrations in a row are - psychologically - not the same as doubled effect of a single penetration... ect... Sure that low-energy and smaller cal penetrations, especially purely kinetic (no burster) have much smaller effect, and I can easily see a motivated crew surviving several such penetrations with only some wounds and willing to continue fight.

Not really. Yes, the tanks in CMBN are shot again and again untill they catch fire or the crew is seen escaping. BUT the crew rarely is trying to escape after first penetration or even first casualty. Instead of that, usually the crew of penetrated tank acquires the shooter, rotates the turret and counter-fires, and is even able to win this duel ! In real life tanks were shot repeatedly, but USUALLY after the first penetration (or after taking casualties) the crew only tried to save lives, didn't think about counterattacking ! In CMBN the tanks are shot repeatedly, but during this time, USUALLY the crew of repeatedly penetrated tank is still spotting targets (especially easilily spotting the one that hit them), rotating it's turret, aiming and shooting. For me, this is not the same.

Well, I think it all depends on definition of "being OK'd". The definition of real WW2 tankers may have been little different than the one used in CMBN game. In many cases those tanks from the study could have been KO'd - with crews not willing to fight anymore and trying to escape" after first penetration - but they were penetrated again and again untill they were seen burning or the crew was seen escaping. So I think that the number of holes not necesarily corresponds with number of penetrations needed for tank to really "be KO'd". Maybe the numbers should be - for example - divided by half... I tend to believe tanker's memoirs where they describe how they acted after their tank was penetrated. It's much more anegdotical, but it's another piece of data, too. Especially the instances of "survived six penetrations, lost some crewmembers, but still killed my tank"... They should be so improbable, that would be very, very anegtotical - described here in forums once eevery few years... I believe that - first: the crews should be more willing to abandon their vehicles after first penetration, especially crews of less armored tanks, and even much more after second penetration, second: the casualty rate should be a little higher. But biggest problem is the first one - that casualties which happen, doesn't cause the "shock" state for the rest of the crew, or rarely cause them to escape...

Can we return to discussion about "reality of war" vs "reality in CMBN" ? Regarding tank casualties and actions of penetrated tank's crews ? Please...