Amizaur

Could we please talk also about tanks in CMBN, making impression they are accelerating like today's MBTs ? Don't you think, that tanks in CMBN have too quick reaction times, especially the drivers ? -They start to turn the tank or to move it the same milisecond the order was given. Maybe a 1-2s delay (dependant on experience rating) - just simulating time for the driver to crank RMP and physically handle the controls - would be better ? ) What do you think about the KT turning in place, in terrain, with surprising ease ? Shouldn't the KT be a little less maneuverable in terrain than it is now ? The real KT could accelerate not that bad, in fact quite good for such heavy tank, and had a decent max speed - but all that on a hard surface. There are some videos of Samour KT moving and accelerating on hard road. Not that bad. But find some videos of the same tank moving in terrain, hear the sound of the engine working hard, see the tank turning. It's MUCH harder to maneuver in terrain for such heavy tank. It has to maneuver slower, at low gear, on high RPM. It accelerates slower, because of the drag. When it gains some speed, then it can turn relatively well, but from a stop it turns or rotates really very slowly. MUCH slower, than in the game. Watching some similar video (Samour KT on hard road) I was under impression that KT can hardly rotate in place (from a stop) on the road. The driver tried this, but gave up. Maybe he didn't want to strain the running gear / transmission. After seeing that, I'm in doubt KT could rotate in place at all on softer ground, in terrain. Even if it was able to, it would be extremally slow and extremally hard for transmission/running gear. In CMBN, I played KT once. My KT was standing betwen some light trees. It rotated in place very quickly. I ordered it to turn 30deg to the right - it took him mayeb 3s to do that. I could bet same maneuver in real life would take on average at least 10 seconds. It saw a target 45deg to the left - again turned the hull in few seconds to face it. It was really fast in turning. The KT in CMBN has many advantages in game. Great armor, great gun, very fast turret rotation speed. Not sure if there is greater chance for one breaking during the game, than for other tanks. Should be. Unfortunately it's also very maneuverable in terrain, can turn very quickly in place, facing the enemy that managed to surprise him from a side. It's a little too uber... This tank really had many advantages, but also some disadvantages - like being rather slow (in terrain) and not very maneuverable (I mean that it maneuvered slower than other, not so heavy tanks - also straining it's engine / transmission / running gear). I'd like to see those disadvantages being reflected in the game, too......

And this is a kind of answer, I can accept . Thanks for clearing this up .

"Showing the track calculated would be best - though perhaps people would play games with the knowledge and misuse the power on a battlefield where often most of it would be unknown to them." ??? What "power" would you get by knowing that your tank/people can't go that way, and instead - with current movement orders - would go 200m around showing their rear to the enemy ? Power of not losing your vehicles/people in TOTALLY stupid and demotivating way ? You will lose lot of them, anyway, because of your tactical errors, they don't have to die because of game/interface shortcomings.......... The algorithm that "checks" the plotted path and makes corrections to it or generates an alternate one - is already in the game. This code is obviously run in the "execution" phase when a unit tries to do the moving, it checks if path is valid, and if not - it generates alternate (and usually stupid) one - in a phase of game, when you can't correct anything. It would be enough to modify the game in a way that the same already existing code would be called in "orders" phase, just after a player plots a waypoint. The code would check if the path is "possible" or not, and if it's not, it would generate an alternate path and make correction, so it would become visible to the player. The player would at once see that the path it plotted was changed to something stupid, delete the waypoint and try a different one. As the additional checks and most of alternate-path finding would be done in orders phase, less path-finding would have to be done in execution phase. Most of the plotted paths - that were "checked" - would be still valid in execution phase - unless in the meantime some crater shows or some vehicle wreck blocks the way.

How do you make "Cautios" with avaiable orders ? Hide ? Not really. Is a unit without targeting orders "cautios" by default ? Then how do you make an "Active" behaviour against targets not seen at the very moment (you can't target them), or against new targets that could show up during upcoming 1 minute turn ?

Would be helpfull, to have the "stance" available while playing WEGO... Planning a move is similar to planning a scenario - only some 1 minute scenario. But lot's of pixel truppen can die in one minute...

The "destroyed" tanks shown on pictures in this thread for sure doesn't look like total write-offs..

So, what does really MEAN in the game, that the vehicle is in "destroyed" state ? What it takes to destroy a vehicle ? Tanks with all specific systems displayed as operational, full crew and the engine running fine are sometimes declared as "destroyed" and doesn't shoot anymore. What is wrong with them ? Some kind of "tank health" points are depleted by the shell damage ? Some tank system - that is modelled but not shown for us in the list of systems - is damaged ? Also, how does being "destroyed" differ from a "knocked-out" state ? Is a "knocked-out" tank just a tank which crew "decided" to bail-out and is not necessarily connected with any physical damage to the tank? That would sound plausible, as crews with very high motivation seem to be much less suspectible to being "knocked-out". High-motivation crews often take several penetrations and still continue to fight inside a damaged tank, that doesn't become "knocked-out" yet. It's rare with "Normally" motivated crews. But in real life chances for physical damage to a tank/tank systems for sure doesn't depend on crew motivation ! So if the "knocked-out" tanks were not necessarily physically damaged - just "crews decided they "lost" and abandoned - then why can't they be re-crewed later, with the same crew ? Also, they should show just as "abandoned". I'm not sure - can AI crew "abandon" a tank on their own in panic (can't remember if this happens) ? Or maybe only human player can order to crew to "abandon" the tank ? Maybe tanks that are in fact still operational, but "abandoned" by panicked crews - are automatically called "knocked-out" and not re-crewable ? So - anybody knows, what is the difference, in the game engine, between "Destroyed" and "Knocked-Out" states ?

Any my AT guns usually are spotted BEFORE they fire. Even those hidden in woods. If they manage to stay hidden untill shooting, then after firing a shot or two, usually missing, they are targeted in few seconds and hit - often with first shot from the tank. Tanks shooting at AT gun seem for me to have better accuracy than AT-Gun firing on tank... Maybe not always, but often... LEt's see... Tank - a big contrast target, located usually in an open field, at the moment when shooting starts. In a TYPICAL engagement, the AT-gun, being hidden, has time to do all the calcs, measure the range, set the sights, say the loader to be ready with the next round, take a big breath and then open fire. After the first shot, if they missed, they can correct and fire next shot very quickly, having very good ROF - free standing guns with multiple loaders and ammo bearers tends to have much better ROF than same guns mounted in cramped space inside a tank turret, with only one loader. AT-Gun - small or very small (in case of parially dig-in 50-75mm AT guns) target, a poor-contrast target - often you can see the flash, but can't see the gun itself, masked with foliage, bushes, hidden in shadow or on dark bacground. Often best you can do is fire HE shells aiming at the flash or at the cloud of smoke, hoping it would hit something and get the crew with shrapnel. Rarely a gun itelf can be recognised easily - that would mean very poor concealement for the gun. In the typical enagement, the gun observes the target and has a first shot. The tank is the prey and is taken by surprise - it doesn't see the shooter, it's exposed. It has to locate the enemy (rarely knowing where to look for it, front or right or maybe left), target it, usually load the gun, ten aim and fire at the flashes or smoke, rarely seeing the contours of the gun itself. It seem, in most cases it should be the gun that wins. In 80% of cases, I would say. Well, other tanks can locate the gun and destroy it with HE fire, but the firsttank that was engaged by AT gun tank should stand no chance usually. I think. How about doing some single tank-at vs at-gun tests in the game ? Run it 100 times and check what's the proportion of wins and loses ? Of course the gun should have good chances to penetrate the target, let's say PAK-40 vs a Sherman, or 17pd vs side of a Panther. BTW being an AT-gun commander, I would order to throw or maybe wire-trigger some grenades 20-50m left and right from the gun, after firing first shot - as decoys. In hope the flash and smoke from grenade explosions would be recognised as flashes of my gun, and maybe engaged instead of my gun. Anyway, it could focus some attention of the enemy, giving me few additional seconds maybe. In the game the accuracy of tank fire agains AT-gun and AT-gun against the tank seem to be comparable. Sometimes the gun hits tanks, and tanks need 3-4 shots to get it, sometimes the gun can't hit anything with 3 shots and is killed with 1th shot from the tank. Would say, equal. Tanks seem to see the AT-gun directly and aim at it directly, often scoring direct hits.

I think there are many problems in the game, affecting the GAMEPLYAY, that are much more important to fix And I would like the efforts and LIMITED assets of BF programmers were focused on those more important for gameplay problems, than on the direction of the visual model of Churchil tracks - thay you have to zoom and focus on it, to notice . Remember - the Churchil drives just fine, it's only the 3D MODEL and TEXTURE that are wrong, not the TRACKS itself ;D Sorry, but there is so much things to add/fix/look at, that when I read someone shouting "Fix this or do something!!" about something like that, I'm getting nervous ;P

"SSG Hicklin, watched their progression through his glasses and called out the range: “Two thousand yards, moving at about ten mph.” Our rifle, with AP, had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, so it would take two seconds to arrive on target. The Krauts were moving at fifteen feet per second, which let them travel thirty feet in two seconds. Their lead tank was twenty feet long (from the book), so we led him a good length for a center shot." Everything above takes it's time. If the fire is to be accurate, most gunners if not seen by the enemy yet, would take their time and carefully calculate the range, speed, lead and everything needed, just like above. After the shooting starts, it can be fast, but there is an initial pause for decisions and calculations. I do not see something like that in CMBN, sadly.... If the emotions are simulated somehow in CMBN, then I'm glad. We should make some tests, putting one tank against the other at very close range and note the accuracy of inexperienced crews. If it's too good, then maybe the model should be tweaked a bit.

I would say, emotions. There is nothing technical that would prevent them from hitting a stationary or even slowly moving target with first shot on 100m. But I would guess for unexperienced crew an enemy tank on 100m that is shooting at them, is an extremely stressfull experience. They could miss multiple times and they were lucky the other side was in stress and inexperienced too. Other explanation would be the phrase "in the movement". Entirely possible to miss at 100m shoting on the move at maneuvering target. Well, I believe there should be something like combat stress simulated in CMBN, it could be a function of experience and motivation, with some arguments (is the enemy shooting at you ? was the encounter first in the battle / close range / unexpected?) and of course randomised a lot. But in less-stressfull situations and for experienced crews, the current good accuracy should be retained. Hard to miss a tank at 100m, while not being desperate... It would take totally wrong range setting on the sights, or misalligned sights, or shooting on the move or to a fast moving target. In some 3rd person tactical shooters, like 7.62mm and "Brigade E5" they tried to simulate things like "stress" and "adrenaline". If your soldier was inexperiended and unexpectedly saw an enemy on a close range, or it was shot at, it's stress rating increased and there were penalties in accuracy ect. The stress rating was decreasing over time, sometimes it was enough to just hide the character behind a wall and give him a moment to calm down a bit. In a next encounter during the same battle the effect was much smaller, the soldier was "adapting" and adrenaline effect was working positively now, reducing stress. Of course for experienced and battle hardened soldiers the effect was much weaker, but even for them the "adrenaline" was increasing a lot in situations when they were overrun, under fire by multiple enemies at once ect. Their fire was much less effective then. Green and unexperienced soldiers would be totally ineffective in such hard situations (the stress and adrenaline would be at maximum and very poor accuracy) in those games, I guess it's a point where CMBN soldiers starts to panic and run . I must admit, I liked this system

I see people here citing and discussing many interesting reports / tests / data in subject, seem that there is much more interesting test/report data available now, than some years ago, when I was more interested in the armor penetration subject. Do you know maybe some interesting reports about behind-the-armor effects of AP and AP-HE projectiles ?

I tried the mission that was mentioned - with Canadians defending a town. Sticking it out. Very frustrating when a buttoned Panther after 20 seconds of observation detects my AT-gun (positioned behind some trees in a small park) from 1000m, and starts to engage it. The game seem for me to LITERALLY simulate the visibility, that there is an large AT-Gun positioned behind some bare tree trunks, with all the foliage above the trunks and not giving any cover. If the gun is is visible for me (after I zoom on it from position of the Panther) then it's visible for the Panther too. How on earth am I supposed to hide anything, if a gun crew can't camuflage it effectivelly in trees ? Without an abstracted concealement given by tree shadow, foliage, some natural and some brought (for sure) by the gun crew ? If we can't simulate EVERYTHING, I mean every little weed, and branch, and leaves, then some abstraction in calculating concealement is a GOOD thing and should be used. Second frustration came, when a Panther charged trough a small backyard, and I charged it with a full squad of Canadians occupying that backyard. They have surrounded a stuck tank at a 1-2m range before it could react. Did the Panther died, did it tried to reverse or escape ? No, it just swung it's turret around, dropping the barrel to the ground and killed from coaxial MG every soldier laying around the tank, laying just under it's tracks. I'm crying for gun elevation limits, for minimal practical range for MG fire, and instead of engaging the infantry at few-meters range, better logic for AI tanks would be to try to escape, to just move ahead or better reverse back, and not stay in place and rotate it's turret killing everything that lives. And again - please... a Panther that - while running buttoned at full speed - spots my Wolverine in an ambush position to the side, and (still running full speed and rocking on some bumps) rapidly rotates it's turret by 90deg and in few seconds it's aiming at my tank (fortunately, it doesn't try to shoot on the move, after 1.01) makes an impression of an Abrams or Leopard, not WW2 tank...

Eventually all the KT were knocked out, and guess what one of German crews did after jumping out of their tank . Three of them started to crawl for cover, but two dropped prone and opened fire with their pistols against the Sherman Firefly 50m away, probably trying to kill it's unbuttoned TC in revenge . They ignored bullets from Sherman's hull MG and continued to shoot untill Sherman's TC have buttoned, only then turned back and crawled for cover .

So... if both tanks are stationary and on close range, then every shot would hit practically the same place on target armor - over and over ? If the place happens to be the strongest part of the armor, then penetration is impossible untill position is changed ? Edit: Just checked it, putting 3 immobilised Fireflys agains 3 immobilised King Tigers at ranges of about 50-100m. After one round there were hits on lower hull, upper hull and turret. Many marginal penetrations of lower hull and many clean penetrations of turret front and weapon mount. The German crews just sit (short cover arcs) and do nothing. After 10 penetrations of KT so far, there was in total one casuality (front lower hull penetration, the driver killed, this crew bailed out), the remaining two KTs got about 4 penetrations each (of lower hull and front turret), they still have full crews and no damage. I saw that the Fireflys DO CHANGE the aiming point before each shot. It's very visible at such close range. For example, at first the Firefly is aiming rather low and little to the left from the center of mass, and before next shot it raises the barrel and move it bit to the right and so on. Unfortunately, the moves are very fast (the hand-cranked move in elevation also is quick) and the shot happens split of a second after barrel is rapidly raised or lowered. Doesn't look like WW2 tank action... Rather like some Vulcan/Phalanx or another computer-aimed cannon acquiring and engaging it's target . What is interesting, if I set two Fireflys close each other, agains one KT, both Fireflys are executing the same pattern of aiming - every "salvo" they both hits the same armor plate. First both Fireflys hits the lower hull, then both corrects up and to the right and hits upper hull, then both again moves barrels down and hits lower hull, then both aims higher and to the right and hits front turret and so on. The aiming (or moving the aiming point) pattern/algorithm is not random, is same for two tanks in same situation . I'm glad there is a variable aiming point in the game ! It's somewhat random (not chosen smartly, just one shot lower, next shot higher, next lower again and so on) but at least there is some variability and that is very good thing .

There is a possibillity, that a scenario designer set a high or very high "motivation" for crews of than "resistant" Panthers - probably not realising, that this parameter can have a big (too big?) impact on their tendency to stay and continue to (effectively) fight in their tanks despite getting numerous penetrations and even some crew casualities. Would be interesting to load the scenario you are playing (after finishing it first) to editor and check morale of that heroic Panther crew. edit: I have checked this for you. In the scenario (Sticking it out) almost whole German force (including tank crews) have Extreme motivation, Canadian tank crews have Normal motivation. Well, there was something extreme in motivation of some of German troops and crews at this stage of was (SS troops especially), but it was rarely expressed as a will to die with their damaged tank that is being penetrated over and over. Such heroic behaviour did happen sometimes, but usually when the penetrations were only light or moderately heavy (no gore casualities, no heavy smoke or shock) and - what is most important - they happened when despite some wounds or some damage - they STILL FELT CONFIDENT IN THEIR TANK and IN THE BATTLE - that believed the penetration was accidental, that they can still RELATIVELY safe (not going to die in seconds from next one), are able to fight effectively, that they are supported by other own tanks or troops. When penetrated from surprise, not knowing what the hell is happening, when hevy or gore casualties happened, when tank was not functioning anyway, when there was heavy smoke inside, and - what's most important - when they felt in danger of next penetrations in seconds (the next round is likely to arrive as soon, as the enemy reloades it's gun - and just as likely to penetrate) - then based on numerous memoirs - even SS crews evacuated the tank as quickly as they could to save lives in such situations ! After all, if they only survived, they could get another tank, experienced crews were much more valuable for Germans than a Panther or even a Tiger. They didn't like to lose vehicles, but they abandoned them when they had to - to save life and fight another day in another tank. So maybe te motivation should have little less influence on probability of abandonin a penetrated tank. As others have said, I think for the Panther it would be strange to not withdraw or change position when being hit multiple times by such powerfull AT rounds. To just stand there shooting, while being bombarded. Well, maybe their engine died for a moment . I also think that for the AT-gun crew it would be unusual not to try aiming for the turret, ar at least a little bit higher, after so many ineffective hits on glacis. It is entirely possible, if they were under extreme stress, or if they couldn't see their tracers and could not observe hits on the Panther. Then, yes, they would just reload and shoot hoping they are hitting it. The gunner of the 17pd could not be able to see the tracer or maybe even not be able to observe the hits - but the gun commander definitely should see at least the hits and order a range correction...? I think...? Knowing that they are bouncing from the target's hull multiple times, I believe they would try to hit smaller target they CAN penetrate (the turret) than just continue to aim center of mass hitting the target every time, but ineffectively... We all have seen tight groups of ineffective hits on fronts of King Tigers, but they were at best 3-4 shots, not 10 ! In stress you can try something mindlessly a few times, but the reflection that "it's useless!" have to came sooner or later... Maybe after 2-3 ineffective shots, the computer "gunner" should try to change it's aimpoint a bit, just like they do now, when they are hitting a tree on the way ?? Try to aim a bit higher, a bit lower... Anyway I believe that in most cases - if not aimed very carefully or by a cyborg - every shot is a little different. At long range, because of shell dispersion. At closer range, because of aiming quickly in the stress of battle, or because of deliberate change of the aiming point. Maybe the computer "gunner" should not be just as precise on closer range (like under 500m) that on long range ? On long range you _have to_ take your time and aim with maximum precission (even if it costs few seconds more) to maximise your chances to hit. On shorter range, very precise aiming would be considered a waste of time, I think, if time is any factor in that engagement... Could anyone with good knowledge ot the game say: if an allied tank or allied gun fired multiple times from a distance of 50m to a King Tiger tank, would they every time aim precisely the same point and hit over and over virtually the same place ? And if that place the shot are hitting happens to be a center of the KTs front hull (because of geometry), then they are just hopeless ? Even if they have a weapon that is capable penetrating front turret or lower hull ? They would just continue to aim for the center of mass ? Same situation for a 76mm/6pd vs Panther ?

* Drag and drop waypoints... this was one of my favorite features of CMx1 I support this with all my heart !! I'm sick when I have to plot again almost a whole path, to change position of a single waypoint I have misplaced....... It was so easy and quick to modify the path in the previous game.... I miss this simple feature very much.

I'd like to add to my last post (can't edit?), that "Extreme" motivation of Panther crews could be a partial explanation of why Panthers were not knocked-out and crews didn't abandoned them but continued to fight. When I set motivation to "normal" in the same test, most of Panthers were knocked-out or destroyed (wonder, what is the difference) after first penetration from Shermans - even though casualty rate among the crews of penetrated Panthers was just as low as before! Use Motivation settings for tank crews higher than High with care, as Extreme or Fanatic can cause tanks being hard to kill because chance for tank being actually damaged/knocked out by penetration can be not too high, and casualty rate among crews of penetrated tanks is low too. Seem the tank "knock-out" rate of penetrating shots depends somewhat on crew motivation setting ? But if low-motivated crews are prone to abandon not-very-damaged tanks (that they would continue to use and fight in, if they had higher motivation) then why those tanks are marked as permanently "knocked-out" and cannot be re-crewed later by the same crew ?

* hits of armor piercing projectiles on armor diplayed in text of _different colour_ (like yellow, red) than hits of ordinary bullets. There happens to be a lot of hits, and sometimes I have problems recognising the important ones (from other tanks or AT-guns). Just different colour of txt for larger calibers or for dedicated AT weapons, that's all. I hope it's quite simple. * tank turrets rotating either slower (with calculated average speed for that rotation event, or better - simulating in a simple way turret dynamics, mass, I mean making the rotation slower at the start and the end, max speed in the middle). Currently it seems for me the turrets start to rotate with max possible rotation speed in the same nanosecond a target was spotted, and stops abruptly when pointing at the target. Then the turret is stopped for the time of "aiming" and - if the target have moved in this time, the turret almost instantly turns a little again to point on the target again in the moment of shooting - giving a "shotgun snapshot" impression. This makes for me - graphically - a feeling of robot-like behaviour of turret tanks: quick and deadly robotic "terminator" killing machine.... I can accept such impression in CMSF for modern vehicles, modern MBT and IFVs with computerised FCS and fast, powerfull and precise turret controls, but it absolutely doesn't suit for WW2 tanks... Also making turret to instantly rotate with max speed and instantly stop at the target is something like making the tanks in game instantly accelerating to their max speed and instantly stopping. It's obvious that if max rotating speed of a turret is for example 30deg/s, then rotating the turret for 60deg WOLD NOT take only 2s ! It's just like for a vehicle with max speed of 36km/h (so 10m/s) - it would NOT take 2s to change it's firing position by 20m. * some slow-down in all the things a tank crew does after it spots a target - please put in some random time delays for human things like decision making, communication between crewmembers, gving orders, reflex and proficiency in executing orders... Currently what I see is that after a target is spotted, then in the same milisecond the turret starts rotating toward the target (with max speed) and stops abruptly when pointing at it, then some (usually short) time for precise aiming and a shot. Come one people !! When any crewmember (even the TC) spots a target, first he has to realise what is it (let's assume it recognises enemy target in split of second), then he has to make quick decision, shout orders, tell the gunner where the target is, then the gunner can start rotating the turret ect. It doesn't happen instantly. Sometimes it can happen very quickly with a good crew and dangerous situation, but it's random, sometimes there can be several seconds of delay on different levels of decision making, communication and execution of orders. Please make some random time delays simulating flow of information between crewmembers. Now with tanks reacting in miliseconds after spotting every target (including too rapid and precise rotation of turret) I don't have an impression of a crewed tank - but that it's a living thing or robot, has it's eyes and brain and when it sees something, it tries to kill it immediately. * Please add some TARGET MEMORY for tanks (or tank commanders). They have really a goldfish memory - if not worse !! Currently I have lot of situations that - for example - a tank crew spots enemy tank very close on it's side - a high priority target and great danger - immediately it rotates turret to it. Then when some puff of smoke (after shot of from some explosion) blocks the view and our tank loses sight of the (very close and dangerous) enemy - after few seconds it "forgets" about it's existence !! It just returns to spotting or to engaging other distant targets. When the smoke clears (after few more seconds) the enemy kills it and they even don't know what killed them !! Believe or not, but a huge King Tiger can be 20m away from a Sherman, to it's side/rear in an quite open field, being spotted and targetted quite quickly (after it emerged from behing an obstacle). Then after one shot - when the smok/dust obscures the view - the Sherman FORGETS about the King Tiger 20m to it's right and rotates the turret to the front !!! After the smoke cleared, they were looking forward (TC unbuttoned), with turret forward too, completly unaware of King Tiger they have seen 10 seconds ago !! It took them several seconds to re-spot it (after the unbuttoned Sherman's TC was killed from KT's MG... ). They would be dead 10 times - if only the KT didn't have it's main gun damaged... So again, please add some king of target memory to tanks ! Maybe it should depend on target priority, distance, ect. The crew should KNOW there is an enemy they can't currently see (but it may be dangerous anyway) if they have seen it a while ago. Just like the crew "knows" in some way about or maybe "are aware of" some targets that they were told about by a radio, they should also "be aware of" targets they seen with their own eyes. * ability for (smarter, maybe veterans and up?) tank gunners/TCs to aim for specific part of the enemy tank, if very close. From 200m or less they really could calculate their chances and aim for turret (frontally), or for an engine (from the side). This way they could have a better chance of - for example - penetrating frontal armor of a Panther, or first-shot knock-out a tank from the side. * please add some "shock" effect for a tank crew after their tank was penetrated (at least, when there were casualities). Currently what I see is that usually if a tank rotates turret to engage a target, but the enemy was faster and made a penetrating shot, then even if there were casulalities - usually the tank continues to rotate the turret -like nothing happened - then aims and shoots normally. I believe that only if the gunner becomes a casulity, there is short pause and then turret continues to rotate and shoot. IMHO there is also too small chance for casualities after a penetration (I see a lot of penetrations without any of the crewmans injured or even shocked), but that's another issue. Even if there are no serious casualities, penetration from a high-energy AT gun like German ones, 76mm or 17pd, IMO definitely has an impact on the crew. Of course not always, there happens "clean" penetrations sometimes, but usually they have effect on the crew (a flash, explosion-like noise, sparks flying everywhere, some big and lot of small splinters... And in case of APHE projectiles that detonate inside the penetrated vehicle, then even if the crew is (miraculously) ok, they would have probably broken ear-drums, be disoriented, thrilled, and the inside would be filled with smoke ect. Would they continue to fight, without a second of delay, like nothing happened ? In CMx1 there was a "shocked" state for a tank crew, when the tank didn't function normally for some random time (usually few seconds but sometimes up to a minute or so). It could happen when a crewmember died or just after a penetration. Would be a great to have it also in CMx2. I run a simple test (while testing cmpletly different armor penetration issue) in which at start of the turn 6 (six) 75mm Shermans were facing sides of the 4 (four) Panthers 200m away. Shermans were regular, unbuttoned (to help them spot targets quickly), Panthers were veteran, buttoned (to not spot the Shermans too quickly) and immobilised (to not rotate their hulls frontally to Shermans). So, a typical ambush situation when tanks ambushed from the side are usually "executed" before they know what is happening and where the shots came from. And, guess what ? Shermans never won ! I run this scenario several times (I guess about 6-10 times by me and my friend). In my tests sometimes Shermans managed to kill 2 Panthers, once 3, sometimes they killed only one Panther before they were shot to pieces by them ! Start of the turn. Shermans of course spotted the buttoned Panthers first, in seconds. Started to aim and at the same time pumped MG rounds at the (buttoned) Panthers, alerting them. I hope those MG bursts had some logical sense, like to help with ranging... Some Panthers at this moment noticed the Shermans (after being hit from MG) and started to turn quickly their turrets 90deg to the side to target the Shermans. (too quickly...) Then 6 Shermans fired their first salvo at 4 stationary Panthers from 200m and usually hit them and of course penetrated their sides without problems. And.... very rarely any Panther was knocked-out, usually even no-one wounded, even if there were casualities anyway the 3-4 (remaining after first salvo). The Panthers continued to rotate (with max speed) their turrets 90deg to Shermans and fired their first salvo. They usually hit (200m) and usually 2-4 Shermans died. Remaining Shermans fired again at remaining 3-4 Panthers, but often they hit mantled (ineffective) and Panthers seemed to have an advantage from now on, because in 2-3 salvos rest of the Shermans were shot to pieces. Panthers and their turrets acted like "terminator" robotic killers... Well, I had such graphical impression looking at their fast and precise turning and shots... Panther shots usually knocked out Shermans, Sherman penetrations of Panther sides usually had no effect and even cleanly penetrated from the side Panthers continued to rotate and target Shermans. Even if there were casualities. Let's forget the fact, than in real life, in such a hopeless situation (being ambushed from the side by numerically advantageous enemy, most crews (even those highly motivated) would abandon their vehicles. It's hard to numerically simulate "hopelesness of situation" in the game. But I believe that Panthers after being penetrated IN MOST CASES would not be able to react as quickly as like nothing happened, and enagge the Shermans so quickly end efficiently. First, there would be shock, confusion, wounds and casualities, fear and some panic, it would take on average at few seconds before average people realized they are ok, the tank is ok and they can still fight. If there were bloody casualities and wounds, then more time. Then they could try to engage the enemy (if they managed to spot it). In this time, a time given by the "shock" state of penetrated Panther's crews, the Shermans would manage to reload and make a second salvo of penetrating shots, causing again a shock, consternation and panic (and more casualities than currently, I hope). And so on. If it worked like that, then maybe in the game six 75mm Shermans would stand a chance agains 4 side-rotated buttoned Panthers ?? Because in real life that would be almost an execution for Panthers. They would be lucky if they managed to kill any Sherman, before they die. Currently, it happens in almost the opposite way... And I do not believe that a fact that Sherman crews were regularand and Panthers were veteran - like I had in this test scenario, I didn't care for that because initially I wanted to check some penetration glitch - made any significant difference. At least it shouldn't. Maybe green vs elite setup would have effect... * and ability to "reverse" an AT-Gun just like any other vehicle (move back without rotating 180deg), and also an ability to move AT gun a bit (at least few meters, or 1-2 blocks) forward or back without a need to pack_it_up and setup again after few meters. After all, if moving the gun for only few meters, the crew even don't have to move the ammo stock with it. We all know it was done all the time, it was important part of AT-guns crews, it helped them to target and to survive - pushing the gun few meters into a firing position or pulling it back into cover after being spotted. Current survivability of AT guns is very poor - they are easily spotted by moving tanks (even buttoned ones) and knocked-out in one-two shots, often before they manage to hit something. An ability to pull it away a bit without packing first, would help. * an information - displayed somwhere on the UI with unit info - what the unit is actually doing! I mean - moving fast, slow, hiding, waiting, packing-up, ect. In WEGO I click on my moving tank and have no idea what order is it executing (if I does not remember what orders I've plotted at this point). How fast is it going currently ? Slow ? Fast or Quick only on some obstacle ? Scout ? I liked CMx1 information system, when this info was displayed - an info what ORDER is the unit currently executing, at least what kind of movement/special order.

I'll try to recreate it and make a saved turn. If it happens again and I catch it, I'll make a separate thread. Now I HOPE it can be explained somehow...

For the first battle (not a serious one, just to see how things are going) I took "The Mace" - Polish troops against Germans. I got one Sherman Firefly and some 75mm ones. After the battle started, some German Panthers G (early) showed up. The smashed my AT guns in one-two shots and assaulted. So I positioned my three 75mm Shermans beside a buidings in a way that they could shoot to the side of the Panthers when they came into their view on the route of their assault. It worked well and two Panthers came into view and showed their sides at the exact moment of crossing a fence (so slowing down), one Panther first, and a second one after a while. One of Shermans in good posiotion hit each Panther twice in the side armor (from AP rounds) at a range of about 200m. Angle was almost perpendicular to the side, no more than 10-20deg off. First hit on the Panther was just a "side armor hit", second one was "upper side armor hit, armor spalling", I was more and more surprised. The first Panther disappeared behing trees, but then came second Panther and the Sherman again scored two ineffective hits against it's side (only some spalling). Then the Panther rotated towards me and in seconds killed all the Shermans with single hits. Acting like a... Terminator tank (after spotting my Sherman, it quickly rotated turret - with maximum possible speed - and then a quick, precise shot just split of second after the turret stopped rotating). Question is - was I actually firing at side armor of King Tigers (which were mistakenly recognised as Panthers by my troops), or is there some problem with penetration ability of Polish 75mm Shermans (not sure if I need to check the exact type, or is it the gun type that counts), that are unable to penetrate with good angle the side armor of a Panther from 200m or what ?

Were there any hits to the Panther's turret ? Or maybe wirtually all hits from Shermans went into Panther's front hull - as AI Sherman gunners aimed at the Panther's center of mass ?

I would prefer if TacAI about pathfinding worked for AI troops - it's nice that computer-controlled forcers try to not become too exposed or go straight into "trap areas". But also would prefer that troops and vehicles commanded by me - folowed MY orders. If I plot a path on the road I would prefer the vehicle to move on the road. If I plot them a stupid path, I will lost them and loose, and it's my problem as an player and commander. Anticipating dangerous areas and avoiding possible traps is also my task as a player. Only really suicidal orders (I want them to do something clearly at cost of their lives) could be possibly modified by my pixel-troops (nobody wants to die). Other than in such situations, human-controlled forces should obey the movement orders, because the human player is better in anticipating threats than TacAI. And if he is not - well it's his fault .

Notice, that when the Sherman fired the first round (paint filled one) he even haven't finished rotating it's turret yet to aim the gun at the Tiger . Same as it happens in CMBN at a times

Teh CMx1's "vehicle" or "tank" sound-only contacts were much better in this regard... I want them back...