Baneman

Joking aside, Boomkow, there was this thread earlier : http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119001-more-bulge-info-and-a-few-screenshots/
 
If you read all of it, you will see how it rapidly went downhill and that is generally the reason why we don't have more public info regarding development.

You'd think, but really, there's little difference between a red blob under the vehicle and a skull-and-crossbones.
 
I've used Vein's red bases for ages and due to it's "generic" nature, I find it more immersive - skull symbols shout "game" whereas red blob does not ( so much ).
 
Ideally, I'd love the game to differentiate between KO'd vehicles and casualties - a blackish "scorchmark" under a vehicle would be nicer

They will recover from Tired whilst using Move

Looks great Tanks
 
 
Remember that the stock game ( incl. textures ) is designed to be able to run on the slowest computer that customers may own.
Increasing texture definition raises that "lower bar".
 
But hey, with great modders like Tanks out there ( and others ), we get the best of both worlds.

The in-game difference between early and late T34-85 is BIG. From slow hand-cranked turret to a turret motor so blazingly fast that Beta testers initially thought the numbers must be off. The late war T34-85 seems to be a perfectly capable combat tank. Gamer's often make the error of thinking of tanks as knights of the battlefield engaging in individual combat. Especially on the Eastern front it was less a duel than a gang rumble. It wasn't so much T34 vs Panther as T34 battalion vs Panther company.

Looks great Tanks
 
 
Remember that the stock game ( incl. textures ) is designed to be able to run on the slowest computer that customers may own.
Increasing texture definition raises that "lower bar".
 
But hey, with great modders like Tanks out there ( and others ), we get the best of both worlds.

Don't spend lots of time scouting. Don't bother to fix and flank, except with tank forces, who can do it at speed. But also don't just run infantry at the enemy or ignore casualties. That isn't Russian doctrine or how it actually worked, it is just a cartoon slander of their methods spread by the Germans, whomthought it made them defending against it sound all clever and also heroic for braving it etc. (A rather incoherent set of spin objectives, incidentally, but that is an aside).

The first idea is that any definite plan pushed will be faster than slow recon pull. The next is that the process of destroying the enemy really isn't that complicated - it is a matter of laying your ship alongside the enemy, as Nelson put it before Trafalgar. Meaning close aggressively with the enemy, brave what he can dish out to dish out as much as you can yourself, and trust in your strength to destroy him before he destroys you.

But that isn't a headlong charge. Above all, it isn't about movement in the first place, it is about firepower and punishment dealt.

The first infantry wave is fixing, but doesn't have to do it everywhere, or care too much about finding the enemy. Walking over your chosen route of advance will either penetrate the enemy and break up his defense, or he'll find you, and reveal himself stopping that. Let him. Then blow the living crap out of everything that reveals itself, with all your firepower arms. Tanks, mortars, artillery support - call down the wrath of God to avenge the first wave. All the first wave itself needs to do in the meantime is hit the dirt, take what cover they can, and rally as best they can. They did their part drawing the enemy's fire. Don't press. It isn't a race. Save as many of them as possible, by blasting the guys shooting at them and skulking them out of sight.

Then send the second wave. Not a new idea. Not a fancy razzle dazzle end around head fake double reverse. Send them at the spots your artillery and other fire support just blasted into the lower atmosphere, while the dust is still moving upward. They may occupy the places so blasted. Or they may draw fire from a new set of shooters, and repeat the experience of the first wave. You don't really care which. There is no rushing. You have all week. Everyone will get a turn before you are done, every bit of fire support you have will chew on something, and the enemy will need to shoot you all down and still have something left. If they don't, it may be in the bottom half of the clock that they start crumbling. Waves that have been out of the leading role are rallying the while, shooting back. You don't care how long it takes, but not because any of it is tentative or any part of the clock is quiet. Reuse the rallied early waves as fourth and fifth attacks. The whole point is to outlast them, to have the last rallied wave standing. Inexorable is the watchword.

Each wave doesn't bunch up. It isn't trying to run the enemy off his feet in one go. You only expose what it takes to make a serious threat to enemy position if he doesn't open up with a major line of battle. The ideal size of one wave is a numerical match for the defenders on the same frontage. You don't want to give them denser targets that make all their weapons more effective. Instead you want them to face trying to hold off the third wave with empty magazines and surrounded by blasted friends, worked over repeatedly by all your fire support.

They won't stand. Lean hard enough into them, back off for nothing, make no mistakes, and use every weapon in your force for its proper target - and they will go down. Trust your combined strength, believe it, press home and make it so.

No captain can go far wrong who lays his ship alongside one of the enemy.

Why are you so hung up on this "prone lying medic" thing? I've told you in the past it's something medics just don't do, and for good reason. 

Agreed, kevinkin.
 
See GeorgeMC's "Der Ring der 5. Panzer-Division" scenario for an excellent example of a huge map with lots of units ( but it doesn't feel like a lot because ... huge map... ) and plenty of time to work your way (relatively) realistically across.
 
His CMBN "Schmiedestahl" is similar in scope and scale.
 
So it can be done, but a lot of people want a quick half-hour of action - and fair enough, not everyone has the time to commit to a monster battle.
So people sometimes need to rein in their perceptions/preconceptions because we're the ones using units ahistorically, not the game.

Everyone knows I'm a hardcore France 1940 fanboy, but I guess I should put it down in writing one more time in hope
 
Fulda Gap '80's would be my secondary choice.
 
#3 would be Eastern Front 1943 - I'd love to recreate the Kharkov battles ( probably has the best chance of seeing the light of day in the next couple of years )

Win10 is progress?

If you are serious about gaming and performance on your PC, Win 7 64-bit is the system to have at the moment. Just like XP was before the updates stopped and Win 7 finally matured in its 64 bit form.

Newer is not always better. Vista was a trainwreck, 8 was a trainwreck and 10 is just rehashed 8. Those systems are fine if you treat your PC as a smartphone and use it to organize your photos, browse Facebook and utilize all those useless apps. If you are running an overclocked gaming beast, where you require total control with simple interfaces, they are guano.

Glad to hear ( that it's not a bug    ).
 
Do not be too embarrassed, the number of "Spotting is bugged" threads that turned out to be due to Trees or Smoke turned off are legion.
It's all too easy to do - and the fact that the actual tank owned by a particular crew is not easily identifiable doesn't help.
 
Back to the fun then

@Baneman
Thanks for looking into it.
I have identified the problem. The problem is not in the game, but the idiot who sat in front of the computer. I obviously was so clever, that I ordered the two crews, once I had noticed they didn't recrew the tanks, not on the other tank, but in the next minute onto the wrong tank again.   Embarassing.

LOL! Yeah, there's a lot of information being presented and a lot of talking past one another. I think.
 
At this point, I'd love to see a summary. The problem with any question about penetration values is, IMO, that there are so many variables and that most of the discussion is based on theoretical numbers, not tests. (Shoeburyness and Isigny nothwithstanding. Those provided some data, but were hardly thorough enough to create absolute certainty about the ballistics. The purpose of those tests were to see what Allied weapons worked, and which didn't.)
 
An additional complication is that the question here (which I -think- is whether the 76mm should always defeat the Tiger I frontal armor at less than 800m, given a normal angle to the face of the tank), starts to get into the realm of "maybe". (Hold yer horses! Let me esplain.) By "maybe", I mean that neither the armor nor the projectile have an overwhelming superiority over one another. There is no question that a rifle round cannot penetrate a Tiger face. There is no question that a 76mm at 500m will penetrate a halftrack. 
 
I've attached two quickly found internet tables.
 

 
and 
 

 
The 76mm gets close to, or exceeds, the 100mm Tiger armor thickness.
 
But wait.
 
What type of armor are the tables based upon? Do they have the same characteristics as the Tiger armor? What is the RHAe of the high-hardness Tiger plate? (They kept that quality up, unlike other tanks.) The Tiger armor's 100mm was a MINIMUM thickness. Often it was a few mm thicker. What about the zimmerit coating? Did that add resistance? Or reduce it? What about hitting things on the front, like brackets, cables, etc? (Then, we can talk about edge effects, too.)
Finally, we also need to realize that the front hull plate was sloped back at 10 degrees from the vertical. 
 
We're splitting hairs. Really.
 
If there is an issue, it needs to be presented clearly. Definitions matter. (Not trying to reignite a flame, just stating a fact.)
 
I think we all recognize that CM's armor/penetration model is probably the best one available to the public. If there is an inaccuracy, I'm sure we all would appreciate it being resolved.

Hah, clearly you never played Starfleet Battles ( captains ed. )
 
My favourite boardgame of all time, but you have/had to be a maniac micromanager to enjoy it...  

I really like it the way it is, i try to buddy aid where possible and it does slow down an advance which seems quite realistic.  Adding more micromanagement would not really add anything to the gameplay. 

Brutal. This is when people complain the game is broken. But exceptional events like this happened in the war, crazy accidents and stunning miracles are the fodder of countless WW2 bios found in books. Bad luck for DJ indeed, but incredible to watch.

Beware ! Beware !
 
Doug is a gamey-force-picking edge-hugging bastage
 
...
...just like the rest of us
 
Looking forward to the AAR.

Great stuff - you missed one though in the Death from Above category - "Destroy 1, 2 or 3 of your own vehicles with air support !"

Great stuff - you missed one though in the Death from Above category - "Destroy 1, 2 or 3 of your own vehicles with air support !"

Forget it. Judging by what i have read from you in other threads, i think that your intent is most likely to look up the hardware i bought and then tell me that i either bought it for a bad price or that it' s not good or whatever. And even if you wouldnt find anything, you would probably just make something up. I wont support you trying to piss me off.
 
And even if the next thing you tell me is that i misjudge you, that' s your problem, i neither trust you nor do i like you, bad luck.

Playtesting to find bugs is still playtesting, even if the scenarios are not checked.
 
And you'd be pretty quick to shout if the upgrade had bugs.
 
And "miracle" because any engine upgrade is going to be non-trivial exercise.
I work in IT ( not gaming industry ) and that's true across any software platform.

Why the hell would you want that ?
 
Anyway, that stuff can be modded if you really want it.

Playtesting to find bugs is still playtesting, even if the scenarios are not checked.
 
And you'd be pretty quick to shout if the upgrade had bugs.
 
And "miracle" because any engine upgrade is going to be non-trivial exercise.
I work in IT ( not gaming industry ) and that's true across any software platform.

No, I would not go ape-hog-wild about it if BFC released "utter trash" ( or even just normal "trash" ).
 
The reason I'm a "fanboi" is because I enjoy  the game(s) and I get hundreds ( looking forward to thousands ) of hours of entertainment from them.
 
There's room for improvement of course, but I'm content to let BFC prioritise since they know what they are doing ( opinion based on their 15 years of successful releases ).