Baneman

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 ).

I believe that politeness is key for good critiscism.

The first thing to do is to never, never attack your opponent directly. Always remember: Engage the problem, not the opponent. Else you won't be able to move forward.
 
Second: Make the other person feel understood. If you say "I believe that this and that needs improvements" and somebody else says "nope", first follow point one (don't attack) and then show them that you are on their side: IN this case, you both want to get the best out of a game. Don't say "You are a fanboy", or "F****** old breed", say "I can see where you are coming from, and, while I agree with some of your points, I do believe that further clarification is needed, so that you can understand mine". Be constructive.
 
Third: Be careful how you open up an issue. If you say "This is s***, this should change!" you'll immediately see the answers you got: If you attack something others will defend it. Instead, try to show everybody what your motivation is, and why you believe your way is better.. "I'm seeing other games with features I believe might improve the experience for everybody. I know that my position might be controversial, please help me make the game better."
 
Also, note how you should try to, immediately, inlude the people you are talking to. They can help you, you can help them. You aren't engaging each other, but you are tackling the problem. Include them, and ask them to include themselves!
 
And, fourth: Don't hunker down in your position. The moment oyu hunker down is the moment you feel that everybody attacking your position is attacking you and you start attacking them. Take a safe distance from all of your arguments. And, if you realise that you are wrong, take a step back. You aren't loosing if you got the best result for everybody!
 

Criticism doesn't equal attacking something. You can criticize in a polite way. I have never seen something good coming out of anything that startes with "your s*** is s***." While having a discussion in of itself can be fun, I don't think that's your goal here.
 

Techincally not true, atleast if you are refering to the comment I have in mind.
 

Nothing about death. Just about complaining somewhere else. But please don't misunderstand me, I do not agree with this statement.

Well, it's a forum which exists for debate.
If someone posts something I disagree with, I will post a counter-argument if I can.
If that = "defending BFC", so be it.
 
But wait, I am a fanboy
( I don't think I find the term insulting either - I like the game, it's true. )

Well, it's a forum which exists for debate.
If someone posts something I disagree with, I will post a counter-argument if I can.
If that = "defending BFC", so be it.
 
But wait, I am a fanboy
( I don't think I find the term insulting either - I like the game, it's true. )

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 ).

Target Light fires at a rate determined by the range, really - they fire each round only after observing the fall of the previous round - so the further away the target, the longer it takes for each round to land ( this can be observed more readily with larger calibre mortars since they have greater range - it can be as low as 1 or 2 rounds per turn in these cases ).
 
It comes in extremely useful, especially since the delay between rounds is often just enough for the enemy to be picking themselves up from the last "bang"

I believe the "car" stands for "Carbine" - so that ammo is useful to your squad leaders and such.
 
Personally I use Marco's UI mod which shows the ammo type on the gun portrait. Comes in very useful for the very problem you're having.

Fixed that

And is not the "No arty on deployment zones in Turn1" rule one of these ways ?
 
Just "simply allow attacking players to have pre battle entrenchments too or a correspondingly larger force" will not work in all circumstances - if the attacker has a larger force in case of first turn bombardment - what happens if there is NOT a first turn bombardment ?
As soon as you go that route, then the defender MUST bombard on Turn 1 or face instant ( pretty quick, anyway ) annihilation. So that just breaks it in the other direction.

And is not the "No arty on deployment zones in Turn1" rule one of these ways ?
 
Just "simply allow attacking players to have pre battle entrenchments too or a correspondingly larger force" will not work in all circumstances - if the attacker has a larger force in case of first turn bombardment - what happens if there is NOT a first turn bombardment ?
As soon as you go that route, then the defender MUST bombard on Turn 1 or face instant ( pretty quick, anyway ) annihilation. So that just breaks it in the other direction.

Looking forward to seeing this play out.
 
I am, of course, rooting for you man !
 
No mods is fine, but can I beg you to at least turn off the VL's for your vids ? That luminous green really breaks the immersion

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