Childress

Great looking scenario, Snake Eye. Unfortunately it brings my medium powered laptop to its knees. Don't understand exactly why, it runs Gog and Magog with aplomb. Maybe because yours is so 'purty'?

Contour lines would be useful but, as pointed out, ugly. From another thread: No idea how easy/hard that would be to implement.

Doesn't the luck factor often play a predominant role in armor-centric engagements? You can increase your chances with smart placement and maneuvering but the smaller the battle- and The Passage is not huge- the greater the unpredictability.

1- Right click shows elevation in meters. 2- Toggle switch that removes setup zones, permitting the inspection of subtle terrain features. Esp for the Soviets.

Man, just looked at some XI reviews. They're off the charts positive.

Speaking of Steam, there's major buzz over this new, real time war game that's still in Beta: [url removed] (not a CM competitor, moderators )

The only solution is enabling players to upload their own pricing systems. Even if the ensuing debates force BF to add another sub-forum. Using convoluted rules and charts (remember Fionn?) will never win durable appeal. Also hth quick battles (and MEs) seem to have declined in popularity relative to scenarios. Could be wrong about that, tho'.

Steve re-introduced, under duress, the unit purchasing system after Shock Force. QB players lobbied for it but Steve found it impossible to fine tune to everyone's satisfaction. Entire forum pages were devoted to the relative costs of SMG units or Shermans. Was it fair? Unfair!!? Constant adjustments were added and tweaked. Finally BF gave up. Like Sisyphus who was doomed to push a boulder uphill, only to have it roll back down to push it up again. You shouldn't expect any changes except for the most glaring discrepancies (themselves open to heated controversies).

I thought guns were verboten in Europe. Except Switzerland, where they're mandatory.

But your proposal, faster and more historically authentic hull rotation, would only render tanks more fearsome in game. I think you've become a victim of cognitive dissonance.

Haha. Substituting 'sex appeal' for SA in John's post make for an hilarious read. Sorry, John....

John, avoid jargon and grog code. There are non-native English speakers on the forum I'm assuming SA= spatial awareness. Doesn't your suggestion result in a Terminator tank (your term), turning and then firing with the rapidity of a M1A1 Abrams?

My brother-in-law is a retired Beverly Hills fireman. (during a high-rise fire he and some buddies looked down on the roof of a ritzy hotel and watched Elizabeth Taylor canoodle with Mike Todd. Or was it Eddy Fisher?) Anyway, firemen were in constant contact with the police at accident scenes, suspect fires and such. Although he knew a lot of them he confessed he never made friends with a single one. After work cops and firemen went their separate ways, different hangouts, different bars. He feels the cop mentality and the fireman mentality are worlds apart, completely alien to each other. He never understood exactly why.

So, you were once a member of the Evil Blue Host. I personally never experienced brutality. My principal beef with cops in LA is their perceived ever inflating arrogance and, above all, the crushing fines for (often) trivialities visited on the population through their agency. The latter is is not the fault of the police though they cannot be unaware of the consequences. The base fine is reasonable. Sacramento, eternally desperate for revenue, then multiplies the sum with inventive fees, taxes and surcharges. Like the $500 boulder that landed on my biking neighbor's head: $50 before the 'enhancements'. He could afford it painful and ridiculous as it was. Many can't, e.g. the working poor, the retired*, the unemployed. Then the ticket goes to warrant and more horrors ensue. This is from the state whose representatives claim they're for 'the little guy'. *Unless you're retired on a lavish California state pension (the principal source of the state's financial woes). Then you're on Easy Street.

Summing up:all the AFVs, including trucks,in the game can neutral steer. In reality only the later German tanks-Panther, Tiger, King Tiger- and a handful of Allied tanks, the Pershing and the Churchill among them could truly pivot in place. The mainstays of the German panzer force through most of the war, Stugs, IIIs and IVs, could not. Nor the Sherman. (Correct me if I'm wrong) BF tuned down hull rotation rates in order to include the acquisition sequence, possibility of inhospitable terrain (not simulated) and the risks to the drive train (not simulated either).

Hey! I just noticed! My 2000th post was followed by post #1 from a new member*. Welcome to the forum, Bennie. So your first post was a complaint. That's OK! *And some say harmonic convergence is a myth...

Not in game. Ground conditions don't seem to matter. You observe that a tank pivoting 180 degrees on road or open tile expends the same number of seconds to finish the rotation as one in an a forest or mud tile.

JasonC and Amizaur, separated at birth?

Interesting stuff. Didn't realize the World of Tanks site was a grog haven. Excerpt: The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories: • Superior flotation. • Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome. • The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no tell-tale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate. • The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. … • German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy. • German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks Not a happy comparison. German officers were not quite so universal in their praise of the Panther. General Fritz Bayerlein, commander of the Panzer Lehr Division, offered this summary of the Panther after the campaign in Normandy: While the PzKpfw IV could still be used to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman because of its maneuverability and height was good ... [the Panther was] poorly suited for hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneuverability in village and forest fighting. It is very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears out the front final drives, made of low-grade steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision slits makes defense against close attack impossible.

You mean speeding it up? Sentence 2 contradicts sentence 1. And I always thought of you as a master logician.

C'mon, Ales. That's easy for you to say.

Tanks in CM fire inaccurately when moving. They're close to useless. Doctrine suggests turning the hull in the direction of the threat. Are you arguing to make a point or arguing to win the argument?

Less of a problem than having your Shermans or Panthers turn at realistic speed and fire without delay like modern AFVs with their computer assisted targeting systems.

Yep. In that situation experience is king. The limitation inherent in BF's implementation is, imo, when you want the vehicle to change direction quickly in a non-targeting environment.

Spotting and acquisition, which requires minute adjustments from the gunner, are not the same thing.