Kieme(ITA)

That's a very good analysis poesel, I agree completely.

Unfortunately that0s true Jerome, despite all debates over steam, I must say that even there there are some niche or particular games there with little communities of people who like them, but the vast majority is made up of those who play the most common games (dota etc.)

I am really not entitled to say what the devs think or thought on their systems concerning spotting and turning speed. If one has some bathroom time to spare and hop in to say what's the truth ok, otherwise the rest is all useless speculation. I'm fine with actual mechanics and wouldn't like terminators tanks, infantry already is in great disadvantage, but it all depends on the situation and conditions, so I belive a good/experienced player will know how to deal with a tank with his infantry and vice versa.

Search functon on forums: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114038&highlight=turning+ratio already discussed a lot, concepts apply for all tanks.

From an external point of view, seems to me that this Whole discussion, while having some interesting thoughts or basic ideas, it's just a "futile exercise on the field of complexity out nothing", where 1 person is willing to take verbal fights in fake tones on that very same field against all Others, instead of reasoning to get a decent closure on the matter.

Don't worry Odd, I am sure there's a magic formula to show how a 76mm round "ballisticly" behaves, there must be somewhere the round weight, gun's muzzle velocity, plus a lot of data such as pressure on ground level etc. Enjoy

Jason, maybe you missed some posts, this got long soon enough. The armor in question is 20mm not 80, the Panzer4 armor front is not 80mm everywhere. I agree with you without doubds, that any reference would point to what you said, this is just a particular case because we know where the shot landed exactly. I guess that maybe CMRT has a complex armor model that is resolved by means of "weakspots" even though the weakspot penetration is not explained or advertised to the player during the game.

I say that if BFC releases a patch 3.0 Tomorrow, patching also CMBN I will finish and release the scenario I worked on a lot in the past dedicated to the 9th RTR during EPSOM first days.

I belive this thread is a good show off of how good game mechanics are and what a nice level of realism is in game. Good job also on the armor model of panzer4. The penetration tables available around the web confirm in this case the approximation done by the game, which depicts a credible and correct result, more than enough for me. (forgot to say: "hooah!")

So, generally speaking what happened is nothing strange. Good to know. As JonS said, we can calculate everything, fact is that 20mm armor plate with 3 openings has to deal with a projectile three times its thickness... This is a videogame, it has some approximation we must accept when it comes to translating reality. This case is a nice example of how much you can discuss about 1 millimiter or 1 degree of angle, yet the game depicted something that is not impossible or ridicule, it's correct, so, returning to the original subject that opened this thread: nothing strange happened or "working as intended". Glad we passed from "the best armored point of pz4" to something else. Again thumb's up for CMRT.

True JonS. The theory goes only as far. the armor there is pretty thin: Also, a single plate that has three big openings can't guarantee that much of structural integrity. Maybe the game thinks of that plate as a weak spot, but as Vanir said we have no precise idea of this feature.

Got it, it was 20 not 30, 20mm: Even considering the extreme angle the armor there is pretty weak, for sure not the best armored part of pz4 front. Some mathematics to see the effective armor on that point: 72 degrees from vertical (according to that drawing, might be different), 20mm of armor: T_L=\frac{T_N}{cos(\theta)} where T_L: Line of sight thickness T_N: Normal thickness \theta: Angle of the sloped armour plate from the vertical Cos72 is .3090, let's cut two degrees as Vanir suggests, Cos70 is .3420 20/0.3420 = 58.4mm of effective armor. I am a pig at maths so maybe I did something wrong, mind this step. Now the ball goes to penetration tables. Some state 50mm penetration at 1000m, some state 60mm. I like this one: http://english.battlefield.ru/specification-and-armor-penetration.html 65mm (at 90° that is equal to the effective armor we calculated)? Against the 58.4 we calculated? Good match (even at 50mm it would be, because 8mm of armor penetrated or not could really go to the chance factor) Now, let's not forget we could add armor quality and projectile quality to the above, thus adding or reducing an X value from the true armor value and penetration value, (considering that armor quality in 1944 was descending for the germans, while projectile quality was raising for the russians) All in all I'd say the penetration is nothing strange, too many variables and too many doubds on penetration tables, which are not 100% reliable, to be scientific about this, but I'm happy with the research, thumb's up for CMRT. Now that I think of it the tank also took fire? Who knows what happened inside, yet the transmission might be hit, leading to a fire, thumb's up again for CMRT.

" I was running a test scenario", so I assumed this was a test. That part of panzer4 armor is indeed upper hull, nothing strange there. Besides, while being angled, that armor plate is not the thicker part of front armor, in fact, it's the thinner (just search for any pz4 armor layout scheme, should be 20/30mm if I remember correctly). The armor plate we are talking about the is the one connecting the front piece where mg and driver's slit are located and the lower front armor, it's thin not for a case and it holds the hatches used to access the front transmission. And considering what Odd suggests about the angle from which a shot lands on its target when the range is 1500m you could assume that much of that armor angle was negated. Can a 76mm AP penetrate 20/30mm of armor at 1500m with a shot Landing at not extreme angle? Well, if it punches through 60mm at 1000m and 40mm at 2000m (just search for any penetration table reference) I'd say yes, it can. As regarding what the projectile did inside, there's aproximation, and we still don't exactly know the angle it came from. So I'd say the game here shows results you could came up with a little of research, I see nothing strange, but for the crew hit, but it can be explained as Odd did too. Oh, by the way "there are no other points you need to know" is not exactly the right foot to start a discussion on a forum...

The only thing I would suggest here is to make some screenshots or videos next time, it's much more informative than this. Impossible to comment on these lines without a reference... Besides, what number or reiteration was this case on? How many reiterations had the test? What kind of conditions were set for the test? Too many missing points to call a test and show a result. Can't really comment on this. Out of curiosity: What's "the best armored and angled point of p4"?

I absolutely agree, that's why I am surprised that the engine or transmission got away with it - looking at the in/out holes, there's no doubt it would have struck one of those. If it wasn't for the exit hole anyting could be plausible, but with that kind of exit hole you know that the projectile passed though the engine and/or the transmission, therefore you would expect a result. If the game is not set to show such a result because there's no "technology" within it to take account of that it's ok, but among the tank damage table there's the engine so I would imagine that such a shot would destroy it (if this doesn't what else can?), yet it didn't, that's why I presumed it was a bug or a wrong calculation of projectile trajectory or whatever, you just can't have such a shot not damage the engine... Unfortunately we cannot reproduce the shot because we can't aim directly our guns, so this has to pass by. Yet it has been good in my opinion to point it out as the original poster did. This might be something BFC could consider to improve in the future, as it seems there's room for improvement. Ignoring it could be a wrong move imho.

Well, generally I'd agree with you Bil, but we got a situation here where at least one of these things happened: -the damage models inside the tank are bugged (or they don't even exist) -the damage roll is bugged (if there's one) -the hole textures are not very precise on where they exactly hit Probably Bulletpoint made the right point about this. In any case if a projectile has the kynetic energy to go through all that tank and exit where the second screenshot shows, it should have hit something concerning the engine and/or the transmission. And this should have been massive, either tearing apart half of the engine or making a big hole within the transmission, screwing the gears, not to mention all possible damage caused by spall lining etc. We can guess the projectile trajectory because we got both the in and out holes... So, in conclusion, it's not like a small hole on a side, where you could say the projectile lost its momentum and died there with no more energy, the shot here passed through the entire tank, and the engine/transmission is hardly to be safe with that. Yes, there's 1 chance that the engine and trans wouldn't be touched, or at least would be still operational, as I said: a bullet can miss an organ by a millimiter and you would be very lucky, but in this case I'd say for the game's sake some engine damage should be there. When I say that the tank had no damage of this kind I just assume the words of OP are correct, the tank moved on without problems for the successive turns, maybe the OP can give more info, but I base my thoughts on his words-

I agree with Luke, engines are very sensible machines, more than one would imagine. Cut a 5mm wire somewhere and it won't start, scratch a small rubber pipe and it will leak to Death in few minutes if it's running, bend a metal part and it might crash. Yeah sure soviet miths and durability all you want, but I see 60 years old engines that run better than new ones only when they have been conserved well during their years by caring people, and they still are fragile. As Ossball says, Generally, even though it is possible to imagine a trajectory that would not touch the engine (a bullet can sink inside your belly and miss a vital organ by few millimiters) I'd say that shot really had to show some damage to the engine or transmission.

Yes nice video! The distance was really short, but the 122mm punches a lot.

The crashing at 75% should not be related to mods for units, as far as I can tell these load at the end of the bar.

It's a very long work to do, but would be interesting, nice and useful for many players. Good luck on this project.

If you didn't use that mod you are fine, if you want to be sure just make a scenario and plot a building, if you can see all 16 variations it's all ok.

Modular Buildings 9-10-11.brz was a file part of "Kieme Industrialization Mod", you should find it under that folder if you installed that mod of mine, which is quite old and the very first one. In any case that file has to be deleted if you want to see the new better buildings part of the add on pack. Not sure about the independent buildings, I might review or add something, but not sure about it. I'll try to set up a pack as soon as possible to Group the nine little mods.

Thanks Vein, very nice, thanks for not using underpants for it.

The mods you must install to get 16 modular buildings (8 modding the vanilla ones + 8 new ones) are: Mod v2: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5297/details Add on +8: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5314/details Roofs: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5238/details Please note that you need to remove "Kieme's HD Modular Buildings" because it's the older version. You only need v2, any previous version is to be removed from your mod folder. Moreover, please note this: So be sure to remove the "Modular Buildings 9-10-11.brz" file if you installed the old industrialization mod. As regarding the independent buildings I still have to release a single pack, for now you can download number 1-9 and use them. I just removed the older version to avoid further confusion in the future. Sorry for the confusion, I released some new stuff and deleted some older one. Maybe not everybody reads the forums regularly so I understand it might get confusing without a cronological order of the releases as a support.

Hi, yes I removed the old mod parts and released a single big pack: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5314/details You'll find there this building, the other three previously released and 4 new ones. I decided to remove some old stuff in order to avoid occuping space without reason in Green's site.