Wrath of Dagon

It's not against international law to attack cross border if the country does not control its own territory, or allows hostilities to be carried out from its territory.

What little BMP? Are there any instructions on running CMBB with ATI cards? Because I think I'll upgrade soon. Edit: I'm guessing it's the one in this thread - http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82561

What new armor are you referring to? That article only mentions the improved gun mantle for the turret, not the entire turret armor. Edit: Correction, it does mention a change in armor tempering, but only talking about the hull. Perhaps he left out the part about the turret.

Why is that annoying? Tests conducted in March of 1944 showed the IS2 turret was vulnerable to a Zis-3 at 500-600 m from all sides. The new turret design and the new hull started manufacture in May 1944, and for a while tanks were produced with both new and old hulls. In addition, in summer of 1944 Germans were no longer able to use manganese in the armor of the Panther, making it brittle, at which point the AP perfomance of the IS2 improved dramatically. http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/32/50/lang,en/

That chart seems to show that APC M61 and APCBC M61 are different rounds, but most references seem to indicate they're the same round. Which is the case really? Edit: Actually on the Russian chart, it kind of looks like the shell is M72, but I can't be sure.

Then according to that chart, 75mm Sherman with APCBC had 80% chance of penetrating Tiger's front armor at 400 m.

In fact on the original of that chart M4A2 line is the only one which lists the shell type, although I can't make out what it is, so it's probably a special one. Edit: Also, the 75mm line and the 57mm British might be swapped on the new chart.

Yeah, I noticed M4A2 line doesn't seem to make any sense. It shows it as better than British 57 mm. May be they used tungsten for that one?

I just don't understand why it would say that, Russian testing shows it not penetrating at 500 m at 90 degrees, and from the posted picture most of the armor is heavily sloped.

The fact that some Stugs were knocked out by T34's really doesn't say much. You'd have to know what percentage were knocked out relative to total number of hits, and then compare to the probability in CM, then it could be proven if CM is right or wrong. I don't think it was coincidental that Germans kept using 80mm armor, they must've thought it was pretty good protection against the 76.2 mm. Also the probability of having B ammo may be modeled by the overall probability of knock out and ammo quality. I'm not even sure any small discrepancy would be that important, the Stug had a huge advantage on defense and was quite vulnerable on offense, which is what CM models. I think the problem is the unrealistic nature of being able to buy equipment, a lot of people want tank battles where in reality most tanks were killed by ATG's. So I agree putting some restrictions on the equipment makes sense to make up for the ahistorical nature of these battles and make it more sporting.

Here are some penetration curves: http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/290/123/lang,en/ The F34 76.2 mm (yellow line) is barely penetrating the Tiger's side at 200 m, and that's at 90 degrees and not accounting for ammo quality (probably for 75% of shell fragments behind armor though). I'm still not convinced the Soviet tanks are undermodeled. The Soviets realized after Kursk 76.2 was inadequate, that's why the SU-85 was rushed to production. They did tests on a captured Tiger and 85 mm penetrated frontal armor at 1000 m. They also studied Kursk data and decided the 122 mm gun was the most effective, and put that into IS2. CM models all that accurately. As far as IS2 being knocked out by shorter guns, http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/32/50/lang,en/

Two reasons I like we-go: 1) Replay makes it easier to figure out what's going on 2) I like to see how my men manage without me micromanaging them, I find that more immersive Another vote for making things more obvious, I don't even know what HQ's are for any more. Also bringing back the blue bar would be very nice as you can't fast forward/rewind during real time, thus watching it can be a bit of a waste.

Correction: What Battlefield actually said was AP for Tiger and IS2 was more or less the same.

So if the Russian 85 mm was as good as German 88, does that mean the T34/85 had the same armor penetration as a Tiger? Because I've never heard that before. Also the Russian battlefield site says the Tiger had better penetration than an IS2.

I think the real problem here is that you can cherry pick equipment, which a real commander would not be able to do, thus you get ahistorical results.

Just found out from the main forum when you select a waypoint and use target it actually shows los from that waypoint, not from current position, although the line is drawn that way.

When did the 80 mm long barrel StuG appear?

It says at 500 m with B 80% penetration was 75 mm and that's at 90 degree angle, so I don't think it would penetrate very often. It also says in 1941-43 actual values were much less because of poor ammo quality. In this article on the development of SU-85, it says T34/76 could penetrate Tiger armor only at suicidally close ranges: http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/64/45/lang,en/ This is a pro-Russian website with access to Russian documents, there's no reason for them to donwplay the capability of Russian tanks. And isn't that what happened at Prohorovka, when the Tigers wiped out two Russian tank armies, in spite of repeated suicidal attacks by T34's?

According to this link http://www.battlefield.ru/content/category/6/33/49/lang,en/ it seems very unlikely 76/42 could penetrate 80 mm at 500 m, especially if it's sloped.

Yes, it would be a must buy, but Battlefront said before they don't consider it commercially viable.

Actually all I meant was a single player op-level campaign map. I have no interest in on-line. So are there any campaign improvements planned along those lines?

True that. From my perspective, CMX2 is already almost good enough as a tactical wargame, and certainly will be by Normandy, so I'm not sure why campaign would be less payback than more flavors, but I guess Steve understands his market better than I do. To me the only thing that would be on par with the worth of a campaign would be a truly humanlike AI.

After the Normandy game comes out, how about a campaign map before any more modules? If CMC ever comes out, that would alleviate the situation, but otherwise I'd much rather have a real campaign instead of more equipment.

I like chronological order, but from commercial point of view later stuff makes more sense. Edit: CMSF already has super tanks, I want something as primitive as possible.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.