Fūrinkazan

That's how i understood what you wrote. What i meant is that it's not because a war is lost in a strategical point of view that it's not an interresting subject for a tactical wargame. For exemple, the Pearl Harbor article conclusion was that it was the greatest disaster for the attacker not for the Americans. In fact they say that the Japanese cannot win the war, and a Japanese think tank had the same conclusion before the war but it was rejected by the military. But it's still an interresting subject for wargame and i remember playing naval wargame about the pacific campaign that was great. If i understand what you said, people think that's not interresting to play the early war because you cannot change the result. You certainly don't think this and i just wanted to point that people who think like that are wrong. For me, the Germans lost the war when they attacked the Russians in 1941, but that's only my point of view ...

You don't have to be sorry. I know that when people think of world war II they think about big german tanks, the Battle of the Bulge etc... I'm also sure that most american wargamers are as fans of history than the other. I was reading a very interresting french review called ""Guerre & Histoire" made by the magazine Science et Vie. The last one was about "the myth of the century : the german military superiority". They destroyed that myth but it's impossible to resume it here. In a part of the article they show books and game covers about WWII. They all have german soldiers or tank on the cover. If you want to sell books or games put a german on the cover is the best way. In fact it seems that history was written by the defeated and transform in a fascination for german troops. There is also the role of propaganda, i 've been writing in another thread about Wittmann at Villers Bocage. They also destroyed the myth of Pearl Harbor in another article. By the way, It's also strange that we don't have games about the pacific war. I think it's sometimes a fascination for german war machine for some people. Books and films follow the same rules than games, it's better for the sales.

Isn't it the case for the Germans at the end of the war ? They were able to delay the allied but the war was lost for them. For what-ifs, from a tactical point of view, i think the early war offers a lot of possibilities. I also think the way media present things may have a important part on the way people perceive the war.

I agree, but do Americans wargamers play only with U.S. troops ? Are they not interrested in other conflicts, different tactics etc.. ? Since i started playing wargames i've been playing with samourais and roman legions, the american civil war, napoleonic wars etc... Most of the time, wargamers are interrested in history too. That's the case for me and i guess also for american players, no ?

I have found another smg that is efficient up to 300 m it seems : the Finnish Suomi m/1931. So, like the PPSh 41, some smgs can be precise at that range but, firing on a fixed target on a range is not combat and i think that in real combat, soldiers tend to wait at much shorter range so they don't waste ammo and reveal their position too fast and to maximise the effect of their smgs. The problem of the escort member of AT and sniper teams was already in the Cmsf series. It was worse because with a lot of vehicles and much more firepower for infantry, snipers were wiped out very quickly. Unfortunately, BFC did not tweaked anything about this in CMSF. For the moment we have pistols to accurate at 100 m +, smgs that shoot at too long distance, and hmgs that loose their firepower at 250 m +. Just hope that BFC can tweak these things like they change the way tanks fire on the move. That was a great improvement for me. Most people want new features, i'd prefer those tweaks before and new features with the new system of updates for the game enging. If the behaviour of soldier is correct, this will be for all the games and modules to come.

Hi, It's strange to see that in wargames the war starts in 1944, see the close combat series etc... I think it's more a problem of market. We, the players are responsible of this. Everybody wants big german tanks, and that's why we have the Tiger II in the game while some other vehicles are not represented. From Poland to France i think that there are a lot of interresting scenarios to play. For exemple i'v been reading an article about Roman Orlik who destroyed 13 German tanks with is Tks tankette equiped with a 20 mm gun during the battle of Poland. Think also of the battle of Stonne and the B1 bis "RIQUEWIHR". I would like to see how the german tanks with their thiny armor would do against them. One B1 took 90 shots and was only destroyed by a 88 mm. When i play, i prefer to play with an old marder I than Panther or Tiger. Much more challenging tactically and much more fun. Really hope that one day BFC will make a serie of game about the early war.

I did some research and found that site : http://www.ppsh41.com/ You can find a pdf with a comparison of the russian smgs. for the ppd 34/38, the ppd 1940 and ppsh 1941 the practical range S/A is 200 m and full auto 100 m The site is interresting and detailed (i didn't know the russians had made a PPSh with curved barrel) I think the problem with smgs is that, like other weapons you cannot control exactly your men. After the short 6 mn test only 9 bullets were left for the 2 smgs guys in the machine gun team. So they wasted bullets at long range up to 270 m and if infantry comes closer, they don't have bullets left. It's also a problem when snipers have a security member with mp40 since he's revealing the position by shooting at too long range. I found in the old CMBO manual the following datas for motorized infantry squad : the firepower of 1 mp 40 smg is 36 at 40 m 11 at 100 m 0 at 250 m compared to mp44 : at 40 m 30 at 100 m 12 at 250 m 4 I would also like to know why the hmg firepower is so degraded after 250 m and why there is not much difference after that distance between Lmgs and Hmgs. I think there should be a huge difference at long distance because hmgs have much more ammo and they have tripod and optics. Those 2 things are what bother me in the game now. Since the last patch, sniper are deadly now (i had some killing up to 20 men in some qb's) and they can hit tank commander quiet often. It's the same problem that was found with pistol accurracy and i hope that BFC will do some changes on this.

I had the opportunity to shot with the Mat 49 from the hip. The first time i did a bad job but the second time, on 25 bullets (we used to put only 25 bullets instead of the max 32) i had 23 in the target, but it was at 25 m and on a fixed target.

i don't know if the game could reproduce beaten zone exactly but : - area target works, you can target effectively hit and pin down infantry even if you don't see it. - flanking fire works also, you can inflict more casualties, at least against the Ai. The problem is that when you have to wait up to 6 seconds or more for long distance bursts it's not as efficient as it should be. As i said also, infantry doesn't seem to be pinned down unless there is a man hit. That's what i saw in the tests i did with one company. For the ppsh 41 i'm not astonished. From wiki the practical range is up to 200 m but it seems that the results at longe range were obtained by using semi auto because it can be full auto or one single shot. At full auto the precision was much less it seems. So i don't remember that smgs we have in the game can do this. It's like the stg 44 certainly precise at long range but not on full auto. The effective range was it seems 600 m for single shot and 300 m for full auto.

Hi,Baneman I think that 1000 m is out of range for hmgs. During the tests i have done they opened at 800 m max i think, even with a target order. You are right i think for dispersion. In the game, and this was noted in other threads, you can see all the bullets going in a straight line. Again, when i saw the documentary, the gunner said that it was very difficult to aim that's why flanking is so important. They made a test with 2 experimented hmg gunners from the British army. The targets were balloons fixed on the field at the size of a man. With 250 bullets against 250 balloons : first the ballons are in line in front of the hmg : only 30 ballons hit with 250 bullets. then with the hmg in the flank : 240 balloons were hit with 250 bullets. So the placement of the hmg is very important. From the front, the deviation caused by the firing makes the targeting difficult and bullets are going between the targets.

This is also maybe a reason why reco team had smgs. They don't have to engage combat. If they fall in an ambush they should return fire and withdraw, and usually, an ambush is at close range. I think smgs are close combat assault weapon, very usefull in cities, this is certainly why the russians had assault squads equipped with only smgs. I also think the russians smgs were very effective and if we consider that they estimated the effective range at about 100 m i don't think that MP40, Thomson or sten would do a better job.

i have found the datas of an old test i did against infantry : "Rate of fire : Hmg 42 at 800 m 7 sec between each burst of 7 to 10 bullets :49 to 70 rounds mn at 600 m 9 bursts : 63 to 90 shots rpm at 300 m 12 burst : 84 to 120 shots rpm under 300m you can expect 9 to 12 bursts by mn" so, at 800 m about 8 bursts/mn (60 sec/ by 7 the delay between each burst). That was on advancing infantry. This was in the same test. Lmg 42 750 m 5 bursts : 35 to 50 rpm 300 m 10 bursts : 70 to 100 rpm 100 m 10 to 12 bursts mn : 120 rpm US 30 cal 750 m 3 bursts of 4/5 bullets :12 to 15 rpm 550 m 8 bursts : 32 to 40 rpm 300m and less about 10 to 12 bursts mn : 48 to 60 rpm All gunners were regular with no bonus. Results on infantry after 11 mn of battle : Hmg 42 :27 kia 25 wia about 42% loss infantry is not stopped by hmg lmg 42 : 12 kia 13 wia 20% loss infantry is not stopped by lmg US 30 cal : 21 kia 20 wia 42 % loss infantry is not stopped by hmg In this case infantry was charging in line. So harder to hit for mgs. You can have much better results against infantry in column or by placing the mgs on the flank. Now if we take in count the rate of fire of russians hmg, i still think there is something to change. unfortunately, i don't know if the practical range was for the effective range (1000 m or less) and how it changes with distance. Anyway, we don't see long bursts in the game like we may see in real life (for suppression) and from what i've seen in the documentary, the experienced british gunner used short bursts but with onlya delay of one second or two max during the test they made. this means at least 30 bursts mn = 210 rpm

hi, YankeeDog Yes i used area fire, it was a good way to calculate all the bursts. Now i have already tested against targets (and many other than me). I made an infantry company (about 120 men ) charge in the open in front of 5 hmgs. At long distance, 800 m, i had about 12 bursts by minute max or less (don't remember exactly) about 84 rpm. I did the test many times and i dont' think you can expect a huge difference. What was a problem for me is that infantry was able to reach the bunkers after a 2000 m run on the open and some bunkers were destroyed and all this without any support. I still think that hmg at long range (300 m +) don't have enough firepower and suppression effect. I just did another test : i took five hmgs and make them shoot at 50m (area target) this means almost 1 burst second and i did not see any problem with my computer. So i don't think it's an engine problem + during QBs i have ambushed squads with hmgs at 50 m or less and the result was devastating without any slowdown. Maybe the reason is the Ai. During a QB in the bocage i had 2 hmgs just in front of a road. The AI send infantry, squad after squad in column.The hmg that was just in front of them was able to do more than 20 casualties because it was shooting in the mass of the infantry and some bullets did more than one casualties. That was at something like 200 m. If the rate of fire had been higher, they would have been wipped out by only one hmg without problem (the hmg was in a building). As the AI cannot be has good as a human player, maybe they tweaked down hmg fire. A human player would have stopped and use arty or a tank to get rid of the hmg position. Much more realistic i think. I think there is also a problem with the deployment delay for hmgs. I think the delay to deploy and undeploy is not respected especially in buildings.

Hi guys, When reading this thread i decided to run another test since this problem was on other threads since then release of the game : First in in soviet infantry tactics book i found : PPd 40 smg : max range 500 m effective 100 m rof cyclic : 900 practical 30-100 ppsh41 : max range 500 m effective 100 m rof cyclic : 1000 practical 30-100 7.62 dp lmg : 1500 /1000 m rof 600 practical 80 DS-39 Hmg : 2400 / 1000 m rof 600 practical 300-310 SG-43 Hmg : 2000/ 1000 m rof 700 practical 250-300 In German squad tactics in ww2 : Lmg 42 should shoot 50-60 aimed shots in 30 sec = 100/ 120 rpm Now i tested hmg and lmg in the game : i took an average of 7 bullets by burst Hmg 42 50 m 41 bursts rof 287 rpm 100 m 26 bursts rof 182 rpm 150 m 20 bursts rof 140 rpm 200 m 17 ----------119 rpm 250 m 14 ---------- 98 rpm 300 m 12 ---------- 84 rpm 400 m 10 ---------- 70 rpm 500 m 9 ---------- 63 rpm 600 m 8 ---------- 56 rpm 700 m 8 ---------- 56 rpm 800 m 8 ---------- 56 rpm Lmg 42 50 m 26 bursts 182 rpm 100 m 19 ------- 133 150 m 18 ------- 126 200 m 12 ------- 84 250 m 12 ------- 84 300 m 11 ------- 77 400 m 10 ------- 70 500 m 8 ------- 56 600 m 8 ------- 56 700 m 7 ------- 49 800 m 0 ------- 0 max range With the hmg it took 6 mn to test and 1210 cartridges were shot this means about 210 rpm (less because of the rifles) Smg that were with the hmg 42 can shoot up to 270 m Rifles up to 450 m . First, you'll notice that at 250 300 m there is not much difference between hmg 42 and lmg 42 and that is strange. And there are less differencies if you take in count that the lmg had to reload more often. For the lmg i think the game is quiet correct. But for the hmg : If the soviets hmg have a rof of about 300 rpm i would say that the hmg 42 in the game is under rated. and it's worse for allied Hmgs since they shoot 5 rounds bursts in average. I don't understand why hmgs at long range loose so much of their firepower. With optics and much more ammo than lmg they should be more efficient than this i think up to 800 m. I 've been watching an interresting national géo program about auto weapons. they made a test with a maxim hmg and an experimented British gunner. They managed to cut a tree (with a lot of bullets) and they made another test to show the importance of the placement of Hmgs. If you're in the front of an infantry line it's very difficult to aim and hit targets. So it's crucial to be on the flank to shoot on the mass of the attacker. I tried this in the game and Hmgs are much more efficient this way but : I did tests with infantry charging in the open in column (to shoot in the mass) and it was difficult to stop infantry (128 men regular) with 5 hmgs in bunker. I also noticed that a platoon targeted by hmg kept advancing with is stress indicator to the maximum until one guy is hit. I think that hmgs cannot fullfill their mission of interdiction in defence and support in attack. For smgs, 270 m is way too long to open fire i think. I had small experience in the army shooting with smg (french Mat 49) because i had to instruct new recruits. Even at 25 m most soldiers have a lot of problems to hit something (and that were fixed targets).With training you can have good results and my Captain said that it was possible to hit targets up to 150 200 m for the best shooter. I don't think the game engine is really a problem (i have seen hmgs shooting one burst/second at 50 m or less). If the germans did not have as many hmgs than in the game, then it's more a problem of scenario design of to take the lmg out of depleted squads. They were very few Tiger tanks on the battlefield but BFC did not degrade the armor or the gun to make them easier to kill. So, i would really suggest some tweaks on those 2 points : Reduction of the range of smg and more bursts at longer range with more suppression for hmgs. I would really like to have opinion of other players about this, and of course of the BFC team. I think that they have been working on the pistol accuraccy and that's great, but Hmgs and Smgs are still a problem for me. I must say that i was very happy with the new upgrade system for the game engine. I know that there is a new suppression fire order that allows 15 sec of fire and stop without other order of the player. Maybe a special order for hmgs could be the solution, i don't think that having the same characteristics for hmg and lmg at 250 m + is realistic. Sorry for this long post.

hi guys, i was reading this thread and it made me think of a book i've been reading on the battle of Villers Bocage. It was very detailed but the most interresting part was at the end with an assessment of the commitment of schwere ss-panzerabteilung 101 made by Wolfgang Schneider. I think his point of view is very interresting because he was lieutenant colonel and instructor at the tank school of Munster, he had practical experience and it seems that he met a lot of veterans of WW2. After an analysis of the combat, his conclusions are : Wittmann destroyed 7 tanks (Without the observation tank and stuarts) He was not a competent tank company commander because he made a lot of mistakes in the placement of his tanks and by a counter attack that was not well conceived. I cannot give all the details but here are a few exemples : " the hasty, single handed attack on the large and powerfull British force may seem brave but it goes against all the rules.." "The carefree advance of a single panzer into a town occupied by the ennemy is pure folly" " the action of the 1st and 2nd companies was everyting but awe-inspiring" The reasons, according to Schneider, why Wittmann had a Medal were : - the waffen SS unlike The Wermacht did not have experienced tank arm. - Sepp Dietrich tried to manufacture a hero The various grades of the knight's cross were awarded for decisive action in the battle and not for high score and in the Wehrmacht tank arm and tank hunters many soldiers had much higher scores. in conclusion : " the legend of the second WW2 tank commander with highest number of kills is completly wrong in terms of score and tactics employed.." For those who want all the details, the book was called Villers Bocage and was published by Heimdal. It was in English and French. So, we are far from the legend that was written in other books. I remember when i was a kid that i read articles about the "decisive action of Wittmann and that he destroyed 25 tanks all by himself etc.." So, has Barkmann was also in the SS, maybe this is the reason of the exageration of the score. I think that we should be very carefull about scores and after action reports, but that doesn't mean that everything Barkmann said was a lie. I also think the game is an interresting tool to imagine what happened in real life. I remember how hard it was on CMX 1 to be as efficient as Wittman in the Villers Bocage Scenario. One thing that i'd like to see sometimes, not to often in the game : When the 1st company (8 Tigers commanded by Hauptsturmfuhrer Mobius) attacked, 5 Cromwell tanks were abandoned by their fleeing crews. When one side is surrendering in the game, i think that remaining vehicles and men should be considered as prisoners and be taken in count for victory conditions.

I saw a very interresting movie on the National Geo channel. it was a documentary about automatic weapons. They made a test with 2 experimented hmg gunners from the British army if i remember well. With 250 bullets against 250 ballons : first the ballons are in line in front of the hmg : only 30 ballons "killed" with 250 bullets. then with the hmg in the flank : 240 ballons were hit with 250 bullets. So the placement of the hmg is very important. The fire is not precise and you have to target in the mass of the ennemy (and the demonstration was made by an experimented gunner) If you fire against a line, you'll have to target each man and most bullets goes between (only 30 hits with 250 bullets and that were fixed targets) I did a test with a company of 125 men charging 5 mg bunkers. To reproduce the flank effect i attacked in column. i lost 58 kia and 51 wia and all the squads were panicked. the best results by hmg were from the left to right : 17 hits, 22 hits, 24 hits, 33 hits, 13 hits. the best results were from hmgs in the middle that were able to shoot through the column. for the rate of fire, in the test they used short burst, like in the game, but with less delay, maximum 2 seconds i think. In the game you'll have to wait 4 and up to 7.8 seconds between bursts and i think that's were the problem comes. I found a soviet infantry tactics book the rate of fire of soviets hmgs : the practical rates are 250-300 for heavy 7.62 hmgs, 300-310 for the DS-39, 250-300 for the sg-43 we should expect something like this in the game but : if i'm not wrong, bursts are 4 to 8 bullets the delay is 3 to 12 seconds between each burst during most tests i did in the past i could have at most 12 burst minutes : 12 x 10 bullets max = 120 rpm for a hmg 42 I don't think the game is totally wrong but the delay between bursts should be reduced to have a more realistic result. (remember i had 5 hmgs against 125 men running in the open) You can have good results but only under 100 m. during a QB on hmg 42 started to shoot every second because the enemy squad was at less than 90 m . So during that time, the hmg practical rate was about 420 rpm. so the game can do it. My opinion is that for german hmgs the practical rate of fire should be around 400rpm and 250 300 for allied ones. we will not have a new order in the game because it's a new feature, but i think that BFC could change data so that hmgs can have less delay between bursts. With the new patch the game was greatly improved, for exemple, now snipers are deadly, much more than before. I see 3 problems : Pistols too accurate at more than 50 m (and the super tank crews) Smg like mp40 are shooting at a too long range, i still see mp40 shooting at almost 300 m (50 to 100m max should be better i think) the Hmg burst delay.

I did some tests with one sniper (veteran) against unbuttoned TC. Against Sherman from the front (sniper on the second floor of building), no shot. I thought it was a bug but i noticed that maybe the 0.50 cal was blocking the los, so i tried to shoot on the rear and i was able to kill or wound the TC. In one case, the TC tried to use the machine gun and was killed immediately because he was more exposed. Some are more vulnerable than others, i had better results against firefly and other tanks that did not have mg for the TC. It seems also that open hatch offer cover for the crew and some TC are more vulnerable from the flank because the hatch is open in front of them. If i'm not wrong about mg and hatch cover, i think it's amazing how the game is detailed.

Cover is much better in buildings. I noticed it when i tested snipers against tank commander. I was able to defend buildings with only 3 snipers and 2 Hmgs and had only 2 casualties for one hmg in a soft building. the snipers (2 regular, 1 green) took 22, 17 and 12 men to the attacker and hmg 2 and 10 for a total of 63 casualties ! Then the ai attacked on one flank were i had 1 squad in buildings, same punition with only 2 casualties for me. It seems that less bullets go through windows. Buildings offer more cover against light artillery and mortars too. I played germans against English troops, polish, and US with the same results. For me, much more realistic. Very hard to attack strong buildings without strong support. I tested in attack with Germans and i won the battle because of arty support and strong firebase + flanking movement of squads. In general, i think the game is much better with the new module and patch. Thanks to BFC team for their great work

Yes you just have to put the .btt files in your Quick Battle Maps folder. you have 3 tests maps. To use them start a quick battle,choose a meeting engagement. Your should see in the choice of maps the 3 tests maps. For better control : choose both camp equipement yourself and play in hot seat so you can see what is happening and replay the action. You can choose also German against German or US against US. You can change also the weather and conditions (night, wind etc...) before you play the battle just like in any other quick battle in the menu in the beginning. First map is 2000 m flat with different start positions. The 2 others have some small hills and trees to have different possibilities. The tests maps are called test tank 01 02 03. I made 2 other small maps: attk bocage small 01 and02 than you can use if you choose quick battle and then attack scenario.

Hi BadgerDog It's on the repository, here is the link : http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1728 you can find also the link in the CM Normandy Maps and Mods on the forum : it's called New file at the Repository: 2 Qb maps 3 tests maps (2012-02-05) You'll find 3 maps for test : put them in your quick battle folder and choose meeting engagement. I made 2 quick battle maps that you can use if you choose attack scenario in a quick battle. I'd like to make other maps, but this time i'll take more time to have better ai plan and bigger maps. If i'm not too bad at this, i will maybe make scenarios, but i'm still learning. Hope this will help you, Fūrinkazan.

hi, I did some tests maps for BadgerDog. While doing this i became more familiar with the editor and i started to make 2 small maps for quick battles. I did not have the time to test everything, so they are far from perfect. But i think good enough for quick battle for fun. I would like to make other maps, i play a lot of qb, and i think it's great to have various types and sizes of maps to choose. It's a way for me to give back what i have received from modders, maps and scenario designers. I plan to make a qb map pack so, if some of you did try those 2 firsts maps, it would be nice to have some advice so i can do a better job next time. Thanks, and have fun.

Hi, BadgerDog As i promised i have just posted on the repository 3 maps for tank testing. In the zip file you'll find also 2 Qb maps. All you have to do is to place them in your qb folder. The 3 tests maps will appear when you choose meeting engagement. the first is 2000 m long and flat with multi deployment zone. the second and third are about 600 m and 1500 m with trees and elevation. If you want to test : take a qb and choose the map, play in hot seat (no ai plan). you can choose the type of vehicle and put them on the map at different range. Hope it will help you. While playing with the editor, i decided it would be more interresting to have battle maps. So i tried to make 2 little bocage maps that you'll find if you choose attack qb scenario. I did 3 or more ai plans for attacker and defender and support plan also for both. I did not have enough time to test my maps, only a few time both, but it seems to work. Of course they are far from perfect, so, if some people would like to play with them and give some advices or critics, it would be nice since i would like to make more maps and maybe scenarios in the future. The maps will be on the repository soon i hope, i posted them a few minutes ago... Have fun

Thanks for your advice. I usually don 't make tests, i did it only twice for cmx 1 series ( i wanted to test the accuarcy of 88 mm at long range and the efficiency of the JU87 equipped with 37 mm AT Gun). For cmx 2 engine i tested Snipers and Hmgs because i thought that something needed to be changed for those units. In fact, in this case i wanted to know if first shot/hit was real or not, and i was interrested by the opinion of BadgerDog, because nothing can replace real life experience. I did not wanted to make a comparison between Sherman and Panther. In fact i think that many people here made a lot of tests and better than me. Since you did a lot of testing i would like to have your opinion about tank accuracy. Do you think that there are too much first hit in the game ? I did not test at shorter range but my guess is that under 500 m on a flat map we have lot of chances to see 100 % first hit. I don't know what to think about it. Under 500 m is short distance so it would make sense, and shorter distance (200 m 100 m) is, i think point blank range for tanks. So is it realistic or not i don't know. By soft factor do you mean crew experience, command etc... ? I tested with regular crews with no bonus, flat map without wind. To BadgerDog I will work on the map this week-end and i'll post here when it's finished.

Why not civilian girls in the game ? Could be a victory objective. I would like to see how they would make the animation of sexy girls in the game and our soldiers running after them. A kind of hand to hand combat modelisation. More seriously, if most ideas are good i don't expect big changes that would cost too much time in coding, but developers offer surprises with each patch. I hope that we will have flamethrowers, but maybe only with the battle pack. I would be more modest and be very happy with : - HMGs more efficient - SMGs range reduced (50/100 m instead of 300 that i've seen) - Pistols less efficient at more than 25 m - Snipers more efficient against vehicle crew (tank commander) and harder to spot. - change in the spotter behaviour for sniper at team (only shooting for self defence or when ordered) - change in tank crew behaviour when the tank is destroyed. - maybe lower probabilities of first shot/hit for tanks at short range and lower accuracy on the move. And i think that my wish list is already long and would demand a lot of work, certainly less than putting new orders or command . we already had some changes : no more indestructible trees, less accuracy for moving tanks and i think that's more that kind of things we can expect. But who knows ....

If you want to change distance and vehicle type, i guess it would be better if i can do a QB test map. I will try to make a 2000 m flat map with different deployment zone at 2000 m 1500 m 1000 m etc... My advice would be to play in hot seat so you can control both tanks. I think that for testing the Sherman it could be usefull to have a Panther with no crew ( the crew would dismount and the tank cannot return fire). If you don't mind waiting, i will try this this week-end and if it works i will send it to you. I tested today a duel at 560 m For the Panther first shot it 80 % of the time For the Sherman 70 % (Only 10 battles test) In practice,with the best conditions, under 1000 m we can expect 97 % hit with Panther if we consider that the crew knows the distance. during combat in the game, we can say that the crew did a good estimation of the distance 30 % of the time and the result was a first shot/ hit. At 560 m, we can say that they estimate the distance well 80 % of the time. Maybe this is to high, and if we consider that at short range it's worse, maybe this can be the reason of your impression of too much accuracy all the time. I don't know if this is correct or not, but i think there is a huge difference between the shots at 1000 m and 560 m for both tank. I did not test under 500 m but i think that we can expect first shot/hit almost 100 % of the time on a fix target. I noticed that the APCR ammo is much less accurate than the APCBC (in practice on the tables : 97 % at 1000 m for APCBC against 56 % with APCR), maybe another reason for the difference between your experience and the game. If someone has other datas, or tables maybe we could make a better comparison between the game and real life.