The new additions (?)

[Doug Beman]

I just saw the vehicle list and the penetration diagrams.

I saw no mention of the M4A3E8 Sherman (EasyEight) or the British Firefly (unless it was one of the Roman-numeral tanks)

As the tanks that stood probably the best chance against German armor (the Jumbo had more armor, sure) what brought about the decision to exclude those? (Of course, I may have misread the list, or I don't know as much about tanks as I thought)

Actually, do you think you could just sorta breeze through the list and talk about how you guys made the decisions on what to include/exclude? That would be pretty sweet.

The German list, however, included LOTS of cool stuff--you even made the distinction between early and later Panther Gs! And the H-39!! I can't wait to put one of those through its paces.

Later

DjB

------------------

A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger."

[Guest Big Time Software]

M4A3(76)W = M4A3E8 Sherman (EasyEight)

The "E8", though the poular moniker, was not the official designation for the production vehicle. Rather, "E" stands for the experimental prototype.

Sherman IIC and Sherman VC are both "Fireflies".

Charles

[Guest Big Time Software]

Both tanks are indeed in the game. I forget which of the British designations is a Firefly, but it HAS to be in CM as it was the only tank early on that can go up against a Tiger with even the slightest hope of living to tell about it

The M4A376(W) (the "E8") is one of the tanks on the list. However, not every last Sherman variant is in Combat Mission. The vast majority of are very similar to each other within the major classifications. So we chose one or two major examples of each major variation to include. As is we have 9 different Shermans for the period of mid 1944 to early 1945.

This leads into the decision making process. We basically included every major vehicle produced in sizable numbers. Then we branched out in some cases to include lesser variants, and trimmed back in others (Shermans in particular). In some areas the differences between vehicles was quite profound, but the battlefield difference was minimal at CMs scale, so there is little point in including every single one of them (even if we could!). This is why the Brits don't have 101 different armored car types

We then looked at including COOL vehicles that were not as common, such as a Crocodile or a Jagdtiger. Further we started looking at vehicles that had even more minuscule (nonexistent) combat value in real life. This includes things like the Sturmtiger and Pershing. We may have to trim our vehicle list for the initial release, and those candidates are marked with an "*". Or *WERE*!! I just noticed that moving the page from the BTS to Battlefront.com site resulted in a loss of the questionable vehicles! DOH I'll have to fix that. The logic here is that we must ax stuff like the Sturmtiger (of which only 18 were produced, and we can only find one mention of them in combat, without details) if we don't have enough time. There is a core list, however, which is extensive and not open to negotiation. If we don't have these vehicles we don't ship until we do.

So far we have made the following (though some need work still):

H-39

Hetzer w/skirt

Panther D, G, and Late G (with and w/o skirts)

Jagdpanther (as of today!)

PzIV G, H, J (with and w/o skirts)

King Tiger

Puma

Horch Light Truck

M4A3 (76)

Stuart

Priest

M3 HT

Some of these, obviously, can be easily converted into more variations (like the M3 and M4 for example), but they aren't in at the moment. I did more German stuff initially because they had odder vehicles (turretless, skirts, massive guns, etc.) I think I will do a British tank next, but there is a Wirbelwind calling to me in my sleep

The H-39? Put it through its paces? If you mean "drive it for a couple of turns before someone hits it with a rock and knocks it out", then you will have a blast with it! We call this poor, silly little tank "Pierre" after its humble French origins. We figured naming it was the least we could do, seeing is it is so helpless and vulnerable Rule of thumb... if a tank can be defined as "cute" you don't want it on the battlefield!!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-19-99).]

[Doug Beman]

Oh come on! I think the H39 can take a hit from at least a BB gun

As for the rest of my post, it turns out that I don't know as much about tanks as I thought I did. When I thought about your list of included vehicles, I was thinking more about technical issues, and not about "combat value." Unlike BTS, I don't have to distill all the facts and figures into a form that a Pentium can understand (and I'm glad I'm not--I don't builds 'em, I just plays 'em)

------------------

A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger."

[Dan]

Actuly the Pershing almost played a major role in WWII. The tank desgin was completed before we had landed in Africa. At a demo Patton desided that they pershing was to heavy,slow, and unable to manuver in bad terrian. ( actuly he was wrong on all of these points.) He saw America using large amounts of medium tanks to outmannuver the enemy. (old Cav tactics.) This desion would have the graveist of concequinces. I think the shermans had something like 500% casulty rate in Overlord and everything after.

[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 05-20-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

The debate about US tank policy is a long and heated one. Some other factors that played into the decision to keep the Sherman "as is" for so long was one of production and shipping. The short barreled Shermans fit very nicely into the holds of ships. They were also fairly light and production was going full tilt before they realized that there were major problems going up against German tanks of the day.

I'm not saying that any of this was worth the casualty rates, but the concept of "more vs. better" actually did help the Allies win the war. Germany was never able to put its better tanks in enough places, on either front. Heck, look at how many armored formations were attached to US infantry divisions! Some even had more tanks than Panzer divisions actually had in reality

Steve

[Dan]

True in the long run the " More vs, Better" Stratgie did work. I dont' belive that it justfied the casultie rate. Germany Loss the war the second they started it becouse they could never had reached the U.S. And succesfully destroy our industral base (they could'nt even do it to russia, but they got damn close.) The fact is that Ike was a statistical general and he knew that no matter how me casualties he soaked up, the germens would loos the war. The Russians also used the "More is better" Still do and they lost 20 Million pepole. Today we are the Blitzkrieg army, when we use it that is. Whe became the this army after korea when we realized that we could not when that kind of attrtion warfare aginst enemys like russia and china who have a hell of a lot more disposble population than we do, expesialy at the current high status human life enjoys in this country. I think we have the right answer now. I think we could of had the right answer then.

[Dan]

I know there is a lot of typos but i don't have the time to edit them right now. Oh and by the way I relized I havn't said this yet since I started posting on this Bord. Great Looking game guys, I am beside myself with how cool looking this thing is. This nit picking about having every guy represted on screen sounds like a waste of time. Having seen a little combat (Panama) The actions of the Indidual with rare excpetions (LT. Murphy, Sgt. York.) have very little to do with the out come of any engaement large than a squad. It is how theys squads work together, and how the plattons work together, etc. That wins the war. No S-2, or S-3 I've ever known thinks of things in the refernce of the Individual. Damn I'm ranting agian I'll shut up. Once agian Great Game.