Apocal Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Is this going to be implemented into CMRT? Reading through the archives, there was apparently a bit of controversy regarding such in CMBB and it apparently caused some seriously ahistorical outcomes. I'm not fully versed in the groggy details, but it seems like it had some serious gameplay impacts and I'd like to know if the modeling is being either improved to eliminate the unrealistic elements or simply dropped to keep them from cropping up in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I believe its always been in there. I distinctly recalling being told that Charles had lowered the armor quality for CMFI early Sherman, and they had reduced armor quality for JpzIV based on a piece of research Steve had stumbled across. Back in CMx1 they were giving late war Panthers more brittle armor that's prone to spalling. Oh, I just recalled reading recently that Hetzer side armor was of low quality so the 20mm number should be closer to 15mm equivalent. Maybe I'll mention that to them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Apocal, JasonC wrote extensively in his well-argued case that CMBB in-game modeling of Russian armor piercing projectiles didn't reflect marked Russian progress after an admittedly rocky early war start. IOW, CMBB didn't properly address a series of AP improvements which occurred before the later war game stats, at which point, I believe, the in-game stats belatedly came up to date. The effect of this pronounced problem was to so disconnect Russian high velocity cannon armor piercing performance from reality that he was advocating the German player use the Marder, rather than full tanks, over a certain period, so that the in-game engagement reflected the actual outcomes. This was because the undermodeled Russian terminal ballistics limited, even blocked, historically demonstrated and recorded combat effectiveness against these tanks. There was also, I recall, an issue with StuG IIIs whose armor was practically impenetrable in-game, but rather more perforable in reality. This is the gist of it, but I don't guarantee to have the particulars dead on. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 It's been in there since CMBN, as the manual notes that the G-model Panther suffers from occasional flaws in manufacturing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.