Testing the 76

[Slapdragon]

I am sure they are reading it. This sort of AI tweek would probably be easy to do (if they coded as tables) and we should also expect that it will take a bit of further kicking to tweek it right -- we may find the AI fires tungsten at halftracks and then a new tweek happens, all part of the process.

Somethings, like more varied buildings and more detailed bridges with superstructure, and other things like that are tougher, and impossible is the fractal mapped water and stuff like that which Swamp-idiot wanted. At least impossible on my machine.

And for the person who e-mailed me and told me that the game would be ten times better if Big Time dropped Macintosh development -- why e-mail me about that? I am just a critic!

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I don't know, but perhaps when the TACAI is evaluating whether to use tungsten rounds or normal AP it is NOT taking the hull down aspect into consideration for this decision.

This seems like what is happening. I mean against a non-hull down Panther a 76mm does not have to used tungsten rounds to have a fair chance to penetrate (i.e. lower hull penetrations). But against a Tiger, King Tiger, etc. the poor 'ol 76mm is just over-matched and has to used tungsten whether it is hull down or not. Just like when the Panther is hull down...the TACAI just does not 'know' it.

Also, when it comes down to it I think it would be much more realistic if tanks wasted tungsten than if they horde it, especially considering the propensity of US units to id almost every German tank as a "Tiger". It is easy to say sitting at home in front of my PC "Don't waste that "T" round!" but when your ass in on the line, and you have about 1 second to decide what kind of ammo to fire...and perhaps you are not 101% positive what enemy AFV is firing at you, or the penetration and thickness and slope of the weapon systems involved...I tend to think you would fire the best you got. That valuable tungsten round will do you no good when you are dead.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-19-2000).]

[argie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

And for the person who e-mailed me and told me that the game would be ten times better if Big Time dropped Macintosh development -- why e-mail me about that? I am just a critic!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

Please, let us know who was that guy!

Ariel

(MacLover)

[Jeff Heidman]

Scott, I could not agree more.

I think the algorithm used to determine kill odds needs to be a little more sophisticated. I doubt seriously that any track commander is going to not use his tungsten because he can get a penetration, but only on a hull hit. If there is any part of the target exposed that needs tungsten to penetrate, the tungsten should be used, at least most of the time.

It all keeps coming back to that basic point. Specialised ammo is useless if you are dead because you did not want to waste it. If you are up against a Panther, you know he can penetrate you anywhere he hits. That would behoove you to make sure that your first shot that does hit also has that same advantage. What good does it do to fire AP if it hits the turret, and then you get blown away before you get another shot off?

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

One point:

All that being said, I do think the 1st shot should almost never be HVAP/APDS, since it is likely that the round in the gun was rarely something other than AP, for obvious reasons.

Does CM model that? Will a tank fire an AP round at an infantry target if it is loaded already? Does CM even take what round is currently in the breach into account at all?

I have seen TDs fire AP rounds at infantry if that was all they had.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 09-19-2000).]

[RudeLover]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And for the person who e-mailed me and told me that the game would be ten times better if Big Time dropped Macintosh development -- why e-mail me about that? I am just a critic!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, is this perhaps someone who doesn't know that CM was developed on the Mac? See also Colin's sig...

[This message has been edited by RudeLover (edited 09-19-2000).]

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know, but perhaps when the TACAI is evaluating whether to use tungsten rounds or normal AP it is NOT taking the hull down aspect into consideration for this decision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, I had come to the same conclusion also.

However with the tweaks suggested here for firing tungsten, it's deadly effectiveness against heavy German armor and the plentiful supply of it for Allied vehicles in most of the scenarios I have played, I am wondering if there is something wrong with this picture. Did the Allies have a large supply of Tungsten rounds or were they rare? If they were common and this effective in most cases, why was there a general fear(of being ineffective)expressed by Allied tankers when fighting heavy German armor?

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate:

I agree, I had come to the same conclusion also.

However with the tweaks suggested here for firing tungsten, it's deadly effectiveness against heavy German armor and the plentiful supply of it for Allied vehicles in most of the scenarios I have played, I am wondering if there is something wrong with this picture. Did the Allies have a large supply of Tungsten rounds or were they rare? If they were common and this effective in most cases, why was there a general fear(of being ineffective)expressed by Allied tankers when fighting heavy German armor?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jow is bringing up another point. While currently CM does not really use tungsten correct, I do think it is the case that it gives too much of it out to begin with. With the exception of TDs, it should be relatively rare for 76mm armed Shermans to be equipped with this stuff. It was not aprt of their TO&E to get supplied, so it would seem to me that they should not have it in appreciable quantities. Sure, there are the stories about them stealing or trading for the rounds, but is there any real data to show that it actually happened to the extent that CM currently reflects? I do not think so.

Jeff Heidman

[kunzler]

Well, I did my own test, unwittingly, in a PBEM. My esteemed opponent and I agreed to the rule of 76s, and I took it as a challenge to use the Allies and still win under the rule, as Fionn reported to me that he regularly does. Disclaimer: I am not anywhere near the player Fionn is, but I do consider myself to be at least as good as my opponent(at the moment anyway).

I selected a nice valley at one side of the map to advance through in hopes of getting in his rear and for taking a hill from behind that dominated the town with the Victory flags (thatknowing him is likely to have multiple Flak 88s on it). It is a meetng engagement, 5000 points medium size - which turned out to be huge.

I lost four tanks and TDs to a Panther sitting on a hill in a corner at the rear of the valley. It was in a hull down position, as attested to by the 32+ shell holes in front of it. I am still not sure how I got it, but I do believe that at around 600 meters or so, one of my 8+ 76-armed tanks charging it finally decided to use a tungsten shell.

In retrospect, I probably should have used artillery on it, but part of my plan of attack was speed and getting into his rear areas quickly. And I had to do something, I didn't expect it to be there(in a corner), and several of my tanks were exposed to it right from the start.

My opponent also dominated most of the rest of the map with similarly located Panthers on hills.

I am having more success now that the ranges are closer and he is usually not able to get in a hull-down position to all my tanks who are trying to flank him, but which are having trouble due to the fact that I can not expose them for long to his Panthers on other hills at long ranges.

My point is, I believe, had my tanks selected Tungsten from the start, the 8 to 10 tanks firing on the Panther on the hill should have put him out of action before he took out almost half their number.

Now a question. When targeting an enemy tank, does a tank gunner purposely target weaker spots, like lower hull or shot traps?

If not, around 1/3 to half of all shots are going to go into the turret and mantlet, which should increase the need for using tungsten at long ranges, even if the enemy tanks is not hull down.

I am somewhat anxious for this issue to be resolved, as I would like to see some (at least informal) standards established for being able to play on an equal footing. As I mentioned in a post in another thread, as it stands, I would choose the Germans every time in an armor engagement where I really wanted to win.

[This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-19-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

I read through this and a question popped to my head (just like Vanir is getting his head scratched by Jefff, slapdragon and himself) that Scott Clinton already partly asked (I dont have them manual here so I cant look if it says soemthing about that):

When the targetting says "Kill: OK" does that take onto account that part of the vehicle is not visible? I mean, the vehicle is hull down, and only the heavily armed turret showing, but the targetting says kill: OK because it thinks overall the target area is a good kill chance, just not the turret part, ignoring the fact that only the turret part is actually exposed?

Because what might be happening is that the TacAI thinks oh we can get a decent hull penetration with AP so why waste tungsten? while you all here iin your tests ignore the hull hits and concentrate on turret hits, which produces the result that turret penetrations = kills are extremely rare which means the american tank should use it's tungsten?

The fact that the Königstiger is treated corerectly in terms of ammo seems to support the theory above IMO.

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

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

When the targetting says "Kill: OK" does that take onto account that part of the vehicle is not visible? I mean, the vehicle is hull down, and only the heavily armed turret showing, but the targetting says kill: OK because it thinks overall the target area is a good kill chance, just not the turret part, ignoring the fact that only the turret part is actually exposed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it does. Fire up the editor and go into Parameters; allow the defender to dig in. Take a 75mm armed Sherman. Place it 300m from a JagdPanzer IV. It should give a kill odds as 'OK'. Now click the JPzIV and hit the 'd' key for Dig-in. Kill odds drop to 'Low'.

- Chris

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Wolfe:

I am not sure this is a valid comparison. You are assuming that CM treats 'dug in' tanks exactly the same as a tank that is hull down (from 360^).

I don't know if this is true, but it should be easy to test try it again with the German tank NOT dug in and just hull down.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

Wolfe:

I am not sure this is a valid comparison. You are assuming that CM treats 'dug in' tanks exactly the same as a tank that is hull down (from 360^).

I don't know if this is true, but it should be easy to test try it again with the German tank NOT dug in and just hull down.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. You're right. It doesn't. Only for dug-in does the kill chance change. I used a wall between the tanks to get hull down, still no change in kill chance. It only does it when dug-in (or when the JPzIV is above the Sherm, but that's apparently due to the armor slope since it gives it as 'Low' whether it's hull down or not).

- Chris

[Slapdragon]

American Shermans did use T rounds -- in fact they were yelled at for wasting them (as in Iron Knight by Blaker and Seven Six One by Borden). An armored Battalion during an exploitation rarely had them: they shot them off right away and never looked back, but Division and Army commanders -- through their rear area supplies, regularly "broke the rules" set back in Washington and made those round available for units expected to be in contact with German Panzer formations. If you were 716th Tank Battalion facing the 511th Infantry Division you would be unlikely to get more than a few by steeling them, but if you were 761 relieving Bastogne or CCB 2nd Armored in Aachen, then you had them because of the chain of senior noncommisioned officers who broke the rules with the full knowledge of their division commanders.

I think in this case it may be more realistic to change the values of the American Tanks. One set of values gives you a random chance of getting some tungsten, and would be used in scenarios where historically, the units did use tungsten (761 in the West Wall and Bastogne battles, CCB at Aachen. ) Another set would give you no chance to get tungsten, but puts the Shermans more on line with German tank values. The process of "purchasing" tungsten represents using your clout and resources to get some good ammo -- resources that could have been used to get more Arty support, or perhaps an attached Engineer unit. The game unit would not even have to be modified, just a subroutine written in that assigns tungsten rounds if that model is purchased.

Of course tank destroyers always had Tungsten -- even though restricted supply.

[Slapdragon]

I have posted elsewhere that I am switching my game playing computer to Mac since I am essentially going to work and play CM on my video editing workstation (I haved used Macs for a long time, but I had a Dell for play). So, I mentioned it on a post, and I got a spoofed address e-mail (like a SPAM) that resolved by IP to an Sprint netblock (scared of me?) Please note the poor English is his or hers, not mine. Also, don't send e-mail to any of these addresses listed, they are all either bogus or aimed at getting the person in trouble, I have checked them all. (just to be on the safe side I am blanking the last name listed in the header.) Also note: that time listed was not when it came in, the idiot has his clock set wrong, or lives in the Ukraine.

quote...

Return-Path: <Stephen_xxxx9909@indiatimes.com>

Received: from mail.varnamo.se ([194.236.221.30])

by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with SMTP id ssebk3.h53.30ahi43

Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:14:24 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from smtp.indiatimes.com ([158.252.106.93]) by

mail.varnamo.se (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id

G14I3Q00.PEW; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:28:38 +0200

Subject: Letter Addressing Your Interests

Reply-To: Stephen_xxxx9909@indiatimes.com

From: Stephen_xxxx9909@indiatimes.com

Message-Id: <gglwmomqimqdfueohkod.nwvsdokqchjdjwex@smtp.indiatimes.com>

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:32:52 -0500

To: Burns@yahoo.com

Hey slaphapy you idiot, you can't sit the and tell me you prefer to play Combat Mision on a b/w screen? You liek all your color on the outside huh?

The guys who made this cool game could have made it even better if they dumped the crapola and designed for a real computer. The toy is why we dont have better houses. I read they are going out of business any day, my school dosen't even have them anymore. Get a life, or a real computer.

HackerK