A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[Freak]

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

I agree. That's why I asked Steve why he was putting the IS-3 in when it likely didn't see service. He made it quite clear why. However, I think another reason might be that Steve just likes the darn thing. Anyway, I think the new engine (CM3+++) will be best for modeling the other vehicles people are asking for like early night vision. Perhaps BTS will put the Maus in another CM sequel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Anyway, we've probably roasted this issue to death <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe...no doubt.

I had forgot to respond to your post!

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Freak]

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

Here is a picture of the Panther G:

And here the Panther F:

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT- I just found out after a little inquery, that the hull in the picture of the F is probably a G hull. Only the Turret of the F is an actual F part.

[Battlefront.com]

Geeze... all this hubbub about the IS-3. Ok, want another reason why it *MIGHT* go in? We have had two different texture sets for it for over 2 years. So why not if we have time? Meaning, even if you want to try and challenge my first line of logic, I can easily draw an irrational one of "because, that's why". And if you don't like it, tough We can never make everybody happy, so this will just be one of those things some people will whine about and others will not. Happens all the time

Overall, we are NOT going to waste our valuable time putting in fantasy tanks into CM2. The Maus was a fantasy tank. They hadn't even fully completed one prototype. The Panther F was close to being ready for production (not combat!), but it never saw combat. Ever. The IS-3 did, even if it wasn't ETO WWII.

BTW, the Panther F that went to Aberdeen was, IIRC, assembled by the Allies using the only prototype turret that was ever made. Why we should lump such a vehicle in with the likes of the IS-3 is beyond me.

If we were forced to do an "all or nothing" approach to rare/unfinished vehicle inclusion, you would get "nothing". So why not just let us put in what we feel like we can and just live with it? Really... it can't be too hard to do that. Few people gave us a hard time over the Super Pershing, which is in the same boat as the IS-3 in many ways. Plus, with Rarity options on the IS-3 will probably never be purchased by even the most foolish player. And that is why the IS-3 is VERY low priority for us.

As for Tero's concern about simulating troop qualities, CM1 has absolutely no "national biases" built into it, and neither will CM2, CM3, CM4, CM5, etc. National biases are largely based on stereotypes or the end results of more tangiable factors. When you open the door to such conjecture, all thoughts of scientific objectivity go out the window. This is why many people, including us, have big problems with Dupy's QJM system. It simply does not hold up to scientific standards. Don't get me wrong, I think Dupy and his team's research and documentation skills are top notch. I have about a half dozen of his publications right here. But the QJM is fundamentally flawed. We don't use any QJM equations in CM and never will.

The reasons why we did not simulate the Winter War is because it was NOT a part of the Eastern Front as a whole. It was a seperate war that just happened to take place in the same spot as a later one. Just like France 1940 is different than France 1944. Much changed in the years between the Winter War and Barbarossa. We simply do not have the time to cover 39/40 and 40-45 in one go. It would be a whole other matter if we were saying that we weren't simulating the Finnish front of 1941-1944, but we are in fact including it.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

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

EDIT- I just found out after a little inquery, that the hull in the picture of the F is probably a G hull. Only the Turret of the F is an actual F part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the picture is an Ausf.G hull from M.A.N. with the F Schmalturm. The difrence in the Ausf.G & F hulls was minor Ie, the F hull had thicker hull roof plate, other then that it was basicly an G hull.

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Overall, we are NOT going to waste our valuable time putting in fantasy tanks into CM2. The Maus was a fantasy tank. They hadn't even fully completed one prototype. The Panther F was close to being ready for production (not combat!), but it never saw combat. Ever. The IS-3 did, even if it wasn't ETO WWII.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh Steve it's your ball you can do whatever you want with it I'll just delete the IS-3 from my version . Anyway this is my last post on the subject as it's been beat to

death.

As to fantasy etc, one could argue you are already adding a fantasy tank, the IS-3. The version that saw 'combat'vs the Isralis was not the mechanichly probmatic version rushed thru production in 1945 that was to fight in WW2. Hence we have atank that never any action in the time period modeled, being put in because it actualy briefly saw combat in another time period.

As to the only turret for the F etc, both the US & UK R&D teams took scmalturm's at the end of the war, Jentz states 'several' scmalturm were completed as well.

I'd also add their is still the question,unresolved to this day, whether or not II/Pz.Reg 2 used Ausf.F's in the Berlin fighting.

Not to mention the 2 Maus Protos according to Zaloga & Grandsen saw combat as well, something the IS-3 never did in WW2. Should be intersting haveing an heavily modified 1951 version of an 1945 tank running around in WW2...

So i guess it all falls on yoiur definion of 'what if' & 'fantasy'which again is ok as it's your game you can do whatever you like with it, but that doesnt meam we all have to agree with you etc, be kind of boreing if we did ...

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[M Hofbauer]

My request w/r/t the IS-3 is: if it's going to be modeled for the time period when it was produced, then please model it the faulty way it was back then, and not the way it was after extensive redesign and patching after the war. For example, bad armor cracking open already under the stress of cross-country movement can to a degree be modeled with very low armor quality and many "weak spots" in the existing CM model.

Tero wrote: "Should the green Finnish rifle squad for example surrender as readily as its counter parts ? (...)What would be the suitable level of suppression that trigers surrender?"

which brings up an interesting point. What I would like to see in CM2 - and I think this should be easy to implement - is that troops should be much more likely to surrender compared to what we see now in CMBO. Right now, the only surrenders I see are immobilzed heay MG squads which consist of one leftover guy. Apart from that, too often soldiers fight despite overwhelming odds and firepower brought to bear against them. Sure they get pinned and panic, but too often IMHO they die instead of giving up. (Think especially of the early phase of Barbarossa where many russian troops surrendered not only on the strategic but also on the tactical level)

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The reasons why we did not simulate the Winter War is because it was NOT a part of the Eastern Front as a whole. It was a seperate war that just happened to take place in the same spot as a later one. Just like France 1940 is different than France 1944. Much changed in the years between the Winter War and Barbarossa. We simply do not have the time to cover 39/40 and 40-45 in one go.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there any hope that the Winter war will turn up in CM4: The Early Years? Or is it too soon to say?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

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

which brings up an interesting point. What I would like to see in CM2 - and I think this should be easy to implement - is that troops should be much more likely to surrender compared to what we see now in CMBO. Right now, the only surrenders I see are immobilzed heay MG squads which consist of one leftover guy. Apart from that, too often soldiers fight despite overwhelming odds and firepower brought to bear against them. Sure they get pinned and panic, but too often IMHO they die instead of giving up. (Think especially of the early phase of Barbarossa where many russian troops surrendered not only on the strategic but also on the tactical level)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that cut and dried. During Barbarossa, large numbers of Soviet soldiers surrendered when their commanders ordered them to. Otherwise, they often doggedly fought to the death. The German soldiers were amazed and appalled at the degree of resistance the Soviets often offered. On the West Front a year earlier, Allied soldiers usually surrendered as soon as they were surrounded. In the same circumstances on the East Front, Soviet soldiers fought to the bitter end and had to be exterminated one by one at considerable cost to the Germans.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Hi John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to fantasy etc, one could argue you are already adding a fantasy tank, the IS-3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even in the same league as the Maus

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to the only turret for the F etc, both the US & UK R&D teams took scmalturm's at the end of the war, Jentz states 'several' scmalturm were completed as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII, which Jentz was the Technical Editor, states "only a prototype of the turret was completed and the Ausf F series was never produced".

I took that to mean that only one prototype turret was completed, none made it to the stage of being deployed in combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd also add their is still the question,unresolved to this day, whether or not II/Pz.Reg 2 used Ausf.F's in the Berlin fighting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say it was highly unlikely. I also would guess that the Soviets would have brought one of the two home as a trophy like they did with the Maus.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not to mention the 2 Maus Protos according to Zaloga & Grandsen saw combat as well, something the IS-3 never did in WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought this was totally discredited? From what I know the two were "scuttled" but V1 (the first prototype) was captured by the Soviets (which is on display in Russia). In any case, it would be hard for V2 (the second prototype) to have been very usefull in combat without a turret and armament

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...but that doesnt meam we all have to agree with you etc, be kind of boreing if we did <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If everybody agreed with us about everything we would suspect that the whole world had been taken over by alien beings and that we were for some reason left as humans to fill some sort of roll in the alien's master plan

Look... if people don't want the IS-3 in. Fine. It is off the list. No sweat Although this is probably the first time in wargaming history that people have argued AGAINST including something. The history of CM1 complaining has been that we haven't included enough strange and unusual things. Funny how we can never win

Steve

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[M Hofbauer]

Oh please don't get me wrong I didn't mean to imply a genuine russian cowardism or anything, far from it. I just think that *generally* it seems in CMBO the soldiers are just too willing to fight on even after horrendous loses and against hopeless odds.

I am also not saying that there was dogged resistance (on both sides), and that there should be occassional fanaticism where people wpuld die instead of giving up. However, we have a fanaticism factor in CMBO already but it never really plays a role, since most of the time the soldiers are already behaving that way IMHO. I am just for fine-tuning the likeliness of surrender a tad bit away from fanaticism towards surrender in the face of hopeless situations.

[Clubfoot]

BTS,

And now your earlier fears are proven. You know, the ones about hanging around the forum and effectively "defending" your positions on CM2 unit/feature inclusion. Oh, and the one about how much simpler your lives would be if you hadn't given us any inside info at all.

Can't wait to buy and play CM2. Regardless of what you include or don't. Cheers.

[Battlefront.com]

M. Hoffbauer:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My request w/r/t the IS-3 is: if it's going to be modeled for the time period when it was produced, then please model it the faulty way it was back then, and not the way it was after extensive redesign and patching after the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But of course. But as far as operational conerns, remember they apply to all sorts of vehicles, like the Panther D, King Tiger, early IS-2s, etc. Most new vehicles had teething problems, so the IS-3 did as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>which brings up an interesting point. What I would like to see in CM2 - and I think this should be easy to implement - is that troops should be much more likely to surrender compared to what we see now in CMBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Valid concern. It is really a tricky thing, from a programming standpoint so I am not saying we have it as good as it could/should be. There is a fine line for this behavior and if we err too much on one side units will be surrendering too easily (we had that problem back in the Alpha/Beta stages). We'll see how the other changes we make affect this behavior and then see if specific changes are necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Right now, the only surrenders I see are immobilzed heay MG squads which consist of one leftover guy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When the enemy's global morale is rather low you should see more surrenderings. I've taken near intact squads prisoner sometimes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Apart from that, too often soldiers fight despite overwhelming odds and firepower brought to bear against them. Sure they get pinned and panic, but too often IMHO they die instead of giving up. (Think especially of the early phase of Barbarossa where many russian troops surrendered not only on the strategic but also on the tactical level)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True to some extent. But while one whole division surrendered here, another fought to the last man there during the same time period. German officers noted this at the time and it caused them a great deal of discomfort because it wasn't predictable like in previous campaigns.

Steve

[patboivin]

Ah, all this talk about the IS-3 is making me yawn.

I have a more pressing question: Will the PzIII be included?

[The Commissar]

I don't think surrender and overall behaviours are something that could effectively and realistically be modelled.

Tolstoy put it quite well, I think, when he said "...the fate of a batallion rests on the man who cries either 'We are Lost!' or 'Hurrah!'...", meaning there are many factors you cannot possibly include into the game engine which could effectively decide the fate of a fighting unit. One man running off may produce a massive chain reaction. The same applies to heroism, the behaviour of leaders, rumors spread by your own government, and even the weather.

I think the current system is quite good. Ive captured nearly full squads myself on a few occasion, and then, on others, had my men die to the last. They all had their various reasons.

You could argue to infinity about the multitude of factors which would inspire men to surrender or to fight on, but you would never agree on where,when or to whom they would apply.

Just my opinion here.

---

Oh, and for varioty's sake, I say include the IS-3. If you don't want to use it, dont. If you don't want your opponent to use it, tell him so. Problem solved.

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Lee]

Since we are on the subject of rare and cool vehicles...

My one and only request for a new vehicle in CM 2 is the

Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz. The coolest tactical AA gun in the world.

Twin 30mm belt-fed auto cannons in an armored turret... *drool*

It's rare, but real and saw combat late in the war. And it's oh so cool.

You know you want to see one lurking on the battlefield waiting to

down IL-2's or tear up Russian soldiers foolish enough to

dare approach it, Steve.

[GriffinCheng+]

Add a gain of salt ot IS/JS-3 issue:

Is it the same version seen in the Korean War? Well, I think I see some dust about Korean War mod in the horizon.

Griffin.

[RCHRD]

BTS I am thrilled at what you offer and I have no intention of asking for more. I remember East Front, East Front expansion pack, East Front Redux and the host of add ons that added practically nothing to the game, but still cost 40.00 a pop. I felt cheated. You're doing fine.

[Username]

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

I fear that I know the answers but...

Is there going to be any modeling or abstraction to cover gun depression?

Will there be any TC view point or is it going to basically stay the same for CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No gun depression for you!

Shuttup and buttonup you!

[offtaskagain]

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

Since we are on the subject of rare and cool vehicles...

My one and only request for a new vehicle in CM 2 is the

Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz. The coolest tactical AA gun in the world.

Twin 30mm belt-fed auto cannons in an armored turret... *drool*

It's rare, but real and saw combat late in the war. And it's oh so cool.

You know you want to see one lurking on the battlefield waiting to

down IL-2's or tear up Russian soldiers foolish enough to

dare approach it, Steve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the Coelian? 2 37mm guns in a full turret on a Panther chassis. That could be alot of fun too. Anyone know if it ever saw combat?

[The Commissar]

Hey BTS, got a question (more of a request I suppose) for you.

Do you see the possibility of including a "Berserk" mode along with the other various morale states? Perhaps this mode would not be seen quite as much as the panick modes, but it would be realistic. Plus it would really bring out the intensity and ferociousness seen on the Ostfront.

Just to cover my own arse, I dont see any major issues with it at the moment.

It won't unbalance gameplay it seems.

It would be a cool feature.

I dont know about how hard it would be to code. Im guessing this would be the major downfall.

I think it is worthwhile to include because sometimes men break and other time they exert themselves to the end.

I'm also pretty sure it happened in real life and especially on the East Front, where such an animosity was displayed between the two opposing forces fighting each other.

Uh...did I miss anything?

[Grisha]

Okay. So, Steve, any word on trenches for infantry?

[Freak]

Steve,

I dont want to beat a dead horse here but I just want to respond to you . As for my posts on the IS-3 and the fantasy tanks such as the Maus and Panther F/II, I had just wanted to propose my ideas, its not really a big deal. I just found it funny and odd that a tank that didn't see any service in WWII is being considered. In WWII, I believe that the Super Pershing did see extreme limited service, like two encounters, though I can't recall this correctly.

A few notes though:

About the Panther F:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd say it was highly unlikely. I also would guess that the Soviets would have brought one of the two home as a trophy like they did with the Maus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes true, but not if it was blown to smitherines . Remember, the Maus AFAIK, was not in Berlin, but at a proving grounds. The Action it saw if any was there defending the proving grounds. So the action in Berlin would have been 10 times more insane then that at a proving grounds. If the Panther F did see service it was most likely blown to smitherines. [in Berlin].

About the IS-3 as a fantasy tank:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not even in the same league as the Maus <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a WWII purists, it is a fantasy tank. It didnt see service thus its fantasy. Not much of a difference there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Panther F was close to being ready for production (not combat!), but it never saw combat. Ever. The IS-3 did, even if it wasn't ETO WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats my point. The IS-3 didn't see combat in ETO WWII. Ever.

About the IS-3 being included:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Although this is probably the first time in wargaming history that people have argued AGAINST including something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I am against things that weren't a part of WWII. AFAIK, the IS-3 wasn't apart of WWII. Not in a front lines or rear one at that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Look... if people don't want the IS-3 in. Fine. It is off the list. No sweat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, I am sorry if I have sounded offbeat about it. Really, I just wanted to voice my opinion about it on the forum. I know that this is the place to do it . So, if your putting the IS-3 in the game great, np, no skin off my back. I just wanted to let my opinion be heard in the community and see if anybody cared .

Anyway, if you put it in Cool , if you don't cool . No problemo

So again, woot! woot!

Take care,

Freak

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My one and only request for a new vehicle in CM 2 is the

Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz. The coolest tactical AA gun in the world.

Twin 30mm belt-fed auto cannons in an armored turret... *drool* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah, that has nothing on the M-19 (A bit too late for WWII) Twin 40mm Bofors on a M36 chassis.

Gyrene

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hi John,

Hmmm... Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII, which Jentz was the Technical Editor, states "only a prototype of the turret was completed and the Ausf F series was never produced".

I took that to mean that only one prototype turret was completed, none made it to the stage of being deployed in combat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, i have pointed ouit before in other threads where the encyclopida has been used, as a source, it's a great general refrence BUT it's old & new information came to light after it's publication.

Jentz has corrected errors in his own books concerning vehichles from EOGT as they come out. Also I would add that if your interested in the Panther you get Jentz's Germany's Panther Tank rather then relying on the EOGTOWW2 as GPT is current.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I'd say it was highly unlikely. I also would guess that the Soviets would have brought one of the two home as a trophy like they did with the Maus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would they have Steve? would a new turret on a Panther realy have caused much of a stir?. Would it even had been noticed in the aftermath of the battle. German AFV's along with destroyed Soviet tanks littered Berlin for months after the war was over & eventualy went to scrap heaps. Also I would add that the Russian'sw still have quite a considerable ammount of material, their own & German that has never been released from the archives & is still classified secret, 9th Army's records come to mind off hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I thought this was totally discredited? From what I know the two were "scuttled" but V1 (the first prototype) was captured by the Soviets (which is on display in Russia). In any case, it would be hard for V2 (the second prototype) to have been very usefull in combat without a turret and armament

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno Steve all i know is looking at Zaloga & Grandsens Eastren Front I see that it states botth Maus tanks saw action 1 at the X roads to Zossen & 1 in the drfence of Kummondorf.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The history of CM1 complaining has been that we haven't included enough strange and unusual things. Funny how we can never win

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whens the last time BTS tried to add an AFV that never saw service in WW2 into a WW2 product, while not adding vehichles that saw even limited service, Ie, Sturmtiger, Brumbar etc, & the realism that has gone into CM then add this crowd into the mix along with us purist thinking hersey at adding a vehichle that never saw combat well you get the picture .

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[offtaskagain]

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

Bah, that has nothing on the M-19 (A bit too late for WWII) Twin 40mm Bofors on a M36 chassis.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try to imagine a 30mm MG42. Each of the Kugelblitz's guns put out 400-650 RPM.