aka_tom_w Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Yes I know Tungsten use was fixed in the first two public beta patches and tested and tweaked and it passed all the tests. no Problem. My question is, has the new use of tungsten made the game, on the whole, MORE ballanced, or has it tipped the game in favour of the Allied TD's that carry tungsten. (they are now deadly when they hit first) I really like playing the Allies, and it seems to me, either I'm getting alot better (or luckier), or it is getting a little easier to win tank duals with big german tanks since the beta patches. I know the AI has gotten better, and I'm just comparing my win/loss record against the AI before the beta patches and after the beta patches. I think tanks are more accurate now and there are alot more first shot hits. When the Allied tanks fire first I find they rarely miss at less than 500 m (same deal for the germans), my point is that all tanks now seem to only rarely miss their first shot at less than 500 meters and the Allied tanks seem to get the first shot off sooner, than the big slow german tanks. So that favours the Allies. MANY broad gerneralities here I know. But the bottom line is I don't think it is as diffucult to win with the Allies as it used to me and I'm wondering if folks out there that routinely choose the germans find it is not as easy to win now as it used to be? Any comments? Are my observations incorrect? thanks -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Hunnicutt says "a few" 17 pdr APDS became available in Aug 44, but that the early rounds were "somewhat erratic", and less accurate than APCBC. I think they need to model the erratic behavior of APDS rounds to even things up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 As an ALLIES player, I LOVE IT! But, trying to be objective, I will say that I think the game simply feels more realistic (and yes, fair) now. The better use of Tungsten rounds is more realistic, imo. The ALlied tanks getting off the first shot seems realistic too, as they have the faster turrets, etc. Finally, hitting on the first shot is probably evidence of the tweak which was made to make missing at close range less likely. I don't know how this figures into realism... Anyhoo, overall I have to vote NO, it does not tip the scales too much to Alllies, it simply makes it all more realistic... as the Allied advantages actually work as they should, just like the Axis advantages. (I also vote YAY FOR ME, as an Allied player.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Don't forget that with the 1.1 patch there's a bug where tungsten rounds are using the incorrect slope modifier for penetrations, giving greater penetration. It's supposed to be fixed in 1.11. Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Greater penetration is a good thing. I also like having a better chance of penetration. I haven't noticed any changes in gameplay though because I seem to lose just as quickly on both sides. It seems like the Allies do a better job with their tanks when I am the Axis and vise versa. Hmmm... ------------------ Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 LOL Hiram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 The real question should be does the current game reflect historical reality to the extent possible. I think that the answer to that question depends upon whether the increased effectiveness of allied tank destroyers tracks historical success. In other posts, Slapdragon has stated that the M18 had a 10 to 1 kill ratio against Axis armor. So it could be that Allied tank destroyers really were death to German tanks, especially when they got the first shot, and that the German armor's supposed superiority was mainly vis-a-vis American tanks (i.e. Shermans). If it is a play balance issue, change the points, don't make the game's modeling historically inaccurate. [This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 As a player who plays Axis and Allies in equal quantities I have found and seen no real shift towards the Allies. I have played games where allied tanks are quite willing to unload tungsten which when hits kills more likely than not. But then again I am in a game where my opponent is cursing his armour and its inability to fire 'All that bloody Tungsten' at my Jagdpanther. I feel that it makes the Axis player a lot more cautious in his approach when engaging Allied armour, unlike before when most of the time he would steamroll forward with his heavy armour. In this respect I think it adds and improves the game no end. I am not technically minded like a lot of people on this board so cannot see if there is anything wrong with the physics behind the game, but I have been playing wargames for a long time now and I know when something feels right and works well. For me at the moment CMBO works well. Tiny (My God that was the largest post I have done so far) [This message has been edited by Tiny (edited 01-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by Tiny (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 I'd be more interested in the quantity of tungsten Allied tanks are getting issued. Tungsten should be rare in tanks & was not that much more common in TD units. As I have gone into before HVAP rounds were not that common; especialy in tank units. In the old versions my Shermans had 7 - 9 T rounds in QB's (not that they ever used em)which was a bit much to say the least. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Tom, I don't know if you are correct or incorrect in your observation but it is something I am taking into account into the ASL conversions I am doing and have done. At this point I am assuming Allied armor will more likely use available Tungsten and have dropped the typical average load of what seems to be three down to one tungsten round max. Can't do much about QB's or other scenario designers but it is something that ought to be considered by those who create custom battles/operations. Harold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 I still believe the allies have too plentiful amounts of tungsten availlable, but I really can't say anything concrete about the balance. Yet at least. I think I'll wait and see the results of the next round of Rugged Defense tournament. The last round was ever so slightly leaning towards german superiority. Let's see what the ongoing round using 1.1 has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 16, 2001 Author Share Posted January 16, 2001 So far I have not seem any unrealistic Tungsten load outs on allied tanks. I have been very confortable so far with the VERY limited quantities of tungsten I have had available in Tanks and TD's. No problem there. I have not seen 7-9 rounds available in allied tanks in QB's. I aggree I would say that was ahistorical and generous, but I have not seen it yet. I would agree that is a problem that woudl be both unrealitic and unbalanced for the Allies, but I have not seen it yet. I was really just soliciting the opinion of folks that prefer to play the Germans, to see how they feel. I think the hull rotation for their slower tanks is in there favour and ALL in ALL I really like the way the game plays now. I though I would just see what other's had to say. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I'd be more interested in the quantity of tungsten Allied tanks are getting issued. Tungsten should be rare in tanks & was not that much more common in TD units. As I have gone into before HVAP rounds were not that common; especialy in tank units. In the old versions my Shermans had 7 - 9 T rounds in QB's (not that they ever used em)which was a bit much to say the least. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the test I did several months back of this, Sherman 76s had an average of 3.2 rounds of Tungsten each, Tank destroyers 6.5 rounds. I did not test 17lb Shermans under 1.05. These numbers do not reflect 1.1, which I have not yet tested. For 1.05 they were very reluctant to fire tungsten. When faced with a Tiger front at 500 meters M18s with 7 rounds of Tungsten fired that tungsten twice in 50 runs on the first shot, and twice on the second shot. (On the other hand when they were reduced to 6 round AP / 6 rounds tungsten they would fire tungsten first 49 out of fifty times in one test and 47 out of 50 times in a second test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I'd be more interested in the quantity of tungsten Allied tanks are getting issued. Tungsten should be rare in tanks & was not that much more common in TD units. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, it's been my experience in QBs with 1.1 that the allied tanks get a lot less T than before. For example, I got 6x M4A1 75mm's and 2x M41A 76mm's in my latest QB. Not one T round amongst them . In the past I'd get on average 1T round per tank. So I think perhaps the increased chance of firing T has been offset by the reduced chance of getting T in the first place. I know I wish my 75mm's had some since they're taking a beating right now. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Jeff, the US 75mm gun does not have any T available to it at all. It was never made. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...has the new use of tungsten made the game, on the whole, MORE ballanced, or has it tipped the game in favour of the Allied TD's that carry tungsten...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My field of flaming Shermans in "August Bank Holiday" tells me no... ------------------ My P-47 is a pretty good ship And she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip I was thinking 'bout my baby and letting her rip Always got me through so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 Thanks for all your thoughtful replies. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slyss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 German players rejoice In patch 1.2 not only will our armor points for MEs go from on third less then the allies to one half better simulating the german defeat, but also a far greater historical patch that whacks our points in half for everything. As for the tungsten, let them have twice as much as they have now for all I care. This will better simulate the experience of being defeated hopelessly. Hmmmph. ------------------ Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Nope, in 1.2 Germans will be getting jet packs for their infantry and hover tanks for their armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Just to summarize some of the recently discussed matters about tungsten rounds in CM 1.1: 1. Tungsten shots MAY be too numerous among allied armor (Particularly with tanks). This is still under "discussion" here on the forum. No statement about this from BTS. 2. As Tiger already noted, there's a bug in 1.1 which gives tungsten rounds (particularly US76mm HVAP) unrealitically boosted penetration performance against sloped armor. This has been confirmed by Charles and will be fixed in the next patch. 3. 17pdr APDS tungsten shots are as accurate as regular 17pdr AP rounds in CM which is ahistorical. Several sources indicate that 17pdr APDS suffered badly of inaccuracy. No statement about this from BTS. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravesRegistration Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 The inaccuracy you are describing was at Long ranges. At over 600-700 meters the APDS round tended to wobble. But APCR was even less accurate than APDS at those ranges and beyond. Also, I have not seen any with my forces yet but the german army especially SS had a store of APCR at D-DAy and im sure they used it up fast but have never seen a single German Apcr round in CM. They even had APCR for the Tiger's 88. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 GravesRegistration, I'm talking about 17pdr APDS ONLY. Not APDSs in general. Here's a quote from another thread: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: From http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt6.htm Lots and lots of good info on this site. WO 291/1263, "Firing Trials, 17pdr Sherman." "Table VI has been constructed which shows the probability of a hit on a target 5' wide by 2' high (representing a Panther turret) at various ranges using both types of round." Range(yds)APC% AP/DS % 400/ 90.5/ 56.6 600/ 73.0/ 34.2 800/ 57.3/ 21.9 1000/ 45.3/ 14.9 1500/ 25.4/ 7.1 Comments and corrections These assume that the MPI is placed centrally on the target. The trace from the AP/DS round was not seen in 73% of cases by a flank observer, and in no case from inside the tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Also the results from Isigny tests can be read here: http://members.nbci.com/mycenius/weapons/armour6.html It seems sure that 17pdr's APDS shot was very unaccurate even below 600 meters range. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 German tanks are f*cked in v1.1, I wouldn't recommend anyone playing as the Axis for the time being. Or just flood the field with 75mm halftracks and Pumas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 19, 2001 Author Share Posted January 19, 2001 BUT.... What about hull rotation? Doesn't the new tac AI auto hull rotation add some extra speed to the slow turreted German tanks? Does this not somewhat balance out the other factors? I agree that the HVAP tungsten is now being loaded and fired usually when it is needed most and it seems to penetrate most German frontal armour most of the time. Maybe there are TOO many rounds available in the game. (but I'm not sure about this?). Maybe the suggestion that "the German tanks are now f*cked" is perhaps now actually historically accurate because as more HVAP showed up in the ETO more big german tanks died faster from HVAP fired from Allied TDs. BUT its still a GREAT game I just wish I could find more time to play it! -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Ummm.. were the amounts of tungsten higher a while back. In my recent games it seems 76 Shermans often don't have any. In this new light, I withdraw my suggestion that there's too much of the stuff around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts