V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

[Guest KwazyDog]

The interesting thing though ciks is if you reverse that situation with the hellcat on the flank under 1.1 youd probably have one dead Hellcat and one dead Jeep. With 1.05 that Hellcat would have had been able to pop the Tiger through the side hull as you saw above.

Unfortuantely I think its a situation where we cant cover every possibility. In my opinion the new system increases the survivorbility of tanks over the old method, though it still is, as always, important to use them properly and protect your flanks.

Dan

[Guest KwazyDog]

Tom, as I mentioned above, I have seen that behaviour once before, but it was some time back and I have played a LOT of games since, so I can honestly say I think you got unlucky with that one

Thats being said though, if you see it again make sure you save the movie for us

Dan

[Vanir]

There is another benefit to the new hull rotation: It brings the value of a turret more in line with its historical value.

One thing that has not been mentioned here is that in addition to tanks rotating their hulls, all vehicles now rotate their hulls more slowly than before. This is significant because it now makes turretless tank destroyers less capable in CM which is more in line with their historical value vs. tanks.

Historically, the big drawback of turretless vehicles was that they couldn't move their gun from target to target quickly. This is not as much of a problem in CM because they can rotate in place, something they could not do in real life. Before this change, a JdPz IV could swivel its gun around faster than a Tiger I (using its turret only), which is totally ahistorical. Now, even tanks with very slow turrets can bring their guns to bear faster than any TD. This, folks, is an improvement.

I've been playing with this feature for the past few weeks (like everyone else who bothered to download the beta) and I like it a lot. No, it is not perfect, and their are situations possible where you could lose a tank where you wouldn't have before. But based on my observations I would say for every extra tank this feature causes you to lose it will save 2 or 3 that you would have lost otherwise. 90% of the time the tank will operate more effectively and protect itself better than before. In the long run, you will come out ahead. Of course, poor tactics will still get you killed no matter what. Read Buttethead's post that Steve linked to above for more on that.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Guest ciks]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... if you reverse that situation with the hellcat on the flank under 1.1 youd probably have one dead Hellcat and one dead Jeep. With 1.05 that Hellcat would have had been able to pop the Tiger through the side hull as you saw above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure i completely understand, what you said.

You mean if hellcat and jeep would switch places? Well, yes, if Hellcat would miss its first shot. But in the game i would never send a Jumbo to force Tiger to turn a hull, and then pop up with some Crew trying to kill the kitty.

[Bastables]

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

Imagine yourself in a tiger tank carefully driving down a well blasted up road through a rubbled to hell and back town. It could be main street for all you know.

When all of a sudden...

10 naked guys run around yelling "Boookie Boookie Booo". In your panic you turn your hull to face the guys that might just pee on your hull. Just then a rocket penetrates your side hull from straight down the road.

REALITY CHECK

Happened to me last night. Not quite as dramatic, but my tank rotated when i didnt want it too. I WANTED my tank to point down the road. I didnt want it to rotate the hull towards the buildings and such.

Isn't there supposed to be a rotate hull button?

Why do tanks have turrets then might I ask? The hole point it to bring the firepower to bear quickly. You don't have to defend against something that you blasted as soon as you could swivel the gun. Turning the hull is a defensive manuever that you save for the right moments. Like an anti-tank gun.

Also, why even go hull down then? You are just exposing the turret anyway. I havent seen any comments on that on this post.

I say BAH. This is just gonna lead to more cheap gamey tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes well it was SOP to turn the entire hull to bring the gun on target faster on all German turreted tanks during the war even with the faster turning Panther 18sec for 360 deg or the PIV at 26sec 360 deg. Also used by the Allies during the time period covered by CMBO so if that’s gamey so was real life! What the hell was your Tiger doing sans infantry in the middle of a village? Unsupported tanks died 'alot' in urban areas due to the close ranges and multiple angles people can hit you from. This is why Tanks have to be supported by Infantry especially in built up areas. Cripes in Russia Panzer crewmen talked about 3hr stalking of T-34s and strong points in urban battles covered by infantry, and you decide to move a lone tiger through a village without insuring there are no enemy positions around. Either you made a gamble with that Tiger and lost, or you screwed up and now want BTS to insure the game has a Slyss never loses line of code implemented immediately inspite of historical tank SOP.

Read on and found you took it back, oh well.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

That is what I was meaning ciks, with the Hellcat on the flank

The thing it, the Tiger is turning towards the M18 and his hull will be someone on an oblique angle, which increases the chance of a shell bouncing. Thus, even is the dosnt miss with that first shot, he may not get a kill.

If the Tiger didnt rotate his hull, this would be a totally different matter

Anyways, just some thoughts on the issue...

[aka_tom_w]

I think the only real issue here is the AI predictability of the hull turn.

BUT is this any worse than the v1.05 predictabilty of NO hull turn??

EVERY one knows you want to maximize flank shots to kill tanks. OK thats a given.

Is this new hull rotation AI predictability in v1.1 really any worse than the NON hull rotation predictability in v1.05 with respect to gamey play to distract tanks to get flank shots?

In the past I would also try to get flank shots by distracting a tank in its frontal aspect with somthing cheap (like a cheap truck or better yet an AT team) so I could sneak somthing more deadly around to its flank to get that sweet shot off. So now I will try to get something cheap and distracting around to its flank to get it to turn and then pop it with something more deadly that was directly in front of this soon to die target. What's the big deal? Just change your tactics slightly.

So what really is the difference in the level of predicability here? Both systems are equally predictable.

No?

-tom w

[Vanir]

Tom, about that twitchy behavior. I too have seen that once before in a 1.05 game against the AI. The AI drove a Jagdpanther up to within 50m of some woods that I had a zook hidden in. The next turn the zook started firing and at the same time I brought a M10 out and it targeted the JP from about 900m away. The JP freaked out and swung around between the zook and the M10 wildly for about 30 seconds, never firing a shot a either, before finally throwing it in reverse and retreating. Meanwhile my vet. zook whiffed on 6 straight shots at the damn thing

There does seem to be a problem when a tank encounters 2 targets at the same time before it has had a chance to engage either one, and both are considered a danger to the tank. Ideally, the TacAI should engage the greatest threat first. At the very least it should just engage the closest one. If I see this happen again I'll send it to KrazyDog. Fortunately, it seems to be a rare occurrence.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Guest ciks]

Roger, KwazyDog.

Anyhow, i'm going to have an armour heavy PBEM right now. The best test ever!

[Bruno Weiss]

Well now I do seem to have everyone's attention.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM has the hands down best TACAI in any game ever made that I have seen or played or even heard of. PERIOD. BTS is pushing the envelope in AI and that is a fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one has spent more words praising CM than I Scott.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Huh? You new around here or something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, good point Scott.

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

If you all who are complaining about this feature would have tried the Beta patches, you would have known about this feature and then brought up the "so-called" problem then and not now after the final v1.1 patch has been released.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point also Maximus. I wouldn't agree that just because it was out there and no one said "hey", automatically means it then must be okay, but the point taken of answering my question of "who beta tested this", is right on target. We did, or at least we were supposed to and it was BTS who made it available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let me just weigh in here even though Kwazydog has been doing a good job trying to explain this to someone who seems unwilling to actually try it out in more than one isolated example and who appears to be growing more and more insulting in his posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said he "wasn't" doing a good job of defending it Matt. I said I wasn't as he indicated, the only one objecting to it. I wouldn't say I increasingly became sarcastic, I'd say I started out that way. The attacks on me became increasing afterwards. Is that what one then gets, probably. And, I never said I wasn't going to try it, in point fact quite the contrary, I said that I was going to "have" to try it like it or not since at least one other opponent had switched to the new version.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We really don't ask for much from people here except to give us a modicum of courtesy and to be informed when they post on a topic. I am seeing less and less of either from you Bruno.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point on the first statement Matt. The second one though, other than not knowing this autohull turning was something that was supposed to be already in place as you've indicated but never worked correctly... Why would I need to be "informed", (informed of what exactly?) to believe that the automated turning of hulls to face targets in a multiple target environment is not necessarily a good idea, or that it is a mechanism that can potentially be taken advantage of.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Infantry units can be a deadly threat and the TC may not be able to see what they're armed with so he should treat all of them as potentially dangerous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true of realistic threats, though in a multiple target environment it provides an ever changing hull movement for enemy fire, it would not be true of a hull turning feature responding to jeeps, trucks, or other non-threatening, but none the less AI "eye" catching movements.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I play an opponent who uses crews or trucks to fake out my armour, I likely would thank them for the game and not play them again. That sort of tactic has always been bad form in my book. Having armour use their rotation to assist in coming on target, and the AI getting confused by deliberate use of sacrificial decoys, are not the same thing. One is a problem, the other is not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point and true OGSF. There are a good many aspects to any game that a gamey player can take advantage of. I just don't particularly want to provide them with any additional assists.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sheesh... are you sure know how this BBS works? You appear to think that we only respond when people are insulting, belittling, disrespectful, whiney, absolutely uncooperative, and non-constructive. If you are the opposite of all these things you are being an ass kisser and not trying to advance the state of the game at all. Have I understood your comprehension of how things work around here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it isn't but given my sarcasm I'd say that's deserved Steve, go ahead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bruno, you might have a point, you might not. But I can tell you one thing... reading only a few of your posts has convinced me to not waste even one more minute of my time reading your messages. If you can't behave like an adult in a civilized society, I don't see why I should value your opinions. If you would like to be a part of improving Combat Mission, start by improving your rotten attitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch! I accept that. Though I'm not sure I'd term this BBS a "civilized society", by any measure however the BTS sarcasm that I was guilty of, whether mixed with bravado in the debate or not is understandably sufficient to solicit your response. And yes, I believe I do have a point. I'm sorry you don't want to listen to it because you think I'm a jackass. That would seem to me to be something of a paradox. I would agree though, the rotten attitude as you term it is unnecessary, certainly interpreted as an insult by those at BTS, and should be improved if I'm to expect BTS to see the real issue and not be confused in all the smoke.

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

To expect CM to adapt itself perfectly, in hindsight, to each and every situation is utterly impossible. If someone can not accept that reality, might I suggest finding a different game that can rise to this challenge. Just hope you don't die of old age waiting for that "perfect" game because there are none on the horizon anytime soon...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see where that is really the case Steve, I think what folks want is a best take and continual improvement. I've always said that BTS does that, don't they?

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

This change, historical/ahistorical, good/bad, is not major enough to cause anybody to lose even one game they would have otherwise won using sound tactics. Speculation that it can lead to disaster is just that -> speculation. Mostly by someone who has not even played it. So please... don't let the baseless alarmists frighten you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That certainly loses me. I've read so many posts where BTS strives to be historical, for example, the squad level smoke grenade that many have wanted, but for want of documentation that it was of common use. What you say above, is that "historical or nonhistorical this change..." Why would a non historical change be contemplated? As for disaster, someone else came up with that. Baseless alarmist? Hehe, yeah its all my fault there are dissenters, let's keep it up and see how civilized it becomes. Since I initiated it yesterday, I won't cast names at you in return, go ahead and take your shots Steve it's your turn. Enjoy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We all know that if it is REALLY a problem Steve and Charles will look at it again, after all they have been known to fix this game ONLY about 7 or 8 times including 2 public beta's since its release 7 months ago! That's an admiral track record in this business!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree aka Tom, with both sentiments. I've made so many declarations of praise for CM and BTS it isn't funny. All now forgotten ofcourse. Like I already said, which was rapidly overlooked, I'll be trying it want to or not since some opponents have it. We shall see how it plays out. I too have no doubt that if it is a bad thing, then the defense of it will eventually crumble and if it is a good thing or tolerable then I'm sure everyone will move onto something else.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Echo]

What was wrong with the armor AI in 1.24beta? I thought that was the best I'd seen.

[wie201]

I agree with the point made by Stellar earlier, to attack a real threat with actual knowledge than one the TC may not know about. Remember, we all know the ratios when we set up a QB, so we know that yes, I have seen 500 points of an enemy, but I know he has another 1000 points out there ready for me, so I better not swing my hull around. Not realistic.

Also, about engaging targets on either flank and possibly not shooting at either. For me this is fine for the Tac/AI to do this on occasion. My rationale is that in the heat of a battle, you cannot always make a cool, calculating decision. If it were me, I would probably swing wildly left and right trying to shoot at anything that moved as fast as I could. Even Napoleon (not a great analogy, perhaps) couldn't get an entire corps to fight at Ligney or Quatre Bras, and he had a lot more time than one minute to decide. I take it as the attempt by BTS to try and replicate what happened on the field.

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS:

I just finished playing 4 combined arms and 3 armor scenarios with various settings and troop level expirience.

I don't really understand the debate of this thread. 1.1 runs fine, hull rotation and all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not qualified to participate in this discussion, since you have actually tried it out and therefore know what you are talking about

Henri

[PawBroon]

Waoww!!!

Just read that thread in one go and I should say I'm quite surprised no one did the mandatory Do a Search trick.

The hull turning to face the threat and thus enabling a faster bearing of the gun had been featured for some time now.

It was the direct result of some serious crying to Heaven by most of us and was seen as a serious overlook by BTS.

Enters Hull rotation...

Tests were done, the classical one being Villers Bocage to see how that would help increase survavibility.

IT DID!!!

Once again I could only recommend most of you to take a hike in the DeLorean and see what have been said in the past about that.

Enthousiasm was not only HUGE but also very noticeable.

I'm sorry some of you hadn't noticed all the threads and contributions here and there but it was indeed commented on ad libitum...

Now I am not meaning that because it had been discussed, it shouldn't be brought to fore again once in a while.

But a little more respect for the community as a whole and for the guys who made it all happen in the first place might help.

If you expect CM's TacAI to allow you to make fumbles and correct them by a brighter micro management of your AFVs then you might as well have someone else play your game on your behalf entirely.

I have no right whatsoever to belittle or doubt your sincerity and willingness to make CM a better experience for all of us by contributing your feedback in here for your fellow CMers to partake on them.

However I strongly urge some of you to do a simple experience inspired by what MadMatt is doing with his POTDs from the past.

Create a folder for the ORIGINAL CMBO, BMPs, WAVs and with the very first exe.

Play it.

Then play it again.

Do all the tests that had been mentioned in that thread.

Play Villers Bocage.

Go on to your regular CM and do just the same.

People should mesure what has been done and how much more pleasurable an already tremondous game CM has become.

And lest I forgot, how come there is still no dead bodies with gore effects in 1.1?

That's insulting and ahistirocal.

Do somefink!

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

You are not Obsessive-CMpulsive, you are Allied-Retentive.

Mark IV

[Maximus]

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

Good point Stellar! On the battlefield, other than a abandoned crew or unarmed vehicles there are NO non-threatening units. Every infantry unit including HQ's have the ability to kill ANY tank. How are those NOT threatening?

Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, I had an SS squad catostrophically destroy a Pershing with just a volley of several hand-grenades, not panzerfausts. I even have a screenshot of this.

[sbg2112]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the only real issue here is the AI predictability of the hull turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you've nailed it; while this is an improvement in so many ways, it nevertheless seems like it can be exploited because it is so predictable. I can buy that it is more realistic and reflects actual doctrine, however, not every crew is going to fight by the book once the shootin' starts.

BTS, why not make this less predictable? There's lots of factors that could go into the decision as to whether to rotate the hull, ranging from simple probabilities up to considering the crew quality or various aspects of a particular vehicle.

Sure, people will still be posting anecdotes claiming bugs, but these are the same people who forget they are acting as a battlefield commander with "soldiers" that "think" for themselves. Like real life, your orders won't always be carried out the way you'd like, and your men won't always employ their weapons the way you'd like. C'est la guerre.

[Maximus]

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

To Maximus:

I really would like to have the time to play more and test the 1.1 beta... I think this board is not only for 'hardcore' gamer no? And I'm not crying about this change, I just want to understand So, cease fire please.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't singling out anybody. I just don't see how someone can jump on here complaining about something that they've seen for the first time and been "shocked about" upon downloading and installing the new Final Patch whilst not trying out the Beta Patches in which the feature has been in for the last 2 or 3 beta patches. Sounds like a a "Johnny come lately" to me. It almost sounds like the "Why wasn't I told about this?" syndrom. When in fact you were, you just chose not to listen. Why didn't you, especially Bruno, take part in the Public Beta tests instead of getting all bent out of shape upon seeing it for the first time?

It's like buying a car without giving it a test drive first and then bitching about your purpose later when you don't like how the car handles. BTS has given everybody FIVE WEEKS to test drive this new patch with FOUR versions of the Beta patches. Which is unfortunate because the Beta Patches did not overwrite anything. You could have still played v1.05 if you wanted to.

Personally, I have relished in all the tweaks made through-out the Beta patches, including this final patch. One of being that tanks will now fire HE at infantry at their own discretion. For one it save time. You don't have to waste a portion of a turn to order it to do so on the next turn. And the hull rotation thing, IMO, increases not only the survivability of the tanks, but aids in the quickness of their guns to come to bear.

I recall playing one game with beta 24 where for the life of me I could not get a flank shot on a KT because the KT KEPT rotating it hull! Trust me, that would have been easier to do with v1.05. So in fact, I find Bruno's argument totally unsubstanciated.

[M Hofbauer]

Maximus,

those handgrenades are just an abstraction for the close assault of the infantry against the tank. That includes all close-assault tactics employed by infantry vs. tanks, down to climbing onto the turret, opening the hatch and peeing into the face of the bewidlered TC etc. It *also* includes throwing of (and various other applications of / methods involving) grenades. But keep in mind that the visual display of throwing the grenades is just a graphical abstraction for the hidden close assault formula.

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[aka_tom_w]

This Too (in addition to my earlier post about AI predictability of the hull rototation, now guarenteed nearly every time) is part of the root of this issue:

"If you expect CM's TacAI to allow you to make fumbles and correct them by a brighter micro management of your AFVs then you might as well have someone else play your game on your behalf entirely."

VERY well put!

What some folks here are talking about (perhaps without actually saying it) is lack of opportunity to micro manage your armour out of a BAD situation in the first place.

I still don't like the fact that the new hull rotation is so seemingly automated and predictable. In theory and in historical practice I suspect it IS the right thing to do, BUT in the game when you and your opponent can COUNT on the hull rotation to a new threat you present to the flank aspect of a tank you REALLY want to turn away from somthing you want to shoot it in the flank with, then the degree of predictabilty is in my opinion a little unprecedented in the game.

I would like to suggest also within the concept of implementation of the FULL fog of WAR, that the crew experience level enemy units should NEVER be revealed to your opponent. Then crew experience level could be a factor in the predictability of the possibility of hull rotation, some perhaps faster than others, some perhaps NOT at all.

The idea and current implemenation of the concept works VERY well but it sort of seems unnaturally predictable and in my opinion more automatic or automated than some of the more "organic" behaviours we have all come to know and love in CM.

This "Less than" predictable hull rotation suggestion here will likely infuriate the " I need to micro manage my OWN HULL rotation for VERY tank" crowd even more, so......

Oh well

just a thought

Thanks for the rant

(I think is is NOT all that bad the way it is)

Better than before in v1.05 IMHO

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Bruno Weiss]

I'm not aware Maximus of a mandatory requirement for participation in the beta testing, or any waiver for non-participation which prevents one from subsequently finding something thereafter objectionable. What you say about the KT equates then, to making it even more difficult to destroy, it would seem. Flanking a KT would be a quite natural and appropriate tactic in exploiting its slow turret inherent weaknesses on the battlefield. I suppose the question isn't so much whether or not the new fix makes a KT stronger, but whether or not its fully appropriate to do so and what overall balance outcome results from that.

And as some keep pointing out, the question of what balance paradyme changes may result from a predictable autohull response being adapted to all armor, not just the KT.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Doug Beman]

I'm disappointed that I didn't get into this while it was still in flux.

Wasn't the matter of "was it SOP for German tanks turn hulls along with turrets" debated for a couple months? And it was decided that, indeed, German tank training was to do this, right? So it is NOT "changing the game to make it more pleasant for some people," it is increasing the historicity of it. It's interesting that people said "BTS only changed hull rotation to appease others' opinions, and they should change it back to the old way," and the only support they vibe was their OPINION that the V1.1 hull rotation is wrong. Astounding.

If a tank is in a situation where there are several low-level threats that it sees, and one high-level threat that it doesn't see, how can you fault the tank for fully engaging the low-level threats? YOU might be able to see that AT gun, but if the tank can't and it feels threatened by some infantry to one side or another, it is logical behavior for the tank to engage the infantry to the best of its ability.

Somebody said "I don't want my tank swinging its hull to engage a Stuart on the side while there are M10s firing at it from the front." As long as your tank knows that the M10s are there, it should totally ignore the Stuart and engage the M10s to the best of its ability. Only if it perceived the Stuart as the #1 threat will it engage and swing its hull.

Lastly, BTS releases every patch free for anybody to grab and test. Sitting on the sidelines during testing and then taking potshots at the finished product saying "this runs counter to my beliefs and opinions so change it back" is simply bad form.

DjB

[Doug Beman]

Bruno, CM is not ABOUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>whether or not its fully appropriate to do so and what overall balance outcome results from that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> it is ABOUT re-recreating historical military engagements. Rarely is war "balanced." The Germans had good tanks with very good AT guns and that were hard to kill. If it was SOP for German tanks to swing hulls to help turrets line up faster, then so be it. If that makes the KTs (or Panthers or Tigers or whatnot) even harder to kill, as long as that brings them CLOSER to historical reality, then there is no problem, except how the Allies should deal with them.

DjB

[Maximus]

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

Maximus,

those handgrenades are just an abstraction for the close assault of the infantry against the tank. That includes all close-assault tactics employed by infantry vs. tanks, down to climbing onto the turret, opening the hatch and peeing into the face of the bewidlered TC etc. It *also* includes throwing of (and various other applications of / methods involving) grenades. But keep in mind that the visual display of throwing the grenades is just a graphical abstraction for the hidden close assault formula.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe so, but it still proves that EVERYTHING can be considered a threat minus those big scary trucks. Besides, anyone that uses trucks, jeeps or kubelwagons in such a way needs to be shot on the spot anyway.

[jshandorf]

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

Historically, the big drawback of turretless vehicles was that they couldn't move their gun from target to target quickly. This is not as much of a problem in CM because they can rotate in place, something they could not do in real life. Before this change, a JdPz IV could swivel its gun around faster than a Tiger I (using its turret only), which is totally ahistorical. Now, even tanks with very slow turrets can bring their guns to bear faster than any TD. This, folks, is an improvement.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the German designed allowed most if not all of thier tanks to have independent drive train for each track, so that in essence when you see the German tanks rotate in place they could actually do that. One track could spin forward while the other could spin backwards.

The problem is that the Allied tanks DID NOT have this and to rotate the hull or to even turn around they had to lock one track and turn the other to sort of swing around instead of rotating in place.

As of this moment this is a limitation in the CM egine that I hear will be corrected in CM2.

As you can see THIS is HUGE advantage to Allied tanks since you can keep the main gun on target and rotate the hull to bring the forward armor to bear. Allied tanks could NOT do this.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[aka_tom_w]

Be Careful Jeff or some one is bound to blow you out of the water here.

NOT all German tanks had neutral steer (rotate on the spot) and NOT all Allied tanks lacked neutral steer, but it is NOT at all modeled in the game.

The Sherms did not have neutral Steer, the Tiger Did have it, but I'll bet the german TD mentioned about based on the Pnz IV chasis did not have neutral steer.

There is a thread about neutral steer somewhere on this board that lists all the tanks that do and don't have this VERY handy feature, but in the game ALL tanks can turn on a dime.

-tom w