Jump to content

What's YOUR favorite part of ver. 1.02?


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

Panzer 76,

You are thinking backwards. ;)

Ummm ..... I'm thinking the same way! I would have thought lesser [more acute] armour angles means less chance of penetration??? Am I wrong to think this?? :confused:

Well, according to my possibly mis-guided thinking, the SU-122 is going to become much more of a survivor on the battlefiled with the most significant armour angle changes of the lot, with an already relatively low profile. This is what proved to be the case in the ALL ARMOUR battles I tried. SU-85's, SU-122's and T'34's seemed much harder to kill than before. This is a GOOD THING IMHO!!!

AJ

[ February 12, 2003, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: aussiejeff ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm thinking wrong here. Is it not like so:

Ninty degrees is straight up and down, and zero is level with the ground, so the less the number, the more slope, and thus, the more protection provided?

I may be talking out my arse at this point. Grogs, help us!! :eek:

[ February 12, 2003, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

Maybe I'm thinking wrong here. Is it not like so:

Ninty degrees is straight up and down, and zero is level with the ground, so the less the number, the more slope, and thus, the more protection provided?

I may be talking out my arse at this point. Grogs, help us!! :eek:

The way I understand it, the slope degrees shown in the armour stats for a unit is what is generally presented at a round that is fired horizontally at that part of a horizontally level tank?? Yes, I agree. Grog please?!! Front and centre!!!

AJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Installed Patch last night and played one

Pure Armor 1000 points Played Germans

Let Al chose armor both sids imported one of Biltong's

Maps and it was all armor. Had a good battle.

Russian tanks picked most my armor off at long

range. Seems there was a lot of Fire around tanks

and in Fields looked good so far.

Lots good things to check out.

Lane smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by aussiejeff:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

Maybe I'm thinking wrong here. Is it not like so:

Ninty degrees is straight up and down, and zero is level with the ground, so the less the number, the more slope, and thus, the more protection provided?

I may be talking out my arse at this point. Grogs, help us!! :eek:

The way I understand it, the slope degrees shown in the armour stats for a unit is what is generally presented at a round that is fired horizontally at that part of a horizontally level tank?? Yes, I agree. Grog please?!! Front and centre!!!

AJ </font>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am NOT a grog --- I did drink some once though. Neither am I by training an engineer. However, it seems clear (at first examination) that when there is a 'smaller' angle (30 degrees vs 45), this would, effectively, present a greater thickness of armor as well as an increased likelihood of ricochets... thus - improved protection. There might well be compounding problems though - e.g. shots being deflected into a weaker portion of the tank. If additional consequences are not modeled (taken into account), then simplisticly - the 'lower' angle is better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Panzer76:

/QUOTE]Actually it downgrades most of them:

* T-34, SU-85, SU-122 have an angle of 53 degrees for lower front hull

Before: 60 degrees

* Tanks of the KV-I series (exception KV-IS) have a 30 degree angle for lower front hull.

Before: 25 degrees

* SU-85, SU-100, SU-122 have an angle of 20 degrees for upper side hull

Before: SU-85:40 degrees, SU-122 & SU-100:30 degrees.

So the only AFV that is improved is the KV, which really is a though beast already. [/QB]

Panzer76 is right, the armour changes actully downgrade Soviet armour, excluding the KV.

Vertical at 0deg is the basis used by the Germans and the Soviets (More importantly how it is used in the game), therfore the T-34 glacis is set back at 60deg from the vertical.

So in game and as used by the wartime tank “engineers” of Germany and the Soviet Union; 0 deg= vertical, 90 deg = horizontal.

[ February 13, 2003, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

It's a worry isn't it Panzer 76.

I think I want to play some of these guys in a PBEM. ;)

BTW, is that number supposed to represent 76 degrees from the vertical or horizontal?

;)

Regards

Jim R.

Hmm, maybe that's the caliber in mm. of a long Sherman or short T-34 round slicing through his German tank for a side turret penetration, producing one knocked out panzer?

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

It's a worry isn't it Panzer 76.

BTW, is that number supposed to represent 76 degrees from the vertical or horizontal?

;)

Regards

Jim R.

Not sure this is a serious question, but CM only has vertical angles for armor plates.

Horizontal angles in CM armor combat exclusivly come from positions of shooter and target. The vertical angles are further subject to the relative height of shooter and target to each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Ive just played an armour only 1250 points ME against the AI +2, computer bought forces, on a very high recommended map named Manstein Fork ME

VERY good map for tanks battles, great map pack.

Anyway the AI killed my nine T34/43 and my five T 60 in 34 turns. AI only looses three Pz III ...

Very nice.

God, I just love CMBO and CMBB, Battlefront rules !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Scheer!

I haven't tried an all armor battle vs. the AI but I'm guessing it might be good because--

1) the AI tends to handle armor better than infantry...

2) it doesn't have to coordinate different arms (which it doesn't do very well) but instead can focus on a single arm

Prepared maps sound like a good idea--or a map setting a reasonably favorable to armor, rather than random.

Does anyone have suggestions on whether to try attacks with AI defending, or AI attacks, or MEs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Madmatt:

................................

..................

Madmatt

p.s. You may recall that last time CDV released 1.01 before we did, so this time we beat them to the punch. Either way, shortly everyone will be able to get 1.02.

Y'know thats right they did ... well done CDV ...it was only spoilt by the fact that they then withdrew that early released patch to replace it a couple of days later with another version .... leaving 2 CDV patches of different sized doing the rounds !

Personally I'm not bothered if they are a day or 2 earlier or later than BFC ..... but it would make a nice change if they could get it right for once.

If you spend a few idle moments searching CDV's website you'd be forgiven for thinking that they had never of CM.

Oh if only the patch had something that removed the CDV logo at startup .... or maybe just a re-textured gravestone with the CDV logo on it .......... Hmmm gives me an idea ;)

Lou2000

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to have a go at battlefront but they seem to have done poor research on the IS-2 armor values. According to svirin the WW2 IS-2/44 had two versions. The cast version had a front glacis of 100mm@60degrees and lower hull of 100@60degrees. The RHA version had 90mm@60 degrees for glacis and lower front hull.

In the new patch it has the value 120mm changed from 105mm it had in version 1.1 which are both wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl, the IS-2 specs aren't 'wrong', they're just from an alternate reliable source (the Brits I believe).

The way the Russians overused their sandcasts, the 'official' numbers are practically meaningless from vehicle-to-vehicle. I believe much of the funky 'ribbing' you seen on T34-85 and IS-2 turret edges is from the worn-out sandcast rebar peeking through. Even the meticulous Germans had problems in this regard, with Panthers occassionally coming off the assembly line 20% overweight from overly-thick armor plate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just played a couple of pure armor MEs against the AI. In the first one, the AI handed me my head! It was a 1000 pt August 1944 22 turn fight in a small map in a semi-woodsy environment and the AI just outmaneuvered me consistently and won a Tactical Victory. I did give the AI a +1 experience boost.

I got my revenge in a 1941 1250 point ME on gentle slopes, but that was because I brought 6 KV-1's and 3 T-34s to the party--this time I was mad!-- against a slew of PzIIs and PzIII and PzIV shorts. And no experience boost, thank you.

Anyway, I'm thinking that the AI may be at its best when simply handling armor rather than trying to coordinate a combined arms battle. Might give the game a whole new wrinkle. Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...