CMBB axis superiority disproven.

[Crazy]

If CM creators plan to change game aspects (optics, armor) and need help sure i'll be glad to. But noe a P IId has good optics and from my sorces Till 1939 wermacht has received 143 tanks of updatings D and Е.So if you tale t-34/85 (43) or SU/ISU -152 only by logics they must have equal optics to P II.

[xerxes]

Band of Brothers CMBB games:

Axis wins: 212

Allied wins: 245

Draws: 87

This is a good mix of scenarios, ME QBs, attack/defend QBs, just for fun games and tournament games. Some QBs are all random parameters, some are agreed parameters.

There is certainly no axis superiority here. I'd say the numbers are close enough to call it balanced.

[Lindan]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rune:

Historical forces = actual forces involved. Like it or not, they had them.

Sources: Thomas Jentz, Nafziger, Russian Battlefield, History of the 501st Panzer. Etc Etc Etc.

Sorry all these sources got it wrong. Oh yeah, the battle happened in 1944 not 1945, was at a railhead where the units were being resupplied, and the zillion tanks/halftracks is a whopping 13 HTs and no trucks. Also the report of 6 HTs being destroyed in AARs from the battle has to be wrong. Not to mention the Russian tanks are a mix from Veteran to conscript. Try playing the scenario before bashing it.

Rune

**SPOILER***

Hi Rune, Sorry about the confusion but speaking for myself, I was not thinking of one of your scenarios. The description of a crack KT vs. T34/85s made me think of Marxdorf which is not one of yours. Mad Bull and I played that a while back and it left a bad taste for me....

What is the name of the one you wrote with a KT? I'll be sure and play the german side when it comes up!

Cheers,

Sarge</font>

[WWB]

Originally posted by Crazy:

If CM creators plan to change game aspects (optics, armor) and need help sure i'll be glad to. But noe a P IId has good optics and from my sorces Till 1939 wermacht has received 143 tanks of updatings D and Е.So if you tale t-34/85 (43) or SU/ISU -152 only by logics they must have equal optics to P II.

Exactly why are they going to be equal. It could be established that a Panzer IID had the sort of sights that gave it "good optics." Can you establish exactly what sort of sights? Just because it is a later design, in a different country does not mean it is better.

WWB

[Crazy]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Crazy:

If CM creators plan to change game aspects (optics, armor) and need help sure i'll be glad to. But noe a P IId has good optics and from my sorces Till 1939 wermacht has received 143 tanks of updatings D and Е.So if you tale t-34/85 (43) or SU/ISU -152 only by logics they must have equal optics to P II.

Exactly why are they going to be equal. It could be established that a Panzer IID had the sort of sights that gave it "good optics." Can you establish exactly what sort of sights? Just because it is a later design, in a different country does not mean it is better.

WWB</font>

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Lindan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

The description of a crack KT vs. T34/85s made me think of Marxdorf which is not one of yours. Mad Bull and I played that a while back and it left a bad taste for me....

Marxdorf was done by my pal Warphead. When it comes to these things he is as pedantic as one can be. The forces included are there for a reason, and judging from the amount of material that he researched for this area of operations, they are as historic as can be.</font>

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Crazy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wwb_99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Crazy:

If CM creators plan to change game aspects (optics, armor) and need help sure i'll be glad to. But noe a P IId has good optics and from my sorces Till 1939 wermacht has received 143 tanks of updatings D and Е.So if you tale t-34/85 (43) or SU/ISU -152 only by logics they must have equal optics to P II.

Exactly why are they going to be equal. It could be established that a Panzer IID had the sort of sights that gave it "good optics." Can you establish exactly what sort of sights? Just because it is a later design, in a different country does not mean it is better.

WWB</font>

[Spook]

Originally posted by Crazy:

You mised "?" in first sentence, right? I am not talking about good sight, but apout OPTICS (that thing whitch the gunner uses to aim), not like "he was on a hill and had good sights".Logicaly after 3-4 years this "aiming thing" was let's say equal to whose which had germans in 39. In game russians have average optics, and what german optics from 39 still better?

Possible, given that German glass/optics vendors like Carl Zeiss have quite a reputation that extends even to this day.

As far back as 2000 -- nearly three years ago --- I recall posts from BF's Steve Grammont where he tried to grapple with anecdotal evidence on what the Soviets CONSISTENTLY applied for gunnery optics in the war. He related one such anecdotal case where a newly-built T-34 had, for its "optics," the bottom of a bottle which was cut off and polished, and with a painted dot for the "aiming point." If this was CONSISTENT for Soviet manufacturing practice, then one could argue that Soviet gun optics, especially in the "crunch years" of rush production of 1941-43, would have NEGATIVES applied, so as not even to rate as "standard."

Then a later story was offered of a T-34, delivered to the US/UK for proving trials, being rated by British analysts as having "superior optics," although not relating much of the details as to how they rated well. Were they specialty-built for the delivered tank, as to impress on the Allies of Soviet technical capabilities? Or applied to enough of a standard for fielded tanks?

These related stories in earlier years here at the BF forums are contradictory. What doesn't help to resolve the matter is just how much was considered acceptable to "shed off" in Soviet quality control for relocated industries producing weapons "under duress."

One shouldn't necessarily argue as that the Soviets were incapable to keep pace in optics development. After all, if looking at their tanks, mortars, and artillery pieces overall, it actually was often the case of the Soviets SETTING the pace instead of keeping it. But when production shortcuts were mandated to get equipment out fast, quality could suffer, like in armor casting. Effective optics requires no small application of quality control if precision is desired. The matter the seems still speculative is just how extensively such quality control was indeed applied, considering the changing circumstances over the war years.

Furthermore, were the Soviets using "mechanical center" optics or "optical center" types, the latter more common with German systems? If the former, then it would not make that much a difference even in 1944-45.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Just wondering if there is a good "balanced rules" guldline simaler to Fionn's balanced rules for CMBO?

I do not play too many PBEM games other than with my small group of regulars, but I remember how nice it was to fall back on Fionn's rules when I initially got involve with playing CMBO PBEM.

Is anyone developing or are there balanced force rules for CMBB?

I don't know, but my first thoughts for such a thing are using variable rarity for one (my preference) but then picking a cutoff %, i.e. no one can buy a unit w/ greater than 30% rarity, or something like that. Also, that old CMBO rule some use is valuable: only 3 towed guns for the 1st 1000pts. of battle-size, then 1 more per thousand... YMMV.

[Crazy]

Spook:

Yes you are right with than you need tanks and fast that some qualities will "fall".Still i know who to ask about russian optics on tanks/assault guns/tank destoyers and than i'll get the answer i'll tell the whole world .

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Just wondering if there is a good "balanced rules" guldline simaler to Fionn's balanced rules for CMBO?

I started working on one but it is very difficult.

My design is developed around this assumption:

For a vehicle to be allowed, there must be one common enemy towed gun

and one vehicle (includes tanks) available which can kill it, at

acceptable rarity.

The precise definition is: there must be one towed gun and and one

vehicle which gets a kill chance of "Low" or better (not "very low",

"rare" or "none") at 550m head-to-head, shooting AP. The rarity of

this gun and this vehicle must be 50% or less and the vehicle must not

be forbidden under this rule. In late war I drop the towed gun

requirement.

So the resulting rules are by timeframe, not classes like the Fionn-recon and fionn-75. There will be tables like "in August of 1944 the following tanks are forbidden: ...".

It is a ****load of work to dig through all the rarity and the some of the refence guns switch ammunition. I am not sure I can complete this work, not sure what I do after the RoW III tourney. I anybody wants to work with me on this email me.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Crazy:

Spook:

Yes you are right with than you need tanks and fast that some qualities will "fall".Still i know who to ask about russian optics on tanks/assault guns/tank destoyers and than i'll get the answer i'll tell the whole world .

Great. If it's possible to shed new light for Battlefront's sake, all the better.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Band of Brothers CMBB games:

Axis wins: 212

Allied wins: 245

Draws: 87

This is a good mix of scenarios, ME QBs, attack/defend QBs, just for fun games and tournament games. Some QBs are all random parameters, some are agreed parameters.

There is certainly no axis superiority here. I'd say the numbers are close enough to call it balanced.

Again there's not enough data to make a positive conclusion for balance.

You can say that there's no evidence of an axis superiority from this, but you cannot say that there IS evidence of balance.'

It's been a while since I did stats, but this is a classic type of error - adopting a position that something IS, when what you really have is evidence that something ELSE is NOT. Type II error? (Type I being concluding that something is when it is not)

IIRC it is summarised by saying that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

It may seem like semantics to the uninitiated, but it's a very basic statistical principle.

[Fionn]

Redwolf,

When I did the CMBB rules I did the following ( and strongly suggest you do the same as I think it worked out well):

1. Divide every year up into 2 halves.

2. Recreate the CMBO rules ( infantry only, recon, medium tank, heavy tank) using the same categorisations. Sure it ended up with 8 time periods and 4 rule groupings within those time periods but it really worked out well IMO.

Certainly worked out far better than trying to use a ruleset which only set maximums ( causing a virtual inability to create recon-only games) and set them for entire years ( potentially allowing Soviet heavy guns prior to June 1943 because the Panther would be available from June 1943... IOW you'd have heavy Soviet guns fighting Pz IIIs and IVs and purporting that to be equal... a very bad idea IMO).

[ January 14, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Warphead]

Concerning some misconceptions of my Marxdorf scenario:

Spoiler!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

"At a forest edge at the right wing of my unit

the Kingtiger of the Waffen-SS had taken up

position. We would appreciate its value later on.

In the late afternoon some T-34 tanks tried to

reach Marxdorf from the forest near it. With an

unbelievable precision the 8,8cm gun of the Tiger

killed tank after tank. Every grenade left a

burning wreck what was a fast attacking tank

before. There was not one shot going amiss and

our enthusiasm was indescribable. The perfect

position of our tank did not leave the Russians

any chance to counter attack. Only after

nightfall did they manage to bring tanks into

Marxdorf." - Erich Wittor, Commanding Officer of a Schwadron of Panzeraufklärungsabteilung "Kurmark", 19th of April 1945, South of Marxdorf

Sorry for the bad translation, I just made it up while reading it. This eye witness account inspired me to research and design the Marxdorf scenario. Other sources prove that this Kingtiger and Wittor's Schwadron really have been there at the time and that the Russians tried to reinforce Marxdorf with T-34s. If Herr Wittor is a liar the whole historical discussion is mute because this is the central idea of the scenario. I wanted to give the Russian player the feeling that he can not attack the KT directly. And that is the point. If somebody really tries to destroy the KT he deserves to lose. In some (not all, I never said it was easy) of the test games players managed to get a T-34 or two into Marxdorf. And then the happy slaughter begins when the trucks and halftracks show up.

You can criticize a lot about Marxdorf (map too huge, probably unhistorical Russian halftracks at the end, too hard for Russians to get T-34s into the village, and so on...) but that Kingtiger IS historical and it did kill LOADS of T-34s that day without any T-34 coming close to be any serious danger.

Regards,

Patrick "Warpy" Zimmerling

[ January 14, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Warphead- ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Hi Warphead, I definately don't want to come off as rude since I value the time it takes to create a scenario. The problem I had was partly due to the CMBB scoring system and engine (I played PBEM). My infantry held the town and all flags. I had even ambushed the first german hafltracks successfully. I did NOT attempt to take on the Tiger directly. My T34s made a dash for the town when it became clear they were needed there. I left T34s in overwatch to distract the Tiger while the rest fast-moved using very carefully planned courses....staying on the road for maximum speed. Once the lead tank is hit, all the following tanks do that crazy dance of TacAI by reversing 8 meters, forward 10, reverse 5, forward 6, oh no the Tiger is targetting me I better reverse again. Naturally my order and intent was to get some T34s to town no matter what but once TacAI overrides orders to avoid a burning tank then it is easy for them to be overidden by the TacAI again to do the "run and hide from the Tiger" thing.

What unbalances it (IMHO) is that once enough T34s are KOed then the axis player has enough victory points to win without even attacking the town. In other words, the allied victory points from casualties outweighed any victory points that could be scored from holding flags. This took all the fun out of it for me and my opponent and we ended early.

IMHO, making the King Tiger crack gives a very good chance that what you described historically would happen. However, if that should happen to lend historical feel then something needs to be in place to offset it and give the soviet player something more to fight for.....like more flags or something.

Cheers,

Sarge

[ January 14, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Dirtweasle]

Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

Have you ever seen a T34 with smoke rounds in CMBB? Not modelled.....sorry.

[CombinedArms]

I think Marxdorf is a very well designed scenario that achieves just what it's author wants it to do--show that a straight on attack of a hulldown KT by T-34/85s who have to funnel out of a narrow forest road is not going to work. It's still possible to win the scenario as the Russians if you take the town with infantry and use the few tanks that come in on the right to kill the HTs and trucks (using the buildings to screen you from the KT). I won a minor vic this way vs, AI when I replayed the game. (I got murdered the first time, just like the Ruskies.)

Meanwhile, I'm glad to see evidence that the Axis/Allies forces are apparently pretty well balanced under a variety of conditions.

[ January 15, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Cpt Kernow]

Its good to see a post spawn so many sub topics.

It is possible to kill the KT (against the AI anyhow.)

Spoiler

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

If you notice the road network has a spot that comes out right behind the KT. Leapfrom your T34 along the roadnetwork into and out of cover. If done right you will emerge about 100 or so meters behind the KT. Once you kill the KT things get bad for the KT.

[ January 15, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]