same bug as in cmbb?

[TRintala]

I do not know the number cruching mechanisms in the game engine, but my common sense says this: long range, (somewhat) inefficient guns, HULL DOWN positions and lots of shells spent should generate lots of gun damage, because most of the succesfull shots will hit the turret where the main gun is mounted (in the most cases).

So, could it be the case, that variances in gun damage percentage claimed by different players were altered by scenarios played (suitable hull down positions, equipment used) and skill level of the players (ability to find good hull down positions). Yet I find it hard to believe in 80%+ percentages. Ofcourse really high percentages can't be explained by this, but maybe a moderate increase in gun damage.

Well, my 2 cents

[JonS]

Pz Regt 5 (though it could have been PzRegt8) reported 12/15 tanks as being unable to fire their main weapons due to "gun damage" on approx 26 Nov 41 (during Op CRUSADER). These 15 tanks represented approx the total strength of the regt at that time - running around for several days without maintanence seems to have had a negative impact on vehicle availability. Notwithstanding misc comments to the contrary in this thread.

Specifics can be found in Agar-Hamilton, The Sidi Rezeg Battles, 1941.

Oh yeah - in addition to that: sh!t happens. Get over it. When people tell you that they haven't seen what you are reporting you can either think

a) They think you are a liar, or

they think you are pumping up the numbers to make your point, and thus you are a liar, or

c) they accept what you are saying, but haven't seen it themselves and thus think that what you're saying might be valid for the specific game in which you saw it, but it isn't symptomatic of some general underlying problem, and was probably just bad luck on your part.

The choice, a), , or c) is up to you, though only one of them is especially productive.

Regards

JonS

edits: clarity

[ December 16, 2003, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]