Incognito Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 Now I look in my units and spot ..let's say Panther G with it's 85% quality armour. Ok towards ends of war quality "decreased" Im not arguing about that... however Im annouyed that its allways 85%.For my understanding these germans "big cats" were something that were made by care (and loving:). So what im saying armour quality should be variable between 85-100%. And I think this holds true for all equipment, yes even ammo quality should be varying, for my opinion. Also might be varible maybe by the year...german equipment somewhat good in quality untill 45...russian poor to bad untill 43 and so on. Anykind of variability would be welcome. Makes sences? Please, feel free to correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 the main problem I see with the way CM handles armor quality now is that the 85% - decrease is a univeral value spread all over the tank, while historically the deficiencies were mostly a problem with the thicker plates. In other words, the thicker the plate, the bigger the armor quality issues. For example, for the KT and the Panther, I might accept the 85%/90% value for the front armor. I do not agree with using the same value for the thinner side, rear and top armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 SpaceHamster, Hofbauer couldn't agree more ! There was faulty ammo too of course, though the germans had rigid quality control in place. Every single german (tank atleast) gun round had it's Location, Date , and Name of the resp. Person arming the round with it's fuze. Location, date when the round was loaded with pouder and stamp of resp. persons registration letter. Further, number of powder batch again with date. Further date, location, and registration letter of responsible person for fabrication of cartridge. I think they already qualified for ISO 9002 with ease... However there are german accounts were rounds were dudes to fire, or shortly after the invention of the L48 7.5cm for the StuG, cartridge jamming was an uncomfortable frequent ocurrence (Think the same was true for the Pak40). On the other side in CMBB in 1942 we can be quite optimistic for the PzGr 40 (Tungsten core) round, since Adolf himself ordered 1942 that every StuG be equipped with atleast 10 PzGr 40, although this makes only sense for the long rifled guns up to 1000 m, the short one used HEAT rounds, the juicy Hl/C ripped nice holes even with the L24 7,5 cm (effec. range up to 500 m). Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 Yes, this has been discussed at length. IIRC, the basic problem stems from limitations within the current game engine. Specifically, randomizing armour quality between different vehicles of the same type, as well as varying the quality regarding different plates on the same vehicle, are not as easy to implement as we may think. Rexford spent a great deal of time and effort in expressing his reservations about the current ratings. To be honest, I am not sure what BTS' final take on his work was, but seems I remember Steve acknowledge they may have done some things differently had they been aware of the information he presented before they set the values. The 85% armour quality of the Panther, BTW, was the instance most heavily scrutinized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 So in the end victory is ours....(man, was i banged around the ring with this topic....). Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted May 17, 2002 Author Share Posted May 17, 2002 Might I ask what is excatly the problem whit the game engine, couln't they just make a littel side program or something...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts