mrcitizenkane Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Ive played a few other WWII games out there and Im a big WWII buff. Does anyone feel like me and think that the Armor models are a bit bias. I mean the knock out power, speed and armor of some tanks are a bit off. Seems like someone gave the Allies the advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87H Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 You want to elaborate? I just played a pure tank battle a couple of nights ago as the allies. I lost over 20 tanks while knocking out 7 Germans. And this was with my best effort. Anything over 600 meters and the Allied tank guns are horribly inaccurate. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Well this looks a little bit like the old "what, my Tiger just get whacked by an american tank??? But they're sooo invincible! Noone should hurt my Tiger... :eek: Many people who played CM for the first time were surprised how vulnerable the mighty Tigers and Panthers are in this game. The point is that by 1944/45 they weren't Ubertanks anymore. Keep in mind that the Tiger's armour isn't sloped, which means that US 76mm will penetrate even at medium distances. And if they happen to get tungsten rounds better be careful with your Tiger... That's reality, as sad as it is. If you want the "invincible" feeling, put a Tiger against some vanilla Shermans with 75mm gun and have fun. Same for the Panther. A great tank, sure. But even a Greyhound with its 37mm gun will tear through its weak side armour. And the early models have this nasty shot trap. A problem for the german tanks in CM are the relative short engagement distances in CM, which are usually between 400-800m. At this distance the german armour looses some of their advantages (better guns, better armour). Put a Panther in a hull down position 1500m away from US tanks and things will be different. The only thing IMHO that is questionable for the US tanks is their ability to hit their targets with a very high accuracy while moving. So, as long as you don't provide hard data that shows that CM's modelling of german/US armour is wrong I can only recommend to improve your tactics. BTW if you do a search you will find zillions of posts regarding this topic which will cover every aspect of armour in CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Mitch, we are more than willing to listen to your comments but you had better have some pretty substantial evidence to support your opinion otherwise you will be taken to task very rapidly. Posts like yours are often identified as Troll Bait so please follow up your initial views with some examples of why you think the modeling is off. I would suggest that you also do a search through our forums for such issues as "Realistic Modeling, Ubertanks" etc... as you will see literally hundreds of topics where this very issue was brought up (and where the opinion was proven to be unsubstantiated or just plain flawed)in the past. Madmatt [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Madmatt ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specter Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Hey Mecitizenkane, Watch out for the CM fanboys, they will tell you its your tactics or combat mission is infallible. While I definately agree that the axis big cats are not indestructible, CM's armor modelling is certainly not an accurate representation of reality. Take the panther for instance, In reality it was darn near impossible to get frontal penetrations on that bad boy. Yet in CM you will lose panthers to frontal penetration quite regularly. It's been debated quite a bit and anyone who has the moxy to bring up such a point usually gets their head chopped off. I suspect that to fix it would have required too much coding, so that means it must have been right in the first place according to the history scholars at Battlefront who no more than other well respected historians on the subject!! It's just a game anyway right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott B Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Specter: Hey Mecitizenkane, You call that a troll?<hr></blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specter Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Kane, Witness Exhibit A: Scott B's post, Any disagreement with the game gets you labeled a troll!! Oh Well!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Specter: Any disagreement with the game gets you labeled a troll!! Oh Well!!<hr></blockquote> No comment needed here... Mrcitizencane, noone here gets flamed when he posts his oppinion in a reasonable manner, as you did. Well, at least most of the time not... But it would help a lot if you could describe in more detail what you think is wrong and according to what sources. A certain feeling insn't a very good argument. BTW welcome to the board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 I've only used a panther once, in my first time ever plaing in game against a friend. I lost it because of my own blunder. But i have to say that i have never used a panther since. Alot of the posts have made me come to the conclusion that their just not worth the points. More people should use flat maps or gentle sloped maps, after all the battles did not take place in the alps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 What troll boy doesn't mention is that rexford agrees with BTS. As the war went on, the armor quality wasn't as good. I quote from Rexford: Miles Krogfus recently sent me some very valuable information on German weld and armor quality, as well as firing test data against Panthers from Aberdeen Proving Grounds (3 tanks) and Shoeburyness England (1 tank). The firing tests were conducted against glacis armor which had not been previously hit, and the the tanks had not burned. Miles' information shows that German alloy use for welding was cut starting January 1944. The firing tests show that glacis armor on 3 of 4 Panther tanks (Ausf A and G), when under attack by rounds which should not penetrate (17 pdr AP and APCBC, 90mm APCBC), developed cracks, sprung welds and allowed some complete penetrations that should not have occurred. If the manufacture of Panther glacis armor and accompanying welds started to stand a statistical chance of lowered resistance during early 1944, this would include a good sized percentage of Panther A tanks. So as we see from an author on the subject, that indeed the Panther glacis was flawed. Rexford even states in another post that it could go down to 75%, whereas BTS has it at 85%. Maybe with an engine re-write each tank can have a differnet armor value, but considering the game has been out 20 months, I think they did rather well. Ignore the trolls. They can't stand sunlight or honest answers. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcitizenkane Posted January 24, 2002 Author Share Posted January 24, 2002 Oh you think Im one of those! Sure jump on me and thinking Im talking about German armor being invincilbe your WRONGE!! I was speaking of a 88mm not taking out a Sherman V with one shot at almost any range! Not talking about any-thing about german armor! I think you are taking things a bit personal! I like the game. Just wish it was real time but hey you can't have every-thing. Bring it on if you want to play against me and you will find about my tactics. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ParaBellum: Well this looks a little bit like the old "what, my Tiger just get whacked by an american tank??? But they're sooo invincible! Noone should hurt my Tiger... :eek: Many people who played CM for the first time were surprised how vulnerable the mighty Tigers and Panthers are in this game. The point is that by 1944/45 they weren't Ubertanks anymore. Keep in mind that the Tiger's armour isn't sloped, which means that US 76mm will penetrate even at medium distances. And if they happen to get tungsten rounds better be careful with your Tiger... That's reality, as sad as it is. If you want the "invincible" feeling, put a Tiger against some vanilla Shermans with 75mm gun and have fun. Same for the Panther. A great tank, sure. But even a Greyhound with its 37mm gun will tear through its weak side armour. And the early models have this nasty shot trap. A problem for the german tanks in CM are the relative short engagement distances in CM, which are usually between 400-800m. At this distance the german armour looses some of their advantages (better guns, better armour). Put a Panther in a hull down position 1500m away from US tanks and things will be different. The only thing IMHO that is questionable for the US tanks is their ability to hit their targets with a very high accuracy while moving. So, as long as you don't provide hard data that shows that CM's modelling of german/US armour is wrong I can only recommend to improve your tactics. BTW if you do a search you will find zillions of posts regarding this topic which will cover every aspect of armour in CM.<hr></blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mrcitizenkane: Oh you think Im one of those! Sure jump on me and thinking Im talking about German armor being invincilbe your WRONGE!! I was speaking of a 88mm not taking out a Sherman V with one shot at almost any range! Not talking about any-thing about german armor! I think you are taking things a bit personal! I like the game. Just wish it was real time but hey you can't have every-thing. Bring it on if you want to play against me and you will find about my tactics. <hr></blockquote> OK,then your first post was a bit misunderstanding. About 88mm Flak, I recently played a battle where a battery of these babies shot up a company of Shermans at long range (1500m+) and only loosing one gun. In order to get first shot kills you should try to use veteran crews, I had good experience with them. Especially the 88mm has a reputation of being a "wonder weapon". If used correctly it is indeed a poweful gun. But there were many instances where 88 batteries were shot up or overrun by enemy tanks. And if you're looking for a game, drop me an email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipmonkey25 Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 I might be wrong, but isnt the Sherman V the British equivalent of the Jumbo? I seem to remember it having aa ungodly amount of armour up and above the rest of the Shermans. maybe this explains the occasional 88mm ricochet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcitizenkane Posted January 24, 2002 Author Share Posted January 24, 2002 While I think being called a troll is quite humorous I cant help thinking it shows your intelligence and matured level. For your sake I hope you are a 13 year boy! Thanks for the quote from a book by the way, it show us you can copy. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rune: What troll boy doesn't mention is that rexford agrees with BTS. As the war went on, the armor quality wasn't as good. I quote from Rexford: Miles Krogfus recently sent me some very valuable information on German weld and armor quality, as well as firing test data against Panthers from Aberdeen Proving Grounds (3 tanks) and Shoeburyness England (1 tank). The firing tests were conducted against glacis armor which had not been previously hit, and the the tanks had not burned. Miles' information shows that German alloy use for welding was cut starting January 1944. The firing tests show that glacis armor on 3 of 4 Panther tanks (Ausf A and G), when under attack by rounds which should not penetrate (17 pdr AP and APCBC, 90mm APCBC), developed cracks, sprung welds and allowed some complete penetrations that should not have occurred. If the manufacture of Panther glacis armor and accompanying welds started to stand a statistical chance of lowered resistance during early 1944, this would include a good sized percentage of Panther A tanks. So as we see from an author on the subject, that indeed the Panther glacis was flawed. Rexford even states in another post that it could go down to 75%, whereas BTS has it at 85%. Maybe with an engine re-write each tank can have a differnet armor value, but considering the game has been out 20 months, I think they did rather well. Ignore the trolls. They can't stand sunlight or honest answers. Rune<hr></blockquote> [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: mrcitizenkane ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shipmonkey25: I might be wrong, but isnt the Sherman V the British equivalent of the Jumbo?<hr></blockquote> You're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott B Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Nah, if I remember correctly the Sherman V was the M4A4 Sherman, which was the variant with the slightly longer hull due to it having a different engine. Should be pretty vulnerable to 88mm; I wonder if it's an issue of accuracy or killing power... Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcitizenkane Posted January 24, 2002 Author Share Posted January 24, 2002 MadMatt Just for FYI. Why didn't they do the game really time with a little more AI instead of turn based? Is it because of the graphics processing? I'll do some more research on aromor issue, any-one can be wronge. Thanx <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: Mitch, we are more than willing to listen to your comments but you had better have some pretty substantial evidence to support your opinion otherwise you will be taken to task very rapidly. Posts like yours are often identified as Troll Bait so please follow up your initial views with some examples of why you think the modeling is off. I would suggest that you also do a search through our forums for such issues as "Realistic Modeling, Ubertanks" etc... as you will see literally hundreds of topics where this very issue was brought up (and where the opinion was proven to be unsubstantiated or just plain flawed)in the past. Madmatt [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Madmatt ]<hr></blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mrcitizenkane: MadMatt Just for FYI. Why didn't they do the game really time with a little more AI instead of turn based? Is it because of the graphics processing? I'll do some more research on aromor issue, any-one can be wronge. Thanx <hr></blockquote> Because, little dude, many people feel the turn based interface is easier to handle and a more logical reflection or reality - and it doesn't really matter, you have a real time simulation here, it just pauses every 60 seconds, that's all. Close Combat, which is "real time" is unrealistic because no one could humanly give orders to an entire company in real time - that is what subordinate commanders are for. Since you only have one person playing a side in CM, it makes sense to give the extra time to give proper orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mrcitizenkane: Oh you think Im one of those! Sure jump on me and thinking Im talking about German armor being invincilbe your WRONGE!! I was speaking of a 88mm not taking out a Sherman V with one shot at almost any range! <hr></blockquote> Welcome to the board Mrcitizenkane. As you've already noticed some nerves have been worn rather raw on the modeling of German armor issue. You see, we've had a few big cat idolaters virtually vandalize the board because the big cats just don't quite hold up to the high pedestal these idolaters insist the big cats must be perched upon. Some of the people that post on this board just have not been able to get over the fact that by late 44 through 45 the western allies had done much to bridge the tank/anti tank gap that they suffered from mid 43 through early 44. I hope you can understand and forgive any impatience demonstrated to your initial post. Now regarding 88s vs. Shermans. The 88 can and will take out the most commonly configured Shermans at almost any range; however, not at any angle. CMBO does a great job of modeling the effects of slope of armor, and angle of impact. CMBO does not however do an outstanding job of modeling long range combat. CMBO was built with combat ranges of 800 meters or less in mind. This design decision was deemed adequate due to the shorter ranges of combat on the western front. Nor does CMBO model prepared defenses such as pre-sighted and pre-ranged antitank gun ambushes. I'm hopeful that CMBB addresses these issues. I'd love to be able to set up an antitank ambush where the gun knew the range, and could therefore get that infamous one shot kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mrcitizenkane about Rune: While I think being called a troll is quite humorous I cant help thinking it shows your intelligence and matured level. For your sake I hope you are a 13 year boy! Thanks for the quote from a book by the way, it show us you can copy.<hr></blockquote> Actually Rune was one of the key-beta testers for CMBO and CMBB, a scenario developer of some standing, a fine member of the CM community, and would be a really nice bloke if he wasn't so Evil! Oh, and like me, he is in the 40-45 age bracket! So by rights you should be on your knees subserviant yelling "I am not worthy" before you insult him. Mace [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Mace ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Take away tungsten ammo from the Shermans and watch the ricochets fly. Penetration model feels pretty much right to me. I don't think I've knocked out anything bigger than a PzIV with a front hull shot with regular AP for a good long time, but then again it's been a long time since I've put anything less beefy than a Churchill in a head-to-head situation with a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 I tried to be nice to him. Really. First he talks about BTS being biased towards US tanks, then about 88s not hitting their targets with the first shot then he steps on people's toes. So thank you, I'm out of here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Misterkane, Since you did not bring up the Panther glacis, perhaps, maybe, just maybe, that reply wasn't aimed at you? I have no problem explaining things to new people, heck we all had to learn.. it is the people that come in saying it is all wrong [not you] and don't back it up that annoy me. Sorry you misunderstood. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Specter I think you are gravely mistaken. People that disagree with us are welcome to contribute and have in the past helped to make changes to the game in a positive manner. If however, someone comes into a thread with an obvious chip on their shoulder and wish only to cast unfounded aquisations about either us, the game or other forum members well then I will glady invite them to have a nice warm glass of "Shut The Hell Up" and go somewhere else. This forum has been around for a long time and as such many subjects have been beaten to death by now. If you have something new to add then do it, but you need to go in armed with more than sweeping statements about how you preceive the way things play out both in reality and in the game. Now, everyone please try to conduct themselves with a little more consideration to others and lets carry on. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcitizenkane Posted January 25, 2002 Author Share Posted January 25, 2002 He started it! Any-way, I posed a question. He started by insulting me, knowing nothing about me. I admit I should have took the higher ground and been more mature then I was, but so should he. People tend to take thing to personal when you are looking for constructive criticism sometimes. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mace: Actually Rune was one of the key-beta testers for CMBO and CMBB, a scenario developer of some standing, a fine member of the CM community, and would be a really nice bloke if he wasn't so Evil! Oh, and like me, he is in the 40-45 age bracket! So by rights you should be on your knees subserviant yelling "I am not worthy" before you insult him. Mace [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Mace ]<hr></blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts