Cpt.Kloss Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 There was a lot of discussion about vulnerability of those(T34,IS2, KT) tanks, but (correct me please if am wrong) I didn't see any battlefront response and - as battlefront's client - I want to see it! All those tanks have vulnerable turret front, but the game does not take into account that very front turret area (T34,IS2, KT)is very very small comparing to the rest of a tank. Effect? 37mm "doorknocker" destroys T34 easily ( a lot of people argued so I will not come back to this issue now). To my horror recently I figured out that PziVJ has quite significant chance (I made tests)- about 40% of winning 750m frontal firefight with IS2! - It must be some silly joke. To betatesters - please do not test any more battlefront products because either you did very poor testing or no testing at all...How you were supposed to miss that tanks get immobilized in open ground so easily? Try playing Korsun scenario (ground comditions good) and you will quickly understand why scenario designer didn't use real historical conditions! In my game 1/3 of german vehicles didn't make ANY progress towards objective because they got bogged and immobilized!(some of them on the road).Tanks were supposed to move well off-road, especially in good ground conditions! How to solve tuuret problem? Just to convert some front turret hits to side turret glancing (high angle) hits. Sorry for interupting your spiritual peace, but I had to break this Admiring Each Other Society. And no, do not try to convince me that PzIVs came for frontal firefight with IS2 and that PAK 40 was IS-killer /as it is in CMBB/ I recommed you read some memoirs first (for example Leon Degrelle's - SS Wallonien brigade soldier and later commander - who fought also against IS2s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 *Grabs chair, opens beer, bag of chips* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Hi Cpt. If you used just a "teeny" bit more moderation in the *tone* of your post, you might get some "even" and fair responses. People might even take a minute to actually READ what you're typing. Just a little tip, there. Free of charge. [ October 29, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Kloss Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Gpig: Hi Cpt. If you used just a "teeny" bit more moderation in the *tone* of your post, you might get some "even" and fair responses. People might even take a minute to actually READ what you're typing. Just a little tip, there. Free of charge. ---------------------------------- Well, I think they will read anyway - my post aims at improving the game. And I know some people just say: "do not worry you screwed it up - next time you will do better" I am not supposed to make you feel good - anyway thanks for a tip (although I tried to criticize witout being ofensive and unpleasant) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Are the ground conditions in the Korsun scenario good? I didn't even look as my Panthers bogged repeatedly - I assumed the conditions were muddy as they were historically. Oh well. As for the turret issue...I agree entirely. There's no need to try and flank any of these beasts as was done historically. In CMBB you are far better to take your chances with a head on duel. In my experience would seem nearly half of the hits strike the front turret area despite it only forming perhaps a small percentage of the total frontal cross section. I can't argue with his wish to see this fixed...it's the biggest issue that needs addressing IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Gallear Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I have had mutiple his on a JS2 from a Tiger II at point blank range (and I mean drove right up to it blasting all the way) all bounced off - is this possible - its not my perecption of what would happen in such a battle. (I was messing with one of the scenarios to test a mod!) God knows what the JSII crew were thinking but they did put down the odd big cat. Ok I admit the JSII was smaller and had better but even so..... :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 (rendition of a post from the early CMBO day) There was a lot of discussion about vulnerability of those(Panther,Tiger, KT) tanks, but (correct me please if am wrong) I didn't see any battlefront response and - as battlefront's client - I want to see it! All those tanks have vulnerable turret front, but the game does not take into account that very front turret area (Panther,Tiger, KT)is very very small comparing to the rest of a tank. Effect? 75mm Sherman "peashooter" destroys Tigers easily ( a lot of people argued so I will not come back to this issue now). To my horror recently I figured out that the vanilla M4 Sheramn has quite significant chance (I made tests)- about 40% of winning 750m frontal firefight with Tiger I's! - It must be some silly joke. To betatesters - please do not test any more battlefront products because either you did very poor testing or no testing at all...How you were supposed to miss that tanks get immobilized in open ground so easily? Try playing Korsun scenario (ground comditions good) and you will quickly understand why scenario designer didn't use real historical conditions! In my game 1/3 of german vehicles didn't make ANY progress towards objective because they got bogged and immobilized!(some of them on the road).Tanks were supposed to move well off-road, especially in good ground conditions! How to solve tuuret problem? Just to convert some front turret hits to side turret glancing (high angle) hits. Sorry for interupting your spiritual peace, but I had to break this Admiring Each Other Society. And no, do not try to convince me that Shermans came for frontal firefight with Tiges and that the US 75mm was a Tiger-killer /as it is in CMBB/ I recommed you read some memoirs first (for example The GERMAN UBERHAMSTERS - SS Wallonien brigade soldier and later commander - who fought also against Shermans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Also as an aside memoirs might not hold the weight you think as they at times can be biased. The destruction of myth about certain UBER Armour seems to be a trend in CM games. As it tends to be back by hard data and physics it is not easy to refute. If you manage to do it, BFC in the past has made changes to their model. But realize it takes more than a "gut" feeling and a memoir to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss: To my horror recently I figured out that PziVJ has quite significant chance (I made tests)- about 40% of winning 750m frontal firefight with IS2! - It must be some silly joke. Yup, I think the silly joke must be your "test". I set up a little test myself. 10 PzIV J against 10 IS2. Distance: 750m. Regular crews. Run the test 10 times. Result: After a maximum of 5 turns all Pz IVs are destroyed, maximum soviet losses: 3 IS2. Average loss: 1-2. So I guess you have another version of CMBB or your testing methods are kind of, well, interesting... And your comments about the beta-testers are way off, BTW. If you want some serious discussion you're welcome, but the way you present your arguments (what arguments btw? You are aware of the fact that vet memoirs are often not too accurate on technical matter?) makes me think you're just trolling a bit... [ October 29, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Kloss Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by ParaBellum: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss: To my horror recently I figured out that PziVJ has quite significant chance (I made tests)- about 40% of winning 750m frontal firefight with IS2! - It must be some silly joke. Yup, I think the silly joke must be your "test". I set up a little test myself. 10 PzIV J against 10 IS2. Distance: 750m. Regular crews. Run the test 10 times. Result: After a maximum of 5 turns all Pz IVs are destroyed, maximum soviet losses: 3 IS2. Average loss: 1-2. So I guess you have another version of CMBB or your testing methods are kind of, well, interesting... And your comments about the beta-testers are way off, BTW. If you want some serious discussion you're welcome, but the way you present your arguments (what arguments btw? You are aware of the fact that vet memoirs are often not too accurate on technical matter?) makes me think you're just trolling a bit...</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss: To betatesters - please do not test any more battlefront products because either you did very poor testing or no testing at all...That should go over well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Kloss, you wrote that you tested Pz IV vs IS2 and got strange results. I did my own tests and showed that I couldn't see what you described. You were quite offensive in your post and the only reference to your conclusion were the memoirs of a french SS vet. I just read your second post, and I feel you don't want to troll. Remember: often it's not WHAT you say but HOW you say something. To your problems in the 'Korsun' scenario. If you are talking about the 'Korsun relief' (in my german version 'Korsun Entsatz'), the ground conditions a not good, but muddy. So I'm not surprises the tanks bogged down... [ October 29, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfgardner1 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Kingfish: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss: To betatesters - please do not test any more battlefront products because either you did very poor testing or no testing at all...That should go over well</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Priest (possibly others), I think you miss the point of the original post. It was not a general "too vulnarable" whine. It is about the very specific issue that some tanks have very small turret fronts compared to normal tanks (in reality). Sill, they have the same change to be hit on the turret as any other tank (in CMBO and CMBB). If the tank has a turret which is weaker than the hull, this is an unfair disadvantage. [ January 13, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Kloss Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 Ok..you are all great, betatesters did very well, vulnerable T34, IS2, KT areas are being hit with a right probability, vehicles were immobilized as often as in CM, I was rude and offensive...and so on My only fear is that some people will try to learn history from CM and say: Panther as response to T34? Impossible! PzIII was such a good tank! And who called PAK 37mm a "doorknocker:- it was a very good gun! - it could easily take T34! Koenigstiger - a piece of junk! Aircraft? Rear turret shots? Those allied tank commanders must have been very poor!Armor diagrams showing where to aim to have a chance of taking KT? For what? just shoot several times, you have higher rate of fire, 1/3 of your shots should hit that vulnerable area (so CM says)...88mm AT gun? what a siily design! 75mm PAK40 could destroy any russian tank with ease. Thank you all and be well. Keep smiling. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I imagine that this would require changing a whole load of code and adding an entirely new variable into the way CM calculates ballistics. In other words, I doubt you'll see a change like this until the new engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 They most probably won't change anything because of someone's 'seat-of-the-pants' impressions in one or two scenarios. If you can come up with where they went wrong in the armor thickness, slope, armor quality, or penetrating round muzzle velocity, or whether the round was tungsten or capped or uncapped, etc. they'll most probably do something about it. But a general "Its' not how I expected it would be" ain't much help to 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Kloss Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: Priest (possibly others), I think you miss the point of the original post. It was not a general "too vulnarable" whine. It is about the very specific issue that some tanks have very small turret fronts compared to normal tanks. Sill, they have the same change to be hit on the turret as any other tank. If the tank has a turret which is weaker than the hull, this is an unfair disadvantage.----------------------------------- Breath of relief. Somone understood at last what I desperately wanted to say. And not only disadvantage, but contrary to historical experience. I have a lot of pictures of destroyed early T34s - and according to CM 90% of them should be taken out by "front turret hit" -while some of them have even their turrets blown out majority is taken by side hits... In fact the only pictures of destroyed KTs I have are those destroyed by aircraft, taken by side hits and those abandoned after destroying their gun or tracks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss: Koenigstiger - a piece of junk! I'll second that! My Chevy Nova had better cross-country mobility than that sucker. Better gas mileage, too. In general, though, your tone is really a bit aggressive and could do with some toning-down. Keep in mind that this is _just_ a game, albeit a realistic one. BTS is a 100% solid company and will fix any problems which feasibly can be solved. I am sure they don't need another person yelling and screaming about 37mm performance. Sit back, have a drink, and load up a QB with a sturmtiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I'm not a betatester but I would be very screwed I readed this thread and I was a betatester. Your tone was, at least, bad. And let me say that you don't have a remote idea of game/programm beta-testing or at elast you don't seem to do. A betatester can report 100 things and only 10% of them will be fixed/implemented, it's not what beta-tester report, but what producers can do/program. If that change needs a engine core rewrite, it's possible it will not see the light if it delays the game enought. In addition this has been discussed several times since CMBO (I think), so there is nothing new here. Live with it until the engine-rewrite or do not play the game, or do not play with those tanks, it will not/cannot be fixed. The perfect game doesn't exist, sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmorse Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Always a good idea guys to look up members id. Sometimes the 'wrong tone' maybe due more to someone trying to communicate in a language that is not their native tongue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss: Please deny if I am wrong: CMBB uses the same geometrical model for all tanks - turret hit proballity is exactly the same for all tanks as is front turret hit probabillity, Deny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 to no one in particular: aren't there at least 3 IS2 versions in the game, all with varying degrees of armored protection? if so, it would really help if, when referring to that tank in your posts, you mention which of the 3 you tested (or had a bad experience) with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Compassion: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss: Please deny if I am wrong: CMBB uses the same geometrical model for all tanks - turret hit proballity is exactly the same for all tanks as is front turret hit probabillity, Deny.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Try some tests designed to measure the "to hit" chance for AFVs with different sized turrets as against the same German tank. We don't really have info in CM as to the size of the turret so you're going to have to eyeball it (maybe T-26s, T-34s, KV-2s, IS-2s?). Create a map with dug in samples of each of these vehicles with long rows of woods separating the lanes, then place the german tank of choice at the far end and record the "to hit" chance. I'd also set this up with large variations in distances between each set of test vehicles as it maybe that the chance of placing a turret hit may not differ greatly at the extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts