Battlefront do something! (T34,IS2, KT)

[Andrew H.]

Cpt. Kloss wrote:

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.

In general, I agree with the proposition that BFC should model turrets using the actual turret size, rather than the generic 30% size (IIRC) that they use now. BFC should always strive to be as accurate as possible. But I don't think that the 30% abstraction makes a big difference in gameplay. If you use the T-34 as an example, its turret is probably more accurately described as comprising 25% of the tank, not 30%. This means that 5% of the shots that hit the turret in CMBB now should really hit another part of the tank. That's well and good, but translated to the game, that means that if you lose 20 T-34s to 37mm hits now, after the improvement, you would lose 19 tanks to 37 mm hits. Even if the T-34's turret were only 20% of its front, you would still lose 18 tanks rather than 20.

Once again, not that this isn't a change worth making, but it won't make games dramatically different. Oh, and I would exclude the IS-2 from your small turret club; its turret is actually pretty big.

Cpt. Kloss wrote:

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).

You should really learn to do actual research (or even internet research) before complaining about other people's research. Which of the three IS-2 versions in CMBB did DeGrelle fight against? I would also note that an early 1944 report from the soviet central scientific research institute reported that the JS-2 would need to have its hull armor increased by 20-30mms to be invulnerable to 75mm hits from the front. After this report, certain changes were made to improve the JS-2's upper hull protection (mostly making the entire hull angled at 60 degrees, rather than having the top part of the upper hull be angled at 30), but they were unable to improve the protection on the lower hull or turret.

I wouldn't think that your PIV vs. JS-2 results would be typical, since any hit by a 122 mm shell should knock out a PIV, but only hits in certain places by a PIV will knock out a JS-2 from the front...but as the soviets recognized, the IS-2s, especially the early ones, were far from invulnerable to 75mm hits, even from the front.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by jdmorse:

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

---------------------------------------

Thank you. My intention was to criticize not offend.I owe you all explanation why I was a bit aggresive: when it is obvius that something was made wrong in the game, dozens of people try to convince you it was right and intentional.

It is right to say:

CM is a great game although its engine has some limitations (still I am waiting for battlefront's response)and definetly the best ww2 tactical game ever,

But it not right to say:

37mm AT gun was a great weapon, due to its rate of fire scoring hits at weak (but small) T34 front turret as often as in CM..and so on

Can you see my point?

[Henri]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

If you use the T-34 as an example, its turret is probably more accurately described as comprising 25% of the tank, not 30%. This means that 5% of the shots that hit the turret in CMBB now should really hit another part of the tank.

well tom, your math are a bit off: if the relative area goes down from 30% to 25%, the hit probability goes from 33% down to 25%, which is a difference of 8% and not 5%...

And I presume that when you speak of a 75mm gun, you mean a high-speed one? Is this the gun (the Panther gun) that the PZIV had? I don,t know, I'm just asking.

henri

[ October 29, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Henri ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Cpt. Kloss wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

In general, I agree with the proposition that BFC should model turrets using the actual turret size, rather than the generic 30% size (IIRC) that they use now. BFC should always strive to be as accurate as possible. But I don't think that the 30% abstraction makes a big difference in gameplay. If you use the T-34 as an example, its turret is probably more accurately described as comprising 25% of the tank, not 30%. This means that 5% of the shots that hit the turret in CMBB now should really hit another part of the tank. That's well and good, but translated to the game, that means that if you lose 20 T-34s to 37mm hits now, after the improvement, you would lose 19 tanks to 37 mm hits. Even if the T-34's turret were only 20% of its front, you would still lose 18 tanks rather than 20.

Once again, not that this isn't a change worth making, but it won't make games dramatically different. Oh, and I would exclude the IS-2 from your small turret club; its turret is actually pretty big.

Cpt. Kloss wrote:

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).

You should really learn to do actual research (or even internet research) before complaining about other people's research. Which of the three IS-2 versions in CMBB did DeGrelle fight against? I would also note that an early 1944 report from the soviet central scientific research institute reported that the JS-2 would need to have its hull armor increased by 20-30mms to be invulnerable to 75mm hits from the front. After this report, certain changes were made to improve the JS-2's upper hull protection (mostly making the entire hull angled at 60 degrees, rather than having the top part of the upper hull be angled at 30), but they were unable to improve the protection on the lower hull or turret.

I wouldn't think that your PIV vs. JS-2 results would be typical, since any hit by a 122 mm shell should knock out a PIV, but only hits in certain places by a PIV will knock out a JS-2 from the front...but as the soviets recognized, the IS-2s, especially the early ones, were far from invulnerable to 75mm hits, even from the front.</font>

[Agua]

Ahh... If the to hit chance is calculated as described by Andrew, then disregard my proposed test setup as it would not measure the alleged fault. You could test Andrew's representation by trying the test by measuring the "to hit" chances in the wide open, as compared to the "dug in" state, and see if all dug in vehicles are providing "to hit" chances that are roughly the same percentage expressed of all vehicles when not "dug in".

[Vanir Ausf B]

Steve has said previously that the universal turret size will not change until the engine rewrite.

All is not woe for the Russians, however. In this thread a while back Rexford posted some stuff that suggests the late model IS-2 should have a slightly thicker upper hull, 110mm instead of the 105mm it has now. More importantly, in a later thread Rexford proposed some changes to the penetration figures of several German guns that would have a significant impact on their ability to penetrate some Soviet tanks frontally.

[Silvio Manuel]

I'll betcha that BFC knew about the "oversized" turrets on tanks like Pz IV & King Tiger, but it was too hard to code in a special exception for smaller-than-usual turret size.

I don't see why they couldn't have done roughly what they did for the Tiger. It has a unique-amongst-all-tanks exception for the "sometimes extra thick" front turret (upper hull too?) armor. Why not use that loophole to boost the effective armor rating of AP hits on the small-turret tanks? :eek:

This would look normal when you hit a King Tiger, but maybe it wouldn't "look" normal for a Panzer IV- imagine a 122mm AP shells really missing due to the small turret, but in the game it says "front turret hit, ricochet" to that ~50mm armor. Still it would be a good work around. Now gimme a cookie! :cool: Whaddya think, honorable BFC whizbangs?

Upon reflection, I realize that if the true "misses" were modeled as ineffective "hits" vs. artificially boosted effective armor thickness, the non-KO hits would affect crew morale, which is incorrect. Hmmm...(scratches head).

[ October 29, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[rune]

You are going to complain about beta testers, but you are the one who is wrong? The terrain in Korshun Relief in the scenario and the briefing show it as muddy. If that is an example of how you research, don't ever test anything.

I also just tested Panzer IVs vs IS2. Oh look, the Panzers died. How many times, at what range, and what conditions did you test? What is an outlier?

You want an answer? Try be civil and ask a question, instead of insulting people who worked hard.

Rune

[Priest]

Kloss

The issue is you still have not provided any information that is factual based on research. Not to mention that no matter how bad your English is your rip on the Beta Testers was unwarranted.

Regardless get the statisics, percentages, and ratios of turret size compared to overall silhouette ratings for the tanks in questions. Then figure out if the issue is even fixable in the current engine (sounds like it is not) and base your arguements on facts not opinion and the opinions of others (the memiors) soley.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by rune:

You want an answer? Try be civil and ask a question, instead of insulting people who worked hard.

Rune

Worked hard? Or played hard?

KT front turret area 1/3?

[Tarquelne]

I'm interested in this issue.... but I've seen it discussed better elsewhere. I suggest that this thread be boycotted. We can try again in a New Topic.

[rune]

I am sorry...what part of People who worked hard did you not understand?

Since I am still testing things instead of playing...maybe I know?

Also, notice you didn't comment on your being wrong?

Rune

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Steve has said previously that the universal turret size will not change until the engine rewrite.

All is not woe for the Russians, however. In this thread a while back Rexford posted some stuff that suggests the late model IS-2 should have a slightly thicker upper hull, 110mm instead of the 105mm it has now. More importantly, in a later thread Rexford proposed some changes to the penetration figures of several German guns that would have a significant impact on their ability to penetrate some Soviet tanks frontally.

To kind of "solve" the problem, within game version limitations, some turret armor “bonus” (in regards to real live) should be added/subtracted in accordance with the math behind the "to/where hit" model.

This way, tanks that unrealistic have a bigger chance of getting a front turret hit, would have an in game turret armor/slope bigger then in reality, on contrary tanks with above average turret size, would have less armor/slope.

The correct "bonus" to give/take involves some math, but I assure you it can be done and within reasonable results.

Notice this is just an idea, and might or might not already be in the game…

…on other hand, maybe the overall turret/hull ratio variance is to small in all tanks to just invest days to find the correct “bonus”.

[ October 29, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

[Sirocco]

The anomoly with the 37mm PaK is striking. I have found that flank shots have a much lower chance of penetrating a 1941 T34 than head-on shots. The flank shots bounce off, as I'd expect, while frontal shots routinely penetrate the turret front. :confused:

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Priest:

Kloss

The issue is you still have not provided any information that is factual based on research. Not to mention that no matter how bad your English is your rip on the Beta Testers was unwarranted.

Regardless get the statisics, percentages, and ratios of turret size compared to overall silhouette ratings for the tanks in questions. Then figure out if the issue is even fixable in the current engine (sounds like it is not) and base your arguements on facts not opinion and the opinions of others (the memiors) soley.

1.I will do as you say if only I can find some time. Anyway, just look at KT (have you ever seen one? -or you stick to statistics?), I do not need any ratios to see that turret's front is not as big as 1/3 of the silhouette. Indeed it is about 1/10.

2. It is not only in my interest to see this game as close to history as possible

3. I see it is not allowed to complain here (and this is a reason I receive e-mails /not posted here/ confirming my point about betatesters' work)

4. Excuse me, I didn't use the most popular english word (especially in US movies) so I thought the post would not be offensive.

5. I wish you abillity to communicate in several non-native languages. Can you?

6. I am still waiting for battlefront's reply, arguing with guys like you is a waste of my time.

Farewell, smile and enjoy

[Guest PondScum]

Kloss, Battlefront aren't even going to bother reading your arguments if you keep insulting everyone.

[Sitzkrieg]

Everybody sing!

[to Rawhide theme]

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'...

[Scipio]

I think the problem - if there is any - is not the unmodeled(?) size of the turret, but the 'curved' armor. I have the impression that curved armor is easier to penetrate - is this realistic? I don't know.

I propose somebody with enough time shall run tests to verify the suspected weakness of curved armor. I have a club to lead, mods to make and games to play.

If there should be really a problem, inform BTS and expect a correction after the engine rewrite in ~ 3 years from now.

[Darren J Pierson]

Sometimes you have to be patient when awaiting a response from BTS/BFC as they are usually busy. That having been said, your initial post was insulting to the playtesters. You kept reiterating the same insult proving that it was not a language issue. We try to avoid insulting each other here and I would ask you to do the same.

You may have a very good point about the turrets but as long as you are insulting in your posts then good points will be lost. But, from your last post, it appears that you want to insult people (Americans in particular). I would suggest that you can't effectively communicate in a non-native language, and it isn't your grammar skills at fault.

If you try to be less insulting then you will get lots of help here. If not, I can think of another board that might be more suited for your tastes.

(Sorry folks, I'm getting tired of some of the attitudes around here lately.)

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by sitzkrieg:

Everybody sing!

[to Rawhide theme]

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'...

Though the thread is swollen...

Keep those idjits trollin...

Rawhiiiiide....

Random wind and weather...

Panzer crew mods in leather...

Wishin' good sense was on his side....

My brains anticipatin'

what Battlefronts contemplatin'

The patch at the end of our ride...

Move em out, Hide em down,

Sneak em up, Advance em in,

Cover Arc.......Rawhiiiiiiiiiide!

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by PondScum:

Kloss, Battlefront aren't even going to bother reading your arguments if you keep insulting everyone.

------------------------------------

Bad for them. They should because -excluding slightly aggresive tone of my post- I wanted to draw attention to a seroius game problem. Do you remember Close Combat and Steel Panthers? They didn't bother with arguments to improve - they explained this as "game engine limitations"

CM is still the best tactical ww2 game but someone can make better.It is also their (battlefront's)interest to improve the game and remove what is wrong. Pretending everything is OK leads to predictable results.

[Karl_Smasher]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Rexford posted some stuff that suggests the late model IS-2 should have a slightly thicker upper hull, 110mm instead of the 105mm it has now.

IS-2/m

It’s odd that most sources have always reported the erroneous figure of 120mm@60degrees upper hull. This is still show on Russian Militay zone and other secondary sources.

There’s an Israeli report from the 1960’s in the UK archives that measured a captured IS-2/m glacis at 103mm in thickness.

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Bad for them. They should because -excluding slightly aggresive tone of my post- I wanted to draw attention to a seroius game problem. Do you remember Close Combat and Steel Panthers? They didn't bother with arguments to improve - they explained this as "game engine limitations"

CM is still the best tactical ww2 game but someone can make better.It is also their (battlefront's)interest to improve the game and remove what is wrong. Pretending everything is OK leads to predictable results.

Kloss, do you have any clue about game engines? Or the realities of shipping commercial software on time? No? Then I don't have time to argue with you.

(See, that attitude of yours cuts both ways)

[ October 29, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: PondScum ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

We try to avoid insulting each other here and I would ask you to do the same.

But, from your last post, it appears that you want to insult people (Americans in particular). I would suggest that you can't effectively communicate in a non-native language, and it isn't your grammar skills at fault.

If you try to be less insulting then you will get lots of help here. If not, I can think of another board that might be more suited for your tastes.

(Sorry folks, I'm getting tired of some of the attitudes around here lately.)

----------------------------------------

Please accept my apologies

I do not want to insult anyone. I have a lot of friends in US. All I want is to see the game better. My first post was a bit aggresive - I was driven by emotions.

I will not return to T34/IS2/KT issue again - please someone do this however (someone more patient).

[Darren J Pierson]

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

I really don't think that you should feel like you have to drop the subject. BTS will comment eventually. Persistence is a very good thing. Just keep it civil and things will go very well.

I'm sure that the issue will be discussed eventually.