Battlefront do something! (T34,IS2, KT)

[Jack Carr]

Uuuhhhh....In that last post of mine...I was just kidding...

[Redwolf]

I think the issue is very simple with regards to a fact:

Are some turret so much smaller compared to normal turrets that CMBB should have a vehicle marker "small turret" and hence a smaller chance to hit the turret? And do these vehicles also have weaker turret than hull armor, otherwise the point is moot.

My answer is a clear yes, the early T-34 and the late Pz IV fulfill all these criteria. Both vehicles are very common. And at the timeframes these vehicles are very common the most common enemy guns can penetrate the turret much easier than the hull (notably the 37mm in early war and russian AT guns late int he war), so it has an effect on historical accuracy.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

A guy finds a flaw in the game engine. When he posts about the flaw in the game engine he fails to show proper respect to the betatesters.

Next thing you know, hordes of fanbois appear as if by magic to flame him. The guy apologizes, but it is too late, he now has a bad reputation on these boards, and no one wants to debate the game engine flaw.

Blessed are those who are able to read...

Lt. Hortlund, "a guy" posted about a problem with the way turret sizes are modelled in CM and slammed the beta testers.

The problem with the turret sizes is in fact known for a long time.

How does it affect gameplay?

He backed up his conclusions by a "test" he did.

I replied and showed that I couldn't reproduce his test results and didn't understand how he achieved this results.

His next point was about the problems of his armour bogging down in a certain scenario in dry ground conditions.

I looked at that scenario and found out that the ground condition in that scenario was "muddy".

IMO he didn't actually bother too much with facts and obviously needs to brush up his comunication skills.

I concede that english is probably not his native language but some of his posts are definately unnecessary rude.

[beyerun64]

From someone who beta tested games before, most times the developers of the software only want to hear about game crashing bugs not historical inaccuracy.

I'm not sure this is the case here. If we'd ever get the developers to actually answer questions about why things are as they are then we wouldn't have to speculate so much.

I suspect they won't say because they have taken all kinds of shortcuts.

So the betatesters probably did what they should have and were ignored.

As to King Tigers being junk ... read a recent book as to how many exactly broke down due to mechanical failure and how many were destroyed to avoid capture, no gas, no parts for maintenance, etc. Not some book on German tanks from the 1960s-70s.

I'd trust after action reports more than Russian foggy memoirs or US memoirs where every tank they fought was a TIGER.

Go to a bookstore and look at a book by Jentz. Don't base your opinon on Tiger Tanks on ASL or some other game that is woefully outdated with regards to mechanical failure numbers.

Is the patch out yet?

-Byron

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Pascal, German AT gunners were trained to use the 37mm gun against weak spots, i.e. aim for the turret ring, if they could not defeat the armour. I talked to the father of a friend who was an AT gunner in a Panzergrenadier division in Italy and France and he told me that when I specifically asked him why they still bothered with the 37mm in 1943. He also said they got very good at it, and could quite reliably achieve that hit. A turret ring hit is at least a combat effectiveness kill, since the tank will no longer be able to bring the main armament to bear without traversing the hull.

Unfortunatly, this is not modeled in CMBB, too. Or am I wrong here?

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

And this is ok. I drew attention to a serious game problem (which you did not as a betatester). May I have my own opinnion?

BTW, Kloss, you should not make the beta testers responsible for everything. Beta testers only find problems and make proposals, but BTS make the decission if something must be changed or not. So you should not put them in charge for a problem that they may have noticed and may have reported to BTS.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

Still wondering why my old thread on this very same topic (look here )had less success that this one.

Too polite?

Regards,

Amedeo

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

That one was very good (much better then this one actually), but I didn't see any reaction nor comment from battlefront.

I dared to evaluate some people's work instead of letting them evaluate their work by themselves.

And once again to all my adversaries: you are not able to touch me, you accuse me of being rude and offensive and now you are doing exactly the same!

Your further opinnion is irrelevant. I admited I was being too harsh but that is no reason to call me a fool unless you know any comparative test or contest to prove who of us really might be called "fool". What you mean? Knowledge? IQ? I will gladly accept any challenge if you are able to create some reasonable measure.

regards

[Panzer Leader]

Hey Kloss, that sounds fun! I will gladly challenge you to a duel of "Who's the Fool!"

Not that I think you're a fool (I don't) but it sounds like a lot of fun. But, how should we meaure the winner and loser of our contest? What foolish antics shal we try to outperform each other in?

Oh, and one more thing, is the winner of the contest the fool, or the loser?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

Pascal, German AT gunners were trained to use the 37mm gun against weak spots, i.e. aim for the turret ring, if they could not defeat the armour. I talked to the father of a friend who was an AT gunner in a Panzergrenadier division in Italy and France and he told me that when I specifically asked him why they still bothered with the 37mm in 1943. He also said they got very good at it, and could quite reliably achieve that hit. A turret ring hit is at least a combat effectiveness kill, since the tank will no longer be able to bring the main armament to bear without traversing the hull.

Unfortunatly, this is not modeled in CMBB, too. Or am I wrong here?

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

And this is ok. I drew attention to a serious game problem (which you did not as a betatester). May I have my own opinnion?

BTW, Kloss, you should not make the beta testers responsible for everything. Beta testers only find problems and make proposals, but BTS make the decission if something must be changed or not. So you should not put them in charge for a problem that they may have noticed and may have reported to BTS.</font>

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Hey Kloss, that sounds fun! I will gladly challenge you to a duel of "Who's the Fool!"

Not that I think you're a fool (I don't) but it sounds like a lot of fun. But, how should we meaure the winner and loser of our contest? What foolish antics shal we try to outperform each other in?

Oh, and one more thing, is the winner of the contest the fool, or the loser?

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

the question "how to measure" is up to the guy who called me a fool.Surely this wise man will have no problem with this.

:cool:

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by beyerun64:

From someone who beta tested games before, most times the developers of the software only want to hear about game crashing bugs not historical inaccuracy.

I'm not sure this is the case here. If we'd ever get the developers to actually answer questions about why things are as they are then we wouldn't have to speculate so much.

I suspect they won't say because they have taken all kinds of shortcuts.

So the betatesters probably did what they should have and were ignored.

As to King Tigers being junk ... read a recent book as to how many exactly broke down due to mechanical failure and how many were destroyed to avoid capture, no gas, no parts for maintenance, etc. Not some book on German tanks from the 1960s-70s.

I'd trust after action reports more than Russian foggy memoirs or US memoirs where every tank they fought was a TIGER.

Go to a bookstore and look at a book by Jentz. Don't base your opinon on Tiger Tanks on ASL or some other game that is woefully outdated with regards to mechanical failure numbers.

Is the patch out yet?

-Byron

Having spoken with a couple of playtesters, I am of the opinion that BFC DID solicit and utilize input regarding historical accuracy, as well as feedback on bugs. Also, there are admitted limitations to the game engine that do create some less than optimal results. However, to call these limitations 'shortcuts' is not accurate. If you wanted a game without these 'shortcuts,' we'd all still be waiting for CMBO.

Finally, the developers do answer questions. Fact is, Charles and Steve have historically bent over backwards to respond to input from testers and board members alike. They (well, guess I should include Matt in this one) just get a little tired of answering many of the same old questions that board members can research doing searches, while at the same time dealing with people wanting the latest patch yesterday. One thing to keep in mind, is that BFC is not your average game developer. Having ONE programmer does limit the speed at which things can get done. And before people start clamoring to hire more programmers, keep in mind that the unique structure of BFC is one of the critical components of their success story and why so many of us find this game so damn special.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

To be fair,(IIRC) this was only modedeled in a pre-release version (a long time ago) of CMBO and only a handful of testers (not me) every saw it.

But an interesting point none the less.

-tom w

[Cpt.Kloss]

if they did notice and reported this issue to battlefront..well it would mean I was unfair.

If they didn't...well...

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

This was once modeled in CMBO but was removed. Small guns deliberately picking vulnerable spots made too lethal killer bees (because a correct model of doing so would need to be balanced by other "soft" factors).

It was? Generally I think the new model works mostly okay. I tested the 37mm vs a T-34/41 and made 4 frontal turret hits of 20-30 shots, all penetrations (at 225m), but non of them lethal, IRRC the tank was not even shocked.

[Hortlund]

Guys, come on, I know how to read, and yes, I did read the entire thread before posting.

So the guy could have tried to be less provocative in his first post. But if you see past his rudeness, you will note that he has a valid point.

I think it is kinda unfair of some of you who say that this is an old and well known issue. I sure as he** did not have a clue about how the game engine worked when deciding where a shot hit, and I have played CMBO for over a year. Maybe it is an old and well known flaw for some of you, but it is not old and well known for all of us.

In fact this thread kinda answers an old question. Do you guys remember when the CMBB demo was released and all the surprised posts about how 37mm guns were able to take out T-34s from the front? link

Do you remember the kind of responses that was presented in that thread? You wont find any mention of a flawed game engine there. No, instead you get the usual defensive ramblings:

maybe the guns had tungsten rounds,

maybe it was poor quality armor,

maybe it's the combination of non penetrating hits and low crew morale,

bah 300-400 m front turret penetration is normal because it is "close range",

this is the T-34m-40 variant it is supposed to be crappy, the later T-34s are better,

This is obviously what is intended by BFC and not a mistake

No one said "oops" or "yeah, we know, it is an oversight in the game engine that give too high probability for rounds to hit vunerable spots"

The game engine, as it works now, gives ahistorical results. Can we agree on that? Or should we have another round of "veteran gunners aim for the weak spots", "maybe it was poor armor quality", "it could happen/it did happen alot in real life" etc etc.

The way I see it there are two possible reasons as to why the turret hit model is modelled the way it is

a) this is a conscious desicion from Battlefront

or

BFC is/was not aware of the problem.

[Chad Harrison]

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...

Is he kidding? Wow, that was the stupidist thing I have ever heard in my life! Where do we get these guys? Perhaps hes gunny bunnys brother or somefink . . .

[WWB]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Amedeo:

Still wondering why my old thread on this very same topic (look here )had less success that this one.

Too polite?

Regards,

Amedeo

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

That one was very good (much better then this one actually), but I didn't see any reaction nor comment from battlefront.

I dared to evaluate some people's work instead of letting them evaluate their work by themselves.

And once again to all my adversaries: you are not able to touch me, you accuse me of being rude and offensive and now you are doing exactly the same!

Your further opinnion is irrelevant. I admited I was being too harsh but that is no reason to call me a fool unless you know any comparative test or contest to prove who of us really might be called "fool". What you mean? Knowledge? IQ? I will gladly accept any challenge if you are able to create some reasonable measure.

regards</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Amedeo:

Still wondering why my old thread on this very same topic (look here )had less success that this one.

Too polite?

Regards,

Amedeo

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

That one was very good (much better then this one actually), but I didn't see any reaction nor comment from battlefront.

I dared to evaluate some people's work instead of letting them evaluate their work by themselves.

And once again to all my adversaries: you are not able to touch me, you accuse me of being rude and offensive and now you are doing exactly the same!

Your further opinnion is irrelevant. I admited I was being too harsh but that is no reason to call me a fool unless you know any comparative test or contest to prove who of us really might be called "fool". What you mean? Knowledge? IQ? I will gladly accept any challenge if you are able to create some reasonable measure.

regards</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Actually, if you said what you wrote about the beta testers to my face, I would have given you the curb stomping you deserve. I do extend an open invitation to come to washington DC where we can continue this debate in person.

This is uncalled for and offensive; I agree with most of your points but I don't need to read threats of physical violence on an internet board. If his comments bothered you, email him, ignore him, or engage him in some form of intellectual debate. Childish threats aren't helping your case any.

Given some of the more glaring errors that have cropped up, I think there is some reason to wonder what the beta testers were doing, especially with regards to silly stuff like typos in briefings, etc. Since the beta test is a closed system, we really have no way of knowing how hard the testers worked. As it should be, but as a beta tester for Airborne Assault, I can attest that in that case at least, it was a pretty lax system.

I agree the comment about beta testers in this case was ignorant and rude and deserved a public response. I don't think this was the correct one, nor do I think beta testers should be considered sacrosanct or above critique.

[Holien]

wwb_99

Many thanks for the pointer on that great web site on Soviet Armour.

I read the section on T34's and it really helps understand the issues.

Cheers

H

[Måkjager]

In respect to what the Beta testers were doing..this beta tester spent a 60+ hr working week generating firing data for the Tiger I and JS 1 each, way back when in the time the Beta testers were taken onboard. I think i qualified for a BFC Gunners badge after firing off near 5000 rds of ammo , not to mention CAS tests , Nebelwerfer tests , in game bugs , making textures , writing up research material and other "Black Arts" stuff......and still try to do my "real life" job..and THEN find time for family and friends...and i am still testing stuff right now.

All these tests were done to the best of my ability.....setting up "test maps" and then recording the data from what i observed.

This game has a huge number of units..each of which would require an army of testers to test each and every one against one another in all situations and would take God knows how long to complete..and then its into the lap of Charles with all this data.

Issues that currently cause headaches are due for fix'n with the engine rewrite within the time constraints that BFC will operate under.

Regards

a worn out Måk

[Generale_Pasquini]

Actually, if you said what you did about the beta testers in my face, I would given you the curb stomping you deserve - wwb_99

Dude,

You seriously are lame... since when did the beta testers becomes gods that we have to defend by fighting??? You are so childish its not even funny, listen to yourself... is it worth fighting over BETA TESTERS!?!?! Come on man, I don't know if your trying to sound tough, or to come off as a hero on the forum-- BUT your not, you sound like a moron.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Måkjager:

In respect to what the Beta testers were doing..this beta tester spent a 60+ hr working week generating firing data for the Tiger I and JS 1 each, way back when in the time the Beta testers were taken onboard. I think i qualified for a BFC Gunners badge after firing off near 5000 rds of ammo , not to mention CAS tests , Nebelwerfer tests , in game bugs , making textures , writing up research material and other "Black Arts" stuff......and still try to do my "real life" job..and THEN find time for family and friends...and i am still testing stuff right now.

All these tests were done to the best of my ability.....setting up "test maps" and then recording the data from what i observed.

This game has a huge number of units..each of which would require an army of testers to test each and every one against one another in all situations and would take God knows how long to complete..and then its into the lap of Charles with all this data.

Issues that currently cause headaches are due for fix'n with the engine rewrite within the time constraints that BFC will operate under.

Regards

a worn out Måk

I'll add a public note of thanks to you and all the beta testers for helping deliver a quality product to our hands. Given the scope of the game - as you point out - it's perhaps puzzling that more errors can't be found.

I'm also grateful that BFC takes responsibility for patching the errors it finds post-release, and continues to invest its time in future products that will incorporate changes not able to be patched.

[KNac]

Oh man...

Well, let's see if you understand it (also note that english is not my native language). First: you haven´t discovered "las Americas" man, this was known since... a long time ago.

You sate betatesters work is bad because: "ok Steve, let's think how to do this because its a major issue" intead "Steve says its impossible".

You don't know what they said, you know, there is a private beta-testing forum, e-mails, instant messeger programs, etc. They do not discuss beta-testing in open forum man! They probably did, what you say, but it's not in their hands to fix it, they probably tried to help as much as they could (probably much more than yo are doing) but within their limitations, they don't have the code in their hands to go and moddificate it!

Is that hard to understand? And to correct your statements? Or are you an ubertester-wanna-be which discovered all the bugs the game have (in his dreams offcourse) and thinks the betatesters in place should be ripped off because they didn't fix them (something they cannot do)?

Don't give me excuses like "you don't see the main concern with the thread", because I did, very good post anyway, but I will center on it when education and racionality is first in his place, just my thoughts.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

This was once modeled in CMBO but was removed. Small guns deliberately picking vulnerable spots made too lethal killer bees (because a correct model of doing so would need to be balanced by other "soft" factors).

It was? Generally I think the new model works mostly okay. I tested the 37mm vs a T-34/41 and made 4 frontal turret hits of 20-30 shots, all penetrations (at 225m), but non of them lethal, IRRC the tank was not even shocked.</font>

[Redwolf]

Soem people didn't seem to get it, so here it goes again:

Nobody doubts that the turret front of an early T-34 is vulnerable to the 37mm gun.

However, the chance to hit this turret in first place, instead of the hull, is the same as with tanks who have much bigger turrets.

Historically the vulnerable front was there but it didn't hurt as badly because it would be hit less often.