Retreating Monster Tanks revealed (monster pictures)

[Redwolf]

Here's the count so far. If I miss something please let me know.

I need Harv's number of kill'ed MK IVs.

Redwolf original game:

2 dead Panzer, 1 dead ISU

Steve posted November 27, 2002 11:37 PM:

1 dead Panzer, 0 dead ISU

Steve posted November 27, 2002 11:51 PM:

2 dead Panzer, 0 dead ISU

(the other tests in this posting use the SU-76s)

Steve posted November 28, 2002 12:03 AM:

1 dead Panzer, 0 dead ISU

Steve posted November 28, 2002 12:10 AM:

not a Mk IV/ISU duel

Redwolf posted December 01, 2002 01:33 PM:

4 dead Panzer, 0 dead ISU

(20 tests overall, the ISU was not chased back into line after retreat)

Harv posted December 01, 2002 02:32 PM:

??? dead Panzer, 6 dead ISU

(50 tests)

Steve posted December 01, 2002 03:01 PM:

1 dead Panzer, 3 dead ISU

(the text in this posting said he had the ISU advance into LOS of the second Panzer at least sometimes, which means the ISU cannot have been hulldown)

Sirocco posted December 01, 2002 05:48 PM:

0 dead panzer, 1 dead ISU

Tarqulene posted December 01, 2002 06:34 PM:

0 dead Panzer, 2 dead ISU

Mikeydz posted December 02, 2002 01:12 AM:

23 dead Panzer, 82 dead ISU

Berlichtingen posted December 02, 2002 03:17 AM:

1 dead Panzer, 8 dead ISU

Tarqulene posted December 02, 2002 07:26 PM:

7 dead Panzer, 3 dead ISU

(posting is not entirely clear to me)

[Redwolf]

I'm getting to Steve's detailed questions tomorrow.

Until then, the above numbers are open for review. I have to remark that to be fair the above tests should not count ISU which have only been killed because they retreated, but this is impossible to figure out now. I am also not sure what to make out of Mikeydz tests (honestly), and I am also concerned how Steve got into LOS of the second Panzer soemtimes, which means he cannot have kept the ISU hulldown.

I'll have to give Mikeydz scenario a decent review, it is obviously pretty decisive here if it applies.

EDIT: besides the fact the vehicles are not hulldown there is also a second issue with this test scenario: the ISUs are in front of water so that they don't retreat. But still they do retreat the few meters they have, and they ruin their hit chances by doing so and getting killed. But since they cannot get out of LOS like in my test case they also have no chance to hide. It is a wonder that the test was seeing only as many dead ISUs as it did.

[ December 02, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[WWB]

Offhand, I would say MikeyDZ's tests are the only ones that hold water. He ran it thru enough to get a somewhat signficant figure. Aside from that all the tests are immaterial.

WWB

[Redwolf]

I edited the scenario to have the ISUs in rough (now, that should fix my retreat complaint, shouldn't it ?) and added walls in front of both AFVs to make them hulldown. Unfortunately, the hit probablities do not reproduce what my real scenario has seen, I now have 31% for the MK IV and 22% for the ISU. That is obviously a disadvatage compared to the 29% for the Mk IV and 27% for the ISU that I had in the actual retreat scenario. This shows that it is hard to come up with test scenarios which should reproduce an actual game situation.

Nontheless with these distorted hit probablities I ran 40 tests and came out 13 dead Panzer and 27 dead ISU. If you project this to the hit probablities of my scenario (see my screenshots), you see that the ISU is by far not toothless against the MK IV.

And in my scenario the ISU can actually retreat out of LOS to reload, which will make up even more of its weakness. Unless, of course, it retreats before firing or fires while retreating.

[ December 03, 2002, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Offhand, I would say MikeyDZ's tests are the only ones that hold water. He ran it thru enough to get a somewhat signficant figure. Aside from that all the tests are immaterial.

You haven't even seen the scenario yet, have you?

[Tarquelne]

Tarqulene posted December 01, 2002 06:34 PM:

0 dead Panzer, 2 dead ISU

This was both AFV's using the Hunt command, and not in quite the same position as your saves. It was to see what happens if they played "chicken". (The answer is the ISU retreats, then dies.)

Tarqulene posted December 02, 2002 07:26 PM:

7 dead Panzer, 3 dead ISU

(posting is not entirely clear to me)

There were 3 "tests", 2 with 20 trials/turns in each, 1 with 10.

Test 1: Only includes trials in which the ISU fires before retreating.

Test 2: Only includes trials in which the ISU retreats before firing or doesn't fire at all.

Test 3: Only includes trials in which the ISU doesn't retreat.

In test 1 the ISU's survived most often (and killed the most Panzers.) In test 3 the ISUs died the most often. (By the end of 1 turn, there would have been more kills if I'd gone on to another turn. And I think the ISU's got lucky.) In test 2 the ISUs survived more often than the "no retreat" ISU's, but less often than the fire-then-retreat ISUs.

I think the above makes perfect sense. (Though I suspect both AFV's got lucky in the number of kills.) When the ISU fires it has a pretty decent chance of eliminating the panzer outright - no return fire. So it's best bet is to either fire quickly and retreat, or just retreat. Hanging around is bad - the panzer's ROF kicks in. (I stopped the third test at 10 tirals because it after that many runs the ISU had already died more times than in either of the 20 trial tests.)

I've run the test quite a few times, btw, and overall it's been fairly close to 50/50 - the 7/3 split was by far the most dramatic I've seen.

My conclusion was that the ISUs are _not_ chosing the optimal survival strategy when they retreat before firing. They're not doing the "smart" thing. However, I do think they're acting realistically. Soldiers don't often use the "optimal survival strategy", esp. since they had no handy hit-chance/kill-chance LOS tool.

[ December 03, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Lt Bull]

This thread should come with a warning "Hard hat area". I hope I don't get caught in the crossfire.

I now realise that vehicles like the ISU-122 (and IS2 for that matter) in CMBB, because of their low ROF are looking for trouble if they were to slug it out at "short" range with tanks with higher ROF. It is understandable why they retreat.

Anyway, for what it is worth, I also conducted 20 trials of the redwolf file. The critical figures are as follows:

ISU-122 fires then retreats OR fires while retreating: 16 times (80%)

ISU-122 retreats without firing: 4 times (20%)

Not too important but I also saw that of the 16 times the ISU-122 fired its gun, on 5 occasions it was HE.

Now from what I read, the focus of the discussion has evolved (devolved ) into whether it is an acceptable TacAI behaviour (in such a situation) for the ISU-122 to retreat without at least getting a shot off. This relates to 20% of the trials I ran. cf. 30% in some other tests.

Well, in the redwolf case, the ISU-122 doesn't have much of a chance for a hit so it is not as if it is giving up a high % to hit shot and retreating instead. However, you are never going to kill any tanks by not firing at all, regardless of how low the % to hit is. This can be seen as a source of frustration. If this is going to be your "best" chance at killing a tank, then you better damn take it!. I guess a "real life" consideration for NOT firing at all in a low % to hit situation may be the amount of ammo. However, I think in CM, this factor is not considered with tanks (BTS?). Another one may be to remain undetected.

However, there are times where "short" range engagements with these units are unavoidable (whether it be the CMBB map size or terrain type) and they are virtually compelled to engage the enemy at short range.

So getting back to what I think is (should be) the focus of this discussion: "Is it OK to expect (low ROF) tanks in CMBB to retreat ~20-30% of the time upon spotting an enemy tank that is directly in front of them WITHOUT even firing their gun prior to retreating or during their retreat?"

In "real life" fight-or-flight behaviours can conflict with one another, leading to indecision. Filling in the gaps, you can analyse the behaviour of the ISU-122 crew as being determined by 3-4 members of the crew: The tank commander, the driver and the gunner/loader. Here is just my attempt to rationalise the TacAI behaviours seen:

1) ISU-122 advances and spots an enemy tank. The commander thinks he has "the drop" on the enemy, orders the driver to stop, orders the gunner to engage and for driver to retreat after firing (to reload). The last order to the driver may be considered an SOP perhaps in this situation.

2) ISU-122 advances and spots an enemy tank. Not feeling particularly good about the situation, the tank commander orders an immediate retreat out of LOS. The gunner does his best to get a shot off (a "wild" shot) while retreating (though not a priority) but it is not possible in all cases.

It all comes down to what would be going through the minds of the tank commander and crew in "real life". I’m sure much of it would be determined by SOPs and the skill and personality of the commander and crew, and their ability to evaluate the situation.

It seems the whole point about retreating is mainly to AVOID having the enemy get off a SECOND shot. If I was in the ISU-122 and realised that an enemy had fired a shot at me before I had either had a chance to target or spot the enemy, I would order an immediate retreat.

You could argue what is the point in retreating if the enemy hasn't even got off their first shot? Perhaps they have not even spotted you. In this case, you may as well stop, aim, take a shot and then retreat. But how sure are you? Are there other tanks you haven't spotted yet about to shoot at you? Do you feel lucky? Punk?

However, you could argue that in "real life" knowing how far back you have to retreat may also influence your decision. I guess in the redwolf situation, it is only minimal as it was ordered to move to a hull down position.

In the end, when I consider the points raised, I am now not as puzzled by the TacAI behaviour of the big gunned, moderate to highly armoured, low ROF tanks/SP guns as I once was.

There may be some situations where the TacAI behaves in a manner more difficult to rationalise. The extreme case would be when a tanks spots an enemy tank, "knows" the enemy tank hasn't spotted it (in CM's case, no target line) and instead of taking a "free shot" from a stationary position, it decides to retreat instead without firing anything (despite having an apparent "drop" on the enemy and a decent chance to kill if it hit at that range).

In the end, I do not think what we see is anything too different from what was seen in CMBO, though low ROF wasn't really the reason for most of the retreats in those CMBO cases.

Lt Bull

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Well, at least you didn't go away mad

As for my tests on the 27th... this was not using the "isuretreat6.cme" file. I had used the scenario version "isuretreat.cme"Instead so I could disprove sweeping statements that the ISU always retreated. I changed the position of the ISU and the results were as noted. It was only after this that you narrowed the compaints down to the specific situations found in isuretreat6.cme.

Also, I think you should include how many times the test was repeated in total. Just putting in total number of kills isn't all that relevant. We *know* the TacAI pulls back most of the time, thus depriving the PzIV a chance to kill it or, conversely, the ISU a chance to kill the PzIV.

Ain't statistics wonderful?

Lt Bull,

I guess a "real life" consideration for NOT firing at all in a low % to hit situation may be the amount of ammo. However, I think in CM, this factor is not considered with tanks (BTS?).

The concern for wasting ammo depends on ammo load at the time (also tracked by type of round). Some tanks, like BTs, have tonns of ammo. They don't think much about wasting a bunch of shots. But eventually they too will use more care. The ISU, on the other hand, starts out with a puny ammo load. It also uses HE sometimes at close range because it is practically as effective as AP. And since the ISU is designed for anti-infantry duty, it is usually loaded with the majority HE.

However, there are times where "short" range engagements with these units are unavoidable (whether it be the CMBB map size or terrain type) and they are virtually compelled to engage the enemy at short range.

True. However, other tests show that in more favorable circumstances the ISUs do much better than in Redwolf's isuretreat6.cme file.

So getting back to what I think is (should be) the focus of this discussion: "Is it OK to expect (low ROF) tanks in CMBB to retreat ~20-30% of the time upon spotting an enemy tank that is directly in front of them WITHOUT even firing their gun prior to retreating or during their retreat?"

When the matchup is clearly unfavorable and an easy and viable retreat route is available, yeah... it probably should pull back ASAP. If the gunner doesn't have time to let one loose, tough

In "real life" fight-or-flight behaviours can conflict with one another, leading to indecision. Filling in the gaps, you can analyse the behaviour of the ISU-122 crew as being determined by 3-4 members of the crew: The tank commander, the driver and the gunner/loader. Here is just my attempt to rationalise the TacAI behaviours seen:

Pretty good stuff. I would add :

3) The driver pulls back on his own (reflex, probably cursed out by TC)

4) TC gets into position and realizes that it is a bad position, isn't worth wasting a shot, orders the gunner to hold fire, orders driver to reverse course.

It seems the whole point about retreating is mainly to AVOID having the enemy get off a SECOND shot.

At 500m even one shot is risky. This is nearly "point blank range" for a gun like the PzIV's.

You could argue what is the point in retreating if the enemy hasn't even got off their first shot? Perhaps they have not even spotted you. In this case, you may as well stop, aim, take a shot and then retreat. But how sure are you? Are there other tanks you haven't spotted yet about to shoot at you? Do you feel lucky? Punk?

Exactly And as tests showed, the ISU's position was not good enough to risk even a first shot from the PzIV.

However, you could argue that in "real life" knowing how far back you have to retreat may also influence your decision. I guess in the redwolf situation, it is only minimal as it was ordered to move to a hull down position.

Sure, but of course we have seen plenty of evidence that the ISU sometimes does this. Staying put for one shot or even more.

In the end, when I consider the points raised, I am now not as puzzled by the TacAI behaviour of the big gunned, moderate to highly armoured, low ROF tanks/SP guns as I once was.

And people wonder why I am still here in this thread. This is why While I wish there was a better thread discussing these issues, this is the one we have so we might as well use it. Any new thread would likely turn into this one anyway.

There may be some situations where the TacAI behaves in a manner more difficult to rationalise. The extreme case would be when a tanks spots an enemy tank, "knows" the enemy tank hasn't spotted it ...

The only time the TacAI knows, for sure, it is targeted is when it is shot at. Until then it assumes that it has been spotted. I've seen tanks retreat without having a targeting line to them from any enemy vehicle.

In the end, I do not think what we see is anything too different from what was seen in CMBO, though low ROF wasn't really the reason for most of the retreats in those CMBO cases.

Correct. In fact, most of the Allied vehicles had BETTER RoF and ammo loads than the German stuff.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

This shows that it is hard to come up with test scenarios which should reproduce an actual game situation.

Not accurate. It shows how hard it is to come up with a test that exactly simulates a very specific ingame possibility. This is not surprising at all considering all the variables. This is not rocks, paper, and scisors here. However, it would be even harder to repeat an ingame situation in the same game in different positions WHILE playing the game.

BTW, the hit probabilities aren't all that different. And once again I feel I must remind you, they are not exact and therefore other factors must be paid attention to besides that number.

Nontheless with these distorted hit probablities I ran 40 tests and came out 13 dead Panzer and 27 dead ISU. If you project this to the hit probablities of my scenario (see my screenshots), you see that the ISU is by far not toothless against the MK IV.

Nobody claimed that the ISU-122 was always, in all situations, "toothless". Others, however, stated categorically that the ISU-122 should be superior at this range. Or at worse, equal. I find a 2:1 death ratio in favor of the PzIV as being a pretty damned good advantage for the PzIV.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Ooo... just saw this one:

I have to remark that to be fair the above tests should not count ISU which have only been killed because they retreated, but this is impossible to figure out now.

Well, this all depends on what you are claiming. Your initial claims were rather broad, but now more defined as evidence showed up.

To me, the challenge was "the TacAI is a coward. It retreats when it is not in any significant danger, thus making it impossible to kill stuff it should". This was easily proven false with my first set of tests on the 27th.

Then the accusations morphed, eventually, to claim that the ISU would survive better if it stayed put for just one shot and then retreated. Tarqulene's test was specifically set up to show this. However, I think it should be treated carefully because his sampling method is not solid enough. I don't mean this as a slam, it i just that the test was not conducted "blindly" enough.

For a better sampling of data I suggest the following be done with isuretreat6.cme:

1. Run the test 100 times for 3 turns each. I'd even settle for 50 times

2. Each test would "conclude" when either the ISU was out of LOS or one of the two vehicles were dead.

3. For each test count the times each vehicle fired at each other. Log hits each achieved. Note what each shot did in terms of damge, if any.

4. For each test note if the TacAI:

a) Retreated without firing a shot

Retreated with a shot fired

c) Retreated with more than one shot fired (note number)

d) Stayed put and did not retreat.

This should allow us to see:

1. One average, what is the likely end result for all tests combined. This gives % chance of each TacAI behavior, outcome, number of hits, etc. Tons of good data that can be manipulated to answer different questions that might come up.

2. On a case by case basis, which TacAI action was most likely to result in a PzIV kill/damage or ISU kill/damage.

3. On a case by case basis, which TacAI action led to the ISU being hit, how many times, and what the end result was.

Etc.

The problem I have seen with some of the tests is that the tester already has in mind a specific question he wants an answer to BEFORE doing the test. This is not the best way to do things because it introduces bias or, at best, data that can't be used to answer different questions.

If each person in this thread did this test 10 times I think we would have a nice statistical sampling. Not that I see why we need it Still, I think it would be "fun" to get a more cohesive answer.

And of course, this test can not be extrapolated to represent the TacAI's behavior in general. The test is specific to the exact same conditions being tested. The chances of someone coming upon the same exact situation are statistically close enough to ZERO that it means this test really can't be seen as anything but an "artificial" test. Change one variable and wooooosh... the test results become basically null and void.

Steve

[ December 03, 2002, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Mike,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Hmm.......gloating doesn't become you Steve

No, I am not trying to gloat here. I am trying to prevent Redwolf from jumping onto some other "bug" that becomes an exercise in futility after the first couple of pages. So far he has only admitted to making one tactical error. No admission about all the other errors and the strategic misfire. If he owns up to his mistakes, perhaps he will be less likely to repeat them in the future. He has shown some ability to learn from his mistakes. At least in this thread he actually made a file for peer review unlike the Sneak thread.

And if he doesn't come clean and own up to the community here, I reserve the right to lock up any thread he becomes overtly involved with that appears to be going in the same round and round as this and the Sneak thread did. I want no more of this nonsense.

Steve</font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

O.K., my initial position was that I was amazed that these heavy Soviet "behemoths" would retreat at the sight of a pathetic mid war Pz IV which we know that even a basic Sherman 75 can trade shots with on an almost even kill basis. Then as the thread evolved & I read some of the references that were posted by a number of people I've come to realise that it is probably the smart thing for slow ROF heavy tanks/assault guns to retreat when up against a fast firing medium tank that can penetrate its armour, even if somewhat marginal.

The telling thing for me was Valera's site discussing the development of the ISU 122 where it states, and I quote:

Those assault guns (i.e. ISU 122/ISU 152) used mainly for the long range gunfire because they weren't effective at short ranges. The slow ROF did them ineffective in close combat.

Ignoring the grammatical errors, this to me is the telling point and therefore CMBB does model the situation quite well, bearing in mind how these types of AFV's were supposed to engage the enemy in real life. So, I've completely changed my position based on learning new information and realising that my previously held beliefs that ISU 122's & IS2's were tank killing machines extraordinaire, was incorrect. They may have been responsible for alot of dead Panthers & Tigers in 1944 & 1945 but I would imagine this killing was done from long range or perhaps surprising relatively small numbers of enemy AFV's with weight of numbers being the telling factor.

So, thanks people for pointing out certain shortcomings of the Soviet "behemoths" and ensuring I, once again, learn something new.

Regards

Jim R.

[ December 03, 2002, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

]Sorry - but this is worse than gloating.

Redwolf obviously has an opinion that you disagree with (after all none of us were "there", and CM is essentially BFC's opinion of history) and you're threatening to ban him because he won't bow down to your version????

Sigh - this has got way too personal

BFC actually brings forth "opinions" based on historical research, Redwolf on the other hand seem content to go with unsubstantiated personal belief: i.e. ISU= tank hunter or Assault gun? BTS brings forward two sources substantiating their view. Redwolf prefers to rely on his own logic chains.

Post-modernist tautologies such as “you were not there,” are pretty much irrelevant and an intellectually easy way out of a lost debate.

[Tarquelne]

Then the accusations morphed, eventually, to claim that the ISU would survive better if it stayed put for just one shot and then retreated. Tarqulene's test was specifically set up to show this.

Huh. And here I was thinking I'd just set it up to see what was true.

I don't mean this as a slam, it i just that the test was not conducted "blindly" enough.

Could you explain just how the test wasn't "blind" enough? For future reference, if nothing else.

I followed the routine you described, except for "c", and with the addition of recording whether or not the ISU fired before or after the retreat began. Which is fortunate, if you think about it, because that's one of the 3 situations I wanted to compare.

And please, be careful - a few people in this thread _have_ been slammed for seeming to distrust results presented by others, for what was characterized as attempts to discredit a contradictory source of information rather than accept that a mistake - no matter how insignficant - had been made. I wouldn't want Steve coming after you, Steve.

[ December 03, 2002, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

It is clear that the most desirable course of action for the ISU-122 in this situation is to fire a single shot at the Mk IV while stationary, then retreat. The problem is using the wrong command. Using the Shoot and Scoot order I have been able to get the ISU-122 to do this 100% of the time so far in my tests (using isuretreat6.cme). Of course, this means you have to eyeball the hulldown position like in CMBO instead of having the TacAI do it for you. It would be nice if the functionality of the Hulldown and Shoot & Scoot orders could be combined...

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

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

What? And who told you ZiS-5-53 was weaker gun than Kwk 40?. Or who told you that thinner (but much better profiled) T34's armor gave less protection?

ZiS-5-53 was able to penetrate Panther's frontal armor.If it would back up from enagaging PziV as a rule.....it would be sick.(and I am accused of knowledge lack)

regards and be well

experts and contributors

[Tarquelne]

No, I am not trying to gloat here. I am trying to prevent Redwolf from jumping onto some other "bug" that becomes an exercise in futility after the first couple of pages. So far he has only admitted to making one tactical error.

Actually, the fact that he's backed so far off from his origional position to "it's the moddeling" is a tacit admission of error. He's retreated. Vamoosed. Elvis has left the building. Daddy don't live here no more - he no longer argues that it's a "bug."

Of course, if one really _is_ trying to "prove who has a bigger pennis" then a tacit admission is seldom enough.

I also think it worth noting that redwolf did try to leave the thread with what he thought was the necessary information and bow out. However someone implied that he was doing something intellectually dishonest, and so he came back, thus, much of the "futility". As my mother would say, "It takes two to tango."

(Hmmm... of course, if he's gone there can't be any genital comparisons, can there?)

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I'll have to give Mikeydz scenario a decent review, it is obviously pretty decisive here if it applies.

Don't forget to state just what it applies to. Some of us are having trouble pinning down just what your position is.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

[---------------------

What? And who told you ZiS-5-53 was weaker gun than Kwk 40?. Or who told you that thinner (but much better profiled) T34's armor gave less protection?

ZiS-5-53 was able to penetrate Panther's frontal armor.If it would back up from enagaging PziV as a rule.....it would be sick.(and I am accused of knowledge lack)

regards and be well

experts and contributors

Err that due too ammo problems the KwK 40 could at closer ranges out penetrate the ZiS-5-53, a pretty good case that the KwK 40 was a better Anti tank weapon.

Err technically the KwK 40 could penetrate the Panthers mantlet at similar ranges to the ZiS-5-53, what's your argument?

[Major Jerkov]

ROUTED. He's sneaking into enemy territory and exhausted... running into incoming fire... he simply lacks the wits of TacAI. Know when to retreat and.. if possible, gracefully.

[Major Jerkov]

Your outgunned... REv3rse, ReVr53!!111! Gah...

[Major Jerkov]

He has a faster ROF!!!11 Ba<k t3h f00k vp!

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Redwolf,

Pretty good stuff. I would add :

3) The driver pulls back on his own (reflex, probably cursed out by TC)

Steve

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

unless on elevated position or completely flat

ground driver RARELY sees enemy at all.

regards

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bastables:

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

[---------------------

What? And who told you ZiS-5-53 was weaker gun than Kwk 40?. Or who told you that thinner (but much better profiled) T34's armor gave less protection?

ZiS-5-53 was able to penetrate Panther's frontal armor.If it would back up from enagaging PziV as a rule.....it would be sick.(and I am accused of knowledge lack)

regards and be well

experts and contributors

Err that due too ammo problems the KwK 40 could at closer ranges out penetrate the ZiS-5-53, a pretty good case that the KwK 40 was a better Anti tank weapon.

Err technically the KwK 40 could penetrate the Panthers mantlet at similar ranges to the ZiS-5-53, what's your argument?</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

The problem is using the wrong command. Using the Shoot and Scoot order I have been able to get the ISU-122 to do this 100% of the time so far in my tests (using isuretreat6.cme). Of course, this means you have to eyeball the hulldown position like in CMBO instead of having the TacAI do it for you. It would be nice if the functionality of the Hulldown and Shoot & Scoot orders could be combined...

Well, I fully agree there seems to be a case in this discussion not just of unrealistic expectations of Soviet assault guns, but also of unfamiliarity with the new armoured commands. On that I fully agree. I have not yet tried with a BT7 against a King Tiger, but where you have a reasonable chance to get a kill, Shoot & Scoot is really the command to use to force the crew to fight in adverse conditions.

A combination with hull-down maybe a good idea, but I remember the discussions about the introduction of hull-down, and some people would probably claim it makes the game too easy, and takes away the advantage they have because they find a hull-down position by eyeballing.

In general I like the fact that slow ROF vehicles retreat immediately, because it gives me a chance to fight on my conditions, not on those of the opponent.

I think this whole discussion has been very helpful in general, since it brought out some issues that were not very clear in my mind. I think that Redwolf was quite right to question this behaviour of what at first glance appear to be Soviet Ubertanks, but on closer inspection are not. I think the problem started when digging in happened. This thread will probably enter board folklore, like the running HMGs, or Bren Tripods.

For anyone who still thinks that BFC or the beta-testers don't care about reported odd behaviour, I suggest the thread about PBEM file sizes. That IMO is a model example of how to go about reporting odd behaviour and getting it looked at. An observation at the start that something is not quite right, no wild accusations, or gratuitous insults. A bit of a discussion. I posted the thread in the beta-board, and a number of beta-testers immediately went to work looking at it, trying to isolate what was going on, and reporting back that yes, there was something odd (all of their own back, with no prompting from BFC to do it). BFC then goes into the thread and says it will be looked at. Thanking them for their time, as Kayser Soze then did is optional, but makes a nice change I find.

Compare that thread to this one.