Retreating Monster Tanks revealed (monster pictures)

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Andreas:

[bFC is going to sack Madmatt and install Cpt. Kloss as lead beta tester. But keep mum about it...[/QB]

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

How nicely our betatester contributes to discusscion again. Indeed you cast a new light

on the subject.You might not understand that,

but subject devolved/evolved and some quotes are simply out of place. Well, contrary to some I learn and I know where I was wrong and where not.

Simply ask yourself: Why I am responding to a post where guy is right /you did not even read the original post I replied to/quoting

his earlier statment, where obviously he was wrong. To finish with another abuse of course.

Believe me little sorry petty bootlicker - you cannot touch me.

RULE OF A THREAD:

STEVE'S FAVOURITES CAN FREELY INSULT OTHERS,

AND ANY DEFENCE RESULTS IN 'FORMAL WARNING'

FROM STEVE

[John O'Reilly]

I don't understand those that are claiming Steve is being a bit highhanded. If you reread the sequence of posts, it is Steve that is, in every response to redwolf, extracting quotes and offering detailed explanation or criticism. This is the essence of argument, from what I can see he has not run away from anything. Other well known and respected members of the forum have done the same.

In response it seems that he has someone who is consistently shifting the goalposts as he realises that his original assertions are shaky at the very least.

He then has the audacity to criticise Steve for overlong responses to his "simple" question. This is an absolute classic! It might work in conversation since as drawn out as this has become, it is easy to forget exactly what has been said. Fortunately it is all here in black and errrr olive drab?

Now I am finding I know little about armoured warfare on the Eastern front and not only has this game been the best I have ever played it is also an education. I will never forget my first playing of Jagermeister (sp?) where my IS tanks kept backing away, maybe after getting a first shot. It didn't fit with my conception of the role of this tank (honed by ASL) I finally got about 5 of them on top of a ridge to engage only to see them all destroyed. I was amazed by their slow rate of fire and I began to understand why the crews were behaving as they were!

The detail and atmosphere of this game is extraordinary. It has been improved, as BFC acknowledges and encourages by constructive debate on the forums (CMBO was patched to 1.12?). They have a track record of listening, their dedication and hard work is so evident in their product. Their support is superb. Anyone who has been on the forums for any length of time knows this.

So when someone wanders in with his Igor-like henchman and behaves as they do, one ignoring most substantive responses and questions and the other flinging muck I can only imagine Steve et al. getting extremely pissed off. I would certainly not have been as restrained! But that's just me, and I expect the majority of people

Thanks for the game, the continued support, the fun and education BFC,

John

[Licensed Fool]

Okay okay!-I'll read and digest every single thread on this topic to get to the bottom of why my tanks are slamming into reverse when they shouldn't be!(CMBO doesn't seem to do it) Or will the manual tell me? If it's my tactics that are at fault surely the manual wasn't clear enough in the first place anyway? And if there's nothing in Redwolfs original claim,why has it drawn a massive 276 replies?

[Mace]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

And if there's nothing in Redwolfs original claim,why has it drawn a massive 276 replies?

Because the majority of the 276 support Battlefront's modelling and not Redwolf's (and apparently yours as well) misconception that there's a bug in program.

Btw, a few of us are still waiting for you to produce evidence supporting your statement the other day regarding Soviet Tankers.

Mace

[ December 03, 2002, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Mace ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by 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...

I'd rather like to see the functionality of Hunt and Shoot and Scoot combined: Move forward until you spot a valid target for Hunt (enemy armor or gun), fire once and retreat after that. Does anybody know why Battlefront chose Fast as the first movement type?

Dschugaschwili

[WWB]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

[Nolloff]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Believe me little sorry petty bootlicker - you cannot touch me.

[/QB]

Bye then. Your attitude, and I doubt it´s your grasp of the language, has been annoying from the start. Redwolf would have received a lot less flak and this threat would have gotten to the point quicker wasn´t it for your "contributions".

I can´t touch you too. Not that I wanted to.

Nolloff

[ December 03, 2002, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

[WWB]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

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

[bFC is going to sack Madmatt and install Cpt. Kloss as lead beta tester. But keep mum about it...

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

<snipped blabberings>

RULE OF A THREAD:

STEVE'S FAVOURITES CAN FREELY INSULT OTHERS,

AND ANY DEFENCE RESULTS IN 'FORMAL WARNING'

FROM STEVE[/QB]</font>

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

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

Uh I was speaking of the T34/85 as compared to the ISU-122 or IS-2.

I don't accuse you of "knowledge lack" but instead "reading lack". Or perhaps it was my "writing lack" either way hope this clears it up.

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

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

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

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

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

[bFC is going to sack Madmatt and install Cpt. Kloss as lead beta tester. But keep mum about it...

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

How nicely our betatester contributes to discusscion again. Indeed you cast a new light

on the subject.You might not understand that,

but subject devolved/evolved and some quotes are simply out of place. Well, contrary to some I learn and I know where I was wrong and where not.

Simply ask yourself: Why I am responding to a post where guy is right /you did not even read the original post I replied to/quoting

his earlier statment, where obviously he was wrong. To finish with another abuse of course.

Believe me little sorry petty bootlicker - you cannot touch me.

RULE OF A THREAD:

STEVE'S FAVOURITES CAN FREELY INSULT OTHERS,

AND ANY DEFENCE RESULTS IN 'FORMAL WARNING'

FROM STEVE[/QB]</font>

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

Okay okay!-I'll read and digest every single thread on this topic to get to the bottom of why my tanks are slamming into reverse when they shouldn't be!(CMBO doesn't seem to do it) Or will the manual tell me? If it's my tactics that are at fault surely the manual wasn't clear enough in the first place anyway? And if there's nothing in Redwolfs original claim,why has it drawn a massive 276 replies?

Well it is good to see whatever govt agency which actually issues "fool licenses" is doing it's job and has you squarely under federal regulation.

I assume there is some sort of fool professional development program and career path for you now..good to know.

Ok, my child. I will try and save one lost soul on this thread...and it shall be you.

First off..pick your engagement ranges. On a map with mod trees and hills, stay away from tanks with slow ROF no matter how big ans sexy they look.

Unless you can get 1000m + ranges from a map stick to the knives in the drawer. Late war the T34/85 is just simply sweet. The SU-100 is another beauty and it loves a 500m punch out.

And let us not forget the plain old T-34. She is often forgotten because she has the beauty of a peasant girl but my boy, she is built for a scrap. The late '43 T34, is made for sub 1000m knife fights. She is fast, low profile, light as a ballet dancer and damn near impossible to bog. She'll take on everything up to and including the PzIV. She is also cheap as cat meat in Chinatown. A platoon of three will cost you 323 points and that is with radios in house.

Suit your tanks to the ground they are fighting on and quite trying to carve turkey with a hammer. That is my advice to you.

Don't sweat backing up, just send em up in "Hunt" the next time to a good hull down spot. If they reverse, they probably have a very good reason so be thankful.

If you want a personal tutorial send a setup and I will be glad to demonstrate.

[Hurricane]

I have read almost all the posts in this thread, and it has included lots of interesting things (and lots of not-so-interesting things, too).

After having played the "Breaking the Egg" scenario and having my ass handed to me I learned the hard way how to use the slow ROF ISU-122:s and 155:s. With that in mind, the behaviour of these heavy tanks is certainly justified and everything works more or less like it should.

Now, the point of my post is just to highlight the fact that the seemingly strange behaviour of the Soviet heavy tanks is not very well explained anywhere, either in the game or the manual. I certainly can understand that the casual gamer will be more than confused that the über-tanks he bought for expensive points just run away instead of fighting. While BFC, justifiedly, says the reversing tanks ars a game-selling feature, they only look at part of the truth, and that is that the feature will be considered a bug by many if not explained in a easy-to-understand fashion.

Now, my suggestion is that info entries should be added to the detailes info screens of each unit, for example to the "kill" page which is empty most of the time and only part-full at best. Is this possible within the existing engine?

The info wouldn't have to be very long, just a short description of the unit's role, a few lines long. This way people wouldn't bang their heads against the wall about their über-tank-destroyer which in reality is something entirely different.

[Holien]

Capt, Do my turn and play the sodding game....

I want to practice shoot and scoot.

Which I should have just done with that T34 which was knobbled by that nice Tiger of yours.

H

[Licensed Fool]

Of these 280 replies,69 are pro-Redwolf,89 are pro-Steve,and 122 are neutral or digressional.

It seems Redwolf was too obsessed with his sole JSU-v-IVL example instead of looking at the broader picture. Steves page 8 explanation of A.I.routines was an absolute classic and I'll certainly be taking it on board and running tests to see if it makes me abandon my current stance of feeling that AFVs retreat more often than they should.I shall also follow up other contributors suggestions re arcs/scoot/hunt etc.

Sorry if I offended anyone by sounding disrespectful in a couple of posts,but we all do it sometimes!--Even Steve said to Redwolf- "Your flaw-finding stinks..You make an arse out of yourself..You don't know what you're talking about..I'd smack your silly forces all over the map..Admit you know squat.." And Steve to Capt Kloss-"Your attitude sucks..You pulled your argument out of your arse.." !

To answer the poster who asked "Who is this Licensed Fool anyway?",I'm a grog in my 50's,a writer,wargame-designer/developer specialising in the Eastern Front 1941-45 and in my time have played just about every related boardgame and read every factual book and eye-witness account that's ever been produced on the subject,including stuff sent me by the Russian Embassy in London in order to get the view from their side.I've also got acquaintances,contacts and pen-pals who were in the firing line,such as a Waffen-SS tank commander who fought at Tarnopol,and later had his Tiger shot out from under him by a Brit anti-tank unit in Normandy.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

Of these 280 replies,69 are pro-Redwolf,89 are pro-Steve,and 122 are neutral or digressional.

Oh data analysis - fun! Let's go down that route, shall we?

Right, how many people have actually taken one side or another? How many people who initially were pro-Redwolf or on the fence have changed their view as part of this debate (e.g Kan. Reichmann)?

Those are the key bits of data, not the raw numbers. To give you an extreme example, if you have 69 pro-Redwolf replies from someone like Captain Kloss who shouts 'superior tanks always retreat', and 89 pro-Steve from 89 different people who actually tested the problem instead of shouting and found there was no problem, which set of answers would you value higher?

I look forward to the answer to all three questions.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Steve,

That was good idea with leaving - at least for a while - a problem here is like a piece of cheese. There are so many rats...you cannot get rid of them remotely...

So better leave them for themselves.

Andreas,

Something went horribly wrong in your life, pity you try to overcompensate your failures at this forum.

Bye, bye do not cry

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Andreas,

Something went horribly wrong in your life, pity you try to overcompensate your failures at this forum.

Bye, bye do not cry

You crack me up.

Seriously, have you thought about stand-up comedy? You could be the David Brent of Poland!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

Does anybody know why Battlefront chose Fast as the first movement type?

I've wondered that myself. My best guess would be that Hunt is quite slow in CMBB, but I think it would still be preferable to fast in most cases.

Hopefully in CM3 movement speed and behavior will be selectable independent of each other so we can mix and match in a more varied and realistic manner.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

[snip]such as a Waffen-SS tank commander who fought at Tarnopol,and later had his Tiger shot out from under him by a Brit anti-tank unit in Normandy.

What do you mean, shot from under him. The reality must be broken, BFC fix or somefink

Seriously though - I think people would have reacted very differently to your posts if you had actually supported your statements with some information. To just come in and call everyone who did not agree with Redwolf 'blind' was not particularly helpful to your reputation.

With that said, since you have a lot of expertise, I hope that in the future you will share that with us. You should not assume that people on this forum are just a bunch of gamers with no clue, there are some very knowledgeable people on this board - I don't know how long you have been lurking, and with the current activity here it is easy for good threads to be drowned out, but I am sure everybody coming here can learn a thing or two.

All the best,

Andreas

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Unfortunately you mix up the short 122mm howitzer and the 122mm AT gun, just like Andreas before.

Just to set the record straight, there is no such thing as a 122mm AT Gun. The SU/ISU 122 and 152 both mounted howitzers and field guns. I could be wrong about this next bit, but I believe the 100mm was the only purpose Russian built AT Gun

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by redwolf:

So, as another attempt to bring this to end end,

you guys claim the 122mm L/48 gun is only in the ISU because there was a shortage of 152mm howitzers and that the tactical purpose of the vehicle equipped with the 122mm L/48 is the same the 152mm one?

Yes

[Licensed Fool]

Andreas-The main thing I noticed as I progressed through the postings was that a good many of the large initially "undecided" group slowly began to abandon their neutral stance and polarise toward one side or the other,or switch sides completely.

Even I may drift from Redwolf towards Steve!

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

To answer the poster who asked "Who is this Licensed Fool anyway?",I'm a grog in my 50's,a writer,wargame-designer/developer specialising in the Eastern Front 1941-45 and in my time have played just about every related boardgame and read every factual book and eye-witness account that's ever been produced on the subject,including stuff sent me by the Russian Embassy in London in order to get the view from their side.I've also got acquaintances,contacts and pen-pals who were in the firing line,such as a Waffen-SS tank commander who fought at Tarnopol,and later had his Tiger shot out from under him by a Brit anti-tank unit in Normandy.

Ok, I know this is not suppose to get personal but c'mon!! I am only human.

Mr Fool,

Well considering the number of misinformed and simply..ahem.."foolish" post you have made, I think perhaps your clientele should begin to look elsewhere.

I am not a grog and the London Embassay hasn't sent me anything of late but even I can tell your full of it.

Here are your contributions to this topic so far..I looked em up

"The bottom line is,some AFVs in the game retreat when they shouldn't,hence the game seriously lacks realism until its put right."

"With respect,Battlefront can talk til they're blue in the face defending the A.I. but the inescapable fact remains that CMBB has a serious flaw in that AFVs slam into reverse far too often at the sight of an enemy AFV even though their vehicle is quite capable of standing and slugging it out.If it happened just rarely I'd accept it as a foible of tank crews human nature, but it happens too often by far.This is not good."

"Perhaps the A.I. makes AFV crews TOO intelligent to the point of unreality? In the real world,given their tough national character trait a typical gutsy Russian crew would open fire immediately on any German AFV they saw if there was a halfway-decent chance of nailing it.

Are Redwolf and me and a few others the only sighted dudes in this forum of the blind?"

"When I got CMBB a few weeks ago I thought WOWEE this is great stuff,but then I started noticing tanks reversing at the sight of an enemy tank,and I thought NAH that can't be right ! It happens so often that it completely RUINS the game for me and I've hardly any more enthusiasm for CMBB until Battlefront fix it. WATCH MY LIPS--IT'S A SERIOUS GAME-DESIGN FLAW! Which part of that don't you kiddies understand?"

"Okay okay!-I'll read and digest every single thread on this topic to get to the bottom of why my tanks are slamming into reverse when they shouldn't be!(CMBO doesn't seem to do it) Or will the manual tell me? If it's my tactics that are at fault surely the manual wasn't clear enough in the first place anyway? And if there's nothing in Redwolfs original claim,why has it drawn a massive 276 replies?"

It is amazing that you managed to portay absolutly nothing from your self-styled resume in your posts.

You are either the worst grog/writer/wargame designer/expert on the Russian Front/with all sorts of friends who served OR you are a really, really bad liar.

Either way I suggest you start another career..your nickname is a perfectly good starting point.

[ December 03, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

I'd rather like to see the functionality of Hunt and Shoot and Scoot combined: Move forward until you spot a valid target for Hunt (enemy armor or gun), fire once and retreat after that.

This sounds like a good idea that may be more indicative of the types of legitimate tactical orders issued to tanks at a CM level. I would be happy if something like this could be implemented. It may perhaps be a more "safe"/useful version of the current "Shoot n' Scoot" command which probably needs more "skill" to use effectively.

eg. How far forward do you order the tank to move before it stops and tries to engages a target?

Perhaps the more arbitrary "Advance at least as far as marker "A" in front of you, stop and engage the enemy if you see one, reverse immediately towards marker "B" once you have fired off one shot".

I'm sure BTS have considered this before, and would be interested to hear there take on it.

Lt Bull

[ December 03, 2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]