Retreating Monster Tanks revealed (monster pictures)

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Folks, the bug is retreat before fire. Please do not post appearences of retreat for reload as examples of inappropriate retreats. I think we all agree that the 122mm armed Russians can rightly retreat for reload.

It's not a bug. Why is this so freakin' hard for you to get that through your skull? Crew decides it's takin' to long to aquire a target and expects to get shot full of holes any second and backs off. What is so hard to understand? If you could reproduce this effect 100% of the time, it would be a bug. As it is, there is a reasonable chance it will occur.

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

I just ran a few of my own using the IS-2 1944 edition.

The_Capt, I really appreciate your contributions.

Let me just politely mention that nobody so far could reproduce the retreat-before-first-shot behaviour in an isolated test placing some tanks on an empty map. The retreats for reload you see I can live with. It took me the effort to remodel the actual battle scenario with terrain to see the behaviour that I call "bug".

But we had three of these threads now and that indicates that in actual complex battles it is not that uncommon.

So who here honestly thinks that retreat before first shot is a good idea for a ISU against a Mk IV ever?

And who doesn't find it fishy that the Mk IV never retreats before first shot?

[EDIT: Off to work, I'll not post from work. I hope the personal attacks don't get this thread locked - I'd hate to have to open a new one ]</font>

[Harv]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I am willing to believe that Harv ran these tests 50 instances of my test in 21 minutes. So the ISU was killed in 6 of his 50 tests, what does that say about the extreme danger the ISU is supposed to be in accourding to Steve? How many Mk IV did it kill, Harv?

Lookit redwolf, it is becoming patently obvious that you only read what you want to read, so I'm probably wasting my time here...I didn't run 50 tests in 21 minutes. I see why you might think that, but like I said...you and your all knowing stopwatch don't know how much time I've pissed away on this non-issue. I started running tests and observations on All of those savegames on Saturday and probably spent 10 hours wasting my time on this crap and had pretty much finished up when I posted.

You know, with you attitude anymore (and your new buddy Licensed...where did he come from anyways?) even if I found something that screamed BUG right through my speakers and crawled out of my keyboard I'd seriously consider sweeping it under the carpet.

Harv

[Wilhammer]

I think I just experienced this, but on a different scale where it kind of makes sense.

SPOILER ALERT!

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

The scenario: Directive Number 3.

Playing the Soviet side, I get 3 X 4 vehicle platoons of BT-7s. Quick, nimble, and paper thin. The tanks are manned by consripts, green and one or two regulars.

For those familiar with the scenario, on the Soviet Left in front ot the town, near the factory, is this hill mass with many hulldown spots in it. I immediatelly massed 2 platoons of BT-7s in hulldown position to cover the roads into town.

On turn 10, after about 3 turns of hiding in the folds, in very well done Hulldown positions, a gaggle of German panzers arrive in full view on the road. I targeted them with my BTs. Respective to all German AFVs all BT-7s were hulldown. The German force proved to be a mix of PZ IVes, PZ IIIs and Pz IIs.

As the turn movie played, nearly all of the BT7s decided to retreat from their hulldown positions, and go backwards, uphill, and get blown to bits. It was funny to watch, it reminded me of popcorn popping it happened so fast. Though my BTs manage to score many hits, I think I might of got two kills. The BTs were destroyed; all except one. That one is at about 1000 meters away from a PZ II that put about 3 holes in it that did not damage. Since the other German tanks are now unoccupied (except for a Soviet Armored car plinking away at them), it will surely die soon.

It was very frustrating to watch those tanks do that. For the conscripts, this made sense. They lost their nerve and tried to run.

The regulars stayed their ground, but got killed very quickly.

No matter what choice the BTs were to make, any hit had a pretty good chance of killing them. Unfortuantely, they made the wrong choice. The resulting self-inflicted rout caused them to die very quickly (to watch 7 tanks buy it in under 30 seconds, ughhh!) with very little effect on the Germans. They basically retreated and then shot wildly. Of course, the 45L is a piece of junk, and the few hits they got were terribly ineffective, though one Pz II is toast.

I do NOT consuider this to be buggy.

1. The BTs, the one's that stayed and fought, died, all of them.

2. Of the runners, one is still alive.

3. The one's that stayed got the best hits, but died doing it.

So, they picked survival over killing.

The unidisciplined ones, the conscripts, chose to evade death over fighting; sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[ December 02, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Wilhammer ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by redwolf:

So who here honestly thinks that starting to retreat before first shot is a good idea for a ISU against a Mk IV ever?

And who doesn't find it fishy that the Mk IV never retreats before first shot? If you say this models a screwup on the crews part, then why doesn't a Mk IV screw up ever?

I think you have a definite issue there, although a few people have lost sight of it through the smoke that's been thrown around. And I want to applaud you for having the courage to stand your ground.

The larger issue is how often this comes up. It's quite possible that tweaking the code to increase the likelihood of the ISU taking that first shot before withdrawing might have the effect of making them stand firm too often in other instances.

It might be the case that you have to accept this behaviour on rare occassions, knowing that fixing it might cause greater problems.

[aka_tom_w]

do the posts in this thread really need to get so personal?

there seems to be more than a little bitterness and personal sniping in here.

I think that is unfortunate because I have enjoyed following this issue because is SO interesting to see how the Tac AI behaves.

If ROF is a big factor then that should explain some of the TAC AI behaviour. Instead of looking for bugs in this issue we should be congradulating Charles and Steve for designing and codeing such a ground breaking AI. We are talking about Artificial Inteligence here and for a $45 game this looks to be like Damn GOOD AI to me!

If the AI has a self preservation model that takes into account the range to target and ROF and a whole bunch of other variables, then Why aren't we celebrating that break through??

OK, So some folks here are questioning the Tac AI self preservation model. Thats OK. Lets thank Steve for responding and looking into the issue.

(Thanks Steve !)

Maybe I am just requesting the return to a little civility in the posts, so we can focus on the issues here and not the personalities?

how about this, before you post, just take a few deep breaths

-tom w

[ December 02, 2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I think you have a definite issue there, although a few people have lost sight of it through the smoke that's been thrown around. And I want to applaud you for having the courage to stand your ground.

The larger issue is how often this comes up. It's quite possible that tweaking the code to increase the likelihood of the ISU taking that first shot before withdrawing might have the effect of making them stand firm too often in other instances.

It might be the case that you have to accept this behaviour on rare occassions, knowing that fixing it might cause greater problems.

It doesn't occur all that often. Usually, the tank doesn't retreat until after it has fired. That it sometimes retreats before firing is entirely reasonable. If it usually retreated rather than firing, then there would be an issue

[Maxx]

Originally posted by Maxx:

I think Joques made a great point earlier. It's about rate of fire, as well as kill chance per shot. Including this variable one can easily understand the ISU backing out, no?

I'm guessing that ROF is included in the TacAI's calculations. Makes sense too - if I crest a hill, aim and shoot, I will most likely take 2 shots back at me. Given the need to bracket after I probably miss, why risk it? I don't think there is any bug here.

[aka_tom_w]

For me this thread boils down to these two critical posts:

"I think the bottom line, my friend, is fairly simple. The TacAI knows more about tank warfare than you. You should let them (it) do their (its) job."

Finally:

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted December 01, 2002 11:55 PM

The_Capt,

quote:

"TacAI in this case is not a bug..it isn't even an accident. It is a design feature and a selling point because it will try to increase your chances if winning even when you try your best to lose."

Steve says

Very well put. However, I don't think Redwolf will like hearing (yet again) that his perceptions are wrong and his tactics are less than optimal."

-tom w

[ December 02, 2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

do the posts in this thread really need to get so personal?

It wouldn't if Redwolf (and a couple of others) actually stuck to facts and logic.

I think that is unfortunate because I have enjoyed following this issue because is SO interesting to see how the Tac AI behaves.

I think it is unfortunate too. There is a legit reason to wonder if something is wrong. However, I think it has been proved conclusively that there is nothing wrong at all. The problem is that Redwolf and his 1 or 2 supporters don't apparently care for that solid conclusion.

Unfortunately a pattern is emerging about how Redwolf operates (using this and previous threads):

1. Gets fixated on a "bug".

2. Insists that there is no logical, rational, or otherwise sendible reason for this to be a "feature" instead of a "bug".

3. Makes factually incorrect statements and gross generalizations to reinforce his beliefs.

4. Makes counter arguments for only those arguments he thinks he can counter. Ignores things that he can't deal with, including dealing with by restating factually incorrect information. This behavior is called "dodging".

5. When his factually incorrect statements are corrected, he initially ignores (or doesn't read?) this and continues stating the same thing over and over again. Eventually he drops that line of argument but only after many people have directly called him on the carpet for it.

6. At least in this thread he actually did a test scenario for peer review. This is something that didn't happen before. But now that he has, guess what? Others can see exactly what he sees and therefore he no longer controls the outcome or is able to argue that other people's tests aren't right. However, see above points for how he actually treats other people's findings. Accusing one person of lying about how many tests was a classic!

7. And finally, never ever admit that he makes false statements (unknowingly at first perhaps, but certainly knowingly later), dodges counter points, ignores contradictory test results, and totally rules out any possibility that there is another way of looking at the situation that is contrary to his own.

In short, Redwolf might start out with a valid point for consideration, but if it is something he wishes to Make a Cause Out of It... we get 6-12 pages of arguing with someone who operates in his own world.

So yes Tom, by the time we have reached Page 8, things get a bit testy between the parties.

Sorry Redwolf, but this is exactly what you are doing. And I stand by these statements 100%. You really need to reexamine how you operate. With this thread you at least offered peer review of your findings. Next thread might I suggest you actually listen to your peers.

Steve

[ December 02, 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Tarquelne]

Unfortunately a pattern is emerging about how Redwolf operates (using this and previous threads):

/snip/

3. Makes factually incorrect statements and gross generalizations to reinforce his beliefs.

/snip/

4. Makes counter arguments for only those arguments he thinks he can counter... This behavior is called "dodging".

/snip/

7. And finally, never ever admit that he makes false statements....

...Accusing one person of lying

A. (added by me) Sometimes attributes beliefs to the wrong poster

/sarcasm mode on/

Gosh! We're lucky that Redwolf is the only one here who does those things!

/sarcasm mode off/

Seriously, redwolf's unique flaw (other than _maybe_ the things I snipped - though most were simply variations of "fixated" or already included points) is that he's extremely tenacious in the face of being wrong. Personally, I'm only tenacious when I know I'm right.

Oops, got sarcastic (or mocking?... ironic?... lets go with "ironic") again without notification.

Is this the point where we start a thread enumerating everyone elses flaws, or drop the subject?

[ December 02, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Kingfish]

I was going to run a few tests of my own, but then the WGAFF factor kicked in, so I decided to just enjoy the game...

[Sirocco]

I ran the save another twenty times, the first ten times seeking hull down to the trees, the second seeking hull down to the PzKpfw IV itself. The ISU backed off without firing a shot 30% of the time for both tests. When seeking hull down to the trees the PzKpfw IV KO'd the ISU twice, and was itself knocked out once. The PzKpfw IV KO'd the ISU once when the ISU was seeking hull down on it's position, with the ISU missing every shot it took. The ISU also had a tendency to fire it's rounds into the crest of the ridge, especially as it was backing off when firing, which is to be expected.

[Battlefront.com]

Folks,

I will try and sum up what is going on within the game.

1. The TacAI's Prime Directive is to prevent harm from coming to the vehicle under its command. However, the TacAI fully understands that it is in command of a war machine which in a setting that is not risk free. Therefore, the TacAI often errs on the side of slugging it out instead of buggering off if the risk is more or less marginally equal between killing something and dying in the process of attempting such a kill. The TacAI is also modified heavily by Experience and random "luck". Sometimes a crappy unit will do something "brave", other times a really good unit will do something "cowardly". But in all cases the TacAI is making a logically based assessment of the situation without the bais of what the player expects of it.

2. The TacAI is less concerned with what damage it can cause vs. a particular target than it is what kind of damage can be done against it by that target. For example, a Nashorn can eliminate practically any vehicle on the map. But at 200m even small arms can take it out of action. Should the TacAI ignore this fact and just drive around the map wherever the player dictates, thinking "I'm king of the world baby!"? No. It is more concerned with its own survival, as it rightly should be. Otherwise the player probably wouldn't have any AFVs left after the first turn of enemy contact.

3. It is the player's "responsibility" to understand and respect the TacAI's behavior. You don't need to agree with it, any more than a battlefield commander would, but understand that it is far more informed than the player is. A good player, however, understands this and LEARNS from the TacAI instead of fighting it. A good player needs no more feedback from the game beside what is already provided.

4. The TacAI's primary directive is at least initially overridable by the Human player. This means the Human can put a vehicle into a near suicidal position without the TacAI having a say about it. This is mostly becaue the TacAI lacks situational awareness and therefore is ignorant of potential threats the Human is exposing it to until they actually materialize. Even if we could program in some sort of situational awareness, we wouldn't because that would pretty much remove the player from the game. In short, the player is allowed to screw things up to a large degree. However, once the TacAI is presented with a direct "what do I do now?" situation, it will ignore the player's intentions (actually, it most often doesn't even know what they are to begin with) and follow its Prime DIrective. If the Prime Directive decides that a shoot out has a decent chance of a positive outcome, it stays and shoots. If the TacAI instead decides that the situation is unfavorable, then it scoots.

5. The chance of actually causing damage to another vehicle has a lot to do with RoF. If at X range it takes roughly Y shots to score a hit, and I shoot 3 times as fast as my opponant, who is more likely to score a hit first? Simple math shows that I am. The other tank is better off not engaging at all in that specific situation. Instead it should seek an alternative means of causing me harm. The TacAI gives the player that chance by retreating instead of being brewed up on the spot.

6. If there is criticism to be made about the TacAI's decisions, it isn't that they are wrong (or buggy as Redwolf would claim), but that they are too correct. It could be that the TacAI is too smart compared to a real life crew in the same situation. However, this is something that we can argue about forever. Perhaps more randomness needs to be injected, but I can promise you all that if we did this we would see far more threads complaining about "the stupid AI didn't back up" than we have seen of "the stupid AI backed up". But this is a whole 'nother discussion to have and I don't want to get it confused with this one.

Well... that is about all I can think of to say at this point. I guess I could comb through this thread and point out (for the 100th time) why Redwolf's example is functioning correctly, but since he is pretty much the only one that needs to be convinced of this... I'll pass. He hasn't listened so far.

Steve

[Tarquelne]

The ISU also had a tendency to fire it's rounds into the crest of the ridge, especially as it was backing off when firing, which is to be expected.

I think that highlights the variability of these "tests" - I've _never_ seen that, and the ISU tends to do pretty well in my tests. Doing tests like this is often the best way we can try to figure out what's going on, but we should remember that they're still very crude instruments.

The answers to all my questions have come out due to the tests, though - I think I've got a handle on why the ISU retreats, why it sometimes doesn't, and why the PzIV doesn't retreat.

Hmm... in the hopes of getting things back on track:

The ISU has a pretty decent chance of destroying the PzIV in one shot. However, the longer the ISU stays visible the more likely it is that the PzIV will destroy it. Finally, while the odds for both vehicle getting a kill rise over time, the odds for the PzIV are going up faster. Ideally, the ISU should pause just long enough in sight of the PzIV to fire one shot and then retreat. That'd give it that ~1/4 chance of destroying the PzIV while exposing it to less than ~1/4 odds of being destroyed. However, due to less-than-perfect communication (or calculation) among the crew a real-life ISU would sometimes retreat before taking it's shot. The ISU in the game sometimes retreats before taking it's shot. The PzIV, OTOH, isn't served well by moving. It can't get out of LOS before the ISU takes it's shot (if it's shooting), and moving would lower it's chances of getting several good hits in on the ISU. Therefore, the game is being realistic when the ISU sometimes retreats while the PzIV doesn't, and not demonstrating a bug.

Eh?

[rune]

Steve and those interested in the ISU-122.

According to the Russian Sources themselves, the ISU-122 was designed to be a heavy breahthrough assault gun, and NOT a tank destroyer. While it did function in that regard, it did so at LONG RANGE, and was not used short range where the rate of fire gave it a distinct disadvange.

For those interested in the Russian viewpoint, please read the web site:

http://www.battlefield.ru/isu122_152.html

Note that Valera points out that a westerner incorrectly called the isu-122 a tank destroyer. It is incorrect and it was used in the same role as the ISU-152 which did NOT even have AP ammo.

Rune

[Holien]

Steve,

I have found this thread very useful and while I can understand your frustration I am glad that it has been talked through in depth.

I think some of the flak Redwolf has got has caused him to dig in and this has become something bigger than it should be.

As with the other thread it has been proven (in my mind if not others) that there is no problem and that even if there is it is totally acceptable and can be explained away with AI trying to simulate various Human re-actions.

The issue of AI behaviour was raised by others and all Redwolf was doing is trying to explore that. He has and it has been answered.

I can understand why he continues to ask why did the MKIV not move back. To me this is not an issue and I am happy with the AI's assessment of the situation. Redwolf will have to accept that as I am sure he will.

As to the personal comments from both sides well I hope we can all stand back from that and accept it as a bit of rough and tumble in a vigourous debate. Life is too short to take it personal as I am sure all agree.

Cheers

H

P.s. I was wondering how Harv had tested things so quickly and I thank Harv for explaining. In a hot debate it did seem a bit quick and I do not think Redwolf was un-justified in questioning it. Just my opinion and I mean no dis-respect to Harv in saying this, all I offer is some balance.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Andreas:

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

do the posts in this thread really need to get so personal?

Actually, no. It's a frustration response mostly

[Soddball]

Well, I have nothing particular to add to this thread, except to post my own observations about a single QB that I played against a friend over the weekend.

We had 800 points apiece in late 1944 and he bought a veteran JS-2 to accompany his infantry. I bought a platoon of regular StuGs to accompany mine.

Early on in the game, I managed to get LOS to his JS-2 with two of my three StuGs at 500m, which opened fire.

His JS-2 retreated by reversing down a slope when the first two 75mm shells went past the turret. The turn after, he ordered it to hunt back up the slope and recieved three hits for his trouble, two of which penetrated the front turret. He fired one shot which missed a StuG by a foot or so.

The JS-2 then reversed back down the slope, only to reappear two turns later. By this point, I had moved my StuGs and only had LOS with one of them to his JS-2, this time at 400m. In the exchange between the JS-2 and the StuG, the JS-2 fired three shots and the StuG five (MUCH faster reload time). The final JS-2 shot killed the Stug, which hit the JS-2 with four of its five shots. One penetrated the turret front (again) and the other three ricocheted off the upper hull.

In the end, I brought the overwatch StuG forward and put two more shells through the turret front at 600m. This killed it - and five rounds through the front turret should kill anything.

This is anecdotal, and isn't meant to be proof of anything except that JS-2s are NOT ubertanks. They remind me of the early Pershings in CMBO, where the armour was sucky enough and the rate of fire on the tank was slow enough that you really were pushing your luck if you went against more than one opponent.

Incidentally, my opponent was most peeved. He did take the lesson the way it was meant, though.

[rune]

For those who say it cannot be done, may I suggest playing von Launchert as the Russians. The correct Russian tactic to use would be to rush the tanks forward and use the terrain to get to the dry creek bed. Hmm...I have played this against the AI and against other players, as well as everyone who tested the scenario. Not once did the AI cause all the tanks to withdraw...that is a very incorrect statement. Instead of saying it can not be done, it HAS been done, successfully, and to those interested, try it yourself!

Rune

Rune

[Battlefront.com]

Cpt.Kloss,

First off, a formal warning. You have contributed nothing to any thread I have seen you in except for personal attacks and questionable (at best) observations. I am telling you, not asking you, to either clean up your act or refrain from posting when you have nothing positive or relevant to say.

To point out that your latest post contains nothing of value, I will illustrate your lack of knowledge. Your lack of respect for others speaks for itself...

Armoured warfare beta-ork expert, tell me please why Russsian tanks left their starting positions during battle of Kursk, why their desparately closed distance and even rammed german tanks?

General, sweeping statement. I think there were one or two tank rammings during the battle of Kursk. Hardly a standard tactic. And why did they leave their starting positions? Well, kinda hard to get to Berlin if you just stay dug in, now isn't it?

I really wish people would not confuse operational aspects with tactical combat. Sadly, the illinformed always do.

Using CMBB logic it would be impossible.

True, the TacAI is not programmed to ram tanks. Tank ramming was such a rare event that it doesn't warrent simulating any more than Bovine MG42 Sponges do. Since you are a newbie, I will explain that Bovine MG42 Sponges reffers to a battle on the Western Front where some US troops used cows as cover from a well dug in MG42. It happened, but not something that the AI should be programed to do.

Tank crews in CMBB facing even sligtly stronger enemy know only one emotion: fear - therefore they are cowards. Where is even a f...slight bit of courage?

Splattered on the insides of all the ISU-122s that died in the test cases. What you fail to see is that many of them were VERY brave, and they paid the ultimate sacrifice without doing anything to further their cause. The ones that were "cowards" were left to reposition themselves in a way to actually hurt the enemy.

Self-preservation? What kind of self preservation gives you russian rulette? - none, but people did play this.

Sure, which is why all tanks just don't drive off the map as soon as Turn 1 starts. They risk themselves to a point. And that point is when they feel their actions will almost certainly result in death without hope of doing damage to the enemy. If the ISU-122 could not be killed by the PzIV, yet it still retreated, then there would be a problem to look into.

You mistake your own orkish - CMBB ways with real world's history...

I can safely bet that Andreas reads, and understands, more "real" history in a month than you have in your entire life.

People like you do not want this great game to become even better. They are more interested in defending earlier stated opinnions.

This is the first nearly accurate thing you have said so far. The problem is that you have confused Andreas with Redwolf and yourself. You continually demonstrate that you are not even remotely interested in determining what is going on or how realistic it is. In fact, I am not sure you are capable of that judging from how poorly you understand history.

And of course, your attitude sucks. I can't force you to become understand history better, but I can do something about your chosen posting style.

Sodball,

Well, I have nothing particular to add to this thread, except to post my own observations about a single QB that I played against a friend over the weekend.

Interesting tidbit. Looks like that was a nailbiting experience

This is anecdotal, and isn't meant to be proof of anything except that JS-2s are NOT ubertanks.

Correct. The IS-2 was not meant to get into tank deuls either. To quote Zaloga again:

"The primary role of the new IS heavy tank was not tank fighting. The IS tanks were to be issued to special Guards heavy tank regiments. The role of these regiments was to assist in breaking through German defenses during offensive operations. It is worth noting that this was the primary tactical role of the German Tiger I. However, the Wehrmacht went onto the strategic defensive by the time that the Tiger I was available in significant numbers, so as often as not it was use in its secondary defensive role of combating Soviet tanks."

Now, note that the IS-2 and ISU-122 have the same gun. Is it a cooincidence? No, not at all. Zaloga again...

"The Stalin tank's tactical role had significant repercussions oin the selection of a main gun. THe best tank gun for the IS series from a tank-fighting standpoint would have been the new D-10 100m gun being developed for a new tank destroyer. Although the IS was experimentally fitted with 100mm guns, this option was rejected. Production of 100mm ammunition was inadequate. The other option was a 122mm gun derived from the common A-19 field gun. This was attractive for two reasons. It offered good, though not greeat, anti-tank performance due to the sheer size of its projectile rather than the projectile speed. But more importantly, it was a fearsome direct fire weapon, firing a massive 25KG high explosive projectile. This was six times heavier than the Panther's puny 4kg round and three times heavier than the Tiger's 9kg round. This was an important feature sincthe primary role of the IS tank was not to fight German tanks but to smash through German infantry defenses were good high explosive firepower was essential."

Incidentally, my opponent was most peeved. He did take the lesson the way it was meant, though.

Perhaps you should cut and paste the above and send it to him. He wouldn't be the first, nor the last, to misunderstand what the IS and ISU vehicles were designed for. And this is understandable because on paper these things look like they were supposed to plink tanks. Of course, they can do this... but only if used very carefully. Driving them around like a Tiger on the Western Front will produce even worse results than the Tiger would see.

Steve

[walpurgis nacht]

I just ran a series of tests with the sIGIB. I chose 1943 as the date to give this little guy a wide array of superior armored opponents, and I have to say I found the sIGs behavior very consistant with that of the IS-2 in all of the cases (Where, when, and how fast it reverses).

I think the problem here is that someone playing with the IS-2 sees a big, bulky-bully and expects it to behave like one. It is not, and I stand corrected (previous post).

Too bad this has all become so personal. We are all detail-nazis, that is why we play a game like CMBB, and that is why this game is so vastly superior to all other games, that it feels assinine to even state it.

Could you imagine having such discussions over _Panzer General_, or Sid Meier's _Gettysburg_?

Tame the egos and keep it real.

[Nolloff]

A question:

IS2 = heavy breakthrough tank. Understood, as well as the role of the ISUs. But what would a Soviet commander then send into tank combat, assuming that he knows what he´s up to and had the choice. I know this is womewhat theorectical and unrealistic.

Would he rather have T34/85 and TDs lead the charge and leave the IS2 and heavy assault guns behind? I know this choice might hardly have ever existed but the portrayal of the non-uber IS2 sounds a bit as if the poor bugger would not have been the better choice vs. German medium and heavy tanks than all the tracked rest in the Russian forcepool.

Cheers!

Nolloff

[Denizen]

The IS-2 has had perhaps the largest amount of conflicting information written about it than any other vehicle of its day. I find it interesting that Steve uses Zaloga's views of IS-2 use but the game does not use Zaloga's data on the IS-2. I don't think that BFC will ultimately be able to resolve this issue by argument or action, more likley it will take some more scholarly study of the history of the vehicle before the situation is resolved. After all, there is still disagreement over the number of machine guns carried on the IS-2!

[ December 02, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]