a good point from CCS

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

a good point from CCS

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> a good point from CCS

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

a good point from CCS - 10/7/2010 10:36:39 PM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

this was posted over at CCS by a LSA player......

"Also the 107th Pnz is the most capable group as far as Units/Force Pool of posing a threat in the south, however the map that the 107th Pnz Brigade appears on should be a German Supply Point, as is currently If Im playing Allies in H2H, im am going to send an US AB group down to take their supply point at the first Map to the north so when the 107th appears on the map they will automatically be out of supply. It doesnt make sense how its currently set up. Also, it seems like the 107th Pnz brigade should maybe be split into two BGs so that they have a BG to protect their supply point. As is currently if they try to cut the corridor with only one group from that side they are going to get cut out of supply."

"also, I think Disbanded German BGS should be able to return"

i think this guy makes a very good point on the 107 PZ....im un decided on the disbanded BG's should be able to return...ill let u know. BUT i think that the germans should NOT be penelized for retreating after they blow a bridge. that was in another post here.
as it is the german losses squads from his active roster for retreating after he blows the bridge. i dont think this is right. ther germans arn't strong enough in the game as it is.

Post #: 1

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/9/2010 11:50:15 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for relaying the input Steiner.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 2

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/29/2010 8:08:06 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

oddball....heres some more from CCS.......i dont know why these guys arent postin here but im not the only one that has issues with the armour and mortor data'......... QUOTE >

new patch has helped pathing SO much, bouquett boys well done.

i have played the grand campaign now both sides, a total of 6 times, on recruite to now on veteran, and wow german armour is ****. morters always take out main guns LOL(any tank, any side)

but the armour and guns needs a major look at.

german 88 flax taken out with first round with 60 or 80/3"morter, im so friggin over this! OMG first round at about 200 meters from tube, unsighted, kills all crew and gun 1 hit, this is so common, make the guns a little hartier, or tune down morters, there to powerfull....same with any gun, there pinned down in seconds by riflemen, flax guns i find killed by rifle section, thats silly...

german half trucks will not fire if 'supressed'symbol is showing, i have worked around it by moving truck about, wait 30 seconds and try again, what BS fix it please.

my panther brigade was decimated by 2 bazookas, one side on at 60 meters(my bad not clearing it out first) but 100 meters front on, both 1 round, 1 smoked panther, WTF? its to consistant! and piats still take out king tigers front on, WTF?

UNQUOTE>

its not just me..........

< Message edited by STIENER -- 10/29/2010 8:17:09 AM >

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 3

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/29/2010 12:48:10 PM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

get rid of medium mortars and have more mortar support... thats all.
A few months ago i TRIED to pick up a medium mortar. No way, it wights so much that you cannot certainly move with this. Not even mentioning running.
And medium mortar alone is useless - you need ammo also.
So at a tactical level (in which a map of CC game is) medium mortars should be removed. Only light mortars.
Also medium mortars in CC engine are far better then modern mortars integrated with GPS and radar - I mean instant targeting:)

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 4

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/29/2010 2:07:39 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

oddball....heres some more from CCS.......i dont know why these guys arent postin here but im not the only one that has issues with the armour and mortor data'......... QUOTE >

new patch has helped pathing SO much, bouquett boys well done.

i have played the grand campaign now both sides, a total of 6 times, on recruite to now on veteran, and wow german armour is ****. morters always take out main guns LOL(any tank, any side)

but the armour and guns needs a major look at.

german 88 flax taken out with first round with 60 or 80/3"morter, im so friggin over this! OMG first round at about 200 meters from tube, unsighted, kills all crew and gun 1 hit, this is so common, make the guns a little hartier, or tune down morters, there to powerfull....same with any gun, there pinned down in seconds by riflemen, flax guns i find killed by rifle section, thats silly...

german half trucks will not fire if 'supressed'symbol is showing, i have worked around it by moving truck about, wait 30 seconds and try again, what BS fix it please.

my panther brigade was decimated by 2 bazookas, one side on at 60 meters(my bad not clearing it out first) but 100 meters front on, both 1 round, 1 smoked panther, WTF? its to consistant! and piats still take out king tigers front on, WTF?

UNQUOTE>

its not just me..........

Thanks for the extra opinions from CCS Steiner. We'll throw it into the mix. And I don't think anybody doubted that there might be others who held the same opinions as you about how the data should be set-up.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 5

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/29/2010 2:08:10 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

get rid of medium mortars and have more mortar support... thats all.
A few months ago i TRIED to pick up a medium mortar. No way, it wights so much that you cannot certainly move with this. Not even mentioning running.
And medium mortar alone is useless - you need ammo also.
So at a tactical level (in which a map of CC game is) medium mortars should be removed. Only light mortars.
Also medium mortars in CC engine are far better then modern mortars integrated with GPS and radar - I mean instant targeting:)

Thanks for the feedback Kojusoki1.

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 6

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/29/2010 11:58:24 PM

davidss

Posts: 343
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

get rid of medium mortars and have more mortar support... thats all.
A few months ago i TRIED to pick up a medium mortar. No way, it wights so much that you cannot certainly move with this. Not even mentioning running.
And medium mortar alone is useless - you need ammo also.
So at a tactical level (in which a map of CC game is) medium mortars should be removed. Only light mortars.
Also medium mortars in CC engine are far better then modern mortars integrated with GPS and radar - I mean instant targeting:)

Dima's Medium mortar data in the TLD Ground Tactics ver1.71 mod is near perfect in my opinion. After trying the mod(first)without med mortars ... I am now convinced there is a place in the active roster for med mortars, although with the proper data.

The only further improvement would be to have a built in delay from when you click to fire the mortar, to when the first round hits the ground at target site (maybe 10-30 seconds). This would simulate the time a forward observer would require to relay target info, and for mortar teams to range their mortars and fire.
It would also allow more time for enemy targets to further their advance (after being detected), before suppression fire lands.

The delay would require internal game developers expertise

< Message edited by davidss -- 10/29/2010 11:59:33 PM >

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 7

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 3:34:15 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

i dont agree kojusoki1.......i also like the 80 mm mortors they just need tweaking.....like David says the GJS data / Dima data works real good.
and as far as moving a med mortor thats why they have a crew and break the mortor down. this close combat not drag a mortor 10 miles........in CC the mortor crew get fatiqued quite fast, so you cant move it very far anyways.
its the fact that the crew keeps moving 2 feet and re setting up the mortor and its accuracie that needs to be tweaked.

(in reply to davidss)

Post #: 8

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 4:09:08 AM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

It's a good idea Davidss. Early in the process we'd discussed delayed mortars but opted not to do it. The main reason being it'd drastically reduce their effectiveness beyond what they are realistically and would also put them out of step with game balance. Mainly due to the fact rounds would be falling far behind their targets or in locations where no target exists due to attempting to anticipate where a target is going to be. Without effective mortars AT guns and other battlefield assets gain a huge increase in importance that is out of balance with the rest the data set. Currently we feel mortars provide a necessary checks and balance against other assets.

We might, possibly revisit the idea of delayed mortars in the future.

(in reply to davidss)

Post #: 9

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 4:20:35 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

A delay would be the ideal...

As to the counter argument I thought it meant a total rewrite of the mortar control data... as it is they will target and hit a spot at point of firing... so if your HT moves 50m it still gets hit (if that's what the calculation was).... you will see this if you test.

If the vehicles could scurry out of the way that would be ideal.. as anticipating the position of a moving target is extremely difficult. (but not in CC)

AT guns can't run away like a motorised vehicle.

< Message edited by Andrew Williams -- 10/30/2010 4:21:55 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 10

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 4:47:37 AM

e_barkmann

Posts: 1307
Joined: 4/18/2000
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

I feel sure the original Atomic games had a delay between targeting and actual mortar fire.

cheers

_____________________________

Scourge of War multiplayer group

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/sowwaterloo

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 11

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 5:35:23 AM

davidss

Posts: 343
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

It's a good idea Davidss. Early in the process we'd discussed delayed mortars but opted not to do it. The main reason being it'd drastically reduce their effectiveness beyond what they are realistically and would also put them out of step with game balance. Mainly due to the fact rounds would be falling far behind their targets or in locations where no target exists due to attempting to anticipate where a target is going to be. Without effective mortars AT guns and other battlefield assets gain a huge increase in importance that is out of balance with the rest the data set. Currently we feel mortars provide a necessary checks and balance against other assets.

We might, possibly revisit the idea of delayed mortars in the future.

Thanks for the reply
I understand the reasoning you've mentioned ... but would like to present "in game" examples of why a delay might better simulate mortars in CC. Like you say, a delay may make mortars virtually useless ... but maybe not with a short delay.

Let's look at the characteristics of Medium mortars used in TLD Ground Tactics 1.71.
Medium mortar:
1. Accuracy to hit targeted area is random enough to simulate mortar fire misses, while still capable of scoring a direct hit (although rarely). The 200m minimum range (to fire) helps keep them from being extremely accurate, and forces players to keep them back further from expected front line action ... as was the case in real life.
2. Data can be tweaked to realistic penetration values that best simulate the effect mortars have on vehicles. GT 1.71 seems to demonstrate this. Mortars shouldn't damage vehicles (mostly), but should be able to somewhat suppress the crew inside while under mortar fire.
3. ATG vs. Med Mortar ... An enemy ATG is spotted, and then targeted by a mortar. In most cases the ATG crew will be suppressed and possibly unable to fire. Sometimes one or more crew will get wounded or die. Very rarely will the ATG be destroyed.
This seems to be the norm in GT ... and in my opinion works well. Mortar fire suppresses the ATG, so other units can pass by or attack the ATG. Once the mortar uses its ammo ... the remaining ATG crew regains its health.
And rarely the ATG is destroyed by mortar fire ... which should be a possibility.
4. Infantry vs. mortars - When firing on moving infantry ... mortars will wound/kill. Prone infantry, for the most part, just get suppressed. Randomness of fire still plays a considerable roll though ... and results aren't really predictable.
5. Med mortar setup time is comparatively larger than other units which stops them from being moved around many times ... but they can still retreat when necessary. Crew movement is also slow to simulate carried weight of equipment.

So, under these conditions with this data, mortars seem to work OK.

The problem I see, is ... mortars suppress moving infantry too quickly (instantly) with relatively little effort by the mortar firing player. A short delay (perhaps just 5-10 seconds) would make targeting mortar fire more challenging, due to a player having to lead the target. This would further randomize the results of mortar fire hits, while at the same time reward the more skillful player.

< Message edited by davidss -- 10/30/2010 11:37:43 PM >

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 12

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 5:48:47 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

Oddball...tell me your not saying what i think your saying???? your saying matrix isnt going to deal with the mortor accuracie issue?

let me paraphrase, in case thats what your saying..........
the play testers..the guys that bought the game.....have found that the mortors are too accurate......that mortors take out a/t guns [ one of the assets that we need to counter tanks ] with ease at any range, with just a few rds. mortors imobilize tanks very frequently [ totally unrealistic ], mortors take out guns on tanks [ totally unrealistic ]

or are you saying YES we are going to look at all of the above listed issues BUT we are not going to put a mortor DELAY in???

what i find with most replys from the matrix lads here [ yes you might be a matrix lad too ] is that we dont get a YES or NO answer on the issues we bring to your guy's attention. mostly were just left hanging.

so heres another question that it would be nice to have an answer too [ as well as the mortor issue ] is matrix going to look at the out of wak data with the tank vs tank issues?? [ as is posted in other threads ]

(in reply to e_barkmann)

Post #: 13

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 11:30:29 AM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

The delay in the FIRST shot (time like 1 minto calculate things) is what we need. Now, we have a laser guided GPS integrated XXI centrury mortars they fire in 2 secs and hit the area. The penetration is realistic and should stay as it is - belive me guys you woudnt like to be close the mortar shell explosion... And you would be even more upsaet due to mortar barrage when explosives are close to you (like at the ATG)

So I agree med mortars can be carried but not during the fight. They are simply way too heavy. But what is most annoying and what is the reason I get rid of them, is the ability to fire at the given location with no time for calculation. So if you can fix it (but i mean ONLY the first shot - other can be one by one) it would be great

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 14

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/30/2010 4:00:34 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

I was giving the back story on delayed mortars. We've already looked at the mortar accuracy issue and tweaked it for every update that has been done so far. Also the armor data has been reviewed and replied to several times. If we missed on PM me the link and we'll answer it. Any time the necessary information and a specific set of circumstances required to replicate a given reported issue is provided we'll reproduce it on our end and fix anything that is actually broken. This has always been the case and will continue to be so.

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 15

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/31/2010 2:21:00 AM

davidss

Posts: 343
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

Hi RD_Oddball,
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions, and help us better understand what's going on :)

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 16

RE: a good point from CCS - 10/31/2010 4:04:02 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

Thanks oddball for taking the time to answer our questions, and help us better understand what's going on. altho you did it again and didnt answer the 2 questions about mortor vs tanks, so ill PM you with my un answered questions

(in reply to davidss)

Post #: 17

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/1/2010 10:26:50 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

It's a good idea Davidss. Early in the process we'd discussed delayed mortars but opted not to do it. The main reason being it'd drastically reduce their effectiveness beyond what they are realistically and would also put them out of step with game balance. Mainly due to the fact rounds would be falling far behind their targets or in locations where no target exists due to attempting to anticipate where a target is going to be. Without effective mortars AT guns and other battlefield assets gain a huge increase in importance that is out of balance with the rest the data set. Currently we feel mortars provide a necessary checks and balance against other assets.

We might, possibly revisit the idea of delayed mortars in the future.

Please do revisit the mortar delay issue. I honestly think that not having a mortar delay is what is out of whack with the game. Many others think the same. Even if it's just a slight delay that simulates the flight of the round, say 5 seconds or so. It would be a nice compromise.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 18

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/2/2010 1:49:00 AM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for the input Pak40.

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER
... so ill PM you with my un answered questions

Stiener I responded to your PM so please let me know if you didn't receive it. I copied myself so I'd retain a copy in case you didn't get it and so I would know it worked it's way through the PM system. It came went through so you should have it in your inbox.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 19

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/5/2010 5:29:57 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

got your reply RD Oddball...thanks and one from steve too

it would be way cool if steve made some changes to the armour, Tank vs Tank data etc.......

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 20

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/5/2010 5:44:07 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

and what did he say... or is it a big secret?

_____________________________

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 21

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/7/2010 3:37:00 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

well i always figured most of the stuff here was a big secret most of the time.......just kidding

..........im sure Oddball and steve wont mind if i put down our PTIVATE convesation

.......

i said.........
ORIGINAL: STIENER

hi oddball........
about the only question i finally got an answer to was about the king tiger data vs Fireflys.the rest of theses posts have either been ignored or not answered.all of these issued effect game play drastically. CCS, matrix froms and MSN are places where i have talked to or had these following issues discussed.

1]that mortors take out a/t guns [ one of the assets that we need to counter tanks ] with ease at any range, with just a few rds. mortors imobilize tanks very frequently [ totally unrealistic ], mortors take out guns on tanks [ totally unrealistic ] .......
are you going to look into this stuff?

2]panther tanks and jag4's that cant hit the side of 2 or 3 story buildings from 200m.....its amazing how many times they miss the damn buildings..short rounds..wide rounds...its amazing...... it appears to be all tanks from my experiences, and at any ranges. are you guys going to look into this?

3] i had a wolverine take out 2 panthers at 1000m [ he was at one end of the map the cats at the other ] with 1 shot 1 kill....one after the other......theres something seriously wrong with the data or accuracy or some damn thing. the more players i talk to the more that players are saying the vehicle data is messed up...there just not bothering to post.....too much 1 shot 1 kill at long ranges.......shermans etc winning tank duels hands down against panthers and MK 4's.
are we going to look at this kind of stuff?

4] the inf still gets a shot taken at them and they turn around and run back across open ground.

5] mortors when in intial deploy ALWAYS move and reposition themselves and thus wont fire.
Oddball said

Hey Steiner,

As always thanks for the insightful feedback. Sorry we may have missed some of your posts. Wasn't our intent to ignore them.

I'll reply to your feedback inline:

RE: #1] We've actually already made changes to this several times over the course of the various updates. We'd certainly be glad to look at it again. Steve any additional input on this topic? See Steiners PM quoted at the bottom of this message.

RE: #2] The data design is Steve's and he's intimately knowledgeable about it whereas my knowledge of it as purely anecdotal from doing 50-100 hours of testing on this build. The last time you brought this up we discussed it, he checked the values and didn't find anything out of line with his research. That doesn't mean there still couldn't be an aspect of it that needs tweaking. I'll have to let him respond to the reasoning behind the data for this topic.

RE: #3] Same response as #2 although I don't recall seeing a post about it. It must've gotten buried in the "new posts" filtering for both me and Steve.

RE: #4] Girlie soldiers - We've addressed this several times and feel we have a good balance. However we'd be glad to have another look at it for you.

RE: #5] Recently Steve made some adjustments to crewed weapons and set-up and I believe it hasn't been in an update until v.21b. So you might get that update and check it to be sure it's still an issue. The reason Steve had made the tweaks was based on a report that myself and Gen_Jack had made during testing of v.21b about MG's repositioning. Especially MG42's. Particularly noticeable there since the long set-up time renders them useless. This was the first time we were seeing this issue or have any reports of it. So the idea that the mortar teams are also repositioning is not outside the realm of possibility but is in fact the first time we're hearing about it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks for taking the time to bring ALL of these issues to our attention. Again sorry you didn't get the response you were looking for in a more timely manner. I hope between my response and any Steve has to offer we'll address all your concerns.

Steve said
Stiener,

Thanks for your feedback. Jim has passed the whole list along to me and I will take a look at each point.

then steve said again

Right now I have asked our internal testing to team to run some tests along the lines you mentioned and they'll report the results of the trials. So we'll have some numbers to look at as we decide what changes are needed, if any.

Some things, like mortar effectiveness, are subjective enough that it is impossible to please everyone. I have almost decided that it will be 'right' when everyone hates it. :)

Other things, like the Wolverine vs. Panther at 1000m, are much more cut and dry.

so here we are Steve is going to look at and make some changes to the tank VS tank.....i dont see how he cant find that data ascue..........

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 22

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/22/2010 1:36:04 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

More Info from Steve on issues.......i dont agree on some of his findings......your thoughts Men?
see below....

Stiener,

As we discussed, here's a summary of the test results we did with the latest version of the game:

In testing with 3 x medium mortars firing at an AT gun, on average it takes a total of about 15 mortar rounds to destroy a medium sized gun (6pdr/57mm/5cm) and about 25 rounds to destroy a larger (17pdr / Pak40) gun. There are cases of 1-3 round kills with a mortar, but there are also cases of 70+ total rounds without a kill. Perhaps the outlier cases are happening too often, but this is pretty subjective.

HE accuracy is somewhat lower for higher velocity guns. In reality, the round to round dispersion and flat trajectory actually makes it harder to put an HE shell on the ground exactly where you want it. I believe the CC 'miss' scattering is not generating the proper amount of dispersion (it should be a lot of range error with the 75/L70 and not much deflection) and it also doesn't take into account the size of an obstacle like a building. One problem with allowing the shell to hit the target building on a 'miss' is that CC's buildings only really have one story -- the top story -- and where in reality a miss could hit the 1st floor and not affect the men on the 3rd floor, this can't happen in the CC engine due to the design. Something to look at for future versions though.

In general, the Wolverine vs. Panther match up doesn't seem to be far off from expected results. The 3 inch gun cannot penetrate the Panther hull front, but it can penetrate the turret front at CC ranges. Accuracy of the 3 inch gun is basically the same as most other weapons, so the data seems fine as far as I can tell. I have not had a chance to do testing to see if the number first round hits is unexpectedly high.

Testing the Sherman vs. Panther match-up shows that the Sherman won't even fire at the Panther from the front without a fire order, and when it does fire the Sherman can empty it's entire ammo load without knocking out the Panther. Sherman vs. Pz IV is a pretty even engagement. The Sherman may have a modest advantage in terms of a faster turret and crew quality (the Pz IVs in LSA are from a training unit) though.

Mortars gunners do reposition sometimes when you give a fire order. This doesn't happen all the time, but it has to do with how the individual soldier evaluates their current cover when their facing changes. It is annoying when it happens, though, and definitely something I want to look for a future update.

end Quote

i replyed to steve with this.......
quote
thanks for the reply and info steve. can i post your reply?

interesting your test on the mortors......perhaps we will leave this for now. i guess im seeing the outlier cases as u suggest.

the HE accuracie is an issue......so u cant fix it easily? the HE accuracie wssnt an issue in WAR and TLD...so what changed is my question. its pretty bad in LSA....to the point of being funny unless its your squad being gunned down by the mg 42 and the tank suppoert u have cant do dick because he cant hit the "barn "

the wolverine vs panther issue is the one shot one kill at extreme ranges.........we see this with all the allied tanks...1 shot 1 kill ALL the time...at any ranges really. if anything the germans should have the edge on accuracy becuase of the optics and generally better crews.ecept for maybe your training unit as u say.
in any tank duel ive been in so far the allied tank gets the 1st shot in 9 out 10 cases.....which just seems wierd..the german tank always seems to hesitate......mince around and take too long to aim and the allied tank gets 1 shot 1 kill.
my last go around with this was a FF vs a tiger 1......the tiger had the drop on the FF and lost the duel. 1 shot 1 kill.

to go along with the above perhaps theres something wrong with what the PC percives as FRONT and SIDE hits??? there is something out of wack here believe us.

i dont no what you guys did with the tank data but its nothing like GJS tank data. i cant for the life of me figure why you would not have simulated that data.......it had good ballance and was play tested till the cows came home.

the mortor crew repositioning happens 8 out 10 times and often more than once in a battle.....it would be great to get it fixed in the future.
end quote

so men what are everyone elses thoughts????

< Message edited by STIENER -- 11/22/2010 1:38:35 AM >

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 23

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/22/2010 7:45:48 AM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

my 2 cents regarding mortars - what was the range, I guess its the most important thing.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 24

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/22/2010 7:53:42 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

my experiences with mortors taking out guns is at ranges of 200 to 500 m with no LOS

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 25

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/22/2010 8:30:01 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

the newest problem i see is that an MG squad from 2 to 300 m [ and i dont think range is the issue ] can kill an A/T gun or howitzer ! cut down the crew in short order. not real realistic per say.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 26

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/22/2010 9:08:21 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

A 43 second echo

_____________________________

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 27

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/22/2010 9:23:04 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

huh????

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 28

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/26/2010 1:50:06 PM

7A_karlmortar

Posts: 16
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

I think you guys once said here that the values of armor are based on historical facts. That might be true, but have you taken into account that the armor is sloped and theoraticly speaking in CC engine-way "makes it thicker"?
Just wondering.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 29

RE: a good point from CCS - 11/26/2010 4:31:50 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

An MS Access tool for calculating armor slope/effective thickness, and exporting that data to the Vehicles file, has been available since late '98.