Hey Badger - long time no talk how are things in the Great White North? Those TK and TR screenshots are looking really sharp as of late.
Smut - sorry to hear about your team at EA. I just found out about it I've been out of the loop as of late when it comes to that industry. Are you working with/near Vila now? If so say hello for me. I think what Sachs was referring to was people applying historical/'accurate simulation' relevance and effectiveness to a vehicle based on a few numbers read from a book on AFVs. A good example applied to you would be some guy posting to one of your F-15 or F/A-18 simulation forums and saying something like 'The F-14 would beat them everytime, it can carry a bunch of AIM-54s and can engage from longer ranges.' Kind of true on paper maybe, but in the real world or any simulation that tries to mirror the real world it's never going to be that simple.
With regards to what someone posted about the CC3 armor values and such - I worked a little with the 'Real Red' guys, the group of guys that put out a really good patch for CC3 that 'fixed' some key issues. While corresponding with the actual 'code modifiers' of the 'Real Red' group I found out that one of the big problems with CC3 initially was that they tried to pull off a little too much 'abstraction'. On the Eastern front, the average engagement range for AFVs, AT weapons, etc. was much greater than in any other theater during WW2. But the maps of the CC3 battles and operations rarely allowed for the above mentioned longer range engagements. So apparently the initial armor and penetration values were 'fudged' to give the 'feel' of longer range engagements even if the ranges on the tactical maps read different - this explains the Su 122s taking multiple 88L56 AP hits at 150 meters in the release version of CC3 and living to tell about it.
Later on this was 'fixed'/adjusted in a number of very well done mods put out by the player community. For anyone who really liked CC3 - try 'Real Red' or one of the other mods - I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Funkedup - the 300 meter engagement ranges of CM are largely due to theater and era. With CM being largely NW Europe, mid-1944 or later, the terrain you are going to be fighting in is going to give you lower average ranges of engagement every time.
On the Eastern front it was not uncommon to have AFV/AT engagements at 2000 meters range once weapons with that range were available. The Germans had far superior optics when compared to the Russians. An experienced German gunner could actually hit moving targets at 2000 meters on the steppes of Russia. The same was almost never true for the Russians.
I've looked at actual working gunsights for all the major combatants when it comes to WW2 AFVs. Not only is the quality of optics better with the Germans, but the sight design itself is far easier to use when it comes to long range gunnery. At the very end of the war the U.S. and the U.K. finally deployed some sights that were on par with the Germans - Badger actually used these sights. But these sights were almost never used during WW2 itself.
There are a couple of things to remember - the numbers on paper never tell the whole story. I've talked with Russian AFV crewmen while working on a WW2 AFV simulation. The AFV they favored the most - once it was available - was the T-34/85. According to these crewmen, they would rather have a T-34/85 against the Germans than even an IS-2 or IS-2M. Some of the reasons:
1. Turret traverse was so poor on the IS series that "we had to use them almost like an assault gun".
2. Low ROF combined with less than ideal gunner experience meant that a miss was much more dangerous in combat.
3. This one was stressed heavily by the guys I talked to - the T-34/85 was one of the only Russian MBTs to have a functioning smoke discharger. Very important when the enemy can hit you 1200 meters or so before you can hit the enemy.
4. Off road mobility of the T-34 series in general was very good.
The T-34/85s 85mm MA had good AP penetration (pure penetration values roughly equal to the 75L48 used by the Germans), better HE performance than the 76mm of the earlier T-34s (good vs. AT gun crews and enemy infantry), and the heavier shell fired by the 85mm means it kept its penetration capability a little longer than the German 75L48. A decent ROF made a big difference unless you had a really crack gunner - easier to adjust aim vs. a moving target with a better ROF. And to quote another one of these crewmen "the Germans never stayed put once they knew you were ranging them".
Another thing to consider is this - from 1944 onward, you have alot of engagements where 1 hit = 1 kill. In these cases, tactical skill and experience are a huge factor. 'SA' is greatly influenced by combat experience when it comes to AFV combat. This is why you get PzKpfw VIEs killing 5 times their number in IS-2s in a single engagement. Tactical surprise because of better German AFV crew experience. Maybe 1 of every 7 or 8 of those IS-2s had a really 'battle hardened' crew. So when they get surprised most of those IS-2s take too long to react in a way which gives them a chance of surviving. It's also how Pattons 3d Armored crews hammered the German 2d Pz in a 1 on 1 engagement even when the Germans had better optics and at the ranges the fight was taking place better AFVs. But the 3d Armored had more experienced AFV crews. They basically out positioned, out maneuvered, and out shot the 2d Pz units they were up against.
So if crew experience mattered so much in real life...you are going to get skewed results in AH. Be prepared and don't scream 'the modeling is porked' the first time a Sherman gunner with a 76L51 immobilizes your Tiger at 1200 meters in the MA. Your average AH gunner has 200 times the practice time against 'live' targets that any WW2 AFV gunner had.
My votes...
For the best 'classic and balanced' MBT set...
PzKpfw IVH (already have it)
T-34/76C - mainstay for the Russians from '42 until the T-34/85 showed up. Slightly inferior gun to PzKpfw IVH, but the PzKpfw IVH has inferior armor protection and if the gunsights are done right you are only going to want to start shooting at closer ranges anyways.
Any M4 with the 75L38 MA.
Then add the T-34/85, PzKpfw VIE, and either a Sherman with a 76L51 MA or the M10 GMC or the (my favorite) M18 GMC.
There are always going to be 'balance discrepancies' when it comes to the 'gun vs. armor' race. That's how it happened in real life. The PzKpfw VIE is going to be at a huge advantage at 1000 meters range or greater (terrain permitting that engagement range of course). That's when a Sherman crewman does what was done in real life - get a few more Shermans to rush and flank the PzKpfw VIE, or have some Typhoon or P-47 blow his tracks off so the crew has to leave the PzKpfw VIE.
The best thing overall is that the development team actually cares about getting the modeling right (this is never a given). Pyro has picked up the best references you can get as far as books go. The newer trees in the MA are maybe a step towards better/more realistic terrain in terms of cover vs. concealment, etc.
I think the M18 would be fun as hell in the MA. Same with the M24. I think both of these will be superior 'MA AFVs' if we ever see them modeled. Same goes for the PSW 234/2, etc. A PzKpfw VIB is going to attract so many 1000 lb. bombs in the MA it won't last long. Better to be fast with a good gun and not too flashy in my opinion. Tempest Vs can always dive for safety. An IS-3 can't. 8)
Mike/wulfie from WB
p.s. Badger you should repost all your M4A3E8, 'HVSS', etc. type stories here I'm sure people would love to read them.
