CS game tanks survival rates

[Guderian]

Please leave the game as is. Thanks!

[Guderian]

Also, is the retreat thing a bug or a design decision? If it's the later, then referring to it as a bug, which implies it needs to be fixed, is highly inaccurate. Again, please leave the game as is! Thanks!

[Huib Versloot]

I am not sure, but can the "retreat bug solution" portion of the old ASDN exe patch be used to address this issue?

Yes it did, but I believe this patch doesnt work with the Matrix version (yet). Hopefully a similar patch will make it in the future Matrix updates. Then everybody would have it installed... something which was not the case with the ASDN patch.

[Bolkonsky]

I think that Guderian makes a good point. CS has done pretty well compared to most other similiar games. I've heard a lot about how SP has a better AI. But that game is closer to Squad Leader or Close Combat in scale. Is it not? Once again, even though armor facing is not very realistic I still think is adds some interesting factors to this abstract battlefeild that are at least remeniscent of the real thing.

[Jumbo]

Very good points fellas. I'm assuming at this stage, most players and games are being played with the armor facing rules on. That probably being the case, This so called retreat bug was one of the things I took into account in my reasoning for possibly needing a defense bump across the board. Not all armored vehicals would necassarily get a bumb. The bump I'm talking about might take a Panthers frontal defense from a 21 to a 24 and it's side and rear from an 8 and 7 to 9's. A tank like the Tiger I would better benifit from these potential increases than the Panther. Using the exact same formula used to determain the Panthers values. The Tiger I's values would be 21 front and 15 for the sides and rear. I'm aware there are any number of variables that can and should be taken into consideration when a tank gets KO'd in the game. However having a whole platoon of tanks being KO'd and or forced to retreat and then KO'd for showing their more vulnerable sides and rear is happens a bit to often IMO and at exteme ranges that were for the most part beyond the attackers true capabilities. A modest bump for AFV's to their front/side/rear defense values would I hope reduce a number of those retreats and bring actual kills to more realistic ranges. One only needs to see how easy it is now for Shermans and T34's to take out a very formidable piece like the Tiger I or Panther in frontal attacks. I feel it's perfectly fine when tanks get out manuevered and then are promptly blown away with side and rear attacks. Or when tanks are blown away in frontal attacks at ranges that were historically within the capabilities of the attacker.

I believe the armored facing rule does provide a good twist to the game. And there is really nothing bad about using it, Except for those cases mentioned with the forced retreats and specific ranged kills against a number of AFV's that rarely if ever happened to them by their specific attackers

[majog]

Personally I think the new Jumbo tanks are over defense strengthed. They are next to impossible to kill by anything.

[Bolkonsky]

Perhaps making tanks as strong as they actually were is a playability issue. In a game there are always far fewer variables and unknowns than on a real battlefield. And most players I know are far more willing to risk their units, especially within the short confines of a scenario where the commander need not be concerned about living to fight another day. On that note I need to run a suggestion across Jasons desk that I have been thinking about. Maybe I can get some feedback here. So far as I know there is no way to take a scenario, play a portion or all of it and then save that current state as a a new scenario! If this were possible it would be very nifty to start playing moderated games in which a third player could (without all the effort of setting everything up and customizing the units etc) be able to make some modifications for the prep for the next days or that afternoon's or night's battle. In this way large battlefields could be used to play out up to several days of conflict. Special rules could be developed for operational goals and commanders freedom to vary this, replacements, fortification, withdrawel and replacement of larger units etc, etc.

It seems that with only a slight tweak it should be possible to save the current state of a battle as a scenario. Many other games have this feature

[Jumbo]

Hi Jorge,

It appears you may have just been getting some poor die rolls against them. In a game I'm currently playing, I destroyed a 2SP Jumbo platoon with successive shots from a 3SP Panther platoon from long range! ...

If anything the CS game may still have this unit slightly under valued IMO. Jumbo's were far and away more heavily armored than standard Shermans. And better protected than any other Allied or Russian tank for that matter. This tank was designed to approach German AT defenses head on and survive. If the record books and writings about this design are correct, Then it actually excelled at that ( it was considered a highly successful design and were in high demand ). One only needs to see what German AT gun and tank guns of the day were capable of as far as armor penetration ability. And then look and see how thick the armor was on the Jumbo. That thickness ( 178mm thick gun mantlet / 152mm turret thickness on the front, sides and rear / 102mm thick front superstructor at 47 degrees angle / 140mm to 114.5mm thick transmission cover that was rounded and angled from 47 to 56 degrees ) did infact make this tank extremely difficult to put out of action by pretty much anything except for the most powerful German guns. At least that's what most writings will say and what German gun armor penetration tables will bear out.