v7.1 status report

orsha · Post by **orsha** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 4:52 am

I recall lorrin saying that good quality cast armor has around 10-15% reduced resistance of RHA armor. If the tiger has a minimun mantlet thickness of 90-150mm + 100mm turret armour, the 159mm looks a bit on the low end. Another figure of 179mm was used before.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 5:07 am

Originally posted by orsha:
I recall lorrin saying that good quality cast armor has around 10-15% reduced resistance of RHA armor. If the tiger has a minimun mantlet thickness of 90-150mm + 100mm turret armour, the 159mm looks a bit on the low end. Another figure of 179mm was used before.

If of good quality the cast degrading factor lowers as the thickness goes up, so 10% or so not far off, certainly better than the previous thought universal 20+% dig

no, that was the confirmation provided by the diagrams, only along the mantlet edges is it 90mm mantlet + turret front (which after applying formula, Lorrin est it equaled about 140mm equivilent plate) The rest of the turret, is empty space baring two 100mm bars to help brace the massive 88/56 assembly and the telescopic sights and MG equip etc.

the maximum thickness (150mm) covers only a very small surface area around the hole openings for the scopes and MG. There is a bigger 140mm area matching the circular outcropping surrounding the gun barrel , the rest is approx 110-120mm, the mantlet edges that jut out are tappered to 90mm (but are backed by the front turret edges)

140-150 sounds like a decent compromise since we are restricted to one universal rating. I'm not screaming about 159 of course, just thinking out loud and reminiscing on the heated debate the earlier 176-200mm turret rating caused in days past <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Regardless....Tiger remains a formidable beast against most Allied guns until late in the war. A statement more about the state of Allied anti tank tech more than the Tiger itself along with the long range power of the 88mm. (exceptions of course, but just a general statement)

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 6:17 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
THe fix would be to remove the save buttoin so you don't save after a scenario is over. You can refrain form doing this (save before you "end turn" the last time" and then after you start the next game).

This tied in anyway to the save game menu repeatedly popping up in online games?

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 7:11 am

The save game menu pops up if any of the players save the game (though it is best to have one player save and them email that file since the files can get out of synch.)

I don't think its related. But are you saying that the save game menu appears when no player saves?

j.guitar · Post by **j.guitar** » Thu Jan 10, 2002 3:01 am

Hey Paul,
Thanks for the heads up on 7.1. Hope this cure the synch problem. If it helps, I've found the 7.0 beta patch you sent me for an earlier problem with MC-DF, reinstalled it over the internet 7.0 download patch, and have not yet had the synch problem again. This will work for me until 7.1 is out. Maybe this will help you, and any others that need a temp fix.
Thanks again
A weapon is only as good as those trained to use it

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Thu Jan 10, 2002 3:48 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
The save game menu pops up if any of the players save the game (though it is best to have one player save and them email that file since the files can get out of synch.)

I don't think its related. But are you saying that the save game menu appears when no player saves?

No No, when you save online, the screen pops up as it should, then after you enter that save and go back to battle, it keeps repeatedly popping back up, you have to hit escape to leave that screen, sometimes it works, other times you may have to hit escape key numerous amount of times to leave the save game scren.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:38 am

von R -m what is teh time stamp on that mech file? That will help greatly!

j.guitar · Post by **j.guitar** » Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:20 am

Paul,
The Mech Zip File I received is 7b6 082301, and I received it on 8/25/01. I assume this means its dated 08/23/01.
Hope this helps, or anything else I can do?
Thanks, Jeff

<img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » Thu Jan 10, 2002 8:31 am

Quick question from a part time general: What is this "shatter gap" that has been mentioned and how will it effect game play?

Thanks in advance. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 4:28 am

"Shatter gap" is a term used to describe the phenomenum observed during combat and gunnery trials for enemy armor plate to resist (shatter) incoming AP rounds that theoretically had the penetrative power to defeat the plate in question.

The theory is intriguing because it might help explain some of the almost ridiculous wartime reports of German armor resistance ala their Tiger and Panther tanks even in the face of point blank fire.

Numerous field tests revealed that the tendancy for SG to rear it's head tended to happen after a certain degree of overpenetration occured due to extremely high muzzle velocities causing the nose to crack and break up as it impacts with heavy armor plate vs. drilling through as one would expect when a shell heavily overmatches the armor thickness struck. Thus for example say a 6pdr at 200 yards firing at a Tiger's frontal hull might produce a failure despite the shell's theoretical penetration ability at that range

BTW, i'm going by memory here and dont have the source so Lorrin is free to correct me if my laymanization is too far off the mark (actually you can search out his thread on the OOB forum too under "Shatter Gap" too)

Chief suspect for above was the shells themselves which might have had hidden cracks or other defects in the noses (and i beleive nose hardness factored in too, i recall reading in Lorrin's book that German ultra-high velocity shells did not suffer much if any of this "Shatter gap" effect because they had very high quality ammo and very hard nose caps.

The caution though, and one Paul has already addressed by stressing efforts to prevent "Gamisms" by introducing sure fire range brackets where this will happen, is that the test results could vary from firing to firing leading to questions on the validety of SG, or perhaps more accurately, not the validety, but on how to accurately predict when such an effect will be experienced.

As a long time wargamer i can relate to the above. I can just imagine the screamings from frustrated wargamers complaining about non penetrations against German heavies when all their range and armor tables are telling them that they should have scored a kill!

Brave new world out there <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 5:16 am

Paul, just realized the Bulgarian file I had fixed for you evidently didn't make it into version 7?! Could you please include it for 7.1?

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 5:51 am

From Blizt ops messages board, more online save problems.

Author: Ironfist (209.251.27.---)
Date: 01-10-02 03:03

Anyone haveing as much trouble as I with 7.0 saves with live games ?When closeing the game you can no longer use the auto save. Even after I set the file to my opponent it said files were different. Any ideals ??? Also recently when trying to save in any avialable slots, durring live games, it tends to freeze up and agian it wont propperly save files.Hope this is the only new bug i find. The previous ver. worked fine...

King__Thunder · Post by **King__Thunder** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 1:01 pm

I don`t know if this "bug" is fixed in 7.0v. it is on the 6.1 version.

1/ troops dont get supression from arty if they are loaded in a truck or tank, I bombarded with finn 254 mm naival arty where the enemy (ruski 43 PBEM) had its troops, it should cleare the hex that I am fireing at and the adjacent hexes, but my oponent said that he got very litel supression.

2/ The paras that my ruski enemy dropd behind my line of defens retreted to my fiering units (their front line)contrary to in normal situtiation that is away from the fire.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: King__Thunder ]</p>

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 7:05 pm

King__Thunder: If in fact occupants of enclosed vehicles, like halftracks and trucks, aren't suffering proportional suppression, it might not be such a bad thing anyway. One website I've quoted here on this forum, which studied studied the affects of artillery, said that men in halftracks, as opposed to men in open terrain, would suffer only 1/10 the losses, while those in trucks only 1/4.

King__Thunder · Post by **King__Thunder** » Sat Jan 12, 2002 3:24 am

It was odinary tracks that they were driving with, 254 mm arty should make som supression if it hits in the same hex.

Originally posted by Charles_22:
said that men in halftracks, as opposed to men in open terrain, would suffer only 1/10 the losses, while those in trucks only 1/4.[/QB]

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Sat Jan 12, 2002 6:06 pm

A few things about 7.0:

1. When firing at two units in the same hex, the one you're not aiming at seems to get an unreasonable high casualty rate, i.e. in most cases, higher than or equal to the unit you are actually firing at (pretty nice tactics when an enemy tank and an enemy infantry unit is in the same hex is to target the tank with your mg, and watch the infantry die much faster than if you targeted it directly).

2. Indirect fire is more effective than direct fire, when the firing unit is observing the hex and the "hit percentage" is low (this goes for artillery type units, AA, tanks etc.. not as much for infantry). It seems like trying to actually aim at the enemy position is worse than area-covering "more random" fire.. which also seems a little off.

3. Is this the "sync" bug? My enemy has one result in the online game, and i get another, which turn up "ghost units" if my unit is destroyed (as I see it) and not as he sees it. Also pops up the rankless leaders again and leaves an extra crew on the map. Otherwise, this should be on the list too..!

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Sat Jan 12, 2002 8:25 pm

King__Thunder:

It was odinary tracks that they were driving with, 254 mm arty should make som supression if it hits in the same hex.

Perhaps, but the research was done with varying degrees of artillery, but in any case, assuming it's correct, the point still carries, that artillery will do greatly reduced damage to occupants of vehicles as opposed to ground troops in the clear. It would seem as though the system isn't taking into suppressing the occupants AT ALL, but the majority of artillery in this game doesn't approach 233mm., so "maybe" leaving them unsuppressed, again, assuming their resaearch is correct, is overall an accidental more ideal thing, than just throwing the suppression of the vehicle automatically upon those occupying.

In a sense, that doesn't make sense. As I see it, the vehicle itself doesn't take suppression, but only damage. It is the crew that has the suppression. Of course those in the bed aren't the crew, but could suffer similar suppression possibly (sometimes worse, sometimes better). BUT, if I understand things correctly, suppression-wise, HTs/trucks are laced with just as much suppression as the foot soldier that might be hit in the same hex, as I doubt that research was known since SPs inception, but then I could be wrong. If that is so, and the research I mentioned is so, then clearly the vehicles are being too heavily suppressed in the first place by artillery. True, for all practical purposes the team being hauled should suffer similar suppression but if HTs and trucks are at the foot soldier suppression level, then maybe those being hauled having little suppression should remain as it is (sort of a compromise).

It's kind of screwy though, because anytime an infantry-laden tank is assaulted, done well or not, the infantry almost always come off very heavily suppressed and are well nigh useless.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Jan 12, 2002 9:01 pm

Game limitation, if you are "in" a vehicle it has to be hit have the crew bail. SOme classes have troops riding "on" and they bail off, others "in".

Status report. We are working on the campign problems and this will likely delay the patch until next week sometime. I sent a Beta with what we hope fixes the synch problem and if anyone wants it - email me.

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Sat Jan 12, 2002 10:29 pm

Paul Vebber: I see where you're coming from, only the talk seems to focus less on bailing and more on suppression received, bailing or otherwise. I mentioned getting assaulted only to make a comparison of something that I know causes suppression. Yes, that is comparing something that is 'on' instead of 'in' but strangely enough, as long as I've played this game, I can't tell you in the slightest what happens to units 'in' HTs/trucks if they're assaulted (such a trait I do not long for), though I have seen sometimes the results of direct fire knocking out the carrying vehicle and the 'in' guys.