Ver 7.0 is a Fairy Tale...

[Mikimoto]

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:
...unbelievable, this amount of "unqualified" comments... <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

---

What qualifies a man to post a comment in this forum? Is this a Ballistics forum with plenty of dedicated ballistics experts? or was it a forum to discuss, in more or less polite ways, the pros and cons, what you like and dislike, of a HISTORIC wargame?

It used to be the last... Unbeliavable what you want it to be...

[Mikimoto]

Originally posted by Warrior:
I remember the good old days when a new version came out and lots of people screamed because their infantry wasn't mowing down the enemy infantry like before. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

---

I remember the good old days when a new version came out and lots of people screamed because their mortars were not doing what Matrix said they were doing right. Mortar multipliers never worked. In version 7.0 you repaired that BUG... But something is still wrong with mortars, or not?
Test ver 7.0, please.

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Mikimoto:


What qualifies a man to post a comment in this forum? Is this a Ballistics forum with plenty of dedicated ballistics experts? or was it a forum to discuss, in more or less polite ways, the pros and cons, what you like and dislike, of a HISTORIC wargame?

It used to be the last... Unbeliavable what you want it to be...

---

Then start discussing !!!

Make a point !
Tell us what the problem is !
Then we can see if you're right or not...

I'll give you an example:

The PG40 has a penetration of 130mm in the game. This is to high, because..."your reason, like in the RMZ it is listed with..."...
What do you think on this ?

If you'll show up for the first time in this topic with a single point like this, presented in this way, I'm sure a lot of people will be glad to have a discussion with you to improve all of our knowledge on this topic, as it seems we all have still to learn so much to understand this complex system...some more, some less...

[AbsntMndedProf]

Just to add another two cents to this thread:

It must be recognized that, during times of war, each army must make do with whatever they can lay their hands on of the enemy's equipment to test. Yet, in terms of statistical data, two or three vehicles tested do not constitute a statistically significant sampling of a series of vehicles that may have been produced in their hundreds or thousands.

Such a small sampling can easily fall victim to statistical anomolies, such the vehicles tested might be defective, suffering from unusual wear and tear, or more strong than average units.

Anyone who has owned several cars of the same line, can tell you that, even though each car was manufactured by the same company, and even perhaps in the same factory, each one had its own quirks and unique character. I suspect that, unless you want to invest in a Cray super computer to handle all the computations needed to produce an exact, or close to exact, model of WW II combat, Matrix has done a very creditable job with SP:WaW. JMHO

Eric Maietta

[bumper]

As I haven't installed 7 myself yet, I haven't been able to verify this, but it seems to me that later versions of the PzIII are available too early in the game, therefore causing the T34 to be less effective. Maybe also the amount of apcr ammo is too widely or too early available for the germans

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Patrick Siebelink:
As I haven't installed 7 myself yet, I haven't been able to verify this, but it seems to me that later versions of the PzIII are available too early in the game, therefore causing the T34 to be less effective. Maybe also the amount of apcr ammo is too widely or too early available for the germans

---

Good comment !

One may not forget, that with the appearance of the 50mm/L60, e.g., suddenly not all PzIII were equiped with this gun. This is the general problem of the rarity of vehicles in the game. Unfortunately, there is not the possibility to have a tank introduced with a new gun, being very rare at first, but becoming common a year later or so. This way most vehicles appear in the game, the first time a few of them were issued to field units. And honestly, don't most of the players (and I feel this, too) take the new model, although it just became available ?
Everybody seems to forget that underarmored PzIII with 50mm/L42 were seen on the battlefield long after it's upgraded comrades were introduced. And these tanks sure did perform bad against T-34, as they do in the game. But who does play a '42 battle with a PzIIIG ? So whose fault is it ? The game is limited in this aspect...design good scenarios like so many are out there and do not take unrealistic units and throw them into battle and then complain that they do not behave historically...

The APCR ammo:

Here is some production data:

PzGr39 (APCBC): 1.869.800 in '41 674.200 in '42
PzGr40 (APCR) : 643.500 in '41 227.000 in '42

As one can see the production rate of the APCR is about 25% of the overall production. I do not have exact dates, when the first large amounts were issued, but I would think in the later stage of Barbarossa, they were common (August/September). Before they shouldn't appear in too large numbers. But there I'm lacking good data, help is appreciated...

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leo ]</p>

[mogami]

Hi all, I had not noticed the PZ-III before, I generally give the Germans MK-IV's and above but to test current status I refought battle only this time Germans had PZ-IIIL (cost difference allowed them one more company of tanks compared to buying MK-IV and Tigers) This battle was not the 5 turn slaughter of the first one. On turn 2 a T-34 crew bailed out of their tank (but got back inside on turn 4) 7 other Soviet tanks were damaged on this turn but non exploding (turrent/hull/suspension hits) The Soviets managed to get a suspension hit on a MK-III on turn 3, 8 Soviet tanks exploded and 5 more damaged. Sturmovik attack gets a rear turrent hit with a 100kg bomb on MK-III (it retreats at end of turn) 5 T-34s engage MK-III at range of 7 hexes scoring 5 hits and shooting radio mast off. 3 T-34's destroyed by return fire. After 5 turns of the 22 tanks (20T-34 2 BT-7m) in leading companies 14 T-34 destroyed 1 BT-7m destroyed all remainging tanks immobile or damaged gun. (on the plus side they have killed a half dozen half tracks and scared a PZ-III (but he is back)
3 remaining companies on hill shooting at Germans at ranges from 5 hexes to 16 hexes. I have found it best not to fire on my turn since the return fire is deadly, better to just use the OP fire but I havn't killed a PZ-III yet.
If I was a German player I would not waste points on MK-IV's or bigger since the PZ-III holds out pretty good. I think my infantry might get a few close assaults in the next turn or 2 as the German tries to drive over this objective area. (come on molotov's)

[Charles2222]

In the numerous tests Ive run, the PZII series tanks, destroy t34 from front with ease UNTIL they run out of apcr ammo then its a different ballgame.

---

Come on guys let's be fair. While part of me is agreeing that either the PZIII is too lavish with APCR or that the T34 isn't penetrable enough (though I would think it still more than adequate to get the PZIII), and understand I didn't upgrade to V.7, another part is looking over some of the not-so-obvious skewed data. One of these tests spoke of visibility of 10!!!. So, the visibility is limited so that the PZIII is completely in it's element, so that it fires ONLY APCR because the enemy can only fight at that range at the "furtherest". Even if the visi. were 50, these meeting engagements by the computer often result in at least 50% of the kills being in the 10-15 hex category, so even there I believe it would be in APCR, where obviously a human player knowing the APCR potential, would try to keep the T34s at somethign of a distance where they cannot be harmed.

Also, I'd like to point out something else that often can skew results, and I know because I've conducted some og these "tests" before. Often these battles are favored to the side which is player one. The reson this happens, even with the computer controlling both sides, is because there's often a hill between the two sides, which is often close enough that unless player one has Matildas he can get a number of tanks on the hill. Naturally, the computer will stop short of those first units and try to destroy them. In the case of the inaccuracy of the T34, they won't succeed to eliminate the first remnants, and even if they do they will have spent so much energy on that critical trun that the next turn will often see player one achieve the hill with the entireity of his force.

There's a lot more to an allegedly even battle than just that they were 'meeting' and controlled by the AI, particularly when you're forcing the tank that is only vulnerable at close range to close for lack of visibility, and if the Germans gain the hill, even at long range the T34 won't survive top hits from the 50L42.

[Charles2222]

BTW, I believe it was Mikimoto that stated you should see what happens to the Panther now when going up against the Sherman. I didn't upgrade to V.7 for two reasons, assuming there were more reasons along the way, and those were the overhaul of the MGs, and also because of the Tiger FT armor reduction.

Now you can imagine my surprise when I find someone complaining that the T34/76 cannot penetrate Tiger side armor and claiming that as the basis of saying the Tiger's invincible, but now I hear this thing about the Panther, and though the observation may be just as skewed as the Tiger/T3476 and the PZIIIH/T3476 might be, it does give me pause, because I know the FT of the Panther probably shouldn't be none too easy for the Sherman, but then the Tiger FH and the Panther FH have always been fair game, so maybe the FH hits aren't being considered. If I'm not mistaken, didn't Lorrin's talk of Panther glacis come after V.7 was released? I'm betting the Panther FT and FH didn't change from V6.1, but if the Shermans are being upped in penetration, then certainly that changes things.

I don't know, maybe some of you are jumping the gun and playing tanks you're normally fairly unfamiliar with, to say nothing of how skewed AI battles can be if you're not careful, and so you think it unusual when APCR is penetrating what we thought were normally fairly invincible FTs, such as the KVI, Panther, and Tiger. I looked at the US ACPR and it's penetration rating, alongside the number of them available, and though I hadn't played in that environment, I was envisioning that the battle would likely be skewed too much in favor of the Shermans. It's basically the same argument with the current PZIII/T3476 that is going on, only I never actually put it to combat. If tanks with APCR are skewing battles too much to what we think is the historic outcomes, then obviously APCR wasn't that readily available, or they were available in bunches at times, while being not available at all after somewhat prolonged offensives or some such.

[Paul Vebber]

I am still looking for SPECIFIC proposals for what needs to be changed?

Saying teh game diesn't properly represent the situation in the opening invaision because 50L42 APCR armed PzIIIs can be effective agians T-34s?

When the invaision began with significant numbers of Czech Panzers with 37mm guns and 37mm armed PzIIIe.

There may be a good argument to adjust the avialablity dates. or giving specific vehicles a tweak here or there. But I need specific "reduce side armor of PzIIIe form 36 to 34 or 28 or 31 or whatever and a justification. Increase the F-34 gun penetration to 87 or 83, based on...

If the number are right, but the vehicles are avialable at the wrong times, then what to change them to?

I won't get into point values again, they really are not a good concept in the first place (A PF team can kill a KV so it should cost more?) but who has an alternative?

I keep saying the best way I have found to balance PBEM games is to have one player propose a force and a budget from which the proposed force is 75-80% of the cost. The "challenger" player then proposes the force he would take against it and the budget that it is 75-80% of. Then the original player picks the force he wants.

I have agreed that some adjustments are in order, but I disagree that the changes in v7 should be thrown out. What this demonstrates is two fold.

In the game minor variation in technical detail can be leveraged by the players in ways real commanders could not. That has to be accounted for, but if teh best available technical data "plays wrong" it could be for a number of reasons, including players tending to alway put "best against best" as exemplified in the tests of 50L42 APCR vs KVs as teh defining engagement of 41 tank battles... Try PzIIIe's and PZ38t's vs BT-7's and T-26's? Pz IIIgs and PjgrI's vs KV-1s and T-28s? And there are other fronts, no one has noticed teh multiple versions pf 2lber and 6lber that show how those pieces developed. DO they make the Desert Battles flawed? OR teh late Western front? There is more going on than Operation Barbarossa between "cream of the crop" units!

Second, I think if we take a step back, the arguments underway demostrate a grasp by an increasing number of people of just how complicated the technical aspects of the problem are. Hopefullt no matter where you stand on the issue of v7 changes, the game is helping foster a deeper understanding of what the relevant issues are...

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I thought version 5.1 was great. Hell I thought it was great the darn program was made Windows friendly. I like all the versions. I like that I have the game at all. I have a cd that has ALL the versions on it by the way.

Now what I wont be impressed with, is seeing version 8 or 9 or 10. Because that will mean that Matrix is perhaps devoting time to a game that has more than enough versions to please all of us.
If you dont like version 7 of course dont use it. If you have trouble finding opponents that are using earlier versions.....hmmm guess that would be where I say tough luck, suffer in silence, that makes you a minority opinion if you cant find others.

Now that might seem like a rough statement....hmmm actually I meant it that way I guess.

Just so that Paul feels the proper level appreciation, I again say "thanks Paul and Matrix". If it wasnt for Steel Panthers I would likely be busy writing on my computer......hey wait a second.....now that was really sneaky of you Paul heheh.

[Grimm]

Time for my $0.02 <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

I haven't upgraded to 7.0 so my comments are based on both sides of the arguments given.

There seems to be a point that has not been addressed. It appears there were improvements made to some German guns and wholesale downgrades to Russian armor due to metal quality. However, I haven't seen anybody mention any changes to point values? If a tank benefits from improved ballistics or armor then its point value must increase! Paul made an offhand comment about the point values not being relavent. To me, this is the core of the problem. The way I see it, if both sides have equal number of points, then their skill and not the units should determine victory or defeat. If changes are made to armor values or guns then the unit values MUST change to reflect the changes.

[lnp4668]

Beens following this post with fascination, so decided to do a semi scientific test to check the result:

Basic setup: One on one, at 10 hexes with country characteristic and training off. Each tank only takes the first shot from non moving position to neutralize the bonus from subsequent rounds as well as suppression from counter fire.

Test 1: Pz III J (s) vs T 34 m.41
25 shots by Pz III: 8 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 2 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T34: 2 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 11 Pz III destroyed.

Test 2: Pz III G vs T34 m 40
25 shots by Pz III: 9 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 1 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T34: 0 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 14 Pz III destroyed

Test 3: Pz 3H vs T 34 m40
25 shots by Pz III: 0 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 5 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T 34: 2 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 7 Pz III destroyed.

Test 4: Pz 3H vs T34 m 41
25 shots by Pz III: 0 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 8 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T 34: 3 destroyed by counter shot, 5 Pz III destroyed.


Summary of results: The APCR seems to balance the field a bit, but the main advantage seems to be the added armor of the III H.

[achappelle]

two words to make up my two cents:
"OOB editor"

you've got the tools, you obviously have your own info, why not make the changes you feel are appropriate, and not blame matrix for having a different interpretation of historical fact

is 10mm of frontal armour penetration difference at 800 meters with a 50mm l/42 gun really a big deal in the scheme of things?

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Gallo Rojo:


Got it. I didn't know that. Thanks.
I will try what you said latter.
But even with poor trained Russians crews I found this result really disappointing.
T-34 should won Pz III. Don't you think?

---

The "proving ground" type tests i've conducted so far, where i took turns firing at each side with to hit chances maximuized to remove crew factor/FC issues (since all i wanted to do was test the ammo and armor, side note.....to do this "proving ground style, first turn off the main guns of the side that you are going to fire at, that way they dont OP you cause mayhem <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )
have shown that the T-34 and KV are not so weakened that they can be called "inferior" to the early and midwar pz-III and pz IV models.

Bereft of special Pzgr40 ammo (APCR in SP:WAW), both the short and long barreled Pz-III's have virtually no chance to penetrate the well sloped front hull of the T-34 unless they get lucky and score a vulnerable hit location. The less well sloped mantlets of the turret are more vulnerable, esp to the long barreld 50 which to me is historical since as far back as the 80's i had wargaming information that told me that this new gun (50L60) was marginally effective against the T-34, that range being out to approx 400yards. Marginal indeed when one considers the effect that the 76.2 can have on a midwar Mark III at that range.

The KV is similarily tough though over on the OOB thread it is being pretty much agreed that the KV is unjustly penalized since it did not suffer from the high hardness/brittle factor that plagued the T-34. I'm also wondering about the late varient IS-2m and IS-3 as well. Those two got hit the hardest, making the T34's downgrading seem a trifle in comparison. Without APCR though, Mark III's have little chance against a KV (KV-1e i should say) frontally even with the penalty

I do though, retain some doubts about the APCR factor. Not that the ammo was'nt present mind you, but in that it 'does' seem to make, in the game the short barreled Pz III 50L42 a bit too effective, especially against the less well sloped KV tank. This does'nt track with early war accounts by panzermen who reported having to throw all but the kitchen sink at such tanks to knock em out or at least disable them. The question i suppose is how much APCR did they have during the opening shots of Barbarossa? Paul has clarified that the Ausf G of the Panzer III, which would have made up a signifigant portion of the invading tanks, has no APCR, making it a scary proposition taking on the T-34 or worse, the heavy KV.

The Ausf H is better though if playing with limited ammo on you could have as much as 6 rounds or as few as 1 round of APCR.

the Ausf J is similar to the H though suffers from a peculiarity in the form of it's reduced armor, having 50mm basic vs 30+30 applique. All texts i have say this was stronger, and i know from my BB studies that a single plate 'is' indeed always stronger than an aplique. Same is generally true of spaced armor though it was effective against smaller rounds such as the 2pounder. My approach to that is, did not the Ausf J also recieve additional armor, esp in Russia knowing what they faced? but i'm getting off topic.

the reduced armor stats really hurt against the long barreld 75. The 34 is virtually helpless against this gun now, even at 1500 yards. Historical? debatable. Given the varience of Russian armor there are times when it was documented and other times when it did'nt.

questions that remain for me.

1) am aware of the German use of face hardened armor, but this was only on the front plates. Do the German flanks deserve the upgrade they recieved? This has caused problems for AT-rifle fans

2) lowered Russian ammo ratings. Waiting for Lorrin's book to take a look at the figures. the RMZ does quote around 80mm for the Russian 76 round. This may be correct. One thing i like about it.....in the old days, all the efforts by the germans to upgrade the armor on their Mark III's and IV's seemed a more than useless gesture anywhere but on the Desert front. Now? it serves a purpose after all. The Panzer IIIM and more importantly the new and improved Mark IVH becomes a formidable tank able to survive on the battlefield.....at least until the Russian 85 makes it's appearence. Dear....send a note to der Fuherer....increase that Panther production! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> That and watch out for Russian APCR in 43. Tables are turned here it should be mentioned. T-34/76 can compete with even Pz-IVH when firing this ammo. Similar results like with the APCR for German 50.....burning Panzers

3) Russian armor quality penalty. I dont doubt it exists, my concern is how wide spread was it? Most agree the KV was'nt affected. I read a Aberdeen report from the US stating the quality of the Russian T-34 armor was good or better than US armor, which was'nt penalized in 7.0. I'm as mentioned, especially disheartened over the dinging the heavy IS 2m and IS-3 got. the IS-2 early version i can agree on the ding as the RMZ confirms, but also says that later tempering and balistic shape improvements were set in place and the IS3 has been called the most advanced heavy tank of WWII.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]</p>

[Mikimoto]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
I am still looking for SPECIFIC proposals for what needs to be changed?

Saying teh game diesn't properly represent the situation in the opening invaision because 50L42 APCR armed PzIIIs can be effective agians T-34s?

When the invaision began with significant numbers of Czech Panzers with 37mm guns and 37mm armed PzIIIe.

There may be a good argument to adjust the avialablity dates. or giving specific vehicles a tweak here or there. But I need specific "reduce side armor of PzIIIe form 36 to 34 or 28 or 31 or whatever and a justification. Increase the F-34 gun penetration to 87 or 83, based on...

If the number are right, but the vehicles are avialable at the wrong times, then what to change them to?

I won't get into point values again, they really are not a good concept in the first place (A PF team can kill a KV so it should cost more?) but who has an alternative?

I keep saying the best way I have found to balance PBEM games is to have one player propose a force and a budget from which the proposed force is 75-80% of the cost. The "challenger" player then proposes the force he would take against it and the budget that it is 75-80% of. Then the original player picks the force he wants.

I have agreed that some adjustments are in order, but I disagree that the changes in v7 should be thrown out. What this demonstrates is two fold.

In the game minor variation in technical detail can be leveraged by the players in ways real commanders could not. That has to be accounted for, but if teh best available technical data "plays wrong" it could be for a number of reasons, including players tending to alway put "best against best" as exemplified in the tests of 50L42 APCR vs KVs as teh defining engagement of 41 tank battles... Try PzIIIe's and PZ38t's vs BT-7's and T-26's? Pz IIIgs and PjgrI's vs KV-1s and T-28s? And there are other fronts, no one has noticed teh multiple versions pf 2lber and 6lber that show how those pieces developed. DO they make the Desert Battles flawed? OR teh late Western front? There is more going on than Operation Barbarossa between "cream of the crop" units!

Second, I think if we take a step back, the arguments underway demostrate a grasp by an increasing number of people of just how complicated the technical aspects of the problem are. Hopefullt no matter where you stand on the issue of v7 changes, the game is helping foster a deeper understanding of what the relevant issues are...

---

First, I can't test all the new version in four days, nor I want. It is your duty, Matrix, not mine.
And you didn't as we can see in the "mortar issues", a neverending bug from version 1.0. And when you "realize" that it does not work, the repairings are not checked and produce absolutely weird results... You are not perfect, sir.
As I am not, of course. But I am not so arrogant to say that you are not right cause you don't have ballistic works at hand. I am sure average wargamers don't understand a shit your bright formulas. We are here to play and enjoy, not to post on how intelligent are my equations...
Version 7 is unbalanced cause some nations are overrated and some are now pure trinket...
The rest are excuses, without imagination. Is it so difficult to you to undertand that?

[Grenadier]

A well reasoned discussion of facts is always welcomed, IMO, but to put a subject heading of FAIRY TALE on ver 7 is to say the least, impolite and probably in many minds, inflammatory. If someone pronounced the project I just completed as fantasy, I would immediately become defensive. I admire Paul Vebber for his patience in dealing with this subject. My first reaction was to blast back in anger.

I will state with as much reason as I can muster. If you do not like it, fine. State your reasons as a reasonable person, Fantasy, Myth and fairy Tale are not descriptions a reasonable person uses. Unbalanced, biased, and less effective are terms a reassonable person uses. Did you volunteer to help with the OOB team?. This game was done by VOLUNTEERS, if you did not help with it, then you have no right to complain. It is like carping about an elected official when you did not even vote.

[lnp4668]

Originally posted by Mikimoto:


First, I can't test all the new version in four days, nor I want. It is your duty, Matrix, not mine.
And you didn't as we can see in the "mortar issues", a neverending bug from version 1.0. And when you "realize" that it does not work, the repairings are not checked and produce absolutely weird results... You are not perfect, sir.
As I am not, of course. But I am not so arrogant to say that you are not right cause you don't have ballistic works at hand. I am sure average wargamers don't understand a shit your bright formulas. We are here to play and enjoy, not to post on how intelligent are my equations...
Version 7 is unbalanced cause some nations are overrated and some are now pure trinket...
The rest are excuses, without imagination. Is it so difficult to you to undertand that?

---

I understand your frustration, but in life, belief without proof is just that, a belief. So if you are unable to back up your argument with test, wait until you could test it. But do not resort to insults. It is a sign of a small mind.

[AlvinS]

Mikimoto

First, I can't test all the new version in four days, nor I want. It is your duty, Matrix, not mine. And you didn't as we can see in the "mortar issues", a neverending bug from version 1.0. And when you "realize" that it does not work, the repairings are not checked and produce absolutely weird results... You are not perfect, sir. As I am not, of course. But I am not so arrogant to say that you are not right cause you don't have ballistic works at hand. I am sure average wargamers don't understand a shit your bright formulas. We are here to play and enjoy, not to post on how intelligent are my equations...
Version 7 is unbalanced cause some nations are overrated and some are now pure trinket...
The rest are excuses, without imagination. Is it so difficult to you to undertand that?

---

May I suggest that you move on to a game that is fair and more to your liking. Apparently unless Paul stops what he is doing, researches the information you want changed and fixes it you will not be happy. Matrix has provided an excellent game for free though it may not be perfect. His time would be better spent working on Combat Leader. At least then he will be paid for his fine work. If you don't like the new OOB then edit it and post it for others to use if they want. Matrix has said many times that this free game is mainly supported by the combined knowledge of this forum.

Instead of providing the information that paul has asked for you insult him and tell him it is his job to fix it. What do you want for free! And you call him arrogant.

AlvinS

[Mikimoto]

Originally posted by Brent:
A well reasoned discussion of facts is always welcomed, IMO, but to put a subject heading of FAIRY TALE on ver 7 is to say the least, impolite and probably in many minds, inflammatory. If someone pronounced the project I just completed as fantasy, I would immediately become defensive. I admire Paul Vebber for his patience in dealing with this subject. My first reaction was to blast back in anger.

I will state with as much reason as I can muster. If you do not like it, fine. State your reasons as a reasonable person, Fantasy, Myth and fairy Tale are not descriptions a reasonable person uses. Unbalanced, biased, and less effective are terms a reassonable person uses. Did you volunteer to help with the OOB team?. This game was done by VOLUNTEERS, if you did not help with it, then you have no right to complain. It is like carping about an elected official when you did not even vote.

---

Perhaps I am bit rude, perhaps it is my bad english or perhaps you don't want to understand my point, Brent. If you want rudeness look for Warrior replies. As rude is the person who presumes I am idiot cause I dont have the marvellous Lorrin thing.

If the wargame is unbalanced cause the russians are underrated, then something is wrong. You can invoke all the new and revolutionary ballistics works as unique excuse for those changes, and forget History as a source. You are rewriting history then. And this kind of revisionism is insulting too. And I loved this wargame, but version 7.0 is becoming more a game of war than a wargame, in my humbliest opinion, of course.

Do you really think that only OOB volunteers can post in the forum to express his opinions or complain about the game? If so, create a private forum with oob members only in it... cause this is a PUBLIC forum with freedoom of speech. Don't you know? But you can always make what you want about this and other subjects.

Alvin and Inp4668, read my posts carefully please. If you win over your impulse of defending v7.0 at all costs, you can find some ideas behind my "impolite" words.