campaign missions problem ?

[TIGRE88]

Who complained not long ago that campaign missions couldn't be validated since the last updates? I had read this message somewhere.. but I found the cause of the problem : 

the tanks are simply no longer counted as destroyed if their engine is still running, and yet the tank is neutralized, unable to fire or its crew has abandoned the tank, but as long as its engine is not destroyed the game does not count it as destroyed and therefore the mission is not validated in the event that the victory condition is the counting of enemy tanks destroyed.

 

and you add to that the excessive ricochets, guns that aren't able to pierce anything anymore since the last updates, like the 88mm that ricochets 4 or 5 times on a sherman and you get a game that doesn't work anymore.

if you want to succeed in validating a mission you must empty all your shells, reduce enemy tanks to ashes... 

[Regingrave-]

16 часов назад, TIGRE88 сказал:

the tanks are simply no longer counted as destroyed if their engine is still running, and yet the tank is neutralized, unable to fire or its crew has abandoned the tank

You'd be relieved to hear that we've fixed this problem with tanks not counted as destroyed if the engine is still intact, the fix will be in the next update.

 

16 часов назад, TIGRE88 сказал:

guns that aren't able to pierce anything anymore

As I've said before multiple times, ricochets can happen at certain distances, certain hit places and certain hit angles. So the question is in what circumstances
that ricochet, that you've found impossible, did happen?

Stating that nothing pierces anything anymore is not a valid bug report, it's a clear exaggerration.

[Frinik22]

I agree with you Tigre88. While the Sherman could likely survive an 88 mm HP shell at such short distances it would and should be penetrated by a Pzgr 39/88 unless the shell is a dud. This brings the quesiton whether a certain percentage of shell are simulated to misfire or prove defective in this game?

 

Even a Panzer IV ausf G with the Kwk 40 L43 or L48 shoud be able to penetrate the Sherman front armour at that distance. Only the Panzer III would struggle.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Frinik22

[LachenKrieg]

14 hours ago, Frinik22 said:

I agree with you Tigre88. While the Sherman could likely survive an 88 mm HP shell at such short distances it would and should be penetrated by a Pzgr 39/88 unless the shell is a dud. This brings the quesiton whether a certain percentage of shell are simulated to misfire or prove defective in this game?

 

Even a Panzer IV ausf G with the Kwk 40 L43 or L48 shoud be able to penetrate the Sherman front armour at that distance. Only the Panzer III would struggle.

+1, but I would just add that a Sherman tank isn't likely to survive an HE shell fired from the 88 mm bore of a Tiger tank any better then a Tiger tank could survive an HE shell fired from the 750 mm bore of a Sherman tank.

[SCG_Neun]

What some people do not understand is anyone that takes the time to create missions/campaigns, and especially anyone trying to be as real and historic as possible, is at a realism level which only has certain tolerances and sometimes all the "work-arounds" just get to be too labor intensive and the lack of communication from the dev's especially within the ME side of things gets to be a journey in long term patience and just plain "hope".  After a while you begin to have a clearer picture of the limitations and you just come to a level of acceptance, that although this has it's strengths, it is more than likely always going to be behind the bubble on perfecting.  

 

I mean you have really cool gun emplacements, that if you place an AT in there it will not even shoot.  What good is it?  Looks good.....but where's the threat.  Infantry modules, with 5 guys running around, instead of maybe a cluster module with a deadly bazooka, piat, or panzerfaust?  Where's the threat from that?  How about an effective and historic 88 flak with it's deadly range and lethal ballistics?  Normandy map, yes...I know, it's a flight sim map, but no hedgerows.....come on, you can't raise some mounds around some fields?

 

So yes, this is the best WWII tank sim in my opinion and guys like TIGRE88 have put in enough time to be able to comment and not be called a whiner, because he sees the potential and is just "hoping" for some fixes.  In summary, some guys that are complainers and appear to be what some moderate players would say are whiners, are the impetus that makes the possibility of the game getting better a reality.

[moustache]

@SCG_Neun

[Frinik22]

I found an interesting  article dealing with Sherman vs Tiger armour. For your enjoyment.

 

https://www.mathscinotes.com/2015/07/sherman-tank-myths/

[LachenKrieg]

6 hours ago, Frinik22 said:

I found an interesting  article dealing with Sherman vs Tiger armour. For your enjoyment.

 

https://www.mathscinotes.com/2015/07/sherman-tank-myths/

The Chieftain is being paid by a company that has an interest in projecting its own spin on WWII AFV's.

 

The Sherman could have a good run when it was up against Pz III's, and IV's, but the long barreled Pz IV was also absolutely lethal against the Sherman. The Sherman/Pz IV would make the best matched MP game play if the tanks would be modeled as they were in real life.

[Frinik22]

Well if you are going to discard every person,. opinion or fact that goes against your conclusions you are not going to ever play this game again. Keeping an open mind is important I know Chieftain is paid by the maker sof War Thunder but I don't see him spouting nonsense nor using inaccurate statistics to support his arguments. In this game the Sherman armour may or may not be too resistant by historical standards or it could also  be that the Tiger AP shells historical penetration power is not accurately calculated. We don't know as we don't have access to the developers game engine and how  exactly does it simulate or reproduce real time battlefield values.  Or it may be that the devlopers caved in to  those who complained about the Tiger having a lopsided advantage over the Soviet playable tanks in TC and nerfed the shells or reinforced the armour thickness of the Sherman beyond real values. Not likely but possible..  So your choice is boycott the game as you are doing, or play it and complain endlessly to developers who won't pay you any mind or put up with what there is and enjoy the game for what it is, a video game with some positive features and others that are lacking. I wish somebody had asked early to the developers details abotu how they are calculating impacts and penetrations values, what damage modelling are they using and how accurately they think they were able to reproduce  historical battlefield values or is it a work in progress?

[LachenKrieg]

On 10/4/2022 at 5:11 AM, Frinik22 said:

Well if you are going to discard every person,. opinion or fact that goes against your conclusions you are not going to ever play this game again. Keeping an open mind is important I know Chieftain is paid by the maker sof War Thunder but I don't see him spouting nonsense nor using inaccurate statistics to support his arguments. In this game the Sherman armour may or may not be too resistant by historical standards or it could also  be that the Tiger AP shells historical penetration power is not accurately calculated. We don't know as we don't have access to the developers game engine and how  exactly does it simulate or reproduce real time battlefield values.  Or it may be that the devlopers caved in to  those who complained about the Tiger having a lopsided advantage over the Soviet playable tanks in TC and nerfed the shells or reinforced the armour thickness of the Sherman beyond real values. Not likely but possible..  So your choice is boycott the game as you are doing, or play it and complain endlessly to developers who won't pay you any mind or put up with what there is and enjoy the game for what it is, a video game with some positive features and others that are lacking. I wish somebody had asked early to the developers details abotu how they are calculating impacts and penetrations values, what damage modelling are they using and how accurately they think they were able to reproduce  historical battlefield values or is it a work in progress?

What fact am I discarding?

And which fact goes against my conclusions, or better still, what conclusions?

I simply said the Pz IV G was very lethal against the Sherman, which is a well established fact both in theory and in its historical use.

 

If you have never seen the Chieftain spout nonsense, then maybe you should watch more of his "Inside the Chieftain's hatch" series. I have full respect for his opinion as a tank man and the service he gave his country, but I also find some of the biased narrative he spins in his new role at wargaming to coincide closely with the way the game itself is modeled. Hiring an expert to bend reality in the direction you need it to go is not a new marketing idea BTW, and it certainly wasn't invented by wargaming.

 

As an example, watch the 3-part series he does on the Panther. The design of the Commander's hatch on the Panther was way ahead of it's time offering excellent protection and good visibility in all positions. The uninitiated viewer could easily be mislead by the Chieftain into thinking that WWII Panther crews drove around blind with the C-hatch closed all the time, and that they were unable to get out of the tank in case of a fire. It's funny because not being able to get out of a burning tank was exactly the problem identified by the powers that be for both American and British forces, and which resulted in a Sherman tank redesign. But both his suggestions here are nothing more than subjective nonsense. The C-hatch could be closed and locked when operating in high threat/close combat areas, and there were 4 exit points for a 5-man crew. This is just a guess mind you, but I am willing to bet the Panther Commander was well trained on how to quickly open his hatch, especially during the adrenaline pumping experience of facing an internal fire.

 

And you wouldn't want to be caught in a Panther's gun sight crossing open ground as it's gun system was one of the most lethal on the WWII battlefield. But the Chieftain describes individual parts of that system as if they weren't even related. The uninitiated viewer might be misled again into thinking that the Commander's azimuth ring was simply provided to help orientate confused Commander's that forgot where they were, or which way their tank was facing. The point was the Panther's crew was meant to work as a single unit. The Commander's azimuth ring certainly served as a reference for him at eye level, but the point was to be able to quickly relay accurate information to the gunner while keeping his focus on the target. The Chieftain does do a good review of the Panther while stretching reality just enough to support his conclusions, which coincidentally seems to closely resemble the impression one is left with when using the Panther on wargaming servers.

 

Not having an accurate armor/gun model is not just missing a feature, it is the whole SIM for me! What I wish the developer's would do is put the "REAL" back in the SIM. Have the vehicles modeled as close as possible to the real world vehicles on expert setting, but also have a watered down setting where things can be balanced as needed. I suspect you are right, I think Tank Crew probably has a large following in Russia and other consumer markets where the allied vehicles are preferred. But there is no reason the developer's couldn't support both simulation enthusiasts, and the MP game world by having a setting for both.       

Edited October 5, 2022 by LachenKrieg
Improve on the poor wording in the text message