• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Tank Question for MODs

Franc-Tireur

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 25, 2007
103
3
0
39
paris
Ohh ok sorry Dogbadger , i had completely forgotten this , thought it was T-34's , thx for infos , was a very bad example then , my apologies , cheers mate :)
 

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
Franc i forgot to mention skilled German AT soldiers as a factor in konigs
(although conversely decent russ inf. should be providing support for the armour by pinning them down and limiting their effectivness)
- but again all this reinforces the point that CA potentially has a wide range of match winning variables that can cancel and even overshadow descrepancies in armour capabilities

No its a good example!

I destroy the Ruskies with the Tiger on Konigs whenever I play German! Its the bloody arty that kills me 80% of the time! :rolleyes:
my observation is that this is generally not what happens. you may well be the special one.
 

mlespaul

FNG / Fresh Meat
well unfortunately the american tanks simply didn't have rangefinders, you have to manually move the barrel up and down and use the markings to estimate the distance.
are you starting to understand why they say american tanks were so inferior to german and russian tanks?
Don't think he's being patronising Nagels. Alot of people don't really get the difference between the Axis & Allies tanks & how inferior they really were. Had it not been for sabotage during manufacture, fuels supplies, Allied air supremacy & bad workmanship from Captured workers then the Axis tanks would have been virtually unchallanged unless the were bogged down or trackless. The range finder lacking in the Shermans gave them a huge disadvantage against the more accurate Axis tanks. Add to this the firepower over that long range & it's Tommy cooker time again.
Cheers.
Rob
Welllll...you're kinda right if you guys mean the RO method of rangefinding in the coding of the reticle views and how the guns are laid. But if you mean that the german main sight telescopes had an advantage in that they were actual "rangefinders" then I part ways with that description.

The German TZF telescopes (as halfway represented by the models in RO) were not rangefinders nor were they designed to be. They executed a task that was completely separate than those done by actual 70 cm base and larger rangefinder devices. These were carried along by tank commander's or in forward observation vehicles, etc.

The TZF's were designed as range "estimators", turning the range collars and selecting the various range settings along the perimeter of the view served only to bring the vertically moving reticle marks to a position that correlated with the proper ballistic height(vertical) angle of the cannon that the cannon SHOULD be positioned against the selected target. The estimation was made by the gunner by using the triangles as visual measurement tools, then he would turn the wheel causing the triangles to move. It was still the job of the gunner to manually move the cannon elevation up to the spot recommended by the newly positioned triangles. But it was still a best-estimate guess, and not a true range feedback system. In RO the player moves the triangles to lay on a target, but it's more a ballistic exercise in that the range circle above is not connected to the action of the reticle itself.
Again, in RO, this action is not represented accurately, and gives the perception by many players that actual automatic rangefinding is occurring like in more modern armor, since a numerical value automatically appears in the screen near the bottom.

Only later optics, like the WZF 2/1 in the Jagdtiger, and some others provided the start of a singularly integrated sight and rangefinder application.

The Russian types were similar in execution, except the verticle scales on the right and left would move against a fixed line or arrow, or the fixed lines would move against the fixed scale, and in some models the vertical deflection line would move left and right, but again, it was estimation, not range finding.

The US non-moving (ballistic) reticles required memorization of firing tables of which when estimation was made, the mental computations dictated the correct elevation hash mark to put against the target.

So, in RO, the sights may act as rangefinders, yes, but historically, the real activity occurred as two separate optical functions, and by two separate items of equipment.
 
Last edited:

Pharnakes

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 25, 2007
518
17
0
Don't really get your post tbh.

know I don't know much but I do know this: the recticules in ro are not "rangefinders" and nobody claims they are, its just what we call them. (But I'm sure I'm right in saying that we all know they are not range finders).

The only difference that I can see from RO and IRL is that in RO you don't have to read the numbers off the reticule, the game brings them up for you in the corner. Not 100% accurate, but at least in the case of the russian scopes neseceary dor any who can't read cyrlic.


Anyway, the main relevant point for this discuion is the fast that allied optics were **** quality as they had no magnification function, I find this makes the wloverine almost totaly unusable, as it's far to waekly armoured to be able to engagat close range, and t long range the optics are alomst impossible to use.


Normaly I would be in favour of 100% accuracy if possible, but maybe one fairly minor twitch that could be considered would be giving allied armour reticlues a slight telesopic effect, to allow for the the 76 and 90ml systems to fire from cover at long ranges?

I know its unrealistic, but you also have to consider the fact that IRL you don't see the entire world through a 20" window.
 

Mastaajbomb

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 12, 2008
30
0
0
i say as long as the shermans also have any of the following in support keep them realilistic M10-M18-M36-Pershing
 

Spiff

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 18, 2006
27
0
0
:eek: REALISM REALISM REEAAALLLIIISSSMM!!!!! OMGZ PLEASE!!!!



I HATE RO TANKING!!!! AHHHHHHH

why?


BALANCE!!!

ppsh should pwn hard (recoil)

panther should pwn hard (armor)

no balance for mee i hate it sooooo much