Bulletpoint

Well, a savegame is available if anybody more knowledable than I would like to take a look at it. Update: Even more interesting.. Some of the hits that make holes still show the shot bounce off and fly away. So it penetrates and doesn't penetrate at the same time

So if the mantlet is thinker than the front hull, and both are angled about the same, the mantlet should be stronger than the hull (unless it's made of soft metal?). But in my tests that I'm looking at right now, the mantlet gets penetrated by every single shot, and the hull deflects every single hit. And all these mantlet hits leave a hole, but NO penetration message. The tank is not damaged inside, only the gun was knocked out by the very first hit. I can't remember ever seeing a tank get a visually represented hole anywhere without the penetration message, so something tells me there's a technical issue here.

Thanks. This is with the Jpz IV (late) 75mm L/48. Another interesting thing was that the penetrations on the mantlet make a hole, but they don't give any penetration message! They all say "Hit: Weapon Mount"... It's being shot at from 361m distance, and the enemy AT gun is placed straight in front, but at a lower elevation. This should further increase the angle of impact when hitting the top of the mantlet..

The ever-watchful bug eye has fallen on the Jpz IV I noticed that in a recent game, a Jpz IV took a lot of 57mm AT-gun hits directly from the front at short range, and all shots bounced off, except for those that hit the mantlet straight on. 5 penetrations on the mantlet, none on the rest of the tank. As the armour on the "snout" is extremely sloped against hits from the front, those penetrations seem odd to me, but I haven't been able to find any sources on the thickness of that armour piece. Anyone has the info?

I just realised the link to the first video doesn't show the issue at the indicated time. But here's another view that shows the same problem very clearly. It also shows how some units (tanks) seem to get whiter in the fog, so they stand out as more white than the background. Not sure if those things are related. 07:26:

I'm not the guy who made the video, but yes that was a fun moment Apart from the loo in the river and the graphical glitches, it's a beautiful map.

Often some squares in fog won't get shaded properly, so they stick out as dark squares against the surrounding lighter (foggier) squares. Here's an example (visible at 14:41). Not my video, but I hope it's ok that I use it as an illustration of the glitch:

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I'm wondering if it's possible to make a scenario that (nearly) only features rifle infantry on both sides? Often in CM, we are a bit spoilt, in that we often have a tank or similar to bring up when faced with a difficult situation.. and most squads have automatic weapons of some kind. I'd like to try a pure rifle infantry match on a map that makes it possible to do fire and maneuver anyway. The US side has armoured infantry, that have next to no automatic weapons, but I wonder if I can design a German equivalent?

I guess I have just never seen the churchills in good matchups then. My experience with them is only from playing the Scottish Corridor campaign (twice). It pits the Churchills against Panthers and Tigers.

You could also look it from the opposite direction: If Battlefront had to do this whole enormous testing suite and statistical analysis, it would have cost them a lot of time - or a lot of money, if they hired somebody to do it. Now the results are there for the taking, free of charge. If they want to adjust weapon parameters they now have a good starting point. If they don't want to do it, they are going to spend exactly zero resources on this thread. I'm sure they are fully able to prioritise their own time I disagree. It's not a cosmetic thing at all. It is relevant to the basic gameplay, and the same improvements would improve several titles, since many of the same weapons are used across the games.

Which kind of StuG (can't remember if they all use the same gun in CMBN), and at what range? And what kind of Churchill? The VII is strong.

I think it's still great. But while I'm no WW2 ballistics expert, I think these tests show some things could be improved. I just like to see a good thing get better. So I think it's very nice people are putting their minds to help improve it.

I've been thinking about why the SMGs suddenly seem to become more deadly at longer ranges. Could it be because of plunging fire? You said you put the target squads in foxholes, so since the low velocity bullets fly in more of an arc trajectory, maybe they would have a tendency to drop into the foxholes from above? Not sure how foxholes are modelled technically..

I think it greatly matters. For me, a big part of the enjoyment of this game is that it strives to be realistic, both about weapons and tactics. If I just wanted to see some shooting and big explosions, there would be at least 20 others games I could play that had way better graphics.

Is there any reason to believe the MP44 would be less deadly at close range than the MP40, the Thompson, etc.?

Churchills seem very poor tanks in my experience, but I've only played them in campaigns where of course they are up against Panthers and 75mm PaKs. Churchills seem slow, spot poorly, and quite fragile. certainly I haven't seen them survive anything a Sherman couldn't have survived. The only Churchill worth the name "heavy tank" seems to be the mark VII. In short, I agree. I don't see why they should be more expensive than Shermans.

Very impressive. I think there's a lot to discuss in this, and hopefully improve upon. Thanks for doing all this work. One thing about the methodology - you said each firing team only consists of one guy. But also you said that there's a spotter with binoculars to aid with spotting at a distance. If you mean he is in a separate team, I don't think he affects the spotting of the firing teams.

I'd just like if the shadows would stop flickering off and on as I move the camera around

Yup, I saw your post a few days ago and forwarded it onto Charles. I agree there's probably something there that needs to be fixed. Great to hear that. If you guys want the scenario file with my test setup, just let me know.

I just noticed the german Panzer Aufklärung Battalion 44 has a weapons company that includes thee PaK38 and two light infantry guns. I thought "Aufklärung" meant recon troops, so what were they lugging those heavy guns around for ? (Just noticed this battalion can be bought either as "infantry only", "mech infantry", or "armour only". I'm talking about the one found in the "infantry only" category)

Another option is to attach some scout teams. At least the US scouts have a couple of demo charges. If I attach regular breach teams, I often turn down the number of regular troops in the squads, as I suppose the breach teams would be formed from those squads.

Any chance that vehicle windshield glass will be made non-bulletproof in the new patch? I know it's a bit late maybe, but hopefully it could just be a matter of changing the material properties of the glass...

Yes I thought that sounded a little bit too small, but I'm no expert. This stuff always boggles my mind. Thanks for digging up the source and the pics, I appreciate it.

I think he meant the weather and light levels specifically here.. I think that's not represented in the game currently? About the experience, yes, but I don't think fatigue and nervousness affect the spotting - as far as I understood the recent soft factor test by Josey Wales..

Thanks a lot for the good answers everybody. I don't have a strong preference either way, east or west front, that's why I thought I would ask for the quality of the scenarios. Of course that will always be subjective, but I wanted to hear your take on it. I'd much rather play a great campaign in a theater I don't (think I) like so much than a mediocre campaign in an interesting theater. Did Paper Tiger design any of the campaigns of those two games? Not saying other designers are not good, I just came to enjoy the quality of the guy's work in CMBN