Pak40

Baneman has more like a full battalion's worth of infantry. It could be hard for Bill to stop that much infantry unless he knocks out the Cats. Good thing for Bill, that's his priority. His decision to go with 4 Shermans instead of two was a good one. That will help him against the infantry. Other than that, he doesn't have much to defend against them. He didn't get any artillery (The VT fuses could have all but secured his victory) and chose instead to get the 2nd Sherman Jumbo. The Hellcats and Jacksons will be of limited use against the infantry. The recon troops, as Bill admits, wont be able to stop Baneman's infantry. His best hope is to delay Baneman enough so that he can't capture all of the VLs and hope that the delays draw out Baneman's armor in order to spring his TD traps. Baneman, on the other hand, needs to be aggressive with his infantry, get some real estate early so that his troops don't tire out in the end. They have a long way to go in the snow. How many turns is this match? Also, by springing the infantry early he might make Bill nervous enough to to commit his armor to stop the tide of infantry, thus exposing them to his lurking Cats. I think he should also show the Jadtiger early in overwatch if he has the proper high ground to do so. This will make Bill a lot more nervous about exposing his armor. I think only his Jacksons will have a chance to knock it out at that range. His infantry will have problems crossing open ground but once he realizes that Bill doesn't have much to stop him then he will force Bill to use his armor. This battle all depends on Bill's ability to knock out the Cats, specifically the Panthers. He is seasoned enough to spring traps in his favor. He'll also need to recognize how few cats Baneman has. Once he does, he can begin to mop up infantry with his remaining armor.

After seeing both OOBs, the only thing I can say without giving anything away, is that this is going to be one hell of a weird battle. I'm really looking forward to it. Now hurry up and finish the AAR so they can release the damn game

VIII Corps was not at Rocherath-Krinkelt, that was V Corps US VIII Corp did have some towed AT units though: 630 TD Battalion - A co towed, B and C co M36 802 TD Battalion - towed

Outstanding job, Bud. Keep it up!

I tried to send him a PM but it said he couldn't receive it? Anyway, best of luck on a speedy recovery!

This old post of mine pretty much sums up the differences between the 76mm and 3 inch guns. In short, some of the actual projectiles were compatible between the two guns but the casing itself was not.

Well, that would be a valid point if CM were a collector's item such as coin, baseball card, or work of art by a famous artist. But it's not, It's a computer game. And like all other computer games it should decline in value over time. My first computer games that I ever purchased back around 1986 were Infocom's Sorcerer and Origin's Ultima III. I remember that the prices were around $50. Both were great games, especially Ultima III, but if you tried to charge me $50 for it now I'd tell you to stuff it. BF does indeed eventually lower their prices, CMBO is only $15. And although CMBN is still $55 it includes the 2.0 and 3.0 upgrades (a $20 discount). The only problem is that to the potential new customer, a 5 year old game @ $55 seems like it's still the original price.

For some reason they never have a sale either. Matrix and other companies have sales at least 2-3 times per year. It's better to lower your price and break even to get a few people hooked on your product. If it's a good product then the people you've hooked are inclined to buy follow up modules or games etc... Get more followers, especially in a niche market.

Jeeze, did you see some of the comments? Some people really thought the wrong side lost the war.

You can make large buildings by placing several modular buildings adjacent to each other, then alter the "interior" walls so that they disappear. I can't remember the keystroke (cntrl + click?) offhand but it's in the manual.

It's a similar process but as I said in my previous post, you don't have to deal with: 1. Establishing radio contact 2. Command Hierarchy 3. Crappy radios with often very bad reception and possibly lots of traffic on the net. All three of these things take time and are abstracted within CMBN when going through the artillery panel. With a spotter within shouting distance, often within just a few meters of the mortar crews, he can simply shout the direction and distance to the crews directly. There is no Fire Direction Center and they don't have to plot the trajectory. Well trained mortar crews knew the distances by heart, and could quickly set the direction, distance, and charges required. Sure, they'd still have to do the spotting rounds but my concern is from the time the order is given to the first spotting round - they should be able to shave off a couple of minutes of time at least.

Tarkus, I wholeheartedly agree that a 5 minute wait for this type of barrage is beyond ridiculous. If mortars are within shouting distance of their spotter then it should be a fraction of that time. There's no need to establish communications and no need to go through command hierarchy and no dealing with finicky radio transmissions - so why on earth does it take 5 minutes for this type of barrage? I almost always use 60mm in direct fire for this reason.

I've had some success with rifle grenades at close range against armored vehicles. Every other time I've seen a rifle grenade fired it's like you said: long range and way off target, as if they never had any training whatsoever firing them. Bracketing a target doesn't seem to make the following rounds fall any closer either. I can't recall seeing a friendly kill in the forest like you describe but IMO this shouldn't even happen in real life because the HE rifle grenades were the pineapple grenades (US troops) modified to fit in the rifle grenade adapter and I think they were fuse based rather than impact based. I could be wrong about this. Now, if they were firing the HEAT round then I suppose what you describe would be possible but the HEAT rounds weren't particularly dangerous to infantry unless they're behind the impacted target.

Go to speedtest.net and press the big green "Begin Test" button to test your download speed. If it's as fast as you claim then try the download again. If it's still slow then contact BFC support.

It's a huge bullet point as in <--- this is a bullet point. rather clever of him I think.

Is it me or did two buildings just disappear at 13:48 in the video?

Hmm, I've only had a couple of issues with other players in War Thunder. In theory it should attract a more mature crowd than World of Tanks since it's more realistic. But in all honesty, I haven't played WoT since it first came out. I played it for one weekend and realized it was nothing more than a first person shooter where the player controlled a tank that acts more like buggy than a tank. I've only recently discovered War Thunder GF. I've played it for about 2-3 weeks non stop, very addicting. It really makes you appreciate the minor and major differences of every tank. The M-10 is a slow rickety beast with a very slow turret - I never knew that until I played WT - but it's true. The M-10 turret was hand cranked and took about 2 minutes to do a full 360.

Have you had a go at War Thunder's Ground Forces? The tank battles are a little more realistic and a lot more satisfying than World of Tanks, for me at least. Bigger maps too where you can really outflank the enemy.

I think this would be great. Or it would probably be more useful to change the barrage settings to something more absolute, like "drop 20" or "drop 50" instead of the ambiguous "quick", "short", and "long" options.

These are all valid points and have been brought up many times in this forum. The developers, I'm sure, are quite aware of all these issues. With regards to #4: Splitting the squads will help lessen the line effect and you can spread each group out to your hearts content. Still, I agree that it's not an ideal solution but it helps mitigate the problem with regards to #7: For on field mortars, once they have already bracketed with their spotting rounds, you can then use the fire briefly command to place a few rounds in one spot. Then on the next turn use the same command on another spot along the hedge. This can simulate the process of raking a hedge or trench line. Not ideal but it's the next best thing. I would like on board mortars to be able to "call in" their own fire missions in direct fire cases. This would allow us to use the "line" option. This can be done with a spotting unit but it takes a ridiculous amount of time to execute even if the spotting unit is in the next AS as the mortar.

It was evident that it wasn't going to meet it's goal so they cancelled it.

I'm signed up. Good Luck KohlenKlau.

The scenario designer has complete control of which units count towards VPs. You could theoretically design a scenario where the Germans have a battalion of infantry and 1 King Tiger. The designer could choose to assign all the VPs just to King Tiger and have the mission briefing say something like "You're primary objective is to eliminate the King Tiger that has been spotted in the vicinity". If the allied player destroys 75% or even 100% of the infantry battalion but fails to kill the King Tiger then he fails the mission because the infantry have no VPs assigned to it.

This seems like a similar issue that some tanks have with the MG bunkers. They will fire at bunkers non stop even though all inhabitants in it may be dead or completely routed. Tanks will waste valuable HE turn after turn until the bunker is registered as abandoned or knocked out.

I hope this is one of the things changed for Battle of Bulge. Rivers and streams in the Ardenness change elevation rapidly. It just wouldn't look right if a stream were all the same height.