ASL Veteran

The options for ammunition are Typical Full Adequate Limited Scarce Severe Unlimited is not an option. Since the batteries are off map resupply is also not an option.

AI tank crews are automatically set to open by the AI. You have no control over the buttoned status of AI vehicle crews.

I think he means 'made a few sales' in that they have sold a few games. Sale being used in the transactional sense not the discount sense of the word.

It's possible they have a similar name. There are various types of sturm units in the Volksgrenadier battalions so I may be getting them confused, but yeah, the Panzergrenadiers in the Panzer Brigades have the MP44 in the MG module.

Although if he wants them now he can get the Panzer Brigade Panzergrenadiers which is in Market Garden. I don't think the Panzerbrigades have been added to RT yet, but I'm not 100% sure. They are somewhat similar to the Sturmgrenadiers except with possibly a little less firepower in some ways.

Volksgrenadiers are not available in the game yet. They are typically associated with the November and later time frame which is outside of the time frame of all the released games so far. I'm just saying that those are the formations that were the most likely to have MP44s historically and that's what you seem to be looking for. So no, altering the equipment quality rating will not give you units full of MP 44s if that is what you are looking for because the units currently in game weren't historically equipped with such weapons since those weapons are associated with an entirely different TO&E. The things that currently change in the Germans is the number of G43 semi auto rifles and whether the MG is going to be an MG 34 or an MG 42. The differences aren't going to be dramatic, but they are present. Edited to add that German paras are probably more likely to get the FG 42 on higher equipment quality settings though!

You should see more MP44s in the later time periods. When you use the Panzer Brigades you will see them and you should see plenty with the Volksgrenadiers.

My memory is hazy, but I think that perhaps the spotter doesn't need to have LOS to the actual ground where the FFE is supposed to land. It is sort of like how mortars can target over items like tall walls. You do need to have LOS to the action square itself, but as long as you can see a few meters above the ground in that location you should be good. However, I'm going from memory here and I could be mistaken.

You don't need Set Up Zones for reinforcements because those units will always enter the map where you originally place them in the editor. If the components of one AI group is split between reinforcements and non reinforcements nobody that is a part of that AI group will move until the last reinforcement has arrived onto the map. In order for a unit to do something you have to assign it to one of the 16 available AI groups. Every unit defaults as part of group A1, but you have to manually assign AI groups 2 through 16 by using the F keys. You then have to paint the orders for the various groups onto the map before the units will move to those locations. Without knowing what you are doing exactly though it is hard to give much more than general guidance. Edited to add, there are no branching AI orders either. Your AI controlled truppen are on a one way train track that always travels from station to station on a single path. Just tossing that out there if you weren't aware of that.

For heavy weapons like HMG, mortars, and AT Guns etc. if the weapon is close enough to an ammo dump or a truck the weapon will draw ammunition automatically from the dump, truck, ammo bearer, whatever. You can see this because there are two ammo listings for heavy weapons. An HMG, for example, will show the ammunition that it has organic to the HMG crew listed in the same place as where you would see ammo listed for a normal squad. That number may show 1500 rounds for example. Just to the right of it, if you select the ammunition tab you can see how much ammunition is currently available to the HMG. If dumps, trucks, or bearers are not nearby then you would simply see 1500 in that spot again. If a truck is close enough that number might show >3k or something like that. It is my understanding that the weapon will draw ammo from the truck before using it's own without you having to manually 'acquire' it. Your unit has to be pretty close though - I think it is within about three action spaces, but I'm not sure exactly. I don't think squads draw ammunition automatically like this, but I could be wrong on that.

The most typical case for the Germans will be the substitution of MG34s in the place of MG42s. Units with a lot of automatic weapons may have some differences in the type of automatic weapon assigned. American units may have more or fewer BARs assigned. As SLIM mentioned though, it really does depend on the type of unit you are using.

I haven't looked at your save game, but tank crews can only re crew the same tanks they started in and there needs to be a minimum number of crew members in a crew in order to re crew a tank. For a five man tank crew I think there needs to be at least three functioning crew members.

Perhaps, but if your entire argument depends upon a definition then you don't really have an argument of substance because if your definition isn't the same as BFC's definition the discussion is effectively over. You aren't bringing anything else to the table. If the game is massively flawed if we assume that your definition is correct or that the game is just fine if your definition is incorrect I would have to say that the assumption should be that you are the one in error on this topic. After all, we know that BFC has consulted experts in the field when creating the penetration formulas for the game and until now nobody has found any errors in the game on this topic at least since the CMx2 engine was created. I believe the formulas were changed for CMx2 because Rexford himself contacted BFC and personally discussed the topic with them IIRC. If we know that Rexford himself consulted with BFC on this issue I think that it is safe to assume that such a basic error that is implied by this definition 'issue' is something that would not have made it into the game. At least, unless you think that BFC is completely incompetent. There is nothing wrong with raising an issue and subsequently finding out that you may have made a mistake. The only thing that remains is whether the person making the mistake decides to keep banging the same drum and making himself look like a fool.

Perhaps. However, he really needs to understand that he is now effectively saying that the entire model that the game uses for armor penetration is in error. If the expectation is that someone is going to come onto this forum, start a thread, toss out a few things and have an expectation that Charles is going to discount everything that he has done for the last fifteen years and suddenly say 'You're right, I need to re do the entire penetration model for the game' is probably not dealing with reality as it currently is. If anyone wants the entire way the game is calculating armor penetration to change they are probably going to need to provide some very compelling evidence, up to and perhaps including various tables and calculations that are the equivalent of what Rexford has published. Shift8 has already discounted the expertise of apparently well regarded individuals on a forum dedicated to armor penetration. Why would Charles feel compelled to put any credence into what Shift8 says on this forum. Is Shift8 published? Does Shift8 work for the defense department? Does Shift8 do any original research on this topic? What are Shift8's credentials exactly or does he just read a few books and count himself an expert? I don't know the answer to that - maybe he is a renowned expert in the field. I'm not trying to be hard on the guy. I'm just trying to spell out reality. Charles relies on research conducted by recognized experts in the field - which includes Rexford. Shift8 seems to have a dim view of Rexford's work, but really, what is Shift8's qualifications to pontificate on Rexford's work in the first place? Unless Shift8 can point to his published work and show where all of CM's mistakes are then he's really just tilting at windmills here since Charles is just going to say 'Shift8? Who is he and why should I care what he thinks?' Reading a book somewhere doesn't make someone an expert because it should be obvious that what Charles has put into the game is much more complicated than a simple penetration table. That is, unless Shift8 stayed at a Holiday Inn last night! I don't know Shift8 and I'm not trying to bust the guy's balls, but if you want to change the entire way armored combat is done in the game it will require extraordinary evidence. Saying 'something is wrong but I don't know what' isn't going to change a thing. That's reality.

That and how is the AI going to designate and place a CCP? Someone has to design AI plans and a designer trying to designate a CCP would probably have to place it somewhere several hundred meters from the areas of conflict or risk placing it somewhere that the enemy occupies since the scenario designer has no idea where the player will be at any given time. If the AI is to designate the CCP on it's own then who knows what the result would be. The reason all of this coding effort is being expended? In order to have medics physically evacuate casualties from the battlefield and that doesn't actually have any impact on the outcome of the battle itself. Yeah, I don't see any value in altering the way casualties are handled right now.

I can top that one. Generally speaking we hated fire in ASL, or at least starting them. Especially after 'The Warta Line' incident. We were playing a two on two game as I recall and the guy opposite my partner moved a bunch of SS squads into the big stone building on board three which was surrounded by barbed wire. Well somehow that building surrounded by barbed wire and full of SS soldiers caught on fire and they couldn't get out. They all burned alive. Of course we topped it off when one Polish leader was in a bunker by himself with an LMG. A full platoon of SS guys jumps into the bunker to kill the guy in close combat led by the player's personal leader (we were doing that campaign thing where you are represented on the map with a personal leader unit and he wanted to pad his stats). The Polish leader kills the entire platoon including the guy's personal leader.

Well then perhaps a test could be conducted against different types of target tanks to see if the two guns perform as expected against other vehicles. That way a determination could be made as to whether the issue is related to the guns or if the issue is related to the armor.

Okay, so if you think the 75mm gun on the Panzer IV is just fine, and if the performance of the 75mm matches the performance of the 76mm per the test run by Vanir, then please explain to us what the issue is that you have with the 76mm gun. At this point in time testing has shown that they act the same in game so if there is something wrong with the 76mm then there must be a similar error with the 75mm. In order to remain credible you either need to admit that perhaps your assumptions were in error or you need to explain why both guns have values that don't match your expectations. Saying that the 75mm is fine but the 76mm is in error when their performance is the same is an irrational position to maintain unless you can give us a compelling reason to doubt the performance of both weapons.

Okay, let's just eliminate partial penetrations from the equation. What do you think of the performance of the US 76mm as compared to the German 75mm? Do you think they are both in error? Do you think shatter gap is being applied to the German ammunition? If not then what do you think is the cause for the difference between the in game performance of both guns and your expectations because up to this point your focus has exclusively been on shatter gap.

The number of people required for providing aid would, no doubt, depend upon the severity of the injuries. There is no reason that a single individual couldn't dress or stabilize a fellow soldier's wounds until a fully trained medic can take over. Buddy Aid in the US military is something that is administered by only one soldier, at least that is how it is taught from what I remember. Since there aren't any medic units in game there doesn't seem to be a need for multiple soldiers providing aid to a single wounded soldier. Perhaps if actual medic units were included? As it is now if someone is so badly wounded that they require more than one soldier to administer immediate aid then it is probably safe to just assume that the soldier is either counted amongst the dead already or that the soldier providing aid is simply stabilizing the wounded soldier until trained medical personnel arrive and evacuate the soldier (he disappears in game terms).

It is my understanding that Charles does not exclusively use Rexford's book for the penetration data so I'm not sure focusing solely on Rexford's work is necessarily going to move the ball forward. Is 'shatter gap' something exclusive to Rexford or are there other researchers and sources of information that discuss this topic?

A test file would simply be the scenario you set up to get your results before you hit the go button. You just upload your scenario somewhere so someone else can run your scenario and check your results - or perhaps recommend a better test setup if necessary. If you want something like this changed it simply isn't going to happen unless you can show that something absolutely definitive is in error and the basis for why you believe that an error is present. Nobody is trying to give you a hard time. We just know how difficult it is to get something like this altered.

You can do that already. Just take a scenario, delete all the units and then turn it into a QB map. Done.

There may not be a simple or workable way of doing this considering the current legal and regulatory business environment.