Redwolf

Oops, typo. I meant Keiler, which was the German equivalent to the XM803. The concept was basically to take the MBT-70, which was generally unacceptable to the FRG, and turn it into something they could take. So it was rearmed, reengined, etc. On paper the program started in 1970(IIRC) and lasted into the mid-1970s when it eventually tapered off, but it was only really hot for about a year or two. Very quickly the Germans decided that the MBT-70 was a fundamentally flawed program and that they had to basically restart the design process, so they did and that led into the Leo2 we all know and love. BUT, confusingly, Keilers were kept around as testbeds (I think maybe 2 were built?) And so there is a bit of variation in equipment and activities. 

Illness hit hard over the last few days but everyone seems a bit better now. I have a few turns to write up (hopefully today) so plenty of updates coming your way!
MMM

You buy the units, place it on the map where you want it to arrive and then, back in unit selection, you select that unit on the right hand side and you press the number keys 1 to 7.

Generally realistic, but:
1: Real battles are usually asymmetric to some extent. In CM, for gameplay balance reasons, you'll nearly always have a force that matches the opposition, and vice versa.
2: You're able to keep pushing until all of your troops are dead, because in CM, 'broken' doesn't mean 'broken'.
3: The action square system means infantry are more vulnerable than they are in real life. For example, coming across a hilltop, real infantry could easily find just the right spot where they could observe the other side without exposing themselves. In CM, you have to advance at least 8 metres at a time, so you often up in situations where either you're on the wrong side of the hill (can't see) or you're on the wrong side of the hill (you're exposed).

Another suggestion along  the lines of arty issues:
Shouldn't a mortar's direct HQ be able to have an almost immediate response (ie. at most a minute) to an OBA request is the mortar is actually in their LoS? It seems bizarre that a company's mortar section should have no faster reaction time to a request from their immediate HQ that is in sight, or at least in speech-contact than the Company's actual HQ that has to go through that mortar's HQ for access?

I tested all Panzergrenadier Units (armored) from 01/1945.
No MP 44's at all. In Final Blitzkrieg the same units have them in their arsenal.
 

Yes, in a way this issue negates the rarity system.
It's nice that a Pz IV, a StuG and a Panther have zero (standard) rarity. So that, in theory, people usually roll around in a mix of these most common vehicles. But it doesn't do any good if the purchase price of the StuG is 299 and a Panther is 365.
All the while a Sherman is 190. Regardless of whether you want to compete with the Sherman on anti-armor capability or anti-infantry capability, either way the Panther is the better choice at only 66 points more.
And as you say, we better fix it before or at the same time we hit Steam and PBEM+++. Otherwise we will have this same debate, but with people who will just stay away quickly.

Ee... This whole thread is about understanding why StuGs, Pz IVs and M4 s are priced a certain way. There are different arguments but the only people who can give a definite answer are those who built the game and who don't participate in the discussion.
Allegedly, there is some kind of formula. And nobody knows what is inside that formula.

Yes, in a way this issue negates the rarity system.
It's nice that a Pz IV, a StuG and a Panther have zero (standard) rarity. So that, in theory, people usually roll around in a mix of these most common vehicles. But it doesn't do any good if the purchase price of the StuG is 299 and a Panther is 365.
All the while a Sherman is 190. Regardless of whether you want to compete with the Sherman on anti-armor capability or anti-infantry capability, either way the Panther is the better choice at only 66 points more.
And as you say, we better fix it before or at the same time we hit Steam and PBEM+++. Otherwise we will have this same debate, but with people who will just stay away quickly.

Yes, and again it creates a situation where competitive German players are picking Panthers. The issue isn't so much that this creates a balance problem but that it denudes QBs of variety because players aren't going to waste points on Stugs and whatnot.

Essentially I'm seeing this whole thread not as a balance request, but as a diversity request. And sure people can make the argument that you just house rule it but most players are going to be playing using the standard rules. This will only become more common once Slithirine finally released their built-in QB system.

FR Rumble at Reitwein
2304x976
This in an out-take from Fire&Rubble that didn't get time to have tested to standard (though I have done many runs on it in Scenario Author mode, and in my own playtesting).
Meeting Engagement just to the west of Reitwein between Soviet 370 RD and attached armor elements versus elements of Reitwein area Volkssturm, Panther-Battalion "Brandenburg", a KG from the "Kurmark" Division, and attached stragglers from 9th FJ Division.
The scenario is fictional, but is derived from actions and forces in the area in attempting to enlarge/reduce the Soviet bridgehead over the Oder.
Play as either side. 1 plan for Axis, 2 for Soviet side. May also be suitable for HTH.


 
FR Rumble at Reitwein.btt

The screenshots in the original C2 and Information Sharing topic were destroyed by Photobucket. As a result a REDUX C2 and Information Sharing topic was created with new screenshots. Some mods that will show up most often in the screenshots are, user interface (UI) and floating icons:  
Floating Icons – Cat Tactical Icons CMFI
User Interface – Juju’s TweakedUI CMFI V5
Some interesting topics have been started about how information moves through the C2 chain both vertically (up & down the chain of command) and horizontally (directly from one team to another team).  As a result I did some experimenting with C2 & information sharing.  Below are the results with screenshots from the experiment.  If anyone can offer a correction or additional information please do. 
Additional useful information and supplemental C2 rules:   
4.0 Engine Manual page 66 Command & Control.
@Bil Hardenberger Command Friction 2.0 -  http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125172-command-friction-20/
@Peregrine Command Layers - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110861-command-layer-in-ai-battles/
 
 
The distance information can be shared vertically (chain of command).
Voice C2: Up to six action spots, approximately 48 meters. If either unit is on Hide then the distance is reduced to approximately 16 meters.
Close Visual C2: Up to 12 action spots, approximately 96 meters. This is also the maximum distance a higher HQ can fill in for a lower HQ. Example: Company or battalion HQ fills in for a platoon HQ and provides C2 to the platoon's fire teams. 
Distant Visual C2: As far as the unit’s line of sight.  (In the experiment I had units in distant visual C2 at 40 action spots, approximately 480 meters before I stopped.)
Radio C2: Entire map.  In the WWII titles, CMSF & CMA - C2 via backpack radio is lost during foot movement. C2 is maintained during foot movement in CMBS.
The distance information can be shared horizontally (directly between teams).
Up to four action spots, approximately 32 meters. (Sometimes a team had to move to within 3 action spots)
Can information be shared horizontally between teams from different battalions?
Yes
Can information be shared between two different HQs that do not have a common higher HQ?
Vertically: No (With no common higher HQ there is no bridge for the information to pass over) 
Horizontally: Yes
The experiment was conducted on skill level Iron in CMFI v2.0 Engine 4.  I used two different US battalions on a custom made map for the experiment.  The 4th US Tank Battalion on the west (left) side of the map and the 1st US Infantry Battalion on the east (right) side.  A high ridgeline divided the two battalions.  HQ units are blocked from C2 Voice, Close Visual and Distant Visual with other HQ units. At the beginning of the experiment no units of the 4thBattalion were in C2 with units of the 1st Battalion.  An immobilized German Tiger and a destroyed Tiger were used as the OpFor unit to be spotted and reported.  
The Area of Operations (A/O) for the experiment. Note the highlighted scout team with no C2.   
 

Real tankers neither choose the "map" they are on nor the side the enemy tank shows them.

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

That's actually mostly linear to the power of 3 for the HE filler (plus the thinner mortar outer shell), as it should be for volume. And linear to power of 2 for the lethality, which is also correct because of the 2D shockwave.

The panther being picked in every game is a good point. My friend and I were just talking about how many vehicles go unused for the Germans in CMRT. 

I’ll let the images suggest a story rather than fill in the gaps…
 

 

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

Yes, this is a good turnaround view at the issue.
The only tanks that are zero rarity for the Germans are a Pz IV, a StuG and a Panther. The first two are overpriced, so what does the player do if they don't want to put themselves at a disadvantage compared to the Sherman hordes - either get a Panther, or get rare vehicles. Neither serves the purpose of historical gaming.

The sole existence of a site like FGM shows how good the existing system actually is. It is quite workable, about 50% of the games and tournaments use self-selected forces, and usually with rarity set to standard.
So why not improve the historical accuracy if all that it would cost is adjust some variables to make the most common vehicles more common?
BTW, US squads wipe out all other squads, easily. But that is not a problem, I have never seen anybody having a problem with the squad prices. If you consider how difficult that is you will realize how attractive this gaming system already is.
 

That brings you into "Panther Hell". For the Germans the only zero rarity vehicles are a Mk IV, a StuG and a Panther. Since the other two are overpriced you have no choice but go for the Panther if you play 0 rarity. Panthers are seriously fun-limiting.
In reality people save rarity points when selecting infantry and support and then spend those rarity points in vehicles such as open-top TDs, Wespes or Jagdpanzers. More fun battles are a result. But you need to save up for the rarity.
Correcting the price for StuGs and Mk IVs would drive more battles into the fun zone without rarity games. The mispricing is what makes rare vehicles so attractive, and hence you see more rare-induced forces. Not good for fun or historical accuracy.

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

Yes, anti-aircraft fire ignores the cover arc.
People actually didn't like that because they wanted to hold their Strelas back from firing at aircraft at the first opportunity.

Ideally we would be able to load an XML file (or whatever format) with a price list. But that is not going to happen I'm afraid. On the bright side, there are not that many pricing issues that many people complain about. So if we get this one out of the way that would leave us with a better game.
As you say, some price differences between some Sherman models are also puzzling. I don't bother unless I can have a wet model. Maybe something was actually fatfingered when the cheapest one ended up sub-200.
 

The price jump between the rare basic M4A3 75 and M4A3 75 (wet stowage) is 40 points. The basic M4A3 retains the old pattern hull with armor quality ranked as mediocre, carries fewer rounds, and burns easily. So we can intuit where the extra points come from for M4A3w mid.
By Dec 44 in CMFB the M4 Mid has entirely dropped out of the TO&E.