c3k

Sigh. JUST when you'd gained some street cred, you go and ruin it all with a double-post, like some whinging newb. Now, thanks to the double-post, BFC will be forced to ignore all your points. Silly git. Restricting the range is not, IMO, a good idea. Increasing the internal "weighting" of sticking to the primary job is more important. Nerfing the range would create more problems. Welcome to the Hydra... Ken

^^^ I concur. YankeeDog, you phrased it very well. Thank you. Ken

Dammit man, if you're not using a ball-peen hammer, yer jus' nae tryin'!!!

I have not looked at this file. However, since eltorrente found it to work, I assume it was user error. Lt Bull: look at the green UI which tells you what each man is doing. There should be some indicator there that the crew is packing up. (Of course, I could be totally mis-remembering this!) Let us know... Ken

^^^ When TARGETING is what is tested, using the SAME TARGET is important. To do so, getting the crews OUT of the target tank prevents smoke, retreating, return fire, etc. Hotseating allows you to get the damage details from the unmanned tanks. Platoon vs. platoon tests have little validity vis a vis targeting. It is a test merely of platoon combat worth vs. platoon combat worth.

Given the assumed (as stated above) use of M61a1 ammunition, is the penetration performance in CMBN approximately correct?

The glacis in the PzIV was holed with brake access panels (largest holes in the plate) and other factory-cut perforations. These were, of course, filled with hinged plates, but edge effects would come into play, as would issues regarding blowing in the access panels, and access panel thickness/resistance. Ken

^^^ This is an outstanding precis regarding troop transport. It should be stickied. Or at least memorized.

Just clarifying the above post. I added the bold for emphasis. The PATCH is free. The UPGRADE will cost money. You will be able to PATCH the original CMBN/CW for free. The PATCH will resolve various bugs and gameplay issues reported by players. The UPGRADE will CHANGE THE GAME. CMBN/CW will be run using the same code as CMFI. That adds cover armor arcs, movable waypoints, and whole host of other FUNDAMENTAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS. So, if you don't want to/cannot spend the minor cost for the upgrade, the game you bought will still be supported...for free. (Not forever, but at least until all the egregious bugs are squashed.) PATCH=FREE UPGRADE=$

I'm running this on four machines. My panning has been smooth. It is just like the various other games I have which allow panning.

This is exactly how BF.C works. They will not change coded behavior unless a clearly shown error is presented. That filters out spurious requests. For example, if one player has all his men killed when they're hiding in a building, BF.C will not recode buildings. If it is then shown that this is repeatable AND non-realistic, then BF.C will attempt to solve the behavior. The solution may not be workable. There are limits to computing power, coding, and gameplay. If it is solvable, then the solution must be tested to ensure it doesn't "break" something else. Then they have to decide how and when to introduce it. A "patch-a-day" approach would be horrible. A "once-in-a-decade" policy would be equally bad. So, multiple solutions are saved up for a large patch which resolves multiple issues. Finally, it all has to fit into the work schedule. There are many cool things going on at BF.C. Fixing mortars, for example, is not the only item out there. In sum: 1) Find the behavior. 2) Repeat the behavior. Reliably, and consistently, if possible. Show it. 3) Isolate it from other variables. (Unit type, terrain, etc.) 4) Show how the behavior in-game deviates from real life. 5) Wait for the patch. If a player can just do step 1 and post it, it will get looked at. The more steps that a player can do, the faster it will get included in an eventual patch.

It seems to me that there may be two conflicting errors being chased. Well, the errors actually are cumulative, but the chase seems to be conflicting. First, we have the effectiveness of a given mortar round, then we have the accuracy of the mortar. Vanir Ausf B's tests seem to revolve around testing how (overly) effective each round of mortar fire seems to be. JasonC is arguing that mortars in-game are far too accurate. These two issues are obviously related to the sense that in-game mortars are uberkillers. VAB's tests are producing casualty numbers which can be compared (in varying degrees) to historical data. JasonC is (appropriately) postulating that in-game mortars are too accurate and that the player has too much control over the aimpoint/hitpoint. I would think testing EACH of these factors - separately - is important. Just my opinion... Ken

My Korean War Veteran uncle spent a lot of time in the front lines. He never talked much about it, but he did, after I plied him with enough beers, talk about how they could sometimes see the incoming mortar rounds at the top of their trajectory. Then he shuddered and that was the last he talked about his experiences.

Agreed. The casualty radius is the 50% likelihood of receiving a wound. (Other %'s can be used, but 50% is, in my experience, the distance usually given when speaking about effective range.) There is, indeed, a difference between B10 SUPPRESSION and B3's effective distances. Obviously, suppression can and should occur at a greater distance than assured incapacitation. However, is it beyond 90%? I think yes. How about 50% Yeah, I'd be ducking down. 25%? Hmm, probably. 1% Not likely. These are "fuzzy" numbers. Similar to CEP. They use probabilities, statistics, and underlying assumptions (obviously). Prone, erect, sheltered, hard ground, etc. My point was merely that the diagram showing diameters is an aberration - in my experience - from every other diagram of effectiveness. I would more likely ascribe it to a mis-transcribed diagram rather than give it full weight and validity...without a separate source. It's an odd diagram. A first blush check would be to turn the diameter into an area, then see if there are any other sources describing the same effect, and does that other source give a similar area? I'm not making a single statement about anything else given in this thread. Merely, the diagram using diameter strikes me as needing a double check. (A 100% radius, delineating the extreme limits of possibility of death/wounding due to a shell, would be extremely large. The drop off is very quick, but the odd chunk of metal certainly does fly quite far.)

I have never heard, or seen, of any effects being charted by diameter instead of radius. That made me look at the document. Figure B3, as you state, shows diameter. However, Figure B10 shows radius. It appears that B3 is wrong. However, my conclusion is based on assumptions. Shrug.

Partially quoted from upstream, my bold added. Theoretical, and practice range, accuracy is, indeed, orders of magnitude better than combat accuracy. While I agree with the thrust of this thread, what is it about small mortars which will increase their dispersion in real life combat? Is it purely range estimation? Bent fins? Non-level sights? Bases which shift? With a rifle it is easy: adrenaline, fear, stress, hurried shooting, all produce misses. Why should a bipod and base, sighted in, "heavy" weapon miss its aimpoint in combat?

We're all a bit confused. If you could expand on your description of what you're seeing, that would help. Ken

slysniper, No beta ran into this issue when testing the patch. Congratulations on blazing a new trail! Okay, that was the old "lemonade out of lemons" attempt. I think your best bet is either opening a thread in the Tech Support forum or creating a help desk ticket. A wipe and reload would've my best guess. And I emphasize "guess". Ken

The CA will un-hide the team when the team spots an enemy inside the CA. Otherwise, they will HIDE until they feel their survival is threatened. That's usually AFTER the grenade explodes in their midst... So, HIDE means don't shoot no matter how close the enemy comes...unless your survival is in doubt due to incoming fire. (There may be a range limit at which point there doesn't need to be any incoming fire.) The CA lets them spring the ambush at the desired range. As far as spotting, look at the UI on the lower left of the screen. Most will be hiding, but someone will be spotting. He may hide, then spot again. Or, someone else may spot. Regardless, at some point, someone will be looking. They don't all keep their noses down all the time. The spotting is sporadic. More like peeking. All the above is IMHO, AFAIR, .02, etc. Let us know how it works. Ken

For a long time I was leery of these hosting sites. I now use Gamershell frequently. They include two extra files in every zip. One is a link to Gameshell and the other is a tiny word or note document. (I think. Shrug.) Whenever I unzip a file from them, I reflexively delete the two extraneous files, then move the download into my archive, to save for future installs/OS wipes. It is a non-event. (I do sympathize with the desire to avoid 3rd party entanglements. However, I don't want to pay for downloads. Nor do I want to wait for 2400 baud rate downloads from BF.C.) Ken

Couple the HIDE with a COVERED ARC, preferably 360^, in case some enemy get on your side of the wall.

Addressed in the dropdown list of fixes: Corrected an issue that allowed mortars to estimate range-to-target correctly too easily when changing targets. This is due to the thread, here, http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106327 , which brought this issue to the forefront. Thanks, Ken

"Hit" it? Bah, more defensive mindset. Act like a man! Your pixeltruppen will be disgraced if they die while fighting a war of material! Attack like a warrior! Have your SMG armed men ENTER the Priest! 40 rounds of 9mm parabellum delivered at arm's reach, passing through the enemy only to ricochet around and hit them back again! Tracers, sparks, cordite, screams, confusion! Glorious... Finally to end when a stray round finds a 105mm shell and sends your warriors to the Great Hall of Valhalla. An act like that will unman your opponent. He will beg for the chance to surrender. Your men await...

I have _NO_ idea of whom you could be speaking... Ken

You KNOW what I will advise... You are down. You men are shredded. The enemy is overlapping your defenses. You are on your heels. Bah. Typical defensive mindset. You started this battle thinking, "I must defend". It is a contest of wills. If you curl up in the fetal position, hoping your feeble defense will keep the enemy from stomping on you, you will be pummeled. NOW is the time to attack!!