Vanir Ausf B

This is a known bug. BA-64B HQ units cannot establish any type of C2 with any other unit. Non-HQ BA-64Bs do not have this problem. It will hopefully get fixed in the first patch.

First turn barrages outside the setup zone is a very common AI tactic in QBs. Once you understand this you can always avoid it by simply not leaving your setup zone on the first turn. Then you get to watch the AI blow most of its indirect fire budget on empty fields.

Things can change, but in the past Steve has said he doesn't want to work on games based on subject matter he isn't interested in and he's made clear he has no interest in Pacific theater land combat.

Nope. _______

Normally I would second the multiplayer recommendation, but seeing how stressed the OP was over the German campaign I'm not sure it's a good fit. The thing about multiplayer is that you have to be able to still enjoy the game while losing (also known as "embracing the suck"), because you will lose sometimes. Inexperienced players may lose most of the time.

Hmm, I rely on it heavily. Unless my understanding of the game mechanic is wrong I don't think you can ever spot a unit in an action spot to which you have "No Line Of Sight" with the target tool, except through tree foliage sometimes. LOS through trees is weird. There are, IIRC, 5 height levels (or maybe six, my memory fails me here) that a unit can be at. Prone soldier is one, kneeling soldier is two, standing soldier is three and then there are two more for vehicles of varying heights. AFAIK, when the target tool says "Reverse Slope - No Aim Point" it is saying that you don't have LOS to the ground in that action spot, but do have LOS to at least the top height level above it. Since Shermans are a tall vehicle -- 9 feet tall -- they are probably classified at being the tallest height level possible for spotting which means you should always have LOS to one in a "Reverse Slope - No Aim Point" action spot (although you would not necessarily have LOS to shorter vehicles or infantry in the same spot). At least that's how it works from my experience.

The point at which the text at the end of the target tool changes from "Reverse Slope - No Aim Point" to "No Line of Sight" would be a good approximation.

22 consecutive non-penetrations aren't enough? I look forward to seeing your results

For me it depends on what the question is that I am trying to answer, how much random variation there is and how certain I need to be of the results. If I want to quantify the difference in the spotting ability between two different vehicles then hundreds of data points are necessary because the differences may be small and there is a lot of randomness involved. If I want to know if it is normally possible for projectile X to penetrate plate Y at range Z, yes or no, and the first 22 data points all say "nope" I can be reasonably sure that 500 more data points won't change the answer since there is far less randomness in armor penetration.

Sure. If you have a protractor you could try measuring the angle on your screen right before impact. But I think the tracer graphic is only a close approximation to what the game uses internally.

T-34/85 late vs. JPz IV late at 2000 meters. I did not attempt to replicate Kauz's differing elevations or hull down status. All vehicles are at the same elevation to make calculations simple. Superstructure Front Hull (the upper most section) 80mm thick at 50° Hits: 22 No damage: 22 Upper Front Hull 80mm thick at 45° Hits: 51 No damage: 51 Mantlet 80-130mm thick, rounded Hits: 17 No damage: 17 Lower Front Hull 50mm thick at 55° Hits: 19 No damage: 0 Spalling: 11 Partial Penetration: 6 Penetration: 2 ______ I'm not seeing any problems here*. Kauz, if you have a test that shows regular penetrations of the superstructure front hull or upper front hull at angles of impact greater than what I tested at post the save file and I will take a look at it. That would be a very strange thing given my results. If it was a once time event then I'd chalk it up to a weak point penetration. * There were a number of penetrations of the deck armor from top hits which probably should not be happening given the extremely shallow angle (angle of decent at 2000 meters is 1.3 degrees). This is not an issue unique to any particular vehicle and was reported as a possible bug (not by me) a while ago.

To really test tank spotting accurately you need to pick one model of tank and have everything attempt to spot that model rather than vs. each other so as to avoid an apples to oranges problem since some vehicles are more difficult to spot than others due to differences in silhouette. At ranges of 1000+ meters you will typically need around 150 to 300 data points per test (depending on how large the difference is) to factor out the random noise.

There is a huge amount of variability in spotting in-game. I would caution against any conclusions based on anecdotal observations.

I am not sure what you mean when you say it "always work the same way". If you mean that the same number of ranging shots are always needed given the same parameters (crew experience, range, ect.) then that is not at all true. In my opinion, yes, at least on occasion. I see no reason why it would be impossible. I have no opinion on that at the moment. You would first of all need a larger sample of hits, then get a rough measure of the lateral dispersion, then compare that to a dispersion table for the ZiS-S-53 gun if you can find one. I will do some testing. I have previously tested Soviet 85mm vs the JPz IVs at 500 meters and found the chance of penetration through the 80mm superstructure to be roughly 50%, which would suggest penetration at 2000 meters would be impossible. However, I was using an earlier version of the T-34/85 than you did which may have uncapped AP ammunition. I will test with the "late" to make sure it is APBC.

What did the hit text say on that impact?

I can't make heads or tails of this regarding what flaws in the game all that is supposedly showing except that you have seen a single instance of a conscript T-34 getting a hit on the 3rd shot at 2200 meters and you feel that in reality this would be impossible for some reason, although you don't provide any actual evidence for why that would be impossible.

Huh, I don't recall seeing any IS-2s in the first German campaign mission.

Now I see why they call you "talespin".

I think Wreck was doing most of the Wiki work, but he went MIA a couple years ago and it seems to have fallen by the wayside.

What changes are you referring to, specifically? It is true that the TacAI will not initiate area fire, and units that are taking fire (and usually casualties) at close range will typically go to Pinned status very rapidly. "Cowering" soldiers are almost useless for spotting, or shooting, so it does become a game of who spots first/shoots first wins, which is almost never going to be the moving unit unless the defender is already suppressed, which is why area firing out to the limits of LOS and relying on bullet splash to suppress unspotted enemy is the preferred tactic. I don't have much of an opinion on how realistic this is, but I think it has been this way in CMx2 forever.

I found my thrill Oooon Blueberry Hill...

This is the PM Mark sent back to me:

A Flak 38 (20mm) costs 2.3x as much as an LMG42, so I'm not seeing a serious problem there.

I am fairly sure there are formulas that take into account various unit attributes. The weights assigned to these attributes relative to each other will necessarily be somewhat arbitrary. Unit prices are generally reasonable, but Soviet rockets (and U.S rockets in CMBN) are an exception. They are seriously jacked up, price-wise, to the extent that I ban them from my QBs. This is not a big deal for U.S. rockets which were very rare, but it's a shame for the Katushas.

02-08-2014: