Vanir Ausf B

Infantry were very hard to move while under fire, nearly impossible for regular quality troops. They pinned quickly and stayed that way until the shooting moved elsewhere. They also tended to rout under sustained fire even when not taking casualties. Some people felt it was the most realistic modeling of infantry behavior under fire BFC has ever done, but it was highly controversial. Right or wrong, BFC gave the grunts stiffer spines in the first patch. One of the many threads on the subject: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=55492&highlight=infantry

Yes, albeit not in QBs yet.

When you say you "did not see" are you referring to test results or casual observation?

Yeah, I think the Hummel is available as an off-map asset only. At least I'm not seeing it in the single vehicle list in the scenario editor.

Moral system.

LOL, while reading this thread I was just thinking to myself "what these people really want is CMBB ver. 1.0". Unfortunately for you guys that proved to be not very popular.

It's a known issue. They will hopefully be available after the first patch.

Generally it is ok for the attacker only in an attack/defend type battle. I would not allow it for the defender or by anyone in an ME. IIRC the artillery response times are the same for Warrior difficulty and up. Only if the area target order is given before the smoke blocks LOS. It shouldn't be faster than ALL other tanks, but it had a smaller turning radius than the Sherman. Plus, in a pinch it could do this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1509638&postcount=19 No. The Stug has better armor protection. By giving them a 10 or 20 second pause with a short covered at their current position and then a move order with a target command at the destination. No, and they are not intended to be realistic. One core only, presently.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86370 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1304512#post1304512 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1486729#post1486729 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96550

Infantry in buildings will not use thrown weapons against vehicles unless the vehicle is open-topped. This is true of all nationalities. AFAIK the only special grenade-type weapons German troops carry are satchel charges, but if you move the infantry outside the buildings they should be able to close assault even without them.

Are you really seeing this happen? Bailed tank crew moral was lowered ages ago. When my tank crews bail they are typically in a "panic" state and stay that way for several turns. What can still happen is that if there is friendly infantry very near the tank the bailing crew will sometimes engage them while retreating and inflict casualties. I consider it to be a very minor issue at worst, but some people get really bent out of shape over it.

Using kill counts is a terrible way to judge machine gun effectiveness. In reality, and usually in the game as well, the first burst or two is the only good chance at killing/wounding. After the enemy soldiers plant their faces in the dirt the chances of hitting them are small. The main purpose of machine guns is to suppress, and they do that very well. Vehicles probably are too good at spotting while moving. In fact, I would say that is true for all unit types. There is no problem with tank accuracy, however. Explosions do produce too little suppression and too much damage on men lying prone. Buildings generally provide pretty good cover.

Units ignore individual trees within a certain radius of their position for outgoing LOS/LOF (they do block incoming LOS/LOF). The small individual bushes that come with the woods tile are, AFAIK, eye candy only.

The points ratios are 1.84 to 1 for assault, 1.65 to 1 for attack and 1.49 to 1 for probe.

The Pz IV/Sherman encounter could be an outlier event. The result you saw seems unlikely but not impossible. The only way to test if something is amiss would be to re-run the same turn many times and see how often each tank see the other first. There is a fair amount of randomness in spotting so a single result doesn't tell you much.

LOL, yep. Hoisted with his own petard.

Turreted vehicles will occasionally not aim their guns towards the center of the arc. It has been reported as a bug.

Agreed. There is sort-of a way to do it, although it's a pain in the butt. During the replay (WEGO, obviously) stop the playback at the moment the contact first appears. Then cycle through your units using the + or - keys until you find the one that detected it.

Freudian slip, I suspect Click on the enemy unit. The icon(s) for any friendly unit(s) that currently have it spotted will turn a lighter shade of color.

There is a maximum distance that a unit can be spotted at, but IIRC it varies by unit type. Only Charles would know what the exact distances are, but even if we know them I suspect they would be of little use since so much depends on factors other than distance. My own limited experience in low light conditions is that spotting anything at more than a few hundred meters is rare unless it is shooting or moving.

+1 _________________

Yes, there are other ways of balancing a scenario than quality or quantity of forces. But that is besides the point, which is that from an operational perspective the Germans did get steamrolled at Bagration, and if you want the tactical situation to be reflective of the operational situation they are going to get steamrolled there too. I don't see how any other result could be expected. The Germans had no chance whatsoever of winning Bagration.

Speaking of programing genius, Steve recently mentioned that they may be implementing limited multi-thread capability in the not-too-distant future. I have no idea what effect this may have on LOS modeling, but given that LOS checks are the most CPU intensive part of the game I am optimistic.

So 1 to 1 is too balanced and 1000 to 1 is too much. Where do you want the line drawn? What you have said previously is: ... which I take to mean that you are looking for numerical odds in the 1:4 to 1:10 range. In order to do that without making the scenario a Russian steamroller -- which you say you don't want -- the quality of the Russian forces would have to be much lower. But if you do that then you will have other people pointing out that such a disparity in quality is itself not historically accurate.

Actually, I don't think anyone is suggesting that "pretty even" skirmishes were the norm historically, merely that is what most people enjoy wargaming.