Vanir Ausf B

I seem to recall there was such a scenario tested that didn't make it into the final release. IIRC the general feeling towards it was that running for your life while getting beaten to a pulp by overwhelming firepower isn't fun. Hopefully it gets released at some point.

Keep in mind that nominal ground pressure -- the numbers MikeyD posted -- are a decent approximation of soft ground performance, but CMRT also uses MMP (mean maximum pressure) for at least some vehicles. I know German tanks and assault guns that have interleaved road wheels are supposed to have modified performance compared to what their NGP would indicate, and I assume this will be ported back to CMBN with the 3.0 upgrade. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107996&page=10

Which model of T-34? Which German tanks? They are not all the same. The vehicle off-road rating in the UI shows the bog chance, roughly.

The halftrack gunner position was lowered in the CMBN 2.12 patch, so I assume that was carried forward in CMRT.

As foe Baranovichi... *SPOILERS* After reading that briefing, I was so convinced that I was being led into an ambush that I ended up advancing too cautiously and ran out of time. In retrospect, I would have been better off doing exactly what the briefing suggested: advancing as quickly as possible until contact was made.

I think that after 14 years of playing Combat Mission games it is safe to conclude that if a mission briefing makes it sound like the scenario will be a cakewalk, it won't really be a cakewalk. Because BFC just doesn't put scenarios like that in their games, at least not deliberately. In fact, while testing for CMRT I found out that BFC requires all scenarios to be playable from both sides. Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that both sides will be equally balanced for a human player, but it does mean you will rarely see a scenario where one side has an overwhelming material advantage.

The differences are listed in the manuals.

Many house QB rules have a similar 3 for 1 requirement. Panthers were heavy tanks by Allied standards (they weigh as much as a JS II) and have similar armor protection, so they are typically lumped in with KT, so the rule is more like 1 Panther OR 1 KT for every 3 Pz IVs.

Ohhh, you're back. Good news!

That's my theory. I think we can safely assume the game does not model the LOS effects of every individual branch and leaf of every tree, so there must some abstraction.

I suspect that if you turned on show trees the LOS would pass through some foliage. Foliage does weird, unpredictable things to LOS. I had a similar experience once. In my case, my tank and an enemy tank were sitting stationary about 200 meters from each other on opposite sides of a copse of trees. I knew the tank was there because a friendly infantry unit had it in sight, but my tank didn't have LOS through the trees, which I confirmed with the target tool. After about 4 or 5 turns of sitting there, my tank suddenly turns and blows away the enemy tank. WTF? I could now trace LOS to the wrecked enemy tank. I don't know for sure how it works, but it seems that LOS through foliage may randomly shift from time to time. I think this may be what happened here because not only did your tank not spot the Pz IV for nearly a whole turn, but the Pz IV also took a long time to spot your tank that was only 80 meters away. If you go back to your previous turn, can you trace LOS to the exact spot the Pz IV is at? I don't see a spotting problem here, I see the TacAI not reacting to a spotted threat. At first blush it looks like a bug to me.

Yes, both sides have them.

That's what mine always looks like, and my laptop doesn't have integrated video. However, it is 4 years old.

IIRC, it was a test that seemed to show the main cannon getting knocked out by hits on the muzzle brake. I don't think hits on the mantlet can knock out the main cannon. At least I've never noticed it if it does. I went back and look at my old tests. I misremembered the Cromwell results. It did register fewer gun hits than the Tiger or Panther under the same circumstance (about 14% vs. 22% of front turret area hits). Range can make a large difference, with very short ranges and very long ranges less likely to produce gun hit than intermediate ranges. Most oddly, hull down status seems to greatly affect the Tiger, but not so much the Panther. At 500 meters and partially hull down the Panther and Tiger are about equally likely to be gun hit (21 and 22 percent of front turret area hits, respectively), but at full hull down status the Tiger's rate mysteriously drops to 7% while the Panther's stays about the same at 19%. If the gun barrel is not pointing directly at the shooter the odds of a gun hit rise tremendously. Placing a fully hull down Tiger on an incline so the barrel is angled towards the sky pushes the proportion of gun hits on the front turret area from 7% to 39%.

They do disappear from the UI if you buddy aid them...

The Supply Platoons are available in QBs.

I have done a lot of testing on this and I agree it seems a bit out of whack. Contrary to popular belief this is not just a Tiger issue. I have also tested Panther and Cromwell tanks and found similar rates of gun hits, it's just more noticeable with tanks that tend to shrug off most other hits. At very long ranges -- around 1500 meters, for example -- the % of hits that strike the gun is much lower, leading me to suspect that the problem is an artifact of the center of mass targeting model. The issue could be mitigated by simply making hits on the gun less likely to disable it (it's at or near 100% now).

I'm pretty sure I've seen it in CMRT.

Uh oh. I playtested an earlier version of this scenario. The StuHs do have enough HE to level all 4 buildings, but not with much to spare. Losing one of them early on is baaaad. You might be able to knock them down with the rest of your tanks and assault guns. Or maybe not. I didn't try that. Still, there's a lot of other stuff to kill/blow up, including IIRC 3 supply depots near the buildings. I think if you fulfill all the other victory conditions you can still win. But this is a HARD scenario*, even when your StuHs don't get whacked. Fortunately, it's also quite fun and one of the more unusual that I've played. *The Germans got beefed up a bit in the release version, but I suspect it's still pretty hard.

Please read the thread before posting. Also, where the M2 and M3 had squared-off rear corners, on both the M5 and M9 the rear corners were rounded. Less apparent was the fact that the IHC M5s and M9s were manufactured from 7mm to 16mm homogeneous plate instead of the 6mm to 13mm face-hardened plate of the M2 and M3. Although the armour of the M5 and M9 was thicker, it offered marginally less ballistic protection. -- Steven Zaloga, US Halftracks of World War II

That I don't know.

Red/green colorblind? It's very obvious to my eyes, but can understand if someone doesn't see red well.

It's not redundant because it has functionality the left side readout lacks. The left side doesn't tell you what weapon they had. Also, you can't mouse over the left side display. If the unit has several casualties it's a time saver to be able to know at a glance which red X has what weapon without having to examine each one up close, especially since dropped weapons will sometimes sink into the terrain mesh making them difficult or impossible to see.

Nah. Although the dead may be useless, what they were carrying often is not. I just mouse over the SAW gunner in the UI and look for the pulsing X that tells me "buddy aid THIS guy". When you're playing a huge QB it saves time.

Try this: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3076