Vanir Ausf B

This is curious, since ricochets normally have their own hit text. But then again, I've never seen a ricochet onto the top hull that didn't penetrate. If non-penetrating ricochets are not generating the proper hit text that might explain their apparent extreme rarity. I would appreciate it if you would post the screenshot. A save game would be even better. It will actually penetrate most of the time out to at least 1500 meters. That is because it is APBC, which in reality was probably not available in 122mm prior to September '44.

Tank button/unbutton status has no effect on horizontal information sharing with nearby units. I have tested this previously.

I wouldn't, if I could avoid it. You will have a moderate chance of killing it under 500 meters, gradually decreasing from there out to about 1000 meters or a little further. But at any range it can kill you more easily.

The number and location of the terrain objectives are not relevant, except that in assaults they are sometimes located further from the attacker's starting point.

That's impossible to answer, since the 85 can penetrate the turret and lower hull much easier than the upper hull, but the upper hull is the most likely area to be hit... unless the Panther is hull down. At least 1 km, maybe out to 1.6 km depending on if it hits the turret or hull.

In an Assault the attacker gets more points, and the defender less, than in an Attack. Also, in an Assault the terrain objectives are worth relatively more and units destroyed worth relatively less. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1433435&postcount=2

I take back what I said about time of year not making a difference. When compared side by side it does. However, even at it's brightest, CMRT is less vibrant than CMBN. CMRT: September 30th, noon, clear CMRT: June 22nd, noon, clear CMBN: June, noon, clear

IIRC, they also carry canister rounds.

No, I've viewed the same map in the editor (3D preview) after changing the dates from September to June. No difference.

The first time I booted up CMRT I found myself wondering if there had been a severe drought in Russia in 1944. But you are right. Everything is a little dimmer and desaturated. It's one of the few changes from previous games that I'm not fond of.

Looks like you need to up the brightness and saturation in the game

Without a save game file, or at least a pic showing your movement orders, I doubt anyone will be able to explain it.

Hi, kip. Something I forgot to mention. You are referencing Dupey here, and his numbers refer to the tactical level specifically (basically division and lower), so applying the 1.4 defense modifier across the entire theater over a whole year of combat would be a mistake, IMO. While the Soviets were consistently on the attack at the strategic level, that was not always the case operationally and certainly not tactically. The Germans never did abandon their doctrinal belief that it is always better to attack than defend, and at the tactical level would counterattack a lost position with regularity.

I applaud the name change.

I've never timed it. It varies. The experience level of the units affects it. With horizontal information sharing, distance is the primary factor.

I normally don't play QBs against the AI, but since you asked nicely... Plus, it gives me an excuse to put off the mountain of boring game testing I have lined up. Do you have a preference as to whether the player is attacking or defending? If you have no preference I will play it as a large British probe, with myself taking the UK. 1 hour, random weather. I will pick the forces for both sides. It may be a week or two before I complete it as I have to finish up a CMRT scenario first.

As it turns out, that is intentional. It's that way so one member of the passenger unit doesn't disembark into a difference action spot than the rest of the unit. What is unknown is why the Gaz truck doesn't work that way.

I have never played them, but John Tiller's Panzer Campaigns appear to be of the scale and setting you are looking for.

Using Glantz's higher German loss numbers for Bagration, you still get 1.7 to 1. So if the overall ratio was 1.2 to 1 or even 1.4 to 1 then the Soviets came off relatively worse during Bagration than most of the rest of 1944. That seems odd. I compared AFV losses in 1944 once it came out to about 2 to 1.

Me neither. At least not in the editor. I was able to put a member of a heavy machine gun crew in the driver's seat of the Opel, Gaz and Studebaker.

They do that, so in that respect their usefulness is a function of the usefulness of the information they pass. In my experience it is rarely of any consequence for infantry units, but is more likely to be useful to formations of AFVs. Keep in mind that HQs don't pass information up to you, everyone passes information up to you, because you are the leader of every unit on your side at once.

Other than not getting information from other companies, no.

No tests, just my opinion. I think that whether a casualty is initially WIA or KIA is at least mostly random, with buddy aid being the only real control the player has over the final ratio. Does anyone consistently get a lot more WIA than KIA? Surely there is some ultra-cautious player out there belly crawling his men around for hours. Erwin?

Playing less aggressive and pushing less hard will reduce your total number of casualties, but it will have little to no affect on the KIA/WIA ratio.

They can, with some limitations. See the post above. But it is true that platoon HQs are the ones that really matter, and the raison d'être for the company and battalion HQs is to step in for the platoon HQs when they get whacked. Arty response times are not affected by C2.