Vanir Ausf B

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eb29rftquo7e84o/JSi0mfsbLR/Paused%20Movement%20Accuracy.btt "Paused Movement Accuracy" is the scenario file. I ran this in hotseat mode, iron difficulty. 1) Unbutton the Stuarts for quicker spotting. 2) Give the Tigers short covered arcs so they don't shoot back. 3) Let it run for a turn or two until all of the Stuarts have scored at least one hit. You'll notice that after that, accuracy on following shots is at or near 100%. 4) After letting the accuracy firm up for a turn or two give the Stuarts a move order directly forward, but also give them an indefinite pause so that they never move. I used Fast but it seems to work with any move order. 5) Note how accuracy suddenly drops to below 50% and stays there until the movement orders are deleted, at which point accuracy shoots back up to 100%.

Sorry to bump up an old thread, but does any one know if this will be fixed in the next patch? It was fixed in the last CMFI patch released with Gustov but it is strangely not fixed in CMBN 2.10.

I wonder if LOS is checked from the gunner's position during setup as it is during play for crew-served weapons. If LOS is checked for the whole crew during setup that could give you a false idea of what the gunner is going to see once the game starts. I'm not saying this is what is happening, it's just an idea.

I don't have CMFI, but if it works the same as in CMBN then the Panther is nearly twice as likely to bog as the Tiger I. This is wildly inaccurate, historically speaking, but the vehicle off-road ratings in CMx2 do not appear to be based on reality. I've never tested the Pz IV, but from it's "3-bar" off-road rating I suspect it will perform more like the Panther than the Tiger.

There's rubble and then there's rubble.

BFC has been around for more than 14 years. This thread is really a celebration of Oddball_E8 posting on the forum for 14 years

Yes, but Doug stated that the MGs began the scenario already deployed but for some reason they decided on their own to pack-up. I've never seen a unit do this unless their moral broke and they were trying to run away.

They machine gun teams packed-up without an order to do so?

So you're saying BFC taught you what it means to be jaded and cynical?

He needs LOS when calling in the strike and when spotting rounds are falling. In between those two events LOS is not required

That would be very unusual. My experience has been that HE of any type is very lethal to any nearby infantry that isn't in good cover or at least prone.

I think you are agreeing with me

Not sure what you're on about here or what claims you are referring to. That the KT was a fuel hog and lacked operational range is not in question and is completely irrelevant to off-road performance in the game. If anyone has better numbers that show actual mechanical breakdown rates that would be interesting in an academic sort of way, but is also irrelevant to in-game modeling. Since no one seems to be able to refute what I have said about KT soft-ground performance I'll consider the matter settled and go back to wondering when BFC will reconsider vehicle off-road ratings.

The game does not call it T. The game calls it APCR. And yes it could penetrate the front turret of the Tiger II.

In the second video showing the Jagdtiger turning a man is seen walking at 1:16-1:23

The Jagdtiger in the second film is missing a road wheel.

I'm mostly agnostic on the gunner vulnerability issue. It looks to me like the gunner in both Allied and German halftracks may stand a bit taller behind the machine gun than you would expect for a man firing a machine gun in combat, but I'm not sure about it. But with regards to the vulnerability of the halftracks themselves to bullets I think it should be kept in mind that bullets were not the greatest killer of men in WW2. Somewhere around 80% of all battlefield wounds were from artillery and mortars. So it stands to reason that the primary purpose of halftracks was to protect men from shrapnel more so than bullets.

Don't conflate soft ground performance with power to weight ratio. Those are two separate stats in the game and should therefore not be mushed together. This is true of any tank. Read the posted quote above regarding the difficulty of turning a Sherman in mud: "We had to avoid "tracking" tanks or turning sharply, as either resulted in bellying-up and sticking." How much "drag" is primarily a function of how deeply buried the running gear is. There is no reason so assume the Tiger II suffered from this more than most other tanks. True of almost any WW2-era tank. I'm going to need to see some real evidence before I take your word for it over Thomas Jentz Now you're adding mechanical reliability into the mix, which isn't even modeled in the game. There was one quote from a German. Not exactly a good same size, and he does not specify what models of tanks, German or Allied, he is referring to. Give the date of the quote he could have been referring to E8 Shermans which did have much better performance than earlier versions. And the "Panzers" could well have been IVs which suffered from very poor ground clearance. Well you are again lumping together off-road performance, mechanical reliability and power-to-weight ratio. The Tiger II suffered some teething issues, although not nearly as bad as did the Panther. And even late Panther tanks had to be driven carefully given their notoriously easy-to-strip final drive gear. Over the last 6 month or so of the war there is no evidence that I have seen that the Tiger II suffered mechanical breakdown at greater rates than other German tanks. Reported percentage of tanks operational for 15 December 1944 was 72% of Panzer IVs, 80% percent of Tiger IIs and 61% of Panthers. For March 15 1945 it was 62% of Panzer IVs, 59% of Tiger IIs and 48% of Panthers.

Actually, my testing has shone that the Tiger I tank is by far the best off-roading tank in the game. Off the top of my head I think it is the only medium or heavy tank with a "4 bar" off-road rating. That it is a better off-road performer than the Sherman in the game is historically accurate. That it is also a better off-road performer than the Panther in the game is not accurate.

"The Tiger II was remarkably agile for such a heavy vehicle. Contemporary German records indicate that its mobility was as good as or better than most German or Allied tanks." -- Thomas Jentz

What "Panzers" is he referring to, and which version of the Sherman? How close did Albert Speer ever get to the front lines? Of course weight and size matter. That is factored into the Mean Maximum Pressure rating, which shows the Tiger II coming out much better than the Sherman. It's not just the Tiger II that is way off. In the game the Panther is about the same as the Sherman, which is just crazy. I'm talking off road rating. Hill climbing is a function of power-to-weight ratio and there is a separate rating in the game for that. "The Mark V is probably the best tank the German has and is better than our tanks in the same respect that it is to theirs. These advantages far out-shadow our tanks, however, they have greater floatation and will cross difficult terrain, particularly mud and deep snow that our tanks cannot cross." -- Major Philip C. Calhoun, 3rd battalion, 66th Armored Regiment. "I have compared the depth to which our tanks sink along side of German Mk V and VI tanks in soft ground. Before the addition of track extensions our medium tanks sank six to eight inches while the Mark V tracks were not over four inches. We had to avoid "tracking" tanks or turning sharply, as either resulted in bellying-up and sticking. This was checked on the plain between the Wurm and Roar rivers west of Julich. The new E8 suspension with the wider track is about equal, on our M4 tank, to what the German Mk V has always been." "On 17 November 1944, 2nd Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, jumped off on an attack from Puffendorf with the mission of securing Ederen, Germany. Upon moving into Ederen, I had the opportunity to compare the flotation of our M5A1, M4, with the German Mark V tank. Upon entering the town, my tank paralleled the tracks left by the German Mark V tank. I was very much interested in the capabilities of the two tanks cross-country. I dismounted to compare the tracks of the German tank with those of my own. I noticed that the German tank had sunk into the soft ground approximately two inches, and those of my own tank, the M5A1, had sunk about three and a half to four inches. I also noticed the impressions left by an M4 medium tank and noted that it had sunk about five or six inches. This was very interesting to me, as the German Mark V tank, weighing approximately forty-five tons, was three times heavier than my own tank, weighing fifteen tons. Our own M4 medium tank weighs thirty tons." -- Harold A. Shields, First Lieutenant Company "A," 66th Armored Regiment "We want wider tracks. This new E8 suspension is a lot better as far as flotation is concerned than our old suspension system, but the German tanks still have better maneuverability in the field." "As far as flotation and maneuverability is concerned, our new E8 suspension system is okay. But we need to be able to some way lock one track so we could turn in the field like the Mark V. On the road we were okay, but they have us beat in the field." -- Raymond Kasner, staff sergeant.

The following vehicles are missing from the QB editor for the Luftwaffe formations: Marder II Zugkraftwagen 8t Flakvierling 20mm Zugkraftwagen 8t 37mm Flak SdKfz 10/5 Truck Protze 70 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=111928

The King Tiger was actually quite good on soft ground, better than most Allied tanks. This is not modeled correctly in the game. In fact, as I have pointed out before, the off-road ratings for vehicles in the game are way off. "Wherever we have seen Tiger and Panther tanks they have not demonstrated any inferior maneuverability. Near Puffendorf, Germany, several Tiger Royal tanks were encountered. These Tiger Royals were able to negotiate very soft ground and their tracks did not sink as deeply into the soft ground as did our own." -- Capt Charles B. Kelley, Company "D" 66th Armored Regiment

You will only have access to units that both of you have, i.e. if your opponent only has the base game then only units in the base game will be purchasable for both players.

Hmm, yeah. The Tiger II's wiki page quotes Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45 by Jentz and Doyle as having them with 80 and 86 rounds, respectively.