Vanir Ausf B

Iron has always worked like that. I think he was wondering if there is any difference in amount of enemy unit information given between Iron and Elite.

Surely the weight has nothing to do with it. The Flak 38 weighed about the same as the Pak 36, which http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yecemugWo.

It's only in CMFI for now, but I am about 99% sure it will be added to CMBN when the Market Garden module is released.

Actually, it is coming back, albeit without replay.

Ah ha! I wonder in what way they were working incorrectly.

That may be true, but Bil would take higher loses winning in that manner. Bil's meticulous advance is in-line with what a real commander who cared about his troops would do, not what would make for the most spectacular show for the peanut gallery. I don't fault him for it.

You've been bitten by the Infinite Foxhole Crawl bug.

I feel that the proper time limit for an attack/defend QBs is the most difficult variable to decide. It varies depending on force size, map size, terrain type, number of VLs and VL placement.

This especially. Because some tanks only carry a few smoke rounds I often only want them to shoot one. Now that I think about it, my request for area fire improvements would be the ability to use target briefly when firing smoke rounds, or alternatively to specify the exact number of rounds fired.

Well in CMx1 you had Borg spotting which was 100% certain after the initial spot. The game plays more realistically without it. I don't know what you mean when you say the defender rarely can move his defense. I have had no trouble at all conducting a mobile defense.

In CMBN, and i assume CMFI is the same, the ratios are: Probe: 1.49 to 1 Attack: 1.65 to 1 Assault: 1.84 to 1 Out of curiosity I booted up CMBB v 1.3 to see how CMX2 ratios have changed since CMx1: Probe: 1.4 to 1 Attack: 1.5 to 1 Assault: 1.72 to 1 So with regard to ratios a Probe in CMx2 is equivalent to an Attack in CMx1. I think there are two other game mechanics changes from CMx1 that make it harder for the defender. 1) Anti-tank rockets other than PIATs cannot be fired from buildings, and 2) foxholes were free in CMx1 QBs but you have to pay for them in CMx2.

Great minds must think alike because I did that exact thing to the Huzzar! map a couple of weeks ago, except I used 5 VLs. I just haven't played a game on it yet. I'm also planning an attack/defend version of the same map.

Well, because the CMx2 Off-Road rating for vehicles is badly messed-up Panthers have much worse off-road performance relative to other tanks in the game than they did in reality -- about the same or slightly worse than the Sherman in-game, which is clearly absurd. So you could read into their increased bogging chance a nod towards poor mechanical reliability, if you try real hard. What I would like to see is modeling of the 20+ second delay between the spotting of a target to the gunner firing.

No question that foxholes were too dangerous to fire from. It should not be allowed in the game without consequence I think this one was posted about 10 pages back. Or maybe that was a different one. But there has never been any doubt that if you fire one of these weapons with anything directly behind the breech it's going to hurt, inside a building or out.

If you think this has only been about the Panzerfausts and not Panzerschrecks and Bazookas then you haven't been reading very carefully, or maybe not at all. It wasn't for the thrill of it that I posted a link to the FM 1944 for the Bazooka And BTW, they are every bit as much your Nazis as they are mine. I am presently playing by first CMBN game commanding the Germans. So you might was well back off of that straw man right now.

The possibility was never in question. The myth is that injury or death was the usual result. What I find astounding is that you think such a person exists. The same holds true of firing these weapons from trenches or foxholes, but we already have consequence-free firing from those positions despite proof that this can be deadly if care is not taken. I am not opposed to the idea of consequences as long as they are in line with reality and applied as consistently as is feasible. This is essentially modeling of dud rate, which BFC has apparently decided not to do. I'm not opposed to it, but it affects a lot more than just anti-tank rockets (17 pdr APDS anyone? ) Um, last I checked the CMBN timeframe is entirely 1944-45, and BFC has at least 2 more "families" of games planned that are also set entirely within that time frame. As for it only helping the Germans, all I can say is "Bazooka"

I've seen a German soldier killed by a US 57mm HVAP round that landed 40-50 meters away. It was a single event and it may have been a fluke, but it was a sufficiently odd fluke that I have considered testing the anti-personnel lethality of armor piercing rounds in the game

No accuracy bonus but they do get a concealment bonus. At least the CMBN manual says they do.

I'm with Sublime and Broadsword. There is no delay for orders given, the driver having to put the tank in gear, rev the engine up, ect. This is an example of an unrealistic feature that may actually make the game more realistic overall given other limitations. Just think of sneaking a infantry team up to close assault a Stug only so see it whip around 90° in 4 seconds, depress it's gun at an impossible angle and blow them away.

Great post Argus. I was hoping you would show up BTW, here is a collection of footage of PzF and Panzerschrecks being fired, some of it in color:

Do these complaints center on the road wheels or suspension specifically or just bogging in general? The Pz IV suffered from poor ground clearance.

It's also worth noting that the Panzerschreck did not burn all of it's propellent in the tube. The rocket motor kept burning for a short time after leaving the tube, hence the need for the large blast shield on the launcher. That suggests the back blast would actually be somewhat smaller than the propellent charge size would indicate (although we don't presently seem to know the size of the charge).

The sources I have also only list non-rocket assisted ammunition for the B-10 82mm and M67 90mm recoilless rifles. http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=BB05+-+B-10 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-11/Ch2.htm#s5

The problem is there is only 1 Tommy gun in a squad, so if you lose it you lose some tactical flexibility. I like being able to spit off an assault team with the Tommy gun for, well, assaulting while the other team provides cover fire with the BAR.

What makes it even worse is that GIs giving buddy aid to Thompson-equipped buddies prefer to keep their Garands. The only way to scavenge the ammo is with another Thompson user. And since Thompsons are carried by the guy in the squad who is the first to get hit about 90% of the time Thompsons can get scarce quickly.