Vanir Ausf B

I was not agreeing or disagreeing with your point. I said there were x number of maps. I could frankly care less about scenarios. I only play QBs via PBEM these days so the only thing I need from a scenario is the map.

Also, a list of 2km²+ maps that are adequate for Medium or Large size QBs. This list is not comprehensive. CW NorMons -- 1728 x 1536 2.65 km² CW Montys Butchers -- 1792 x 1568 2.8 km² CW Flowers of the Forest -- 1312 x 2000 2.6 km² CW Breaking the Panzers -- 1184 x 1824 2.16 km² Bridgehead to Soloki -- 1664 x 1552 2.6 km² CW Through the Loop -- 1520 x 2000 3 km² CW Schnell Truppen Angriffe -- 1600 x1600 2.56 km² CW Ubique -- 1600 x 1600 2.56 km² Huzzar! -- don't have dimensions written down.

Caen Area - Juvigny to Fontenay Caen Area Map Project Large Hills QB-252 Large Open QB-125 Large Open QB-122 Large Forest QB-148 CW Colossal Crack Maltot full map KG Himmelfahrt Fire Brigade TWC Bloody 110th at Marnach 2x2 Normandy (Pete Wenman QB map in Repository) CW Wittmann's Demise CW Schmiedestahl CW Be Evil Unto Him Bruton Discussion here : http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107844

The only way is the oft-discussed "multi-multi player" mode where each side has multiple human players each commanding only part of his side's forces. But I think that is unlikely to ever happen. In addition, BFC has said many times that they have no intention of ever making CM a "command level" game where the the player assumes the role of a single high level commander. In CM the player is the leader of every unit. For better or worse that is the nature of the beast and I think most people have gotten over it.

There are at least a dozen CMBN maps floating around of 4km² or larger. I have a list somewhere. There were a lot more of them in the CW module than in the base game since Phil improved the memory management. I expect there will be more yet in the MG module.

It was more of an issue in the CMx1 games which had Borg spotting and unarmored vehicles that were strangely hard to kill.

I don't know if that is within the margin of error or not. However, Dupuy's same calculations showed US and UK combat effectiveness during the Normandy campaign to have been essentially the same. So the point is that at least from mid-1943 to the end of the war the comparison of US and UK performance is in no way similar to the comparison of Italian and German.

For what it's worth -- and some have said in the past that it isn't worth much -- Dupuy's efforts to measure combat effectiveness showed US forces having a slightly higher effectiveness than UK in Italy, CEV .77 and .65 respectively. http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000010.html

Makes no difference. You can do the same thing in scenarios, and people do.

I don't think I have ever seen a rule for PBEM play that prohibits it. That's not to suggest that nobody plays with such a rule, but I am fairly sure they would be the exception. Those types of rules that I have seen in the past were mainly for play against the AI to increase the challenge. The closest thing to a H2H rule that I recall was against the infamous gamey jeep rush, although that was an extreme version of gamey scouting that used the scout as a suicide unit to reveal the location of AT guns.

Because Capt. Bil is also Corporal Bil, the KW scout. And every other unit at the same time. There is no way around the god's eye view.

If he is firing while paused with a move order after the pause his accuracy will be the same as if he were firing while in motion, unless this has been fixed.

Hopefully you'll find time to send me some turns one of these days between chapters...

I took your advice and watched Greatest Tank Battles Korea. You are correct that the first tank engagements went poorly for the US, but these seem to have been M24 Chaffee tanks. The Shermans and Pershings were not committed to battle until the Pusan Perimeter had been established, after which things turned around quickly. It was interesting that both the Pershing and Sherman crew members they interviewed indicated that they had little trouble dealing with North Korean tanks, although the Sherman crew member felt this was more a reflection on the poor quality of NK crew training than on the T-34 itself.

According to the report I posted above the Sherman had a kill ratio of over 3:1 against the T-34/85. I have never seen a report of IS-2s used in combat in Korea but would be interested in any.

Good discussion here: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000016.html

The 250/10 allows passengers to fill all 4 slots (3 crew, 1 passenger) after the crew bails. Actually, the crew of the 250/10 can only Dismount since there is no Bail command available, unlike the 251/10.

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life Never make a pretty woman your wife So from my personal point of view Get an ugly girl to marry you

According to the manual this is true. Why this is only true of AT guns is not clear to me. In CMx1 the same effect was given to vehicles.

Are you giving movement orders to these units the same turn they pop smoke?

Yes, I suspect they are loosely using the term "ricochet" to describe the blast effect being redirected when failing to penetrate sloped surfaces. I don't think it would be possible for the round to actually ricochet in the same sense as a kinetic penetrator unless it failed to detonate.

It wasn't the beer this time. You really could see what they were seeing.

I don't expect fire until 3.0. But I wouldn't mind being wrong.

Richard Wilson Department of Physics Harvard University

Perhaps true with regards to Khidir Hamza, but to the best of my knowledge Imad Khadduri is well respected. So the point stands.