Vanir Ausf B

I'm with Baneman on this. It should be in the manual. Here's an example of someone attempting to make a QB map and not being able to make sense of the objective values. Even the beta tester who tries to help him out is flummoxed. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108449&highlight=points&page=7

I think the CM battlefield suffers from too little smoke rather than too much. There is a hotkey toggle -- IIRC it is Alt-K -- that will turn off smoke if you computer is bogging. I have personally never noticed smoke making any difference in performance.

Certainly not all the time. Sometimes when hull down.

I would think that the smoke would be even more visible when fired outside than inside a building. It certainly isn't an issue particular to being fired inside.

I get grey target lines from tanks.

:confused: What are you talking about?

Yeah, unless they were pinned I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't move.

I would be interested, but I don't own CMFI. For whatever reason, there has been only one tournament run on these forums that I know of in the 5+ years since the first CMx2 game was released. There have been several others proposed that never got off the ground. This is very different from the CMx1 days. EDIT: Ninja'd by slysniper

I haven't played enough QBs yet to make a fair assessment, but I have read more than a few comments on the forum that indicate that the defender is very much at a disadvantage. My solutions so far has been to play all attack/defend-type QBs as Probes. This makes casualties count the most (except for MEs) and gives the attacker the smallest force advantage. But your suggestion about having different weights given to terrain and unit objectives for attacker and defender is an interesting one.

If the target line is solid blue that is supposed to indicate that every member of the unit has LOS to the target. Grey means at least one member of the unit does not have LOS. Unfortunately I have had situations where the gunner would not fire even when the target line was blue.

You won't find it in the manual because it isn't there, at least not in the CMBN manual (I don't have CMFI). The manual is very vague and partially incorrect because the way QBs are scored for enemy units destroyed was changed shortly before the game was released and IIRC the 2.0 manual was not updated to reflect that. The information above was gleaned from a combination of my own experimentation with that of others done in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98983 There are still some things about the unit scoring I don't know about. One is whether points for destroying a unit are allotted based on the purchase value or by casualties, i.e. if you destroy a tank but the entire crew escapes do you get any points for that, and if so how much?

Not in a QB or scenario, AFAIK. I seem to recall there was some minor scoring difference in campaigns. As for QB scoring, what I know for sure is that there is a total number of points available for owning VLs (terrain objectives). This total number has nothing to do with the point values assigned to the VLs in the editor. Instead it is set by the game type as follows: ME: 400 pts Probe: 500 pts Attack: 650 pts Assault: 750 pts These points are distributed to the VLs in proportion to the values assigned to them in the editor. So in an Attack QB with 2 VLs with one VL assigned 100 points and the other VL assigned 50 pts the 100 pt VL will be worth 433 pts and the 50 pt VL will be worth 216. In this example it would not matter if the VLs were assigned values or 5 and 10, 50 and 100 or 500 and 1000 in the editor since all that matters is the ratio to each other. The total number of point available in a QB is 1000, so whatever amount is not assigned to VLs is assigned to destroying enemy units. So for example in a Attack QB if you destroy all of the enemy units you would get 350 points. How these points are assigned to specific units I don't know.

You look to see if the little voice and/or visual C2 pictures are present in the UI when the squad is selected. That doesn't tell you which HQ the squad is in C2 with, just that it is in C2 with some HQ

I prefer to take a holistic approach I agree that the map has a huge impact on how urban combat plays out. I just think it's unfortunate that it's been put upon map makers to work around an issue that shouldn't be there and doesn't have to be there. So I probably am going to continue to complain about it whenever the subject comes up, even if some people get annoyed by it. Something about squeaky wheels and grease...

I'm not sure what determines when or if you can see the shells. Sometimes you can see them incoming, sometimes not. I don't think you can usually see them on the upward curve of the arc unless the firing mortar itself is visible.

Having total freedom to fire these weapons where ever and whenever is much preferable and more realistic than what we have now. That does not mean that it is the ideal or most realistic solution, just better than the status quo, and relatively easy to implement. I believe my statement stands that there has been no establishment that these weapons were not routinely fired from buildings. The evidence presented that they were not boils down to a training manual that cautions against it, but allows for it if the circumstances warrant. Against that we have direct video evidence that circumstances warrant fairly often in urban combat. I certainly have not seen even one video of anyone running out into the middle of a street to fire at a tank. The overwhelming number of actual engagements that I have seen have been from the interior of buildings. 3:50 RPG fired from building http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0BmSEhYQ_A Recoilless rifle fired from building twice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJHyM7Rgs_g 6:13 RPG fired from building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn1NWU3nGQc 10:05 RPG fired from building So while I acknowledge that there are valid points on both sides I do not think they are equally weighted against one another at all.

My relevant response: The bolded parts were bolded by Steve. My response is that 1) most of the buildings in Normandy are stone or brick, to the best of my knowledge, and even in the case of wood construction tests have shone that while AT rockets do substantial damage they do not collapse the building. And 2) It turns out that "Only in combat, when no other tactical option exists" happens rather frequently, particularly in CM where the some of the best outside-the-building options are presently not available and may not be available for some time to come.

I don't know where or how it was established that they were not routinely fired from inside buildings. There is no reason they could not be. There are many videos of post WW2 AT rockets -- some with backblasts even stronger than their WW2 predecessors -- being fired from inside buildings with no apparent ill effect to the shooter. The idea that soldiers in urban combat would rather face tanks in the street than shoot rockets at them from inside buildings is flatly contradicted by the behavior of combatants in that situation. Yes, we do need better modeling of urban environments and the ability for infantry to utilize building corners. The problem is those features require new AI and animations which we all know take time and money. Allowing AT rockets to be fired from buildings would be a relatively trivial change in the meantime since the game engine can already to it (PIATs, ect.).

I thought it was going to be a mode where if you moved the camera real close to the soldiers you could hear them exchanging stories about their life back home, and dying soldiers telling their comrades to "earn this", ect.

Yeah, I think that footage is from the scenario called "Target Practice"

Thanks for the heads up. I don't know if I would call it subtle. There is a dramatic difference, at least to my eyes. Which one looks better will be a matter of personal taste, but I think I'll be sticking to the more realistic-looking normal mode.

That is the plan, according to BFC.

We are altering the deal. Pray we do not alter it further.

There have been multiple reports of Croatia selling large amounts old surplus weapons to Saudi Arabia, who then funnels them into Syria.

That's the Syrian rebel unit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJHyM7Rgs_g