Vanir Ausf B

Similar to the 17 pdr on the Firefly in that it depends on what ammunition is used. 90mm HVAP and special heat-treated T33 could penetrate the Panther glacis, but they were only issued in very limited numbers. The most common ammunition -- M77 and M82 -- could not, but would penetrate the turret and lower hull better than US 76mm.

Yes. There is no terrain fog of war, just enemy unit fog of war. You mean a waypoint at the position of an enemy unit, or possible future position? It's like checking LOF from any other waypoint. The LOS/LOF is measured from the selected unit's present height. Maybe pictures will help.

Paranoiac! :mad:

I believe LOS is actually traced from the height of the targeting unit to the ground, not from ground level to ground level. TheVulture's suggestion is a good one. One other thing: when using the targeting tool pay attention to areas that are "reverse slope - no aimpoint". These are areas to where your unit has LOS to the ground but no LOF to the ground. I think. I'm not 100% sure on that description, but in any case these are places where you will usually have LOF to any enemy vehicle that moves into them, and that enemy vehicle will usually have LOF back to your unit.

HEAT rounds also. The same Panther glacis plate that resists equal to 205mm vs 76mm APCBC only resists equal to 140mm vs HEAT. That is why 105mm HEAT rounds can actually penetrate the Panther glacis plate if the shooter is a little higher in elevation or at long ranges where the round is angling downward when it strikes.

Oh, that's the Bazookas. The cost in the troops available column do not include Bazookas and Schrecks, which are also assigned randomly by default.

I tried to do that with some Sherman tanks but did not get the results you describe. What units are you purchasing, exactly?

There is already on option to do that in the QB setup screen. Although curiously it can only be adjusted for one side.

That would be great. I remember Schultz said he was going to release those maps publicly when he was trying to arrange that tournament.

Well, by "report" I mean I made a thread on the forum like you. Anyone can send a PM to Steve.

Yep. When you buy a unit the Experience, Motivation and Leadership rating of that unit is determined randomly and the cost goes up or down accordingly. You can adjust these variables therefore the price after purchase.

That looks like the same bug I reported last summer, so I don't think it's new with 2.01 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104744 I made a movie too

It arrived in France the first week of September and saw first combat in October.

Yes, that would be a better option if BFC were willing to do it. But it would almost certainly be more work than just adding the point values to the editor.

I can't stand small maps, and when I say small I mean just about anything smaller than Huzzar, which is about 1400 x 1600. I'm going to do a little testing on the Jadgpanther. It may be worth more points than the KT. The "Porsche" turret KT is good but not great, as you have discovered. The front turret can be penetrated by US 76mm -- regular rounds, no HVAP required -- same as the Panther front turret. When the production model KT makes it into the game that will be a different story. I assume you guys always play in good weather. (?)

But the point is they are using the scenario editor to create gameplay experiences in which having the point values listed would be helpful. Whether those gameplay experiences should be labeled as scenarios or quick battles is besides the point.

Something that escaped my attention but was brought up over in the CMFI forum: it's not just the mortar platoon halftracks. All of the vehicles in the headquarters company are missing. In fact, the entire assault gun platoon is missing.

I'm fine with the idea of formations, although I agree with womble's point that if you are advancing into fire you are probably screwed regardless. If it were to be an SOP checkbox wouldn't that require SOPs? I would LOVE me some SOPs, but we've been asking for those for more than a decade.

I'm not sure if they can hear enemy fire but they can definitely hear enemy movement, both foot infantry and vehicles.

Does Schultz ever use Stugs? I'm thinking: vs. UK, random weather on: everything stock price vs UK, good weather: Panther, Jadgpanther and KT + 20 pts vs US random weather on: Panther and Jadgpanther +30 pts, KT + 15 pts vs US good weather: Panther and Jadgpanther +50 pts, KT +35 pts 1 foxhole = 5 pts

Panther glacis is equivalent to about 202 - 205mm @ 0° versus 76mm APCBC (I got 202mm when I calculated it but Rexford's book lists 205 *shrug*). 17 pdr APCBC penetrates 174mm @ 100 meters vs. RHA and 187mm @ 100 meters vs. FHA. This assumes 80mm thick armor. Actual plates have been measured to vary up to 85mm. Flawed plate on late models could reduce resistance, maybe by as much as 15%.

Good to hear!

Except that they actually have come up with it, and for the most part it works well. That is true. In CMBB a KV-1 tank in 1941 was essentially a King Tiger. It would love to see some means of community input. Unfortunately BFC have shot down the idea in the past, which makes them washing their hands of the issue all the more annoying. The idea of making underpriced items cost a certain number of foxholes is a means of doing this in a way, although it does not work for overpriced items, so only BFC can do something about the Stugs (of course maybe others disagree with my analysis on that? But I can't see how a Stug can possibly be more valuable than a Sherman 76).

Thank you for looking into it.

Yes, I am familiar with the "if we can't make everyone happy with it, it isn't worth our time" argument. It's a good thing they don't have the same attitude towards all other aspects of the game, for example, machine gun performance. BFC knows full well, better than most in fact, that nothing they do will ever satisfy everyone. That isn't a good reason not to try to improve things. It's an excuse to throw out because it sounds better than saying they don't really care about the feature and don't want to be bothered with it any more than they absolutely have to to get people who like QBs to buy the game; which I think is the truth of the matter. It's been a while, but my memory is that there were 3 weapons or classes of weapons in CMx1 that spawned a lot of QB price controversy: Puppchen, infantry automatic weapons and Stugs (and to some extent all German turretless TDs). BFC doubled the QB price of Puppchen in a CMBO patch. Did some people think they were still too cheap? Yes. Did everyone nevertheless agree that it was a significant improvement? Yes. The price of infantry automatic weapons was bumped up in CMBB. People still debated their usefulness, but "SMG squads" ceased to be viewed as a choice only for gamey players. Again, significant improvement. Stugs never did get fixed in CMx1. Ironically they have been fixed in CMx2. Maybe even a little over fixed. QB Price Relative to Sherman 76 (149 pts in CMBB, 257 in CMBN) CMBB Stug III G late: 76% JPz IV late: __ Equal Jadgpanther: _ 168% CMBN Stug III G late: 115% -- 161% increase over CMBB :eek: JPz IV late: ___ 127% -- 120% increase over CMBB Jadgpanther: __ 149% -- 53% increase over CMBB :confused: Well, it's easy to see why no one complains about Stugs being too cheap any more. Does any one ever buy them? They should not be more expensive than a Sherman 76, which is a better vehicle in almost every way except for its high profile. I would give them the same 120% increase over CMBB the JPz IV got, putting it at 249 pts. That is the same as a Pz IV tank, which sounds reasonable to me. Pz IV has a turret, but Stug has mildly better frontal armor. The real head scratcher is the Jadgpanther. I mean seriously, WTF? Not only was it spared the big price increase given to every other turretless TD in the game, it actually got a price cut relative to other units. This is the type of obvious imbalance that needs to be corrected. If we set it equal to 168% of the price of a Sherman 76, same as CMBB, it would cost 432 points, up from its current 382. Exactly the price of 10 foxholes. But for all of my complaining, there are not a large number of things wrong with QB pricing in CMBN. Off the top of my head: US Rockets: Just apply whatever criteria you used for German rocket prices. I'm not sure what that would come out to, but to explain away the nearly order of magnitude difference in price between them as a reasonable difference of opinion in capability borders on insulting. Stug: Need to come down at bit to where they are comparable to Pz IV (249 pts). See above. Jadgpanther: Increase from 382 to 432 points. Panther A late: Increase from 360 to 411 points (160% of a Sherman 76 in CMBB). Again, conveniently the cost of 10 foxholes. It could be argued that Panther and Jadgpanther should be slightly less expensive in CMBN compared to CMx1 since their off-road performance is unrealistically crappy in this game. So maybe 420 and 400 respectively, but only if you are playing with random weather. King Tiger: Not sure. The production KT was 226% the cost of a Sherman 76 in CMBB (which would translate to 580 points in CMBN :eek:), but the "Porsche" turret version in CMBN was not in CMx1 (IIRC). It is only 159% the cost of a Sherman 76 in CMBN. The same comparison to the Jadgpanther could be made here as was made between the Stug and Pz IV: same gun, Jadg has a little better armor, KT has the turret. The KT should cost about the same or slightly higher, so somewhere between 430-440 points (they are presently 407). So there. I've done all the work. If someone at BFC could just take 10 minutes to plug them in that would be great I prefer attack/defend myself, but an occasional ME can be fun. It depends on the map.