Vanir Ausf B

Is far as I can tell foxholes in QBs cannot be purchased individually, only in groups of 10 for 50pts.

It did, but differently. CMx1 did have collision detection and vehicles could push each other. I am puzzled as to why it is now thought to be too difficult to do. The catch is that any vehicle could push any other vehicle, i.e. a Kublewagon could push a King Tiger off the road just as easily as the other way around, so in practice the result was not much different than what we have now in CMBN.

You are ready for the East front, comrade.

Now that we have the Lynx appearing in QBs lets get the other missing units in: US mortar halftracks. They are in the Headquarters Company of US Armored Infantry battalions. In the editor. But in the QB purchase screen, when you select the "On Map" option for the mortars the option to select the type of mortar halftrack does not appear above it. And neither do the halftracks in the units list.

Back in the day before CMBB was released I begged for the rarity system to be not based on points, which tends to allow everything but in smaller numbers, but would randomly not allowed units to be purchased at all based on their rarity. So I like your idea. The only issue is that it is completely honor-based.

The Short 75 rules still work fine. I don't know how prevalent their usage is these days, but there is no reason they shouldn't be used. There was the recent attempt get a QB style tournament going with extensive purchase rules. But it never took off and I think that may have been because there were way too many rules. That purchase system, as well as the one proposed at the Blitz, rely on limiting the number of "high end" armor one can buy. This is better than nothing, but the problem is that allowing even 1 of something will still incentivize the opponent to take the best counter to that 1 something. This leads to the US Army effectively disappearing from QBs as every Allied player picks UK for access to 17 pdr APDS to answer that 1 Panther they assume will appear. I personally prefer a sort-of hybrid of the "Short 75" and "Panther 76" rules than ban the following armored vehicles: Panther Jagdpanther JPz IV late (mid and early are allowed) King Tiger Churchill VII and VIII It pains me to ban a fairly common tank like the Panther, but I don't see any way around it if you want to play US and not feel handicapped. It also doesn't help that, as I noted on the previous page, BFC has lowered the price of high-end German armor compared to the CMx1 games. Sherman 76 CMBB: 149 pts CMBN: 257 pts Panther A mid CMBB: 234 pts 57% higher than Sherman CMBN: 352 pts 37% higher than Sherman It's possible this has something to do with the off-road performance of Panthers being much worse than in CMx1. This is unfortunate since not only does it lower their price, but it is highly a-historical. poesel71's idea of making the German player buy 10 foxholes (50 pts) for each is interesting. At 402 pts the Panther is 56% higher in price than the Sherman 76, so essentially back to CMx1 levels. Would that be enough to make the German player think twice? If it were me I would still buy them, knowing that they are underpriced to begin with. You would have to add 100pts (20 foxholes) before I seriously reconsidered. And having to buy foxholes is not as much of a penalty when on defense.

Triple may be overkill, but it is odd to me that high-end German armor is relatively cheaper in CMx2 than it was in CMx1. CMBB Pz IV H: ___ 134 pts CMBB Panther: ___ 238 pts 78% more than Pz IV CMBB Jadgpanther: 250 pts 87% more than Pz IV CMBB Tiger I: ____ 212 pts 58% more than Pz IV CMBN Pz IV H: ___ 248 pts CMBN Panther: ___ 360 pts 45% more than Pz IV CMBN Jadgpanther: 382 pts 54% more than Pz IV CMBN Tiger I: ____ 372 pts 50% more than Pz IV Tiger I is actually not a major problem since it can be dealt with by US 76mm without requiring HVAP ammo. On strict rarity a M10 with HVAP costs 3328 rarity points, so you are probably only getting 1 no matter what By comparison, a battery of T27E2 US rockets only cost 616 rarity points. But it's not really about the rockets. It's the principle of the matter.

1000 meters. It's in the part you quoted. My trig is worse than yours, so I won't even try to judge it. But I used different formula that takes into account the ballistic coefficient of the specific round. I can type it all out later if you want.

Keep in mind that HEAT does not lose penetration at range, and has lower slope effects than AP or even APCBC (IIRC). Panther glacis plate resists HEAT equal to 139.5mm @ 0° -- 80mm/cos(55°). This assumes the plate is high quality, which will not always be the case with Panther G. The performance of US 105mm HEAT is debatable, and was debated at great length way back in the CMBO days. I will use the numbers out of World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, which gives penetration of 128mm @ 0°. This represents the amount of armor resistance at which the round has a 50% of full penetration. Using the 0° penetration/0° armor equivalent ratio we get .92 (128/139.5), which yields a chance of penetration of 2% :eek: However, at 1000m a 105mm round fired at muzzle velocity of 381 mps will hit at a descending angle of 2.27°. This reduces the Panther glacis resistance to 132mm @ 0° equivalent which results in a ratio of .97. That bumps our chance of penetration up to 23%. I wouldn't want to have the outcome of a battle rest on that shot, but I would say the angle of decent certainly does make a significant difference. By way of comparison, US 76mm APCBC penetrates 106mm RHA at 1000m, descending at an angle of .5°. Granted, the game may use different numbers for the 105mm. OTOH, flawed Panther plate may resist much lower than 132mm. How the game models flawed armor is unknown. Without the handy CMx1-style stats screen everything has to be laboriously tested.

It's a lot more flexible. I can't say I've had a problem getting stuck with units I don't want. In the CMx1 system if you bought a company you could not modify the company. Now you can eliminate or add too any formation.

US 76mm APCBC can penetrate the front turret. It is 100mm thick and rounded, similar to the Panther gun mantlet. This is against KTs with the "Porsche" turret that are presently in the game. Production turret KTs will be a different story. It actually can penetrate the Panther glacis at long range because the low velocity round will strike at a steeper angle, reducing the effective resistance of the sloped glacis plate. I'm not sure how likely it is, given the inaccuracy of the round, but it's possible.

Yeah, but they are making the perfect the enemy of the good. You can buy 320 rounds of 114mm US rockets for fewer points (72) than 2 60mm mortar teams (82 points, 64 rounds). Items that are obviously out-of-whack by huge margins should be corrected. If something is worth doing it's worth doing well. Well doesn't have to be perfect.

Without knowing if they were Sherman 75s, 76s or Fireflys there is no way of telling what happened. Sherman 76s can penetrate the Panther and KT ("Porsche" turret) out to at least 500m, but not reliably (the mantlets are rounded).

What size map are you playing on? It's easier to make those guesses on a 1km x 1km map than a 2x2.

No, I'm simply pointing out that one of your alternative front turret hit label locations is significantly thicker in one test than in the other, yet there is no significant change in the proportion of damaging hits as we would expect there to be if that were the case. Again, the test data does not support this contention. Compare the proportion of damaging hits to the front turret in test 4 (Tiger late full hull down) to test 6 (Tiger late partial hull down). While the proportion of hits to the front turret are over 3 times higher when full hull down the proportion of those hits that do damage is exactly the same in both tests: 23%. The mortar test proves beyond all reasonable doubt that no part of the turret roof is being reported as the front turret. The portion of the turret top that is forward sloping is at least 1/3 of the total surface area. It is not reasonable to assume that there were 104 hits on the back 2/3 of the turret without a single hit on the forward 1/3. In a similar vein, the cupola presents a much larger target than the mantlet, yet we had 3 hits on the mantlet and 0 on the "front turret".

LOL! We owe you one, Amizaur

QBs are not inherently gamey. They are as gamey as the players want them to be. Most of the same TO&E tools available in the editor are in the QB selection screen. How you make use of them is up to you and your opponent. There are house rules popular with QB players specifically meant to limit gameyness. Scenarios can be plenty gamey too if the designer wants them to be. QB maps are generally pristine environments, but that is easy to change. I like loading QB maps into the editor and adding craters and rubbling a building here and there for better Bazooka cover

Does that include the price of US rockets, by chance...

I think all this really shows is that the visible explosion location is not reliable in RT either.

Adam is correct. 1.10 2.01 The variation is still in 2.01, but is so subdued that it is barely noticeable. In the above 2.01 pic the green jacket is on the right, khaki on the left. I think. It's really hard to tell them apart.

+1 Attk Large Hills 252 is a gem. I also like improving QB maps, as well as converting scenario maps to QBs.

They will share sometimes up to 3 action spot away, maybe 4 (I don't remember for sure; it was last year when I tested this), but not reliably. In the same or adjacent action spot is by far the best. Oddly, in my testing it made no difference if the tank was buttoned or not.

It is an elegant solution, no question. I wish it were true. Unfortunately there is a mountain of evidence against it. First off, if you compare tests 6 and 7 you will see that the proportion of damaging to non-damaging hits on the front turret are virtually the same. This is significant because the only difference between the two tests is that one was conducted against a Tiger mid and the other against a Tiger late. The mid has top turret armor 25mm thick, the late 40mm thick. Secondly, although this theory could partially explain the change in hit distribution on the Tiger between partial and full hull down it does not explain the same change seen on the Panther, which has a uniformly horizontal top turret plate. But just to be double extra sure I just ran a little test. 10 US 60mm mortars raining shells down onto 10 Tiger mids at 100m with the Tigers facing perpendicular to the mortar facing. Hits (only hits on turret counted) Top turret: _____ 104 Right turret: ____ 7 Weapon mount:__ 3 Right front turret: 1

Amizaur, I have added the scenario file to the dropbox.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eb29rftquo7e84o/6q36x_hLD7 In case any of you professors want to grade my work