Vanir Ausf B

This is the first time BFC has ever added new features into an existing game. People have been asking BFC to back-port features from new games into older games since CMBB was released 10 years ago. So we have a choice: pay $10 to get what we have wanted for so long, or continue to see older releases made obsolete every time a new game comes out. If most of us are happy to pay $10 for the upgrade it's because we've been asking for it, not because we are stupid or taking Ecstasy.

I think it makes their performance more realistic. Tanks in CM can do things that no tank in real life could, such as instant communications between crewmen.

Sounds like it won't be months. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1410447&highlight=long#post1410447

Yes, any vehicle equipped with a radio will work.

Iron is the most realistic, although to be honest the difference from Warlord is not very noticeable. It was actually more than a year after the game came out before someone was able to point out the difference.

No, if you want to play that kind of Iron mode you just need self discipline Heck, some people have been known to play with the self-imposed rule that the camera cannot ever rise higher than eye-level.

Iron has no effect on saving the game. It affects friendly LOS but not friendly fire (AFAIK)

I play on Iron. It's a little bit more realistic than Elite in that your own units do not automatically spot each other when in LOS of each other.

Forgot to add: parking a vehicle next to your on-board mortars to allow indirect fire from them is not considered gamey at all.

Correct. In the case of on-board mortars it just has to be parked within a few action spots of the mortars (I don't remember how many exactly, but 2-4 IIRC). And there does not have to be any one in the vehicle for it to work. No. The game considers all radios the same. EDIT: Ninja'd

Functionally they are like any other halftrack except with less room for passengers. On large maps you can use them as a battlefield taxi for your HQ and FO units. Or you can park one next to on-board mortars to ensure C2. Or use them for fire support. In other words there is nothing special about them in the game and you just use them like any other halftrack except they cannot transport a full squad.

I agree that QBs are as realistic or fantasy-based as the players want to make them. The same is true for canned scenarios except it's the scenario designer who makes that decision. The drawback to QBs is that if you want them to be somewhat realistic you need to agree to that with your opponent before hand. The advantage is that you have endless replayability whereas there are a limited number of scenarios out there and only some of those are well-suited for H2H play.

I'm compiling a list of house rules I'm hoping to get my future opponents to agree to for QBs. I think I just thought of another: every HQ must have at least 1 subordinate unit Interesting. I don't think I will bother with any rules to limit this. Although this does create a very powerful formation it will burn through ammo fast, and most importantly you are paying a steep premium. The Scout and LMG teams are 14.5 and 14 points per man respectively. A Grenadier platoon is 4.1 points per man so you are paying more than triple. To be sure, anything you can ambush at close range will be pureed, but the much cheaper Grenadier squad may to the job adequately at a much lower price. The average Grenadier squad has 5 vanilla K98, 1 K98/GL, 1 MG42, 2 MP40s (one MP40 is sometimes switched out for a scoped K98 or a MP44). So a typical Grenadier squad has the firepower equivalent of a scout team and a LMG42 team while costing 20 pts less (28+29) - 37. The other 5 guys in the squad are free backups Of course I've never tried using a Scout + LMG platoon in an actual game so maybe they are worth their weight in gold, but at least on paper it doesn't look like an exploit.

Does Matrix Games know that Steve Grammont owns a tank? It's a small tank, but still...

See my sig.

Large Hills QB-252 Large Open QB-125 Large Open QB-122 Large Forest QB-148 CW Colossal Crack Maltot full map http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102976 KG Himmelfahrt http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106520 Fire Brigade http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98904

Marco Bergman already did it and he doesn't even have access to the game guts (I presume). Agreed. Although some people do seem to appreciate the hard numbers for educational purposes.

Wow. :confused:

..............

Like Steve said in the other thread, why spend $10 worth of your time to argue over $10?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98847 EDITED to add: The fact that someone already made out spreadsheets containing most of the relevant info proves my point about how not-prohibitively difficult an encyclopedia would be. The idea that the data would need to be extracted as is from the game is a canard. An in-game encyclopedia could be just a pretty spreadsheet you can call up at the push of a button. If Steve thinks there is not enough benefit to make it worth their time that's fine, but getting the relevant penetration data is not hard at all.

Actually, what you said was that CMx1 was a "totally different system" that used a "hit matrix", which is not the same thing as what Steve said. And I never said the data could be used "as is". Was the data in CMx1 used "as is"? But in the spirit of giving I will conceed the argument, even though you can't point to anything I said that was incorrect. Merry Christmas.

I did not say or mean to imply that the data in-game could be cut and pasted "as is" into an encyclopedia. I only said that information such as armor slope and thickness must surely have already been researched in order to create whatever data the game uses in whatever form it uses it. +1 This sounds like an improved version of the old CMx1 targeting tooltip that would tell you if the chance of a kill was "good", "poor" or whatever. This is probably more useful to neophytes than an encyclopedia.

That's only the first thread. That was back in the days when every thread got locked at 300 posts, so the discussion continued for hundreds of posts after that. Charles was so traumatized he hasn't been back to the forum since. I quoted that same bit on the first page Over the years mathematical formula have been developed to predict ballistic performance. The calculations these formulas produce have been compared to real test data. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=world+war+ii+ballistics+armor+and+gunnery&oq=world+war+2+ballistics+and+&gs_l=hp.3.0.0i22.1229.6811.0.9031.33.30.3.0.0.0.197.3281.13j17.30.0.les%3Bcqn%2Ccconf%3D1-2%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0-035%2Crate_high%3D0-035%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cnum_suggestions%3D2%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue%2Conetoken%3Dfalse..0.0...1c.1.9S4TosqB9D0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I&fp=57b747fe93862d6b&bpcl=40096503&biw=1120&bih=592

I have a theory. It could easily be totally off base, but I''ve long suspected that their real motivation for not providing the raw data a la CMx1 is to make it harder for people to nitpick it.