Vanir Ausf B

Yeah, the "weapon mount" is what the game calls the mantlet.

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/patches/combatmissionbattlefornormandy/patch.html http://www.atomicgamer.com/files/96403/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy-patch-1-10-pc http://download.cnet.com/Combat-Mission-Battle-for-Normandy-patch/3000-2115_4-75705015.html

Judging by the AARs of real 19 year old Sherman tank gunners many of them couldn't tell the difference between a Tiger and a Pz IV. Does that mean CM should just use generic tank models that don't tell you the type of tank? Part of the fog-of-war... I don't need one. The OP seems to think he does and I have not noticed him weighing in on ballistics debates. For me the in-game encyclopedia would be a convenience to check on what data the game is using that otherwise can only be discovered through laborious testing.

The data does not have to be mined to create the information tables because it has already been mined to create the 3D models and vehicle data already used in the game. They could not have made the game without it. Presumabley whichever plate the game already refers to as the "front upper hull" in the hit text when struck. The vehicle catalog data need not be an exact match for the data the game uses in every single instance. It wasn't in CMx1 either. Don't make perfect the enemy of the good. And I don't know why you are putting "trivial" in quotes as if someone had claimed it would be. I said it "would not be prohibitively difficult".

In the case of sound whoring it was hard to avoid. The sound of enemy units firing is LOUD. Wow. Not having played PBEM yet I was not aware that you could re-do turns until you get a favorable result. That's a pretty significant hole.

Interesting. Good news if true.

Missed your edit: As I said, because the vast majority of armored plates are of a uniform thickness and angle this is not a problem.

From the perspective of the end user the result is largely the same. The vast majority of plates on armed vehicles are of a uniform thickness and angle. The exceptions to that are primarily machine gun ports and hatches, which in CMx1 were abstracted as "weak points" that were represented by every hit having a small (approx 1%) chance of penetrating regardless of other factors. In CMx2 these are presumably modeled explicitly, but the difference is largely academic from the end user perspective (in fact, my testing suggests weak point penetrations are much more rare in CMBN than CMx1, to the point they can almost be ignored as a significant factor). In the case of armored plates that do vary in thickness and/or angle across their surface -- and these are almost always mantlets -- they can be noted the same way they were noted in CMx1: by listing their average values with a note stating "rounded" or whatever to convey the fact that it is an approximation.

You can "sound whore" the positions of unseen enemy units pretty easily with headphones. Cheesy, but that's the way the game works.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=109644&postcount=16

That is not true. CMx1 did not use any sort of "hit matrix" or penetration tables. Every shot was calculated by formula, same as CMx2.

IIRC someone did some testing that indicated that only AP shell with an HE burster charge do subsystem damage currently. The British used solid shot AP exclusively so they cannot do subsystem damage.

It's not high on my own priority list, but it could be done. The difference in the complexity of the ballistic modeling between CMx1 and CMx2 is not orders of magnitude. The only major difference in ballistic modeling is an an increase in the number of areas on the vehicles that have armor values specifically modeled. So in CMx1 a tank would have 3 zones: lower hull, upper hull and turret. In CMBN they have 5: lower hull, upper hull, superstructure upper hull, front turret, mantlet (counting gun hits it would be 4 and 6 respectively). Adding 2 more lines would not be prohibitively difficult. All of the other issues regarding different ammo types vs. various armor types and whatnot are valid points, but that was the case in CMx1 as well, yet people seemed to appreciate it nevertheless.

I've seen this as well in 1.10. IIRC, it seemed that when a unit lost sight of an enemy unit there was a short time period afterwards during which clicking on the enemy unit would still cause the friendly unit icon to light up.

Damage to the building is expected. Damage to the shooter is not. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtzvrg_baba-amr-homs_news

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107549

He is probably wondering if that copse of trees would provide better cover and so decided to wander over that way.

You can have multiple copies of CMBN on you computer and they don't have to be the same version.

I'm pretty sure that shadows are eye candy only and have no impact on spotting.

Nope ..........

Yep, CTRL-click is great.

The lower hull can be penetrated from the side and rear out to around 1500m or so. Against the upper hull and turret from the side you should start to see partial penetrations and maybe an occasional full penetration at 500m. At 300m you should be able to penetrate on most hits. This assumes the Tiger is exactly perpendicular to the Sherman. Effective range drops rapidly as angle of impact increases. As the Lone Sentry report notes, past 17° it may not even penetrate at 100 meters (upper hull and turret). This is all on paper, of course. I haven't tested this in-game.

Agreed. Mord, you do realize that if you succeed in training Kettler to do this he will absolutely break the forum? Right?

IIRC this is how it does work. I also vaguely recall that the AS to AS checks are done at beginning of the game and saved so they don't have to be repeated, although there are presumably circumstances where they are, such as when terrain is deformed by artillery or buildings are destroyed.

The reason there have been no US casualties in Iraq recently is that we don't have any troops there anymore, except for embassy guards. The last US combat forces withdrew in December '11.