Vanir Ausf B

If you are downloading scenarios and using those maps for QB then the type of scenario should give you a hint, but the best way is to load the map/scenario in the editor. After it loads look at the top middle of the screen and you'll see the setting for "Battle Type". QB maps typically have the battle type in their name, i.e. Asslt Large City, ect. Just rename it accordingly.

He could be both.

Not true. You just have to put it in the quick battle maps folder. But I think you also have to set the battle type in the editor to match the type of QB you are looking for (ME, US attack, ect.)

Actually I don't think you should buy it. Although I personally think it's worth it, it's clear that if you buy it you will resent it too much to enjoy it. I think you would be happier spending that 10 bucks on a movie or a Happy Meal.

I just went back and loaded the final turn of 2 games I finished. I cycled through every friendly unit and counted the number of lightly wounded, and also the number of un-buddyaided wounded (I buddy aid most of my wounded, but not all). Both of these games were played against the AI. Bois de Baugin 60 end screen KIA 67 end screen WIA 33 lightly wounded 12 un-buddyaided Total casualties: 60 KIA, 100 WIA, 1:1.7 The end screen AI casualties were 73 KIA, 34 WIA. Closing the Pocket 35 end screen KIA 24 end screen WIA 13 lightly wounded 5 un-buddyaided Total casualties: 35 KIA, 37 WIA, 1:1.06 The end screen AI casualties were 56 KIA, 42 WIA.

The British removed the burster charge from their ammo so it's correct that their Shermans don't have it. From what I have read M61a1 was the standard 75mm AP round used by the US during the CMBN time frame.

Agreed........

It could well be a cover issue, but after my testing of 60mm mortar effectiveness against prone infantry I don't think it's just that they make improper use of it. I think there may not be enough of it to use. It's either that or the lethality of explosives is much too high.

To be honest I've always assumed the initial determination of a casualty as WIA or KIA was random instead of a consequence of his means of injury, but I don't know that for a fact.

If US 75mm is not doing any subsystem damage in CMBN 2.0 then that is a change from 1.0 at least, if not more recently. I did some testing on the effect of optics damage last year under v1.0 and it was US Sherman 75s that I used to knock out the optics in the Panthers and Tigers.

Shiloh: 3482 KIA 16420 WIA 4.7:1 (both sides combined) The Wilderness: 3741 KIA 19965 WIA 5.3:1 And this in an era -- the 1860s -- in which the vast majority of soldiers in an army were front line troops and had primitive medical care compared to WW2. The game does not count lightly wounded soldiers (yellow) in the end game stats, but I think even if it did the ratio would be less than 2:1.

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not. I don't think infantry is useless by any means. My point is just that while I'm fine with machine guns and especially HMGs being made more effective I'm not enamored with the idea of making infantry more fragile against everything. IMO infantry on the CMx2 battlefield already has the short end of the stick to an unrealistic degree.

In my experience the very large majority of causalities in CMx2 games are already caused by artillery and armor, not infantry firing personal weapons. I still contend that uber-infantry is not a problem in CMx2.

I like the idea of both dialing up the "rooty toot" of HMGs and upping cover values.

I agree with PzKfW. I suspect that ramping up suppression from all causes will not make machine guns any more effective relative to other weapon systems. It will simply make infantry in general less effective vis a vis other branches of the army whos performance is less effected by suppression, i.e. armor and artillery. I don't think CMx2 suffers from too effective infantry. Accuracy needs to be looked at too, not just rate of fire. Remember the original post in this thread. Increasing rate of fire would indeed make little difference if the accuracy continued to be that bad.

Do Shermans in CMFI use ammo without a burster charge? I don't have the game but it should be easy for anyone with the game to see if they usually explode or ricochet against Tigers. M61 ammo with the burster charge removed would have higher penetration than with the charge. EDIT: I was looking over the old Pz H thread in the CMFI forum and saw a post by siffo that claimed 75mm performance vs Pz H in CMFI is the same as in CMBN which if true suggests the same ammunition.

In one of their roadmap posts in the CMFI forum BFC stated that they intend to release both the first East Front game and Shock Force 2 in 2013.

As far as I know all US 75mm AP used a bursting charge. It was the British that removed the charge. The M61 and M61a1 both had a ballistic cap. I don't know why the a1 had better penetration.

I doubt BFC would ever ramp up suppression to CMBB levels. When they made CMAK they actually dialed them down a little, although not to CMBO levels.

Are you saying it is building specific?

I think it's because the bocage is blocking the tank's LOS to the ground floors of the buildings in question. It's a persistent annoyance that if a unit has no LOS to the ground floor of a building it can't target the upper floors even if it has LOS to them. There is a partial work-around in place that spotted units in the upper floors of such buildings can be targeted -- as long as they remain spotted -- but area fire is not allowed.

That is already true of CMBO, CMBB and CMAK. And really, since you don't play the game anyways why would you care about potential opponents?

I wonder if the appearance of the gigantic lavender cock on the battlefield is causing the aberrant behavior.

Click on the person's name and select "View Public Profile". You will be taken to a screen where you have the option of adding him/her to your Buddy List or Ignore List.

Eh, V1 of the engine made it's debut with Shock Force, which was released over 5 years ago. Yeah... kind of like how Windows 95 users are probably feeling coerced these days. This is how the world works. Companies release improved versions of their products all the time, no matter if that product is software or cars or anything else. Yep. The stereo in my 2007 Toyota does not have an AUX port. The stereo in the 2008 version of the same vehicle does. In dieseltaylor's world Toyota should be offering me an upgraded stereo for free, because I'm not "totally happy" with it. But that doesn't appear to be happening :mad: