Vanir Ausf B

How does panning work in most games?

Ok, I double checked my source. WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery lists the following armor thicknesses and angles for the Pz IV glacis plate: D: ..... 20mm "hi-hard" @75° E: ..... 20mm @ 71° F1/F2: 25mm @ 73° G: ..... 25mm @ 73° H: ..... 20mm @ 72° There is no entry for Ausf J so I assume it's the same as H. (?) 25mm @ 73° resists equal to 100mm @ 0° Angle of decent for 75mm APCBC @ 1500m is 1.5° Reducing armor angle to 71.5° to compensate for shell decent angle changes effective armor resistance to 92.6mm @ 0° So basically the 25mm plate should be normally impervious to Sherman 75mm, but the 20mm plate versions are vulnerable. Interestingly, this same source lists the actual measured production thickness of the driver plate and "upper nose" sections as 85mm thick compared to the official 80mm specs.

I actually don't think the interface sucks. It's not the greatest but it works well enough once you learn how it works . But that is the real problem. It is poorly documented and combined with the lack of tooltips or any type of in-game hints I think there are a lot of people who don't understand it.

I need to double check that. I was going off of memory when I wrote that and I wont have access to my stuff until later today. I know for sure those were the correct armor values but I can't guarantee I assigned them to the correct tank models.

After reading that post I can't get "The Eye of the Tiger" out of my head.

Good idea. You may want to test Ausf J too. From what Bastables said in the other thread they should perform much better due to RHA.

I don't have a diagram to prove it, but I would bet money the plates overlap where they meet to minimize edge effects. That's how tanks are usually put together. Besides that, siffo's tests show more than half of hits on the glacis penetrating -- albeit with a rather small sample size -- which is unlikely to be attributable to edge effects anyway. I think the most likely explanation is that CM has the glacis plate at 20mm and its just a question of whether that is correct or not. EDITED to add: the shell arcing thing could be a factor as well, but I don't know how much.

Actually things did improve. We got QBs. That is really what I expected CMBN to be: CMSF with QBs and a WW2 setting. And that's what I got, so I'm not disappointed. I knew there were no adjustable waypoints or armored covered arcs when I preordered and I knew that without ever playing CMSF.

The source I quoted earlier gives 25mm @ 73° for the G but 20mm @ 72° for the H and J. I don't know which source is correct. As I stated above, 20mm @ 72° resists equal to 70mm. I'll run the 25mm calculation later today.

In CMBN you can use tall bocage for lanes. Tanks can't see over it. In CMFI you would probably need to use the elevation tool to create tall berms. This actually looks about right given my earlier calculation. This is the important part. Do you have a source for the 50mm thickness? I looked online for one but my Google-fu failed me. The only information I could find was in World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, which lists the Pz IV Ausf H glacis plate as only 20mm thick @ 72° angle from vertical. If that is correct it would resist equivalent to about 70mm @ 0°. If you look at the Pz IV from the front you will see that you are hitting the hull skirts edge-on so there is nothing behind them. Similarly, with the turret skirts there is nothing behind them from that angle but more skirts, except for a very small section on each side of the front turret.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1272591#post1272591

I'd think the larger problem is the artificial inaccuracy against infantry -- and apparently only infantry -- demonstrated in the OP. It seems to function as a dumbing down of machine gun effectiveness where there is no need for it. Or maybe it's a bug.

I was wondering about this myself. I don't recall anything in the patch notes.

So is per shell lethality correct? What about soft ground conditions having no effect?

You definitely have doubts. No question about it.

I pre-ordered too. But I also read the manual online and read the forum a little I don't know that CMx1 did firing on the move any better. It was less accurate than in CMx2, but that may have only been because the base accuracy was lower to begin with. If CMx1 is not the benchmark for realism then what is? Because I want to play that game.

They do if you want them to be playable against the AI. If they are intended for H2H only then it's optional.

Pre-orders can be canceled. And frankly anyone who blindly pre-orders anything is deliberately rolling the dice. Did you pre-order? So was CMx1 more realistic?

Battalion+ size games are my favorite in CMBN. Sorting out the units is just a matter if double clicking on the HQs then using group move. The icons are clearly marked. The only thing that takes a long time is the planning and plotting first turn moves. To the extent that CMx2 is more work I think is simply a function of having more infantry units due to 1-1 modeling. I don't know what can be done to alleviate that other than going back to abstracted 3-man squads. I typically don't split my squads during setup unless I'm expecting immediate contact.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1354560&highlight=cerebral#post1354560

Yep, and that is ALL it's meant to test. Well, that and whether ground conditions effects are modeled. I did do a couple of separate dispersion tests with point targets earlier in the thread on page 18.

Yes it does for player designated targets. I was thinking of targets of opportunity chosen by the TacAI.

I'm not sure what you mean by original armor model. If you mean v 1.00 of CMBN then that is pretty much the current armor model other than a few minor tweaks. As to how accurate it is, I think it's generally a good approximation although some aspects of it vary from reality more than others. In fact I'm close to starting a new thread about one of the less accurate aspects, albeit one that hardly anyone other than me seems to care about. It probably will, and if the chore of plotting movement points is what is preventing you from enjoying the game then maybe this is the revolution you need. But I personally don't find such plotting to be much of a chore presently. Armored Covered Arc gives a finer grain of control but doesn't fundamentally change how the game is played. I'm looking forward to Target Briefly more so than the other 2, if they can get it to work properly. Normal Mapping is the cherry on top.

Again, I think this is true for any firing unit, not just mortars. I've used it to determine which house a sniper is in.

Define "fully developed". Do adjustable waypoints and armor cover arcs complete the development? What about fire? What about anti-aircraft weapons? Pershing tanks? Fallschirmjäger? SOPs? Flares? Where is the cut off between finished and unfinished? The bottom line as always is whether or not you feel the game is fun to play. I do. You don't. Fair enough, it's not for everyone. But if you don't like it now I seriously doubt the V2 upgrade features will make much difference in your enjoyment. They just aren't that central to how the game is played. Unlike, say, QBs, the lack of which in CMSF was a game-killer for me personally and the reason why I never bought it in the first place. Instead I found something else enjoyable to do with my spare time for the next 5 years other than bitterly trolling the CMSF forum.