Vanir Ausf B

SOPs. Maybe Some day

Really? I've never noticed that. I thought you could only see them as they were coming down, and even then not reliably. +1 CMx2's sound modeling is superb.

The only way I have been able to get infantry to fire or look around building corners is to give them a movement order out into the middle of the street. Am I doing it wrong? And don't get me started on the overly strict ban on AT rocket use from structures. That's a self-inflicted wound.

What on Earth are you talking about? Atypical concentration of rounds? If you look at the document linked above the recommended fire mission for unfused 60mm mortars against a platoon of infantry not in fighting positions is 60 rounds, several times more than I used. As Womble pointed out it is an area target, not a point target. And the previously referenced document suggests that the concentration isn't anywhere near overkill. I don't think you understand what the point of the test was or what was being tested. Re-read these 2 posts: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1400239&postcount=182 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1400250&postcount=183

Dunno. Looks like you're stuck with it. Maybe you can whip out a quick AAR to edit into the OP. BTW, I think when you change your sig the new sig shows up in your old posts too.

If you edit a post there should be an option to delete the post. Not sure if that will delete the thread.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the demo. I mean, that is what demos are for, right? To kick the tires before you buy?

Well, me for one. Anyone who had read the forum should have known. Failing that, the complete CMBN manual was posted on the BFC website weeks in advance of the product going on sale. Anyone who assumed those features were in the game has no one to blame but themselves. They weren't in CMSF either. I don't know of any company that goes out of it's way to denigrate their own product in their advertising. I find it odd that it is considered a failure for BFC to have not done so.

Unless I'm looking at that wrong I think that is the diameter of the area of effect, not the radius. So the radius would actually be 10 meters. In my testing I saw prone men regularly hit at much longer ranges. I measured one at 46 meters from the point of impact. In mud.

Why is it biased? Biased towards what? The thing about testing is that in any given test you want to eliminate as many different factors as you can instead of testing them all at once. That way you don't have to figure out which factors are responsible for the results. That is why when I tested dispersion I didn't bother with putting infantry under the shells to count casualties, and it's why I made the FO and mortar crews elite. It is reasonable to assume that lowering crew quality will result in a smaller portion of shells hitting the target area. It is almost certain that a smaller portion of shells hitting the target area will result in fewer casualties. I'm not particularly interested in testing that right now because I don't think crew quality factors have much if anything to do with possible over lethality of HE in the game. I don't, at least not enough to be motivated to do it. But there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from doing it.

People can hear sounds without being able to accurately locate where it originates. I assume it is that type of sound that we are talking about, and in that case hearing the sound play but having it in a generic or perhaps random location seems the most logical solution. If we are talking about sounds that can have their location fixed then it's not an exploit, you are just getting the information aurally rather than visually.

The 10 or 5 dollar "patch" is not a patch. It won't fix any bugs. Anyone who thinks that is what it is for has no clue what they are talking about.

Full disclosure: I do not own CMFI. These tests were conducted with CMBN:CW (1.10). But I would be surprised if the model is any different in CMFI.

Second battery of tests. These are identical to the first except that the terrain the Germans are lying in has been changed to mud, ground condition has been changed to "muddy" and weather is "downpour". Test 1 Rounds fired: 18 On target: 15 Casualties: 8 Test 2 Rounds fired: 20 On target: 18 Casualties: 8 Test 3 Rounds fired: 20 On target: 17 Casualties: 10 Test 4 Rounds fired: 19 On target: 17 Casualties: 6 Test 5 Rounds fired: 18 On target: 16 Casualties: 7 Test 6 Rounds fired: 19 On target: 16 Casualties: 6 Test 7 Rounds fired: 17 On target: 14 Casualties: 8 Test 8 Rounds fired: 19 On target: 14 Casualties: 9 Test 9 Rounds fired: 20 On target: 18 Casualties: 8 Test 10 Rounds fired: 18 On target: 15 Casualties: 3 Total on target rounds were 165 or 16.5 per test. Total casualties were 73 or 7.3 per test or 18.3% casualty rate. This is slightly lower than the dry ground test because for some reason the total number of rounds fired and therefore the number of on target rounds were a little less. But the ratios are virtually identical: 1 casualty per 2.1 on target rounds on dry ground vs. 1 casualty per 2.26 on target rounds in mud. I think we can safely conclude that ground conditions have no effect whatsoever on HE shell lethality.

You can do that with almost any firing unit, not just mortars. No it would not make more sense for it to make no noise at all, but perhaps a more generic location -- such as at the enemy map edge -- would be preferable.

I've read that tanks used in weapon tests such as in those videos are typically loaded up with extra ordinance for a more spectacular result.

75m x 75m = 5625 m² 80m diameter circle = 5027 m² So a little less but I counted shells that landed slightly outside the circle so I think it was effectively close.

I just tested US 60mm mortars. Setup is 1 FO calling in fire from 3 mortars. 3 overlapping area targets 40m in radius, Heavy/Quick. The center of the target area is about 335-340m away from the firing mortars. Inside the target area are exactly 40 German soldiers, Hiding on dry dirt. The Germans are Fanatic with +2 leadership to keep them from getting up and running. The Americans are Elite with +2 leadership to get as many shells on target as possible. Any shell hitting within about 1 action spot of the Germans was counted even if it was a little outside the target area. Lightly wounded soldiers were not counted as casualties. Test 1 Total round fired: 21 Counted rounds: 18 Casualties: 3 Test 2 Total rounds fired: 22 Counted rounds: 20 Casualties: 7 Test 3 Rounds fired: 21 Counted rounds: 19 Casualties: 10 Test 4 Rounds fired: 22 Counted rounds: 20 Casualties: 10 Test 5 Rounds fired: 22 Counted rounds: 20 Casualties: 11 Test 6 Rounds fired: 21 Counted rounds: 18 Casualties: 9 Test 7 Rounds fired: 22 Counted rounds: 20 Casualties: 13 Test 8 Rounds fired: 25 Counted rounds: 19 Casualties: 11 Test 9 Rounds fired: 22 Counted rounds: 18 Casualties: 10 Test 10 Rounds fired: 22 Counted rounds: 15 Casualties: 5 Total rounds counted: 187 or 18.7 per test. Total casualties: 89 or 8.9 per test which is 22.3% casualties. http://www.2shared.com/file/1Il6aSO_/Mortar_effectiveness_test.html

If you are getting frequent upper front hull penetrations at 1500 meters that is odd. My back of the envelope math shows M62 APCBC penetration of FHA at 0° and 1500m to be 74.42mm. Late Pz IV upper hull is 80mm @ 10°. And I thought that prior to 1944 US Shermans mostly used uncapped M72 AP ammo which penetrates only 41.48mm 0° FHA @ 1500m, but I could be mistaken. Unfortunately I don't have CMFI so I can't test it myself.

Agreed. Peeking/shooting around building corners is one of the most commonly used urban combat tactics. I won't comment on how difficult it would be to implement this. Most likely if it was easy to do it would have been done by now. Then again, adjusting US rocket QB point values would take about 5 minutes and they haven't done that either. I also used to think this was how it worked. But someone did a test showing otherwise and it so happens that i just concluded a series of tests that confirmed it. In fact, if 2 units not in the same C2 chain are within 1 or 2 action spots of each other and one of them spots a unit the other has no LOS to the unit out of LOS will often get a generic enemy marker at the exact same time (the speed with which the information is passes varies randomly with variation increasing with distance). Disagree. The god's eye view the player has gives the player a much greater ability to coordinate action based on information than any real world force would have. In the particular example given, the ability to pass spotting information to nearby units is a close approximation for what you are asking for. Not totally. You may want to try a Hunt command combined with covered arc. But it is true that our options are very limited. All I can do is echo the points made regarding SOPs.

For camera movement I put the cursor in the center of the screen and hold down the left mouse button for "strafe" movement and hold down the right mouse button for "look" movement. Since I play on a laptop I have the left mouse button set to stay locked down if it is held down for several consecutive seconds. I have elevation change mapped to the mouse wheel and Reverse Direction (\), Select Previous Unit (F12), Lock Camera to Unit (TAB), Target (T) and Jump to Location (Ctrl+left click) mapped to mouse buttons. Don't forget to go into your CMBN\Date folder and rename the "alternative hotkeys.txt" file to "hotkeys.txt" (and rename the current default hotkey.txt file to something else). I don't know of anyone other than Steve likes the default hotkeys.

The effects of optics in CM are big black hole. Testing has shown that they appear to affect spotting in some way and therefore who gets the first shot. I am not aware of any evidence that optics affect accuracy. My assumption based on previous testing is that tank cannon accuracy is a straight function of muzzle velocity which is then modified by crew quality and movement modifiers. This is how it worked in CMx1 and I've seen no evidence to suggest it's any different in CMx2. If anyone knows differently they are keeping it to themselves. With Pz IVs vs. Sherman battles the extra 30mm of front hull armor on the later G and H models is major factor. In CM the Sherman 75 begins to lose its ability to penetrate the 80mm front hull at around 800-900 meters. That could be different in CMFI if the Shermans are assumed to be firing uncapped AP rather than the APCBC they shoot in CMBN (Pz IV front hull armor is face hardened). But the point is that with the Pz IV the idea is to stay in the habitable zone above where the Sherman can penetrate the Pz IV hull but below where the Pz IV loses it's ability to penetrate the Sherman hull, because if it becomes a contest as to who can penetrate the other's turret first the Pz IVs thin turret becomes a decisive liability. In reality it was SOP for Pz IVs to open fire on opposing tanks at 1200m. Sherman crews are on record as stating that in these engagements it was almost always the Pz IVs who fired first and their first shots hit with greater frequency than the Shermans did.

Yes. I did another quick test. Same as before but range was increased to 1050m. The pattern was much more oval at this range, with about 80-90% of the non-spotting rounds hitting in a 80x20m area orientated along the y axis. I followed that with an identical test except heavy wind was added. The wind had a noticeable if undramatic effect, with the pattern spreading out to roughly 100x40m.

I just did a head to head comparison of a US 60mm mortar firing direct lay vs one firing indirectly via FO at a point target. Range was 350m for both. 60s typically don't leave craters so I had to eyeball it, but there was no noticeable difference in dispersion. I would estimate that in both cases 80-90% of the non-spotting rounds landed within 2 action spots (16 meters) of the target. I think I will test soft ground effects. I have an old US rockets test still on my hard drive that could be easily modified. IIRC this was reduced in the most recent CMFI patch.

You really need to tell us what version of the Pz IV you are using in your tests. To the Sherman's 75mm gun there is a big difference between 50mm of upper hull armor and 80mm of upper hull armor. Unless CMFI only has one type of Pz IV?