Vanir Ausf B

I'll resist the temptation to add this to my sig. Thanks for the input.

Yes, I remember that thread very well

^^^ Well played, sir.

Great post! Having done a fair amount of testing myself -- 'though a small fraction of your output -- I know how time-consuming it is. Do you know if either of these factors make a difference in spotting?

Covered arcs = cheating Hide command = cheating

I think a lot may depend on if you feel the setup phase is a necessary evil you have to go through to get to the fun parts or if you enjoy it for its own sake. I could probably cut my setup time in half if I tried, but I enjoy the planning process so I don't mind taking my time.

Depends on map and force size, but I can easily spend an hour or more just moving the camera over the map at level 1 or 2, getting a feel for the lay of the land as ideas percolate in my head while occasionally plotting a movement point somewhere to check LOS. Once a general plan is formulated placing a battalion size force and plotting first turn moves takes me another 1-2 hours. So for a large QB I'd say 3-4 hours.

I wonder if a "Find LOS" command would help. The way I imagine it you could plot a target line from any unit to any point on the map. The TacAI would check if LOS is possible from the unit's current action spot. If LOS is possible it will adjust individual soldiers so that heavy weapons and scoped rifles are given LOF priority to the selected spot on the map. In the case of vehicles the TacAI would plot a short reverse then move forward to the proper position.

Yeeahhh, but this: strikes me as more of a game engine complaint than a scenario design complaint. As others have mentioned, lots of units on a big map means playing traffic cop unless everyone is going to begin the scenario almost in contact with the enemy. But in that case what's the point of having a big map? Stuff a battalion on a 800x800 map and your traffic issues disappear because there is nowhere to go.

It would not surprise me if TCs are handled differently. I did some extensive testing on CMBN 1.00 or 1.01 (don't remember which) that showed that at least from certain angles and distances Panther TCs were almost invulnerable to small arms fire. I think this has since been corrected in a patch, although I haven't tested to be sure.

These two contentions alone would annoy a lot of people. Sounds like my kind of book. Thanks for the review.

I think we've already crossed that Rubicon in more ways that one. The AI can't use covered arcs, and I don't think it can deliberately hide it's troops. So any time you use covered arcs or the hide command against the AI you are in a sense cheating

Panther Games has made 3 full operational level games covering the West Front 1944 alone. They are currently working on their first East Front game. It's not going to cover the entire East Front 1941-45.

No matter how many times you re-run the turn the Sherman will always react the instant it spots the Pz IV.

Could be a German mechanic changing the oil.

One of my long standing pet peeves. Tanks react as if they were a single living breathing organism instead of 4 or 5 individuals having to communicate information with each other.

On-board mortars are basically rocket launchers right now.

MG 34 Rate of fire (cyclic): 900 rpm (practical): 100 to 120 as LMG, 300 as HMG Effective range: 600 to 800 yards as LMG 2000 to 2500 yards as HMG MG 42 Rate of fire (cyclic): 1200 to 1400 rpm (practical): 250 as LMG, 500 as HMG Effective range: 600 to 800 yards as LMG 2000 to 2500 yards as HMG Link Earlier testing done by Fūrinkazan shows in-game MG 42 rate of fire tops out at about 287 rpm at 100m. ROF at 200m is about 120 rpm. Link Link It would be interesting to test if a tripod increases accuracy in-game, but I'm not sure how to test this in a way that separates the effect of accuracy from rate of fire.

+1 (10 +1s)

Just you, as usual.

Someone, I think JK, posted up this little study a few days back. http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf

The article referenced in post 19 mentions his death but gives no details.

According to this account we actually can rule out some options. Raible was a mile away from where the attackers entered the base and he drove to the fighting. So the answer is B.

I can't agree with this. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=57112 That may be the case. My problem with QB maps is that only a fairly small number of them are of the type I like to play on, meaning LARGE; at least 2 km². The only way around this is to give up on the idea of randomness and choosing the map manually.

A possible solution I just thought of may be to have the arc slowly "pulse" between the current density and a lower near-invisible level of opacity.