Vanir Ausf B

Still looks the same to me.

But as you pointed out the target tool has it's own limitations. If you want alternatives available right now rather than in a hoped-for future version I say ignore the visual check at your peril. I have lost a couple of tanks when I chose to believe the target tool over what my eyes told me.

The only work around I have found is to set the camera on the spot you want to check LOS from at view level 2 for infantry or 3 for tanks and then using the zoom function look at the spot you want to check. If you can see it visually you will probably have LOS regardless of what the target tool says, in my experience.

I have to hand it to you Peregrine, 14 months after release and you are the first person to ever demonstrate a specific difference between Iron and the other difficulty levels not related to UI. The previous test I ran in relation to this was regarding a different claim regarding Iron that turned out not to be true, at least in the particular circumstance I tested which IIRC was open terrain. This is important since it appears the C2 differences at Iron can be very circumstantial. For example, after verifying your test results I changed the low bocage I was using to a low stone wall. After unhiding the units they spotted the HQ quickly, withing about 5 seconds and had C2 withing another 3 seconds after that. So it looks like I'll be making the switch to Iron. But I have to agree with the previous comment that BFC should have been more forthcoming about this.

In Warrior mode if I need to see if a sub unit has LOS to an HQ I just look for the visual C2 icon.

.............

Or you can just click on the ground to see all your troops. Working though the command panel can be a time saver even in Warrior if you have a lot of troops and don't want to hunt around but I don't see how Iron or Elite make it any more difficult.

I play on Warrior also. As far as I'm concerned the only purpose of Elite and Iron is to induce carpel tunnel syndrome.

The problem is no one seems to know what "reality" is in this case.

IIRC it was me that checked, and no it isn't true

It would be nice if soldiers with rifle grenades did not have to fire off the HEAT round first before the HE rounds can be used.

They are 100% compatible.

German rocket artillery is roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than US rocket artillery. US rockets are 4.5 times more cost efficient than US 81mm mortars. I have yet to see any one offer a valid reason for this. The only public statement BFC has made on the subject was to the effect that as far as they are concerned when it comes to QB unit prices any number is just as valid as any other number so they won't change it. No, really. What most people so is simply ban them in multiplayer QBs.

It could be that HEAT is more effective against buildings. But because of its scarcity I agree that I would rather see it saved for use against enemy tanks. I wonder if this TacAI behavior was carried over from Shock Force where HEAT rounds are plentiful. Ideally the game would allow us to chose what ammunition type to use. Looks like another example where SOPs would be beneficial.

There is an on-going discussion in the CMBN forum on sub-machine gun and light machine gun vs. heavy machine gun effectiveness. There does seem to be some room for improvement there. Cannon fire seems solid enough, but there are a couple of issues with armor.

Yeah, IIRC this was done to reduce weight, specifically to compensate for a 10mm increase in side armor thickness.

For APCBC it should be 1878.7 fps or 572.6 mps if I did the math right.

I looked it up and the D Late lower front hull armor is 63mm FH while the G Early has 50mm RHA.

In my testing I have seen no evidence of armor degradation, though I have not specifically tested for it. US 76mm can penetrate the Panther turret at least up to 500m and probably for a significant distance beyond, but not reliably. At this range shots that strike the "front turret" armor rather than the mantlet will usually penetrate, and since CM strangely models the Panther and Tiger mantlets as covering a smaller area than they actually do the 76 has a puncher's chance. I have also seen the rounded mantlet penetrated on occasion. The glacis is usually proof against anything short of 17 pdr APDS, however informal testing has shown that 95mm HEAT will very occasionally penetrate. I suspect the same may be true of US 105mm HEAT but I have not tested. IIRC the thickness of the lower front hull armor was changed significantly at some point so results there may depend greatly on which model of Panther you are testing.

I wonder if this problem is related to the deploy set up time bug, i.e. everything deploys instantly.

I know. Infantry have a hard enough time as it is already in CMBN. It looks like CMFI will be even more armor oriented. And artillery, with the cleaner lines of sight for spotting. I will buy CMFI but I expect I will continue to spend most of my time with CMBN.

Texas Instruments TI-31 here. 26 years and going strong but could use a good cleaning...

Jagdtiger:

Whoops, should read "not less" I understand that is the underlying agenda. I just think it odd that rather than directly addressing the present day military application except in passing he oversold the proposition by placing the blame for Germany's failure in WW2 at the feet of auftragstaktik (and bewegungskrieg aka Blitzkrieg). It reminds me of a little blub I read about how in hierarchical structures the best managers tend to be the delegaters. Which IIRC is essentially the advice Manstein gave Hitler right before he got fired

It's good to see they got someone to help MarkEzra.