Vanir Ausf B

Although I wish people would stop caring about what Dorosh writes, that is hilarious. And probably true, sadly.

I asked you earlier what the alternative was. CMx1 sales were declining with each release. And because they had already covered the ETO and Soviet Front they were stuck with covering progressively more niche theaters of conflict or abandoning WW2 if they stayed with CMx1. CMx2 is more complex. That is largely because of 2 factors. 1:1 infantry This is a huge step forward. The abstract 3 man squads were one of the most common complains about the CMx1 games. More tactical options enriches the game. C2 The new C2 model is admittedly more of a mixed bag. The modeling of radio communications is a big step forward. On the minus side, the effects of C2 are now largely opaque to the player. And there are a significant number of seemingly arbitrary rules and restrictions that are mostly undocumented. It needs some work. Have you looked into Panzer Command Ostfront? I've never played it but I've seen it described as CMx1.5.

You've completely missed his point, which is far more trivial than you are giving him credit for. He doesn't mind time limits, he minds that the game clock counts down instead of up. I put this in with tank reverse speeds as "stuff only DT would ever care about".

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/48646/what-is-the-meaning-and-origin-of-set-piece-battle

IIRC it does if the HQ is at least 2 levels higher than the unit and is in the direct chain of command. I.E. an infantry squad cannot get moral boost from a different platoon HQ or a company HQ from a different company, but they can from their own company or battalion HQ. At least that's how I remember it.

What was the alternative?

That's a lot of transmission fluid.

I have no idea. The Sherman 75 can penetrate the Tiger lower side hull at 1000m at 0°, but that doesn't seem likely when at your 11 o'clock. The slightly suped-up British 75mm ammo can penetrate the Tiger anywhere on the side at 1000m and 0°, albeit not reliably.

That's exactly what he's saying. Although if they are right next to the HT you probably only need a 15 or 20 second pause.

Absolutely. I felt it mostly in my back from walking around hunched over. There there's my brother, who's favorite tactic at the beginning of each match was to sprint down one of the boundary edges and come up behind the other team like he was JEB Stuart.

Well then why do you care so much about whether or not CMBN models the exact speed at which tanks drive in reverse?

US 76mm can kill Tigers, even frontally.

Immune to indirect fire? Man, we are not even playing the same game.

They are on the list. They haven't said when.

You are not wrong. They lessened the effect of HE compared to what they thought was strictly realistic in order to compensate for the fact that infantry in the game are forced to bunch up tighter than in reality. Nevertheless, in my experience small caliber HE, both direct and indirect, is much more lethal in CMBN than it was in the CMx1 games. In the earlier games 60 and 81mm mortars were primarily only good for suppression. Now they kill pretty reliably, the OP's single experience notwithstanding.

The last thing this game needs is increased vulnerability of infantry to explosives.

I've already stated that I'm not interested in debating the exact numbers regarding the US and UK ammo since I'm not particularly bothered by the in-game results except as they related to the Tiger turret, which is clearly not correct IMO. But in light of your certitude I am now curious about something else. Why did you register on the forum and start this thread to ask a question that you already knew the answer to?

Regarding indirect fire calls, you don't need a radio at both ends, you only need one at the mortar end (assuming on-board assets). Any unit eligible to call in fire can do so regardless of it's own C2 status.

It's good to hear a complaint that US 60mm mortars are not effective enough, and that infantry is too resilient and resistant to high explosive. My experience had been more the opposite; that artillery is a little too effective and 60mm mortars are the most effective weapon in the US arsenal. My guess is that the German HQ has been very lucky in this instance.

It stands insofar as trying to refute it is more work than it's worth. Let's just say there is a lot of conflicting data out there. For example, the book I quoted above does state that removing the HE burster cap improves penetration, but by only about 4% (and the British did use inert filler). And it lists the M72 as having better penetration than the M61 at very short ranges against unsloped armor. But without knowing exactly what ammo the game is modeling it's almost impossible to say for sure if something is wrong and by how much. I can say with much more certainty that the Tiger is off. It's almost as if the game models the mantlet as being much smaller than it really is. I have noticed the same issue with the Panther where US 76 APC can frequently penetrate the front turret at ranges that suggest it is not striking the mantlet nearly as often as it should.

To follow up on YankeeDog's suggestions, I am a fan of random weather. A dirty little secret I have discovered in my own testing is that Panthers have poor off-road performance in the game, slightly worse than even Shermans. This is wildly a-historical and a major departure from the CMx1 games, but the fact remains that bad weather will punish armor-heavy forces and Panther users more than most. (A side note: the Tiger 1 has the best off-road performance of any medium or heavy tank in the game, which makes me think BFC derived vehicle off road ratings using the same method used to pick US rocket QB prices, i.e. probably something involving monkeys and a dartboard). Random time of day works too, but some people have trouble seeing what is on their screen.

120mm is an average. The actual thickness varied from 90mm at the horizontal edges to 150mm around the machine gun port (the thinner edges have the turret front behind them). The only significant change in thickness over time was to the area around the sight ports. The first 130 made were only 75mm thick around the sight ports, but the thickness was increase on later builds. I tested on the "late" model. According to World War 2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery the later builds resisted at "less than 110mm". Other than that possible weak point the mantlet should be impervious to all 75mm. "The mantlet can generally resist projectiles capable of penetrating less than 135mm, except for the weak areas between and immediately around the sight ports"

You cannot turn a QB into a scenario. You can use a QB map to make a scenario.

I have done some testing and it appears lordxenu is correct about the in-game effects. I tested Cromwell VIIs against Tiger I lates at 100m. Partial penetrations were seen against the lower hull, upper hull superstructure and front turret (!). I then replaced the Cromwells with Sherman 75W A3 and retested. The Shermans achieved 0 penetrations and just a few armor spalling results. I have a couple of questions. First, how the heck are penetrations getting though the front turret? The front turret of the Tiger is completely covered by the mantlet, which was 120mm thick. No way should a 75mm get through that. Secondly, why the difference in performance between US and UK 75mm? The OQF 75mm was a bored-out 6 pdr and was slightly shorter than the US 75mm M3. As far as I am aware the British used the same ammunition as the US except the HE explosive charge was removed and replaced with an inert filler.

Probably not, but there are a hundred different reasons that could happen and there is no way to tell what is wrong from your description. You need to post the save game file here for download using some file sharing service, e.g. Dropbox or whatever. That way if there is a bug it can be confirmed and the powers that be can fix it. Also, a listing of your computer specs and a description of the error message you get when the game crashes would be very helpful.