Vanir Ausf B

The video indicates that this description is not entirely accurate. It appears both Fireflys were partially hull down. The lower hulls and tracks are obscured but the upper hull is exposed. The Panther's shots go over the top of some tree, not through them. The Panther's first shot occurs at 20 seconds in the video, while the sound of the first artillery shell detonating is not heard until 35 seconds. Nevertheless, given that I have recently been testing first shot hits in a different circumstance I modified my test to approximate the situation shown in the video. I put 5 Firefly VCs behind a 1 meter high berm at 868-9 meters from 5 Panther A (mid)s. The Fireflys had their hulls rotated diagonally towards the Panthers at about a 45° angle, but with the turret facing directly at the Panthers via a covered arc. Badger did not identify which sub-species of Panther played the villain in his video, nor did he say what the crew quality was so I used regular. 100 first shots were recorded. 24 were hits, 76 were misses. The hit on the first Firefly, then, was an unusually good shot or at least a lucky shot. In reality the first shot hit on the second tank would not have been any great feat as the gunner already had the range dialed in. But I don't know if the game models that when switching targets. If it does not then you were indeed the victim of some bad luck as the in-game odds of landing 2 consecutive first shot hits in that situation is only about 6%. Clearly, BadgerDog owes his gunner a Knight's Cross

How long have you had the machine? Overheating is usually caused by dust and lint build-up. All computers suck in dust that accumulates on the fans and heat sinks until over time it looses the ability to cool itself. Any computer repair shop will be able to open it up and clean it out for you. If you are adventurous there are numerous Youtube videos showing how to do it yourself.

The rarity for US specialist teams appears to not be working. The rarity value shown in the purchase column for the breach team and M2 .50 team is 42 and 800 respectively. But when purchased they both count as 0. The value for the 76mm AT gun is 812 in the purchase column but only counts as 707 after purchased. The screenshot is with strict rarity, but this happens under standard and loose rarity settings also.

Unusual yes, but not incredible. Not for a Panther. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=29808

It has sound when I watch it. I assume the Fireflys were yours?

So, any word on this? Did anyone take a look at the test? Do I need to run more iterations? 300 shots is a solid sample size, and the lack of variation between the first and second batch of 150 suggests more testing is unlikely to reveal markedly different results, but I will do it if needs be.

Ya us cowboyz downt rite to good but we can ride dem broncos YEE HAA!!!

I just picked 2 Sextons in a August QB and they showed up fine. IDK about the other issues.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1347907#post1347907

I've always had those shimmering waves and I have a Nvidia card. It's a little annoying but I can usually ignore it.

If you go in under scenario author test and use the Fireflys' target tool it says partial hull down, but that is a 2m berm in front of it and although I was not tracking hit location I don't recall ever seeing a hit anywhere other than on turrets. Given the very low hit % for AP I would not want them any more hull down anyway. http://www.2shared.com/file/LvlU5jcE/gunnery_APDS_700m.html This includes the last save game file I made so you can see exactly how I ran it.

Data dump. 30 more iterations. Conducted the same as the last 30. AP Hits: 12 Misses: 77 13.5% APDS Hits: 25 Misses: 36 41% Results are very close to the last batch. So close that I doubt we will see much difference with further testing, but I will do 30 more and see what they look like. The cumulative first shot hit % after 300 shots fired is 13.79% for AP, 39.68% for APDS. First results post

There are 2 patches for CMBN. At least there will be when the next one is released in the next week or so.

An undocumented feature is that radios will randomly stop working for short periods of time, so if a C2 link is by radio then that would do it. Radios in vehicles can stop working for other reasons as well. If it is C2 via visual or voice that is coming and going then I have no idea.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1345085&postcount=17

If you are attempting to isolate optics performance only then # of shots to first hit will always factor in gun accuracy. No way around that. As I alluded to above, I suspect the game only uses optics to model spotting. Once the contact is confirmed and the shooting starts it's all gun. That's the take-away I get from this, anyway. Obsessing over the 10% is pointless since it's a fantasy setup. Based on first-hand accounts it seems likely that if a Sherman had ever tried shooting at a Pz IV at 2000m it wouldn't have even seen where the shots were landing.

That 10% difference could be entirely due to the relatively greater accuracy of the Pz IV's higher velocity, flatter-shooting cannon, and have nothing at all to due with optics. Initial spotting time: 38% difference Confirmed sighting time: 25% difference First hit differnce: 10% Do'h! The first two numbers are all optics. But how many shots to get the first hit is a function of both optics AND gun accuracy, both of which favor the Pz IV. So why is that the smallest difference? Logically it should be the largest difference. I actually don't expect that BFC will take it very seriously and I don't much care. It was something I just mentioned in passing, not really life or death.

This comment got me thinking. And looking. I know this is pure speculation, but Kwazydog has not made a post on the forums since last May. And Steve has been rarely seen recently. Coincidence? Maybe...

It was posted here yesterday http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103037

Yep, but don't get too excited yet. Those numbers could change a lot as the sample size increases. I plan on doing a minimum of 120 iterations, eventually. That way we can compare how much variation there is between each group of 30 iterations.

I've ran 30 iterations so far. Overall hit rate is much lower. I will need a much larger sample size and I plan to do more testing over the weekend. But I will throw out what I have so far. Again, this is 5 Firefly VCs, regular/normal/+0, firing at 5 partially hull down KTs at 700m. The KT crews are regular/fanatic/+0 and have short cover arc to prevent return fire. I reloaded save games except that I did restart the scenario every 10 iterations. I understand this is not up to Phil's standards. I don't care. I value my sanity more than this game AP Hits: 12 Misses: 73 14.1% APDS Hits: 25 Misses: 40 38.5% I'm surprised at the numbers. Not only that there is a significant difference, but that it's in the opposite direction of what I would have expected. I will update the numbers this weekend as I get more results.

I broke down and am now running tests against partial hull down KTs at 700m (partial because putting a 2m berm in front of the KT gives partial, a 3m berm blocks LOS and I don't feel like moving them around to get it just right). Early results show accuracy is less than 100%

Yes, but what are you expecting? We don't know if CMBN even attempts to model ammo dud rates. There are many things that happened in the Real War than CM does not try to replicate for various and sundry reason, most of them very legitimate reasons. I have no motivation to spend a huge chunk of time proving that there is no real difference in-game accuracy between AP and APDS when it is entirely possible we will hear back that this is WAD.

I haven't tried that because it was my assumption that any target that small would not have enough armor protection to make the TacAI feel the need to use APDS. My first attempt at testing was at 1000m. But I abandoned that effort early on after only 4 of the first 20 first shots were APDS. It seems that when the first round hit % is low the AI will most often use AP for a ranging round and then switch to APDS. That's smart, but it makes testing APDS at that range prohibitive.

Jon, that is true. However, the US tests at Isigny -- conducted against actual Panther tanks at ranges not exceeding 600m -- are suggestive of a dud-rate-that-has-a-noticeable-effect.