Vanir Ausf B

These ideas have been suggested many times through the years. The only part of it that BFC wants to do is the multiplayer where every unit is controlled by a different player, but I wouldn't be surprised if they never get to it. They've been fairly adamant that they are not going to make CM into a command level game, nor even put units out of C2 under AI control.

I won't argue with Mr. Norton, but I have looked around on that site many times and lived to tell the tale.

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html

Well that's good to know. Thank god for beta testers dropping hints or we'd all be flailing in the dark.

A few discrepancies I noticed between the charts and the values in the game as stated in the CMBN manual. Sherman M4 (75) Late: Chart shows front upper hull armor 64mm @ 47°. Manual says 51mm @ 56° (same as M4 Mid). Sherman M4A1 (75) Mid: Chart shows front upper hull 51mm @ 46°. Manual says 51mm @ 56°. Sherman M4A1 (75) Late: Chart shows front upper hull 64mm @ 46°. Manual says 51mm @ 56°. Panther D and A: Chart shows front lower hull 60mm. Manual says 63mm. I have no idea which is correct.

Of course a weapon needs to be capable of inflicting damage to count. I've never seen small arms or machine gun fire damage anything on a tank in CMBN. Testing on Tigers and Panthers shows that about 11-14% of hits on the turret from head-on will be a weapon hit.

"Weapon" hits , as they are labeled in CMBN, ALWAYS disable the main gun in my experience. And by "experience" I mean seeing hundreds of impacts in gunnery range tests. Certainly, if there is any chance of a weapon hit not disabling the main gun it must be very small.

The game is not real life. Restricting tank choice or artillery choice (the rules do both) is artificial, but "anything goes" isn't necessarily a better representation of reality. Most Allied soldiers never faced a King Tiger in battle, yet there is nothing stopping players from buying one in every game they play (when they become available in the next module). Also, some people prefer playing games where both players have a reasonable chance of emerging victorious.

I can't believe this post just sunk down to the bottom of the page! What's wrong with this forum? The mod looks good. It's cluttered, and I know there is no way around that, but I may use it anyway. But I will definitely be printing out that spreadsheet and the formulas. I've been looking for those.

I'm a #4, do-do. But there is caring, and then there is caring too much. The key question I always ask myself is "can I lose but still enjoy the experience"? If the answer is no then I'm taking the game too serious.

Cheating is breaking an explicit rule. Gameyness is subjective. Buying US rockets in a PBEM may be gamey. Buying them after you've agreed with your opponent not to is cheating.

Use the support units/XOs as roving medics.

Oh, sorry I thought you meant CMBN

Oh, yes. See the previous 17 pages.

There are shallow fords and deep fords in the game. I think they can be difficult to see unless you put the camera under the water.

Or a Pz Kpfw IV?

Unit rivalry? I've wondered the same.

No, but we can put them on the map and then destroy the optics http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98383&highlight=optics Interesting that the issue has been around for awhile.

Links are broken. I'd like to know this too, given that I probably started one of those threads. It's one of those obscure things in the game that nobody seems to understand.

There's a trick to it. But it's a simple trick. Next to the battalion you just purchased you will see a little "+" sign. Click on it. If you just want a single company, highlight and then delete everything you see except for a single company. It's generally better to start at the bottom of the formation and work your way up. Would make an excellent addition to your sig line

Except that the guys with the wall behind them are taking fewer rather than more casualties, so ricochets don't seem likely. EDIT: Ninja-ed by AKD I used pavement for the terrain in my tests to factor this out, although I suppose there could be some monster potholes.

Straight on or at an oblique angle? In the game the Panther will penetrate the Sherman A3 glacis at 500m like it was butter.

I don't know about walls. I have tested hull down positions behind earthen mounds. That works as expected.

That's a good point. My results with lanes were generally consistent to those without lanes, although the degree of difference in performance between the Behind Wall and No Cover groups was significantly larger without lanes. With lanes the guys behind the wall took about 14% more casualties than the guys in the open, without lanes they took about 22% more.

JonS accused of being "pro Yank"! Now I can die a happy man, content that I have seen everything.