Vanir Ausf B

For me the point of CM ladders is that they are convenient. They function as an opponent finder and they automatically keep track of all the games I've played.

This. The only significant issue that I can see is getting some standardized QB parameters. I'm also with sawomi on not caring for the term "competitive". This is a war game, everyone is trying to win.

The MG ammo bearers in my current game have it, but it is a Huge size QB.

Yeah, that's why I said it would be nice to be able to put restrictions on how much editing can be done. This would probably require modification to the UI. I gather from comments made on the forum it is not going to happen before the Bulge game. I would also like to see a return of some kind of Combined Arms force-type setting. Then again, changes made to that setting in the CMx1 games were the source of more complaints than the individual unit prices, so I'm not holding my breath. The biggest obstacle I'm running into coming up with workable multiplayer guidelines is having to rely on the honor system. There's just no way around it unless someone smarter than me comes up with something.

Certainly true in the short term, at least. I have some ideas... ... along those lines, although the Short 75 and related rules had nothing to do with the CMx1 QB points system. I'm wondering what the various gaming club and ladder sites are going to come up with.

There is no debate about the merits of CMx1 QB points. Gryphonne and I referenced it in our initial comments, but we are in agreement. There has been no significant controversy over the point values on individual units in years. I don't agree that any point value is as good as any other unless everyone in the world can agree on it. That's not an argument in favor of the current point values, that's an argument for have no point values. But they are in the game, and my feeling is if it's worth having in the game it's worth doing well. I'm not particularly worked-up over any of the point values in the game at this point, but I am mildly alarmed at the sentiment expressed here that what they are doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter they shouldn't be in the game. Anyway, that's all I have to say on it. Until my next post

You can do this in the game right now. Buy a Panzer Battalion with force quality set to "Typical" and sometime you get Panthers, sometimes you get Pz IV. Do the same with a US medium tank battalion and you'll get a hodgepodge of different vehicles. Of course you can edit them further down to the last detail if you wish, but you don't have to. It would be nice to have some optional restrictions on how much editing you can do, buy clearly having a QB points system does not preclude picking by formation.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Apparently you have a few of them yourself. It's how you present them that matters. I don't see any QB players condescending towards other groups of player. I do see a lot of incoming fire coming the other direction. Looks to me like you're the one who needs to get off his high horse.

That's an impressive site they have over there. Almost makes me want to learn French.

I get the same thing.

Also http://www.theblitz.org/

I recently had an enemy Stug open fire on 2 of my tanks though a stand of trees that would appear to block LOS. All of it's shots have impacted on the intervening trees. The targeting line goes through the trunks of 2 trees. Is this a bug or are trees less obscuring than their visual appearance would suggest? I have the save file if anyone wants it.

Does the M1917 get any bonus for being water-cooled? If not it's just a heavier M1919.

If it really is only 2 or 3 guys, no worries. If there's an issue there will be more. That's how it is for anything else in the game. If it was 2 or 3 guys questioning machine gun performance nobody would care. I like this part I would take that bet You can never please everyone, but if that were the goal you would never have made Combat Mission in the first place so we can dispense with that worry. I was involved in most of those QB points discussions back in the day, and the truth is that the amount of controversy there was has been vastly exaggerated. Many of the debates were about issues surrounding the QB point system such as the CMx1 rarity and changes in the amount of points in the armor category the German player was allocated. With regard to the performance/price of units there were really only a couple of issues that ever gained much traction: 1. German turretless TDs (including the CMBB "Super Stugs" although that was more a debate on gunnery modeling that QB point values). 2. SMG squads and automatic weapons in general. I don't recall if any significant change was ever made to the first, but I remember that at some point SMG squads were bumped up in price as a result of those discussions. The forums were not invaded by angry ladder players demanding it be changed back. As I recall, it was well-received. So no, I don't accept the view that discussing QB point values are futile because it's all just a matter of opinion and any number is as good as any other. Reasonable people can make judgements on such things. It's happened before

It should default to your desktop resolution if you set it to that option. Otherwise you can set it to anything you want by editing the display size.txt file in the CMBN directory. The instructions on how to do this are in the readme file.

+1 for Evict command. Passengers are booted to the curb at the cost of temporary "shaken" status.

That's our job. As Childress sarcastically but correctly said, the market will decide. It's far too early to be making judgements now, but I suspect the OP is on to something. Although the CMx1 games were not perfect with regard to unit costs between different unit types (turretless TDs vs. tanks, for example), I felt it was nearly spot-on regarding units within the same category. That's why it's surprising to see the Big Cats significantly cheaper compared to Mk IV in CMBN. The situation will improve somewhat when the later modules are released and we get access to Sherman Fireflys and M36 Jackson. As it stands now I would probably ask for a gentleman's agreement in any PBEM not to use Panthers, not only because they are cheap but because the Allied player currently doesn't have any good answer to them. The Tiger isn't as much of a problem.

And he probably means it. After all the back-and-forth in CMx1 regarding what gun and armor stats the games used, in CMx2 we have... power bars

Bren tripods! How could I forget Bren tripods? Usually tested against the AI. The QB units costs are mostly for multiplayer, because the AI couldn't care less how fair it is.

I sooo wish we had a 180° shortcut. I use that far more often than 360°.

My recollection is that the "moaning" was inaudible over the constant roar regarding machine gun effectiveness, King Tiger gun muzzle velocity, Tiger I mantlet thickness and gamey Jeep rushes.

Because the alternative is to let the computer pick, and that has never worked well. I really don't understand the angst over talking about this. I'm not a programer but I suspect adjusting the units cost would be a trivial task.

Yeah, you can do some crazy stuff with this

My assumption regarding the missing binoculars is that the XO has them. In the game the HQ and XO are 2 separate units but I suspect IRL they were a single unit. I'm not really sure why the game splits them up.

Ok, so 10 years is out. Could we have 6 months, or even 6 weeks? I understand that there is no such thing as a perfect system, but I would rather not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Otherwise we could stop talking about any number of aspects of the game that have been debated for 10 years, such as machine gun effectiveness