Vanir Ausf B

A little hyperbole, perhaps, but if you're accustomed to playing on nothing smaller than 12 km² then I imagine 4 km² would feel a little restrictive.

Just so. I never felt right without at least a reinforced battalion at my command. Even a moderate-sized 2000 pt QB in CMBB was on a 12 sq. km. map (2x6). I'd have to reinstall CMBB to see what the largest possible QB map was for a 5000 pt game, but I don't consider 4x4 km to be particularly massive. As for how difficult it will be to make such a map, I have no idea. I've read that the game will ship with 250 QB maps. I sure hope they are not all 2x2 km knife fights.

Nooooooooo

The CMX1 games had a random map generator. 4 hours would be 240 turns, which if true would mean gameplay in CMx2 is much slower paced than CMx1. Even a massive 5000 pt QB rarely went longer than 60 turns.

Civ IV. Thief II I'm seriously considering picking up Gary Grigsby's War in the East.

4x4 works well enough for attack/defend, but for MEs much of that depth is only used when moving from the setup zone towards contact. Once the forces are engaged much of that space becomes irrelevant for the rest of the game. I'd rather have more width than depth (insert joke here). I really like the CMx1 QB maps. 2x6 was just about right for a ME. My only issue was that the random generator would often put all the VLs clumped together in the middle. We can fix the VLs spacing, but I wouldn't mind a little more to work with.

Unfortunate. That will help out a little. Perfectly square maps are less than optimal for QB MEs. Placing the VLs along a diagonal should somewhat increase the effective size of the contested area. Thanks for the answer.

I have a small, hopefully not-too-stupid mapmaking question from something mentioned in a different thread: Is map size limited to 4 km/side max or to 16 sq. km., i.e. could I make a map that was 2x8 or 3x5.3 km? Also, can you make setup zones that are across corners of the map instead of a side, e.g. setting up the opposing sides facing each other across a SW-NE diagonal?

I don't plan on getting PC:O, but it does have one brilliant feature that CM lacks: Toggleable terrain grid! Not having to make the choice between functionality and beauty would be awesome.

Yes, meant Panzerschreck. My mistake. Why frame the debate so narrowly? The OP, who I was replying to, specified "company-battalion scale (i.e. CM scale) fights". It is relevant to the OP. I admit this is less of a slam dunk than the other weapons I listed. I don't think this is remotely true. Others have already explained why.

VERY impressive. I do wonder why the Stug is sporting what looks like desert camo.

Getting back to the OP... Assuming we are talking numerically even forces rather than even purchase points, I think you are right. As you pointed out, CM doesn't specifically model national characteristics, focusing rather on the physical characteristics of the forces involved. This will tend to favor the Germans on a one-to-one basis because their weapons generally out-perform their US counterparts. MG42: Better than the BAR. Panzerfaust: Better than the Bazooka. Panther: Better than any US tank other than the Pershing. Relatively common by German standards. Stug III: Better than any US tank destroyer primarily due to superior anti-infantry capability. Very common as well. The M1 Garand is better than the K98 and US arty should be somewhat more flexible and responsive, but that would usually not be enough to completely even the odds, IMO.

The golf course effect. It's why gridded terrain is the best type of mod for CM games.

It does appear that when facing Pz IVs it would be beneficial to angle Shermans, if the game will let us to it.

Exactly what type of tank would be a large factor, I suspect. It would make far more sense for a Tiger I , with its thick side armor, than a Panther.

Exactly. That's why I'm hoping someone does grid terrain mods for CMBN.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a game on the market that uses ray tracing. I do see what you mean about the grass looking flat. That could be due to the time of day (sun directly overhead) or the ground may not be self-shadowing (someone who owns CMSF may know?) Of course this was also true of the CMx1 games, and is why grid mods were popular. Without them it was near-impossible to see small undulations in the terrain when zoomed out. Are there any grid mods for CMSF? I have a feeling that's going to be one of the first things I look for when I get CMBN.

So the skirts did protect against HE also? It will be interesting to hear how Charles has modeled it in-game. I know for a fact that in CMBO skirts did provide a small amount of protection from HEAT (I'm not implying that was correct).

NBC's Richard Engel has been broadcasting from inside rebel-held territory in eastern Libya. A recurring theme in his reporting is that the rebels do not appear to be a serious fighting force. He also says there is a foreign fighter with the rebels who goes by the name "Pešadija" that has been trying to convince them they can win by rushing around the edge of the battlefield in Jeeps.

Then how effective were they against the AT rifle rounds they were primarily designed to defeat? I know that it's irrelevant for the Western front, but it will certainly matter for some of the upcoming CMx2 games.

I wouldn't call Bazooka's a non-existent threat. Any shaped charge (HEAT) could be affected. In CMx1 games the side skirts were functional. Hopefully that is also the case in CMBN.

I'm also curious as to what exactly is the new information that has resulted in such a significant change from CMBO. Was the formula wrong? Has Bill been very unlucky? I know hit location is more detailed now, but it seems the Sherman is tougher all across the front. I guess we'll find out tomorrow. It's alarming to me how helpless my favorite tank from CMBO looks against it's most common foe. I'm thinking I may have to bring along some Big Cats most of the time when playing as Germans, something I almost never did in CMBO.

So 11 years later we answer the question of whether the Sherman was getting shafted in CMBO. Some interesting comments in that thread regarding flashless powder, muzzle blast, ect. Oddly, nobody had any issue with the Sherman's armor.

Yeah, I meant NRO. So many agencies...

How open is "open"? Should every branch of the government publish every single piece on information they have? Should the DoD publish everything it knows about the Taliban and how they got that information? Should the NSA publish all it's spy satellite photography? I could go on but I think the point is made. Transparent government sounds great in principle but as a practical matter 100% transparency is not feasible. It comes down to where do you draw the line.