Vanir Ausf B

Nah. Increased lethality does not mean bigger forces. It might mean shorter games. It doesn't mean much bigger maps either. In most areas of the world, and certainly most of Europe, engagement ranges are limited by LOS, not weapon range. Terrain hasn't changed much since WW2. The reason TacOps abstracts terrain is because it was originally made like 10 years ago. By the time CMX2 comes out in 2-3 years, the average computer will have no problem depicting any type of warfare BFC wants to do. [ May 21, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

If just hitting the enter key enabled you to view your opponent's file, that means your opponent isn't using a password. I'd say your opponent is very trusting, or stupid, but it's not a cheat.

Not gamey. And really, it's a tactic that should never work as there is no reason to concentrate forces on a VL unless, as moneymaxx said, there is some strategic value to it other than just having a VL there. If your opponent is able to kill more of your units with just artillery than what the VLs are worth, you've screwed up. EDITED to add: If this particular map is a premade map that forced you to concentrate on the VLs, then it could be gamey. That is why I prefer to play random map QBs so this type of map specific force cherry picking is avoided. It's unfortunate that the CMBB random map generator is inferior to the one in CMBO. [ May 17, 2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Someone call the people at Guinness.

Very true.

I haven't seen it yet in CMBB, but this is indeed an old bug from CMBO. I even sent in a savegame to Madmatt that showed it, many moons ago. I'm quite certain it is not caused by previously IDed vehicles, as I have seen it with vehicles that had not yet been spotted.

Same here, except I do set trees to 'medium' so we don't get a North African map.

My memory is just fine, thank you. I don't like computer pick and won't use it. If you want to see less StuGs, play later war games where the StuG armor is 80mm instead of 50+30, and the Russians have 85mm guns. The StuG is not nearly as dominant then. If you play with rarity on you will see lots of T-34s any time. With it off there are more options. Rarity on also encourages StuG fever by frequently offering them at below cost.

IIRC, the Germans built more Stugs than any other AFV.

Excellent! The 'TC unbuttons and gets capped' issue has been bugging me for a long while.

Panzerman, what interface MOD is that?

I think what you're saying is that the Soviets used their arty more at an operational level, and the Germans more at a tactical level and CMBB is a tactical game. Well, as long as there is some rational behind it, I suppose I can accept that. It just feels backwards to see the Germans have so much more big arty available. [ April 22, 2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Go into the scenario editor and pick a date. June '44 works well. Then go to the unit purchase screen for artillery. Switch back and forth between Axis and Allied and look at the rarity for both. There is a HUGE difference in rarity between the two sides. Germans get artillery at much lower rarity across the board, large calibers in particular. Isn't this the exact opposite of what it should be?

Ok, scratch that last suggestion. I just looked and SU-100s aren't as good against KTs as I thought. Since you are playing meeting engagements, I would suggest setting weather to 'random'. Wet ground will slow KTs down, and often bog them, while your T-34/85s flank them.

Play with variable rarity on. Play in May '44 or earlier before KTs show up. Buy Su-100s!

Something you may want to try is setting game type to 'assault' instead of 'attack'. This gives the attacker a 1.72:1 ratio, but also moves the flags further back towards the map edge, mitigating another problem with QB maps (lack of depth). Game dates that are fairly even are: June '42 June '44 February '45 These dates assume rarity is being used. When selecting weather, keep in mind that poor ground conditions favor the defender. Let the Germans use mechanized division type, or alternatively, use unrestricted force. [ April 14, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

The split squad bugs were supposed to have been fixed. But there were several adjustments made to prisoners, so a new bug may have been introduced. In any case, I'd recommend sending the save game file(s) to matt@battlefront.com

I don't think so. AFAIK, the concealment bonus is given to all units that start the game in trees (any type), and remains in effect until they move or fire. The hide order is irrelevant. I believe this is also the case in MEs. IMO, the hide order for vehicles is completely worthless.

Rexford has posted some new(?) penetration numbers for the Soviet 122mm gun here.

Current CMBB data for 122mm AP is only 136mm at 1000m. Unless your numbers are against a different type of armor than the CMBB numbers, I hope these changes make it into the latest patch. Rexford, can you comment on why the Germans went to a single FH plate on the later Stugs? Was it to reduce cost despite the reduction in protection, as Andreas suggested?

Kip, I assume you mean external reactive armor (Kontak 5, ect.). Otherwise, very informative post, as usual.

Speaking of damp ground, one way of discouraging Stug fever is to set weather to random, which will result in damp or wet ground about %60 of the time. Stug IIIs are a terrible off-road in anything other than dry weather. I will sometimes take IS-2s or ISU-152s just for the hell of it. Sure, if the first shot misses they're dead, but you can put the fear of God into your opponent's infanty in the mean time

I think it must be due to some modifier given to Soviet ammo for poor quality, because it does not seem to affect lend-lease equipment. In fact, the best anti-tank units the Soviets have for most of the war (in the game) are lend-lease (Valentine IX, then Sherman 76). Compare the in-game penetration tables for the T-34/85 and Sherman(76) in June 1944. The 85L55 numbers are slightly better than those of the 76L52. But, when you do actual tests the 76 significantly out-performs it. I don't know about the 2-plates issue as I'm not an authority on this stuff, but I do know that when Charles found out (from Rexford, ironically) that part of the Sherman Jumbo's front armor consisted of 2 separate plates, he downgraded the armor value in the next patch (CMBO, of course). I could even dig up the thread if I had to. [ April 11, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I always take some ATRs because the Germans always seem to have LAVs running around. Besides, they usually come with Soviet battalions when you buy them in formation. T-34s get used so much because they're the most versitile tank the Soviets get, and because they have very few armor units that are effective against German armor. The KVs are great until the 76mm gun loses its effectivenss with the appearance of 80mm armored Stugs in '42. SU-100s are awesome, but don't appear until 1945. IS-2s are highly unreliable due to super low ROF. Same with IS-122s and 152s. In '41 the Soviet 45mm ammo is so crappy they can't even take out the Pz IIIs frontally. So, every time someone looks at that purchase screen the T-34 always seems like the best bet. I don't think there's much that can be done about that.

Hmmm. Does this suggest CMX2 may not be a company to battalion level tactical game? Regardless of what kind of game it is, I would be very impressed indeed if anyone could make a game based on Gulf War II that was competative playing either side while maintaining strict adherence to accuracy. Mid-late 80s, yes, but before M1, Apache, Bradley, MLRS, ect. came online things were much closer, IMO. I would say roughly 1970-83 would have been a fair match.