Vanir Ausf B

Buy the module.

Yes it's a bug. Yes it will be fixed. Soon. The missing Stug III (latest), also. Good catch. If you mean the Porsche KT, it's on the bug list since I think that is a base game unit. If you mean the Henschel KT, it's there if you buy the module.

While I agree the information should be in the manual it has been discussed publicly before, albeit a long lime ago.

Not a bug. It's a rare and unfortunate consequence of the Combat MIssion LOS/LOF rules regarding vehicles, number 4 specifically in this case. Friendly vehicles never block LOS/LOF for other friendly vehicles. Operable enemy vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from friendly vehicles. Non-smoking KO'd vehicles do not block LOS/LOF for friendly or enemy vehicles. Non-smoking KO'd vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from any unit as long as the targeted unit is not a vehicle (ie: tank shooting at infantry or infantry shooting at infantry) Smoking vehicles block LOS and LOF. "Vehicles" means tanks, SP guns, and AT/Anti-personnel guns.

Yes, but Steve is also a business man and he's been open about the fact that sales are heavily influenced by the presence of two things: Americans and German "big cat" tanks. The east front prior to 1943 has neither of those things (not counting that last few months of '42 when the Tiger tank was introduced). Not saying it won't happen but I'm not holding my breath.

F&R adds the Panzer IIIM to the German arsenal, so if you limit the Soviets to T-34/76 you can get a pretty good approximation of late '42 warfare.

But that was written 15 years ago. So they were only 5 years away from running out of stuff to do.

Fantastic work, @Drifter Man!

Basically. At typical combat ranges the Panther's gun is overkill but you're still paying for it and the 17-pounder is a serious threat to the Panther, even frontally. In reality, for sure. In a QB? Not so sure.

Something that gets ignored is that while the point value of units is static across time and is agnostic of opposition the actual relative value of a unit can vary considerably depending on those factors. For example: In the summer of '44 against the US? The Panthers all day every day. But against the British it gets more complicated. Facing anything but Fireflies I'd still take the Panthers, but against Fireflies I'd rather have the 3 Pz IVs. And in a QB you will almost always see Fireflies.

I have I don't remember the numbers, but if you count the rounds fired between reloads the difference between belt-fed and drum- fed is there even if it's not shown visually.

As for QBs in general, I've always felt that the Germans have an edge because they have no real weaknesses. For any tactical need you may have the Germans have six units to choose from that will fill the role. They are not always the best units but they are rarely insufficient. The grenadier infantry are indeed highly reliant on the machine gun but the panzergrenadiers with two MG42s are deadly and the panzerschreck is better than a bazooka or a piat. Their higher-end tanks are modern-style main battle tanks that have strong armor and a gun that is good against both armor and infantry. Even the high-end Allied tanks are usually lacking in at least one of those areas until you get into 1945. Admittedly, the game results at the Blitz don't show a strong tendency one way or the other.: QB wins for Normandy at TheBlitz Medium Germans 251 Allies 274 Large Germans 103 Allied 75 Huge Germans 19 Allies 11

Why do you say that?

British use of US 75mm APCBC projectiles entailed removal of the HE burster and replacement with inert filler, which increased penetration capability by about 4% according to published ballistic test figures. -- World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, pg 104

DP

The British in WW2 used solid shot AP ammo, so no explosive filler (APHE) like the US, Germans and Soviets used. This actually improves penetration slightly but at the cost of less satisfying after armor effects.

The M4A4 is really just the original M4 with a different engine. It never got the modified front hull the later M4A3 models did.

The cheapness of the basic M4 Sherman is mostly because of it's crappy armor. It has cast armor rather than RHA and is also thinner up front compared to later models. The M4A3 (75) is 217 pts. Give it a 76mm gun and it's 243 pts, 10 pts more than a Pz IV. You just have to accept that the QB prices are broad approximations, not based on match-ups between specific units in specific circumstances. So yeah, a Stuart that costs 100 pts can penetrate the Pz IV's front turret at short to medium ranges. Does that mean a Pz IV should cost 100 pts? That's not how the system works. If I could wave my magic wand I'd increase the prices of uber tanks across the board but my wand has little magic in it unless something is crazily out of whack like the price of rocket artillery a few years back. Pz IV prices are not in that category.

I would recommend house rules for QBs to limit armor creep. They're pretty simple. Use Fionn's Armor Rules as a basis. For every vehicle you purchase from the Rule of 76 list you must purchase 2 or 3 from the Rule of 75 list. Or whatever ratio you please. I also like to set ground conditions to wet to make people think about putting too many of their eggs in one basket.

Nobody but Charles knows the exact formula, but Lethaface is correct that rarity* is accounted for separately and real world manufacturing price is no factor at all. *Rarity for any unit is in relation to other units in its own army, i.e. the rarity for a Tiger tank is it's proportion of the Wehrmacht's tank inventory only, not compared to the number of Shermans or T-34s.

The base M4 Sherman lacks a cupola and is more likely to bog than a Pz IV. Whether that justifies the price difference I'm not sure, but the purchase price does take into account more than gun and armor.

What was the weather and time of day?

It has been.

The reason there are many more inches of text about Russia is because Michael Kofman is a Russia expert. He literally writes about Russia for a living. Michael Kofman serves as Director of the Russia Studies Program at the CNA Corporation and a Fellow at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C. His research focuses on Russia and the former Soviet Union, specializing in the Russian armed forces, Russian military thought, and strategy. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/michael-kofman Why you would expect a Russian expert to write about China is beyond me. There are other people not named Michael Kofman who do write about China. A simple search on the War on the Rock website will bring up literally dozens of articles about China.