Vanir Ausf B

As far as I know you have to color in the box if you want the whole area to count. Those perimeter type objectives you see in scenarios are usually touch objectives, which don't exist in QBs.

Also keep in mind when placing objectives that you only have to place them for one side.

The Battle Type (ME, probe, ect) setting: Objectives: Setup zones:

That would be ugly.

Getting back to my previous point, even when you place a waypoint directly on the other side of the gap that doesn't guarantee the gap will be used. ??? It seems that the only way to ensure a gap will be used is to place waypoints near the gap on both sides.

Yes, I was trying to keep to the rule that you have to plot a waypoint near the opposite side of the gap either way. You are correct that if I plot the exact same waypoints the team uses the gap in both directions. I suspect this is because the end waypoint on the way back is close enough to the gap to act as a "take the gap" que. But that changes if you lengthen the starting leg so that the destination waypoints are closer to the same distance on both sides of the bocage. So far so good, as long as you're ok with pausing on the exposed side of cover Return trip with identical waypoint placement: Not ideal.

The more I mess around with this the more inconsistent and unpredictable it gets. Going back to our favorite Oosterbeek gap, if I plot a waypoint directly on the other side of the gap the team uses the gap. This is the expected 3.0+ behavior. Now that our team is at its destination I plot the same movement in reverse. As you can see, in this situation the waypoint on the opposite side of the gap doesn't prevent them from taking the scenic route.

I would guess that time has to flow in setup to allow for soldiers to move around, e.g. adjust facing, deploy heavy weapons, button/unbutton. Perhaps it is possible to adjust it so that the sun doesn't change position with time during setup but I have no idea how difficult it might be.

#1 is not true. #2 probably is. Time definitely does advance during setup so it stands to reason that LOS distance would change with lighting conditions.

It would The team still goes to the end of the bocage line, the difference being that two soldiers go through the gap first so the team is effectively split until they meet up at the fence. But this doesn't happen in all instances. Example 2: Here the team completely ignores the gap, same as if there was no waypoint next to it.

I just checked smoke direction in a QB and it moved in the correct direction according to the conditions info.

I have tested this on a different map (Sheriff of Oosterbeek). It is not cover magnetism at work. Example: But it's not consistent. In some places units will go through the small gaps on their own. One factor seems to be if one or more of the ends of the bocage line is open. If it is they will run around that open end and ignore the gap unless you place a waypoint with 2 action spots of the other side of the gap. But if both ends of the line of bocage are anchored on an impassible terrain feature such as another line of bocage the units will not run backwards to find a way around. They will use the small gap even if the next waypoint is far away. For example: But this isn't 100% consistent either. In the example below the unit will use the small gap instead of the open end even with the long movement order.

Yes, that's a good point. I've had that happen to me a time or two. But if people don't know about it frustration can result and there is no indication that small bocage gaps are an exception to the general rule that units take the shortest available path. Aside from that my personal objection to it is that it requires an extra waypoint between bocage lines. Infantry pause at each waypoint and that is not a good place to be pausing if there are enemy units behind the next bocage line.

http://www.panzer-war.com/page31.html

Judging from the screenshots I believe this is a bug that was introduced in 3.00. Or at least I think it's a bug since the pathfinding AI is much different in v2.12 in the same situation. As someone else said, in 3.00 you need to place a waypoint very close to the other side of the gap in order for the AI to use it. In 2.12 the AI would recognize the gap as the shortest route regardless of where the waypoint is placed (I have a copy of v2.12 on my comp so I can compare). I reported this almost a year ago so I don't know when or if it will get fixed. It's hard to judge what is going on with the Wespe without seeing the hit text. For example, you noted one hit on the "gun assembly" but without seeing the hit text we don't know what part of the vehicle the game engine considers that spot on the vehicle to be part of. I don't see anything to suggest there is definitely an issue with penetration lethality, but I may take a look at it anyways. There is an issue related to that with T-34s in CMRT that is getting fixed in the next patch. The problem is that there isn't much real world data on what to expect so it mostly comes down to gut feeling.

The measured thickness of Tiger armor plate was usually 2mm over minimum spec. Zimmerit did not add anything to resistance. High quality 102mm plate of 340 BHN would have resisted about 3% more than US test plate of equivalent thickness. British 6 pdr tests on a Tiger in North Africa showed even higher resistance. I went back and took a closer look at my tests. I measured the exact angle of rotation on the Tiger tanks and found they were rotated at about 12° rather than the 10 I had been assuming. I was actually surprised I got them that close in the first place just by eye-balling it 102mm plate @ 10° from vertical and rotated 12° (about 16° compound angle) resists 76.2mm APCBC equivalent to 107.4mm at 0°. A 3% boost for high quality 340 BHN plate gives 110.6mm of effective resistance. At 500 meters US 76.2mm ABCBC penetrates 116mm of RHA (US test plate) at 0°. That is a penetration/resistance ratio of about 1.05. That in turn gives an expected penetration probability of 76% (Russian test data) or 89% (US test data). Observed penetration percentage in my tests was 74%. In summary the observed performance in Combat Mission is quite reasonable, in my opinion. There are a few caveats. One is that the expected penetration probability does not factor in shatter gap. The game appears to be very forgiving in that respect. Another is that I do not know if the game uses a high armor quality modifier for the Tiger, or if it does that it is 3%. It's in WW2 Ballistics but as we can see with shatter gap BFC doesn't adhere to that work 100%. I also don't now for sure that CM has the Tiger armor plate at 102mm thickness. It could be 103mm for all I know. And lastly, my conclusions assume that partial penetrations are counted as penetrations. If they are not then there is a huge discrepancy between expected and observed results. Yes. Yes we are. And Nidan is mad at me because I've been wasting my time doing this instead of returning PBEM files

I never claimed to know or have proof of BFCs definition of partial penetration. In fact I said the opposite. I do think that PPs in Combat Mission are meant to represent some type of penetration into the interior, and I believe that is supported by the observed after-armor effect (and I also think your claim that 30% of non-penetrating hits should be expected to knock out the tank is crazy and completely unsupportable).

Christ on a crutch. I said I was done but this is too much. May I remind you that my input is the only reason you are not still blathering on about shatter gap? What I claimed to have proof of is that the game "uses different terminology" than the 1944 report. I did not claim to have proof of what BFC's definition of a PP is. Do try to keep up. What?! Where did I say that I did not agree with the Army report? Oh that's right, I didn't. You just made that up.

I do have proof. PTP = Projectile passes through plate. CP = Complete Penetration CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre. I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here. . And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL I am done with you.

Artillery must be 150mm or larger to detonate mines. I don't recall if the same holds true for direct fire HE.

In CM these so-called "defeated" rounds are destroying targets. That is not a failure in my book.

I am done arguing definitions. Yes, the game uses different terminology than the 1940s-era US Army. No, that is not "insane" nor does it mean there must be something wrong with the ballistics modeling.

This is very strange. You were aware of my previous tests demonstrating only slim evidence of shatter gap yet nevertheless spent the first several pages of this thread railing against the "extreme" prevalence of it in the game? And you did this because those tests had changed my mind about whether it was in the game at all? Unless you are interested in a purely acedemic discussion I don't know why you are still bringing up aspects of shatter gap theory when its present implementation is at or very close to what you began the thread asking for. Nobody is going to logically call strikes that do not penetrate into the interior at all "partial penetrations" either. Except for the US Army. I will not cast aspersions on the Army's linguistics but I will say they make BFC's look not so bad. Partial penetrations in-game do not bounce. Ever. I have reported my test results to BFC to review. I have no idea when or even if that will take place.