Vanir Ausf B

Charles is the final arbiter of what is and is not a bug, but in CMBN v3.11 60mm mortars on Target Light area fire shoot HE not bullets.

Teams already are allowed to spread out over multiple action spots while moving, but Charles seems to feel this is an undesirable state since the game prioritizes regrouping when they stop (my guess is that it has something to do with spotting). Yes, this is my only major complaint about the current action spot system. As for bunching up and formations... meh. I am not convinced that the present unit density is particularly unrealistic. Careful spacing and formations are for patrols and parade grounds. Having men in a conga line offset from each other on the y-axis by a meter or so would mitigate the "one bullet kills 4 guys" issue, but frankly if you are running your guys straight at an enemy that is unsuppressed enough to shoot at them you are doing it wrong. That hasn't been a smart infantry tactic since the mid 19th century.

How large are the maps in CMSF compared to Black Sea? I never played Shock Force, but I do play CMBN and there was a major increase in map sizes beginning with Red Thunder. That didn't happen because people got sick of small maps, it happened because of engine optimizations that made huge maps feasible that weren't before.

You don't help yourself by making absurd claims such as this.

I finally got around to this. At 450 meters: 1) Target enemy unit: mortar used 2) Target area fire: mortar used 3) Target Light enemy unit: mortar used 4) Target Light area fire: small arms used #4 may be a bug and has been reported.

I barely notice it. As for advancing on small maps... yes, that is an inherent issue with small maps, which is why I avoid them. I don't think it is fixable except by eliminating small maps.

You keep bringing this up as if it were a major problem, but I actually prefer it this way. Knowing at a glance where the map bounderies are is a boon to gameplay.

I suspect the possible presence of APS is making the TacAI shy about using missiles.

Thread hijack attempt successful. Does anyone remember what this discussion began as? Hint: something more interesting than BFC Pricing Debate LXXVIII. BTW, after adding up all post CMSF changes, subtracting reused content then factoring in the annual cost of keeping Charles's disembodied brain alive I have calculated the proper cost of new games to be $53.17. For shame, BFC, for shame.

Probably T-90AM with Arena. My experience so far matches yours. If I had more time to waste I would test it. I did not. Please repost

I'm not sure what Russia's geographic proximity to Ukraine has to do with QB prices but there is little difference in how I use tanks in Black Sea and the WW2 games. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. If by "that bit of a discount for redfor" you are referring specifically to Kieme's suggestions then we are taking about 2 Russian and one Ukrainian tank. I won't comment on the T-64 as I have limited experience with it, but I think the T-72B3 is perhaps the best bang for the buck tank the Russians have against the US (vs Ukraine is a different story).

Thread hijack attempt detected.

While technology has advanced, the role of armor and of the MBT in particular has remained essentially the same.

Mord actually did break your phone!

Regarding QB points for tanks in general, Black Sea is roughly in line with previous CMx2 titles: Points ratios: Normandy: Panther A(mid) to M4A3(76)W Sherman: 1.36 to 1 Black Sea T-72B3 to Abrams: 1.51 to1 T-72B3 APS to Abrams APS: 1.7 to 1 T90A to Abrams: 1.37 to 1 T-90AM to Abrams: 1.26 to 1 T90AM APS to Abrams APS: 1.4 to 1 Of course, it could be argued that Panthers are too cheap in the WW2 games but I'm just pointing out that Black Sea is broadly consistent within the CMx2 engine games.

This is probably because all T-90As come with Shtora. Admittedly, Shtora is less effective against US weapons than Ukrainian, but I have seen it spoof the occasional Javelin.

Has been requested, but it's not a trivial change. Right now only dedicated AA units are capable of spotting/engaging aerial targets in all CMx2 engine games. I have no idea what BFC's plans are but I'm sure the issue will be raised again at some point.

I wouldn't call it tiny, but it will tend to be less impressive than with a round that massively overpenetrates, and you are more likely to see partial penetrations than full penetrations. However, the M61 (US version, not the UK one) is APHE so it is not entirely reliant on kinetic energy for its after-armor effects.

I don't remember where I read that and don't have time at the moment to search for it. As I said, there could have been some usage in 1944 but it would have been rare. M61 was a replacement for M72 so it's unlikely M72 was still being issued. M61A1 penetration of RHA at 500 meters is 81mm.

M72 @ 100 meters, 0° RHA: 109mm FHA: 91mm @ 1000 meters, 0° RHA: 76mm FHA: 58mm M61A1 @ 100 meters, 0° RHA: 88mm FHA: 102mm @ 1000 meters, 0° RHA: 73mm FHA: 86mm Source: WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery From what I have read it was only used as a training round by '44 but there were probably exceptions.

Who is Charlie?

Unless it has been stealth-changed at some point 4 action spots is the distance they can be moved without packing up. However, it is only allowed for 3 machine guns: MG42, MG34 and M1919A4 (Soviet machine guns on wheeled carriages have no pack up time at any distance even though the DShK has one listed in the UI).

I don't think this is true for mortars. For that unit type Target Light means "fire the mortar at a slower rate of fire than Target", not "fire your rifle instead". I'll look into it.

Something else I forgot to mention regarding CMBS: the Russian Zala UAV. In Black Sea the US Army is completely incapable of detecting them* (Ukrainians can because they have Tunguskas). Needless to say, this is not particularly realistic. People can decide for themselves whether disallowing them is borne out of a desire for realism or "fragile egos", LOL. * The US Grey Eagle is also undetectable as long as it remains in observe mode, but it is also much more expensive.

That sounds like fun. Particularly for players such as myself who tend to play with battalion+ sized forces. It can take a couple of hours to place units and issue first turn orders. Then Turn 1: BOOM!. Game over. "Hey, let's do it over again and see if I get lucky!" It's not complicated. If you give the attacker extra forces in the expectation that some portion will be eliminated via prep bombardment and then that doesn't happen it's a free bonus, so the defender is almost obligated to at least try. As has been pointed out, enlarging the setup zone without enlarging the map creates other problems. Enlarging the map is a lot of work. As for "organic" solutions... please. Combat Mission is a game, not reality. Like any other game it is essentially a rules set. Whether those rules are enforced by BFC via the game programing or by the players via mutual agreement, they are all rules. Setup zones are an artificial construct to begin with. Sure, you could make a map large enough to accommodate an attacker setup zone big enough to where a first turn bombardment is a crap shoot, but when you are dealing with a force size of nearly 2 battalions that is a lot of real estate that serves no other function. How many map makers are going to do that to solve one problem that has a much easier solution? None that I have seen. Foolishness. Unless you always play as the attacker or always play as a particular nation all of the rules discussed in this thread will sometimes help and other times hinder you. I would not want to win a game with a first turn stonk. But if I played someone who wanted to play no-rules I would probably agree to it and then do everything I normally disallow just to prove a point. Come to think of it, that might be kinda fun for one game So we are being lectured on how to play multiplayer by someone who doesn't actually play multiplayer. Okaaayyy....