Vanir Ausf B

From a map maker point of view:
the problem with large deploy areas is that you have to take into consideration that units can be placed on the very border of the area, in order to get as close as possible to objectives and/or points of interest (especially in meeting engagements). Maps in CM games can be large but not that large to ignore few hundred meters of distance. Not only larger zones bring the travel time problematic, they also require the units to be not spottable in the very first turn by the enemy, so you need to take some special care for the deploy areas, otherwise there will be an unpleasant situation at the very start of the match (again, especially for meeting engagements).
 
So, even a single rule such as no arty in the first minute in the deploy area is good practice.

But since they aren't and don't, it's quite a lot simpler to disallow pre-emptive strikes than redraw every damn map. Even maps that have quite large deployment areas often have only very restricted areas which are out of LOS of defensive positions. Starting "under the guns" is all very well if that's been catered for in the narrative of a scenario, but for QBs, which are necessarily simplified affairs, it's not practicable.

I only understood about a third of that wall but it sounds like you have reinforcements arriving in a QB?

I totally understand that. It reminds me of one of the first PBEMs I ever played, back in the CMBO days. It was a QB and I was just rolling over this poor guy's force like it wasn't even there. I had like twice as much infantry as he did because he had purchased a small army of halftracks. I couldn't understand why he had handicapped himself by wasting points on units that were just target practice for my panzers. So I asked him and his response was "because they are mech infantry and the halftracks are part of their TO&E." I felt bad because I had thought it was kosher to assume the infantry was dropped off outside the map.

My guess is that was some obscure pop culture reference.
 
 
Mord.

I think Armata's armor protection levels are unknown. But if you are ok with WAGs mine is that Armata could be penetrated anywhere except the front hull.

Your FAC is calling in the arty? Well, that's probably the issue. A FAC calls in air. An FO calls in arty. Your FAC is telling the air coordination center what he wants. The guy back there has to tell his supervisor what the FAC just said. THAT guy, then runs to the next track and relays to the XO what was just said. The XO uses his cell-phone to text his buddy from the Frunze Academy (who is the XO of the arty regiment) what his FAC wants. The arty XO tells the sergeant what to do. The arty sergeant relays that on the radio to the battery fire control center. That FCC translates plain english (or Russian ) into digital commands and sends it the half-battery assigned to fire. After asking for verification.
 
It's not that it takes your FAC a long time to scream into the microphone that he wants arty, it's that the radio net/command structure is not in place to do so very responsively.

It's been suggested a hundred times and will likely be suggested a hundred more, about half of which will be from me.

I don't think non-penetrating hits cause suppression to AFV crew anymore and I'm pretty sure it's deliberate. And if that's a bad thing you can probably blame me for it to some extent.
 
A while back (like a year ago or so) I noticed that in the WW2 games British AP that bounced off tanks did not cause any suppression while US, German and Soviet AP did. It became apparent that it was the HE burster charge that was the source of the suppression (the UK used AP shot instead of AP shell). This was rather silly since the burster charge was far too small to be of any concern to the crew when detonating outside the crew compartment. In fact, another tester brought up the fact that the production of suppression was tied more precisely to the distance from the tank at which the burster charge detonated (a shell that bounced far away before blowing up would produce no suppression at all). I brought up this discrepancy to BFC and the suppression effect was removed. Good? Bad? Ugly? Debatable I'm sure, but it's not a bug.

That leaves a lot to interpretation. It probably goes without saying that these rules would rely on the honor system for enforcement.
 
But if you did play this way there are other rules you could add. No calling in of indirect fire by spotters out of C2 (it's ridiculous that the game even allows this, IMO). No orders given using knowledge gained by sound triangulation or of seeing walls/hedges disappear when unspotted vehicles run over them. I'm sure there are others.

But whatever nonsense contained within is simply something he's found vs created, and this ALSO turns into a great chance to discuss the T-34/85 as a tank vs Comrade Tank of Fascist Destruction.  
 
Re: Korea
 
Here's what Zaloga says, which is from the official post conflict BDA on NKPA tank losses.  It's based entirely on recovered hulls which is important given some of the cray-cray USAF claims of destroying several hundred tanks.  The NKPA also lacked meaningful recovery assets, so generally if something was "killed" it wasn't going anywhere.  All claims are T-34/85s to the best of my understanding (the only other NKPA armor being the SU-76).  Additionally it's on target analysis vs crew claims:
 
Total Kills by tanks: 89+8 Damaged (but recovered by UN forces)
   M24: 1
   M26: 29+3
   M4A3E8: 41+4
   M46: 18+1
 
Artillery: 20+8
Bazooka (both M20 and M9): 11+11
Recoilless rifle: 9+4
Land Mines: 1
Grenades: 3
Aircraft: 27+2
Naval Gunfire: 12
"Unconfirmed" 63
 
Unconfirmed includes anything that was difficult to identify beyond reasonable measures.  This includes likely napalm kills, vehicles that catastrophically blew up to the degree where finding a clear cause was simply impractical, but enough pieces could be found to rule out it being a collection of T-34 parts vs a full wreck.
 
From that even if all unconfirmed kills were from aviation, US armor was still the most lethal thing on the battlefield vs the T-34/85.  The M4A3E8 did quite well, but this likely stems from it being more common.  
 
For the Pusan fighting the M26 and M46s were the preferred tanks given the remaining threat from NKPA T-34s.  Pusan also is much more friendly to tank operations.  as pointed out, later fighting as the war moved north increasingly fell on the Sherman.  The Centurions did quite well with infantry support, but did not encounter T-34s to the best of my recollection (I seem to remember the only commonwealth tank kill to be knocking out a Cromwell that had been captured by the PLA).  The larger M20 Bazooka was not quite so hastily created having roots going back to 1944, but the end of the war and the silliness of the post war Nuclear focus meant it remained fairly uncommon, and the units that deployed to Korea from Japan lacked many of their MTOE heavy weapons either way.

How can you say that. In the old system, if I spotted a enemy unit, all I had to do was run 4 more units over into line of sight and I knew I would for certain have 5 to 1 odds immediately.

Now I spot a unit and I have to wonder if I will even keep the spot with that unit, if I add more units by moving them into line of sight. I might get it, I might not. Plus if I do move more units, I might be moving them into line of sight of enemy units I do not see yet since spotting can be so deceiving now as to how long it might take to see enemy units within possible visual views.

There is no similarity at all and it was the biggest impact as to how to play the game now compared to the old version. To be good at both games take different styles of play. All because of spotting

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/04/can-we-just-give-up-on-the-iraqi-army.html

The 911 truther crap had been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who still gives any credence to it either doesn't know much about it or is delusional.

Hey there.....   I created a new Attack Map recently.   It seems to have been affected by the Qick Battle 'Attacker/Defender' side swap bug, so I never released it.   However I didn't want it to go to waste so I've added units to create a Scenario.   I haven't gone into any detail with regards operational situation or anything like that, but there should be plenty to like for those that are into Huge Scale Scenarios.   It's a 2.4km x 2.2km map, rolling countryside, river, large towns with plenty of 'known to player only' Objectives and variable timed reinforcements for both sides.    Map can be found at Greenasjades [HERE]

The 911 truther crap had been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who still gives any credence to it either doesn't know much about it or is delusional.

The 911 truther crap had been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who still gives any credence to it either doesn't know much about it or is delusional.

The 911 truther crap had been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who still gives any credence to it either doesn't know much about it or is delusional.

The 911 truther crap had been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who still gives any credence to it either doesn't know much about it or is delusional.

The 911 truther crap had been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who still gives any credence to it either doesn't know much about it or is delusional.

Why is it absurd Sburke? If we are going to call Russia fascist, because of cynical actions of its state, and then dismiss that your state makes some pretty serious cynical decisions themselves, is that reasonable? So, the thousand posts here http://www.911truth.orgas well as hundreds of other sites, means all these people talk absurd nonsense?

Arguably, the difference is the FSB guys got caught doing what they were doing, while your guys didnt get caught doing what they were doing. Thats the difference. The end result is the same.

And the talk about the excuse machine, dude, noone is making excuses for what the Rus. Government is or is not doing. Im saying dont be sitting on your high chair calling them fascists, and then pretending that there are no similarities in US's actions of the past, that could just as easily apply that terminology to themownselves.

Do they look bluish-black too?

Oh don't you dare be reasonable and on topic!  

Nowadays I do not post on forums much unless a point really concerns me and this whole issue with CMBN on the Apple Mac Store is one that raises major concern.
 
I see that CBMN is still at version 1.10 through the Apple Mac Store and the incompatibility of upgrades to version 3.xx has still not been resolved. I also see that the CMBN expansions for the Apple Mac Store CMBN version do not exist. This is an issue that has years of history.
 
I purchased CMBN on both the PC and the Mac (Apple Mac Store) both in 2012 with the goal of having the same experience of the same software on both platforms.
 
The product is still available on the Apple Mac Store today, years later for $39.95 with no indication in the information text of the subtle but significant difference in available versions. Why?
 
I find it hard to understand that even if Apple are a pain to work with, the information text could not at least have been updated to reflect the difference between the Apple Mac Store and the Battlefront.com versions in all these years.
 
Apple may be difficult to work with but I assume that Battlefront did not hand over all rights of ownership to the CMBN IP on the Apple Mac Store to the point that the information text could not be updated to make potential purchasers aware. Even if Apple and Battlefront have fallen out with each other, it should not stop the information text from being updated.
 
If it is the case that Battlefront has tried to update the information text on the Apple Mac Store to make potential customers aware and that Apple have stopped them, maybe it is time to pull the product from the Apple Mac Store. In light of Battlefront not offering to Apple/Battlefront customers a means of converting to a Battlefront version of the Mac CMBN, it only adds to the justification to pull it (for new customers)  from the Apple Mac Store and avoid future customers the same issue.
 
I can only guess that real world sales of the Apple App Store version of CMBN still bring in too much money for Battlefront to consider pulling it.
 
As for the significant information regarding the different versions of the Mac CMBN versions, it comes down to paying customers of Battlefront products to post warnings of this issue in the Customer Rating section of the product page on the Apple Mac Store, while Apple and Battlefront seem to not bother. Someone is dropping the ball!!
 
This issue seems to have be going on for years and is still not resolved. Many a post over those years by Battlefront representatives but effectively nothing changed. That is a issue for concern.
 
Someone at Battlefront decided to put CMBN up for sale on the Apple Mac Store but not to follow through with the support it needs such as preparing patches, etc. to suit the Apple Mac Store model.. Even Value places this issue on games developers who sell through Steam and the vast majority of those seem to update their games fine.
 
If Apple are making it impossible as some Battlefront posts seem to indicate, then just pull the product to protect future potential customers. Just to leave an old version on the Apple Mac Store for new customers while non-Apple Mac Store customers can upgrade to the latest version just seems wrong.
 
It would be nice to hear from a representative of Battlefront as to the reasoning for the information text not having at least been updated over all these years to advise potential customers about this subtle but significant point. 
 
Regards
 
 
Software License purchaser for:
 
Combat Mission Battle for Normandy (PC) since April 2012
Combat Mission Battle for Normandy (Apple Mac Store) since June 2012
Combat Mission Strike Force (PC) since May 2010

Download Link v1.1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zhc9yh976ijl51v/SG_QB_Maps_v1.1.rar?dl=0
 
Fixed AI plan missing. Seems the "copy AI plan" tool doesn't work between maps, only on the same map. Fixed conditions that were set on "freezing" to "cool".

This is from ammo sharing. It loses access to the missile it fires along with the 2 the neighboring teams fire. This is confirmed by looking at the ammo count in the left pane (next to the night vision device count). That only shows the missiles held by that specific team and ignores shared ammo. For each team it starts at 3 missiles and decreases by one every shot.
 
As for accuracy, I just ran a test of AT-14s vs T-64BVs at 1000 meters under ideal conditions, then a second test identical except for changing the weather to "heavy rain". For both tests I fired 100 missiles. In both tests 87 missiles hit. This is right in line with ATGM accuracy testing done during development. It also suggests that rain, at least, does not affect ATGM accuracy.