Vanir Ausf B

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.

Some interesting topics have been started about how information moves through the C2 chain both vertically (up & down the chain of command) and horizontally (directly from one team to another team).  As a result I did some experimenting with C2 & information sharing.  Below are the results and several chronological screen shots from the experiment.  If anyone can offer a correction or additional information please do. 
 
Additional useful information on the topic:
Game manual 3.01 page 62 Command & Control.
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/113787-can-somebody-answer-some-questions-on-information-sharing/
 
The distance information can be shared vertically (chain of command).
Voice C2: Up to six action spots, approximately 48 meters.
Close Visual (eyeball) C2: Up to 12 action spots, approximately 96 meters.
Distant Visual C2: As far as the unit’s line of sight.  (In the experiment I had units sharing information vertically with Distant Visual at 40 action spots, approximately 480 meters before I stopped.)
Radio C2: Entire map.  (In the WWII titles If a unit is moving on foot they will drop out of radio C2 during the movement)
 
The distance information can be shared horizontally (directly between teams).
Up to four action spots, approximately 32 meters. (Sometimes a team had to move to within 3 action spots)
 
Can information be shared horizontally between teams from different battalions?
Yes
 
Can information be shared between to different HQs that do not have a common higher HQ?
Vertically: No (With no common higher HQ there is no bridge for the information to pass over) 
Horizontally: Yes
 
I used two different US battalions on a custom made map for the experiment.  The 4th US Tank Battalion on the west (left) side of the map and the 1st US Infantry Battalion on the east (right) side.  A high ridgeline divided the two battalions.  At the beginning of the experiment no units of the 4th Battalion were in C2 with units of the 1st Battalion.  An immobilized German Marder II was used as the OpFor unit to be spotted and reported.  

 
The scouts move out to locate the German Marder II.

 
At 03:58:43 the scouts obtain a sound contact for the Marder II but they are out of C2.  

 
1st Platoon is selected but shows no icon for the Marder II.

 
Additional to follow.

When I'm not being a nuisance on here or stacking mad loot from modding competitions, I'm making stuff.
 
I have been working on reworking some of the Red Thunder Master Maps into very large QB maps for CMBS.
 
v1.0 of this pack has three maps, an attack, assault, and meet on Radzymin Master Map 2. Each has an AI plan for both sides and functioning objectives, but would probably be better for versus play. I will do more plans for each map, and eventually convert all Radzymin Master Maps to CMBS.
Credits to the Master Map goes to BF Company.
 
I cant post screens because Im on my laptop and they look gash, but Ill try to at the weekend when I am back with my high spec machine.
 
Download Link v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1mey2x2m8h7itzd/SG_QB_Maps.7z?dl=0
 
 
Enjoy.
 

There, all set for Battlefront to incorporate. 

 
Just playing around,
Mike

There was some earlier discussion on this subject in another thread ( http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119282-how-to-mark-mines/) and I thought that it might be a subject worthy of further discussion and hopefully we might get some feedback or response from the devs as well.
 
First of all I want to state that I'm by no means an expert in things related to mines or engineers and there are probably some vets here on this forum who have actually done EOD or regular mine disposal in real conflict zones. My perspective on this matter comes mainly from peacetime training during my military service in FDF (Finnish defence forces) and subsequent reservist training both voluntary and compulsory. As most have guessed by now I did my service in the FDF combat engineers service branch and I currently hold a rank of lieutenant first class in reserve so I think I got some things right during and after my service.
 
Now to the matter at hand!
I seriously think that mine warfare and combat engineering in combat mission series and especially in CMBS need some love in the future ("soonish" I hope) and indeed if I'm not mistaken something like this has been hinted by the devs and the recent entry of flail shermans to the normandy front certainly implicate that this is indeed considered a worthwhile (and doable) effort by the devs. Much kudos!
 
First of I will point the problems with the current state of mines and more specifically AT-Mines in CMBS.
 
-They are very effective. According to some old wiki entry a AT-mine square in CM has 2-3 AT-mines. They have on my subjective experience at least roughly a 50% chance to detonate and if you combine more mine squares (more depth) the probability ramps up quickly. Action square (or spot) is 8m in diameter and for example a t-72 has roughly a what.. 1m total? in track width that has to roll over a detonator usually size of your palm or even smaller. So the chance to miss is actually quite big! Naturally when mining a road it is easier to estimate the probable path of tracks to maximize hit probability. To put it other way, imagine tossing three 3-8cm diameter discs to a area 8mx8m and then imagine a tanks rolling through it.. This is why in real life you need lots of mines to have a decent probability to stop a tank. Now this problem is naturally for regular "dumb" AT-mines with mechanical fuzes. We have plenty of "smart" mines that need to "hit somewhere" in the width of a tank passing through the mined area. Smart mines are however far more uncommon and expensive in real life than the "dumb" ones and could deserve a separation from the "generic" CM AT-mines. Solution: Lower the QB cost and overall "hit probability" of regular AT-mines and introduce a new expensive type of smart AT-mines with high hit probability, fewer mines in square (harder to detect) and more devastating effect since many smart mines are Shaped Charge or EFP-types so they have a high probability of total kill.
 
-They are impossible to demine/clear/remove what ever word you want to use. Currently there is no way to effectively demine a AT-mine square in CMBS and this violates everything I have been taught about AT-mines and mine removal in general as well as the core principle and ethos of combat engineers everywhere: WE WILL GET THROUGH! There is a plethora of different AT-mines out there but compared to AP-mines they are generally a lot easier, faster and safer to demine. I will get back to this once we get to the actual engineers section but in a nutshell, even the most basic rifleman could in many cases simply remove the detonator or move the mines out of the way to clear a path for vehicles (unless it's trapped but we get back to that later...).
 
Then on mine warfare in general:
Mines (and IEDs) are a pivotal and important part on modern battlefield. They are dirt cheap when compared to all the high tech gadgetry that we currently have on the field as mainstay of modern armies. For a cost of a single MBT we can have thousands upon thousands AT-mines and in optimum situations this can lead to very very cost effective outcomes for the mine user. And while there are plenty of modern mechanized mine clearance vehicles and tanks out there, using them in the heat of battle will almost always puts them at risk of AT-weapons which will prioritize these special vehicles and tanks over anything else. So the mine is ideal weapon of a poor man. And I would dare to wager that given proper political will the Ukrainians facing a full scale land warfare with more modern Russian armed forces, would and should use all of their most likely plentiful stocks of cold war-era mines to even the odds. I can't say for the modern doctrinal approach of either side for certain but it is my understanding that WP-armed forces emphasized laying protective minefields whenever troops went  on defence, be it short stops in between attacks or after being forced to halt by determined resistance. So there should be know how.
 
At-mines are a crucial force multiplier in light infantry vs mechanized opponent type of scenario. And given the state of Ukrainian army I would once again wager that lot's of action would be between lightly armed volunteer and reservist formations against mechanized Russian forces. At-mines are the reason why tanks and especially IFV's should fear RPGs and other light infantry AT-weapons. Even APS equipped vehicles would be at a dire situation when immobilized or cornered in restrictive terrain with plenty of enemy infantry about. Right now in current state of CMBS light infantry has absolutely no staying power whatsoever which could be remedied to more realistic proportions by more abundant and realistic usage of mines. This in turn is not possible because of the two above mentioned flaws in current mine system in CMBS. Naturally the prospects of light infantry vs mechanized force are still, even with realistic mine fields, very slim and poor. But it would be far from the pushover that (ukrainian) infantry currently is in CMBS imho.
 
Just to give you a rough idea just how much a modern army can be expected to use mines:  Battalion of light infantry on a critical sector = ten thousand  AT-mines in the battalions AO. Thats 3333 CMBS AT-Mine squares. To do that now, even 10% would be utter madness and completely unplayable.
 
Now on to the engineers themselves:
 
We will have modern mine clearance vehicles. This I think is pretty clear since the appearance of flail shermans in CMBN. I know that US armor guys are itching to get their fancy toys and Russian and Ukrainians both should also have a plenty of tank based devices for quick "on the fly" breakthroughs through minefields. Mine plows and rollers should however not be 100% fool proof since there are plenty of engineer dirty tricks to wreck havoc on those vehicles. For example a simple delayed blast explosives made up of multiple mines stacked together, dug in deep enough and then triggered either mechanically by the plow or roller, or by remote control. Fancy plow and roller tanks will DIE when a stack of 100kg explosives goes up right under them. Trust me they do and even lot less should do the trick.
 
We should have engineers that can actually do something and not just be TOE curiosities. At the moment the engineers do have the "mark mines" ability which in most sense makes no sense at all since finding the mines is usually the hard part and disposal is a lot easier task. Marked AT-mines are just as lethal to vehicles as unmarked ones and when considering the "tossing three 8cm diameter plates on a 8mx8m area" example I mentioned earlier, it should be possible to move vehicles through marked AT-mine fields. It's still very risky but should be doable to at least some degree. More importantly engineers should have the ability of remove the mines all together in order to clear safe lanes through minefields. This should be possible even under immediate enemy threat if not "under fire". And there are plenty of real life methods for doing so:
-explosive removal: either by small man carried timed explosive charges (50g of TNT with simple time fuze). Just get the squad in, find the mines (mark mines) and then place the charges on top of each mine (as many as you got men) and simultaneously order to lit the fuzes and everybody runs like hell. Kaboom, you got yourself a cleared patch of minefield. Rinse and repeat until you get through. It's fast (as fast as you can find the mines) and leaves a terrible mess. You can't get wheeled vehicles through it unless they are ATV. Other methods of explosive removal include shooting the mines with heavy calibre rifles (visible AP-mines) and the all time "favorite" of all FDF engineers: the "putkiraivain" or more commonly known as the "bangalore torpedo" which is basically a tube packed with enough explosives to set off any mines within certain width (for infantry carried versions this is usually roughly 0.5m or so) in the mine field. It is very fast and very dangerous way to open up a path through a minefield. Squad of engineers will assemble the "torpedo" in situ from smaller individual sections and then runs up to the edge of the minefield and pushes the 20m-50m long bastardly (just try running for your life in woods while holding a 20m long pipe) device in to the field, everybody takes cover and kaboom! This path can then be widened by using smaller and heavier "torpedoes" spread evenly from the cleared path. All of this can be done in CMBS scale, takes anything from minutes to half hour but IT CAN BE DONE.
 
-Manual defusal/removal: Many mines, especially most common AT-mines have relatively simple fuzes that can be easily removed manually. However it is safe to assume that the opponent has been dirty enough trap the mines or has installed anti handling devices so that should you attempt to remove the mine you might get 5-10kg of tnt exploding on your face. That's why it is safer to pull the mines from their holes by using any sort of hook and rope. This way you can be at safe distance should the bastard explode when moved. Also most "smart" mines have anti handling systems built in so explosive removal is highly recommended! The key here is improvisation: Anything will do that gets the job done and not yourself or your mates killed/maimed.
 
So in summary: It could be reasonable easy to give engineers two sets of options after detecting a minefield:
-mark the mines and then have a possibility of manual removal. Both take more time but leave the roads and the area in general passable for wheeled vehicles.
-explosive "blast -like" command that either simulates the small charges = one tile at a time, or even better allows removal of multiple mine squares along a longer axis simulating the bangalore torpedos. Downside could be the extensive cratering which IIRC does already cause higher risk of bogging for wheeled vehicles. Naturally this is also faster than the manual removal but also tied to limited supply of explosives/torpedoes.
 
Now I'm going to end this wall of text here since it's already nearly 4am here in Finland at the time of writing. There probably was even more stuff I intended to write about but I think I got my concerns and wishes summed up in there somewhat nicely. Please do feel free to discuss the issue at hand and I would especially love to hear about other peoples experiences about combat engineering and/or mine removal both in real life as well as in the game.
 
 
Cheers!
-H1nd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I found something more interesting.  The nature of the Ukrainian dinosaur legions is approximately manifold of three to two rations against the Russian array of 4.5 Stegosaurus a minute.  This is acceptably within the prorate of twenty five, but well outside the GOP DOW electron of eighty nine.  I am frankly appalled at the weaponization of this gentle herbivore but after the semi-nuclear immulsion of sixty five raptors in Keplast Obast it is to be expected.
 
Either way, I know one thing and I know it well, this **** will make you a ********** sexual tyrannosaur and aint that the truth scrobot.    

Elite is more forgiving in other ways. I have discovered through testing that Elite will allow visual C2 in situations where friendly units are marginally out of LOS.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116617-suggestion-for-a-better-iron-difficulty/?p=1555904

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf

You are not completely wrong. Just mostly wrong
Terrain/Casualties
ME: 400/600 pts
Probe: 500/500 pts
Attack: 650/350 pts
Assault: 750/250 pts

You are not completely wrong. Just mostly wrong
Terrain/Casualties
ME: 400/600 pts
Probe: 500/500 pts
Attack: 650/350 pts
Assault: 750/250 pts

IIRC, that was ONE scenario. IIRC it was two people who were experiencing crashes with it and you were not one of them. IIRC it was never determined what was causing the crashes but running out of memory was suspected.
 
You really need to stop making these unsubstantiated declarations of engine problems. You don't know what you're talking about and some of your statements are disingenuous.