akd

Nope, CMBN + Commonwealth is still v1.10. The 2.0 engine upgrade will be available for CMBN in the future.

That was a joke. Where a given building model has multiple texture options, there is no correlation between texture and protection.

FO/HQs do not have to have radios to call for artillery. Off-map artillery will always be in contact.

Post reported. p.s. don't follow his link. looks like it earns him cash.

Drag "CMBN" across the arrow to where it says "applications."

M61 and M61A1 were both APCBC.

From: Terminal Ballistic Data, Volume III. Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Sept. 1945.

AFAIK, it was M62 fired from a 76mm gun that was tested at Isigny, so the comment does not make sense to me. I have never before heard of M62 projectile fired from the 75mm M3 gun.

I think that is overstated. Very well-trained military units are adept at improvising on the fly within the limitations of their technology. CM is quite lenient on the limitations radio technology of this time. CM does not currently have a system for task organizing on the fly, and probably will not have one until reasonable restrictions can be put in place. The scenario editor (and QB purchase screen), however, allows a great deal of flexibility in task organizing where the player thinks it is appropriate. You just have to accept that if the scenario you are playing does not have all the company mortars task-organized under direct control of the battalion HQ, then you should probably not try to use them that way. Presumably they are still near their 250 HT with a radio? This is specifically why the ability to share nearby vehicle radios was added. Per doctrine, these armored mortar sections where meant to be able to operate independently with their vehicle (even firing from the vehicle, which will hopefully be implemented someday). p.s. I have family in Maryville and am up there once or twice a year.

Patience perhaps?

M62 was used in the 76mm gun, no?

Welcome!! You have the mortar team selected. You need to select the HQ on the second floor before bringing up the available artillery interface. The mortar should then show as an available unit to conduct a fire mission for the selected HQ. You also may want to face the HQ toward the windows facing the enemy so they have a better view for spotting.

Sorry for the late response. My previous response was not directed to you. Per shell lethality is a complex issue that is not going be easily tested. However, the issue of lethality on soft ground relative to hard ground is more straightforward. There should be a marked difference. Can you PM so I can take a look at your test scenario? For a single tube? Point is probably closer. You know you can have German and US mortars on the same side, right?

The accuracy issue related to the player's godlike knowledge of the battlefield is uncontroversial, but not specific to the topic discussed. It is unsolvable, or solvable only in ways that would be hugely controversial. The accuracy issue related to indirect fire MPI is a problem, but less so with the specific issue that has been highlighted in this thread: direct lay light mortars at short range. Unfortunately, it is a very complex problem to address.

I hope it is clear that the lethal area/casualty radius is not the limit of potential casualties.

B10 is suppression, not casualties and is concerned with distance from the burst, not area of coverage.

"Heavy rock" tiles are not passible to vehicles.

AFAIK, units in physical proximity will share information, even if not linked by C2. Nonsense. This is not a hive mind. If the unit has ? mark on the enemy due to information shared from another unit, then their chance of spotting is increased. You can control engagement with target arcs.

Not dominant through accuracy. Remember, you specifically said the Sherman was more accurate at long range, when in fact your test, like all duel tests, is not a test of tank v. tank accuracy but of group v. group winningness, which is a chaotic combination of many variables. You are also testing protection, terminal effects, morale, C2, etc. Yes, but if you keep pushing the range up, Sherman's better armor becomes less vulnerable to PzIV gun while the PzIV's turret (and hull on early versions) remains vulnerable to the Sherman's gun.

You said earlier that accuracy was the issue, but I suspect protection is playing a more decisive role in your outcomes. Sherman was the better protected tank. Please see this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105831&highlight=PzIV

Yes, it has been tested and test results do not reflect your impressions.

I bet both of these tanks are only marginally turret-up to each other.

And TO&E and map editor allows you to have any setting you want in the current engine. And the CotA scenarios are being updated to be released as an add-on for BftB.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time. Mistermark, it sure sounds like you are skipping over the smoke option, as that should be before "duration," not after.

You sure you have nothing in mods folder or in data/z in the root directory?