akd

That is approximate. The 4 tanks went immobile between 340-370m. But yes, the damage is clearly cumulative and fairly predictable, not random chance per interaction.

They are modelled differently both in casualty potential on impact and in rate of smoke generation and dissipation (WP builds faster, but is less persistent).

Just did a quick test and I had to run a platoon of KTs over 350m of parallel rows of barbed wire fences to immobilize them.

Mobility in CMBN is extremely lenient.

The AI deploys based on the scenario's AI plan, not the the setup zones. Significantly altering a QB map could potentially break the existing AI plans and deployment. I would not attempt editing QB scenarios until you have a very good understanding of the editor. Even then there are special rules for how QB scenarios must be setup. The QB selection screen gives you options for selecting the size of the map and the size of the battle. A tiny or small map with tiny or small battle size selected should give you what you want. You can also manually select a map from the the list of all available QB maps (the file names include "small", "medium", "large", etc. and the physical dimensions of the map are shown on the right when you click on the file name). Just be sure to generally match the battle size to the map size for optimal AI performance.

It can be abused, and with the TRP system in place it is often unjustified. The ability for an attacking force to, for example, point target the key building on the NW corner of the third street intersection inside a town in the next valley over without observation with 4 converging guns is...extreme. No surprise artillery is often only provided as a reinforcement. Of course TRPs don't entirely avoid that, but at least they give the designer a bit more control and force the QB player to invest in the ability.

That may be true in some cases, but could also mislead you terribly. The smallest modular building shares the same set of textures with the largest. The best guide is simply larger is tougher than smaller, modulars seem to be tougher than independent buildings (given same size), and independents have a broad hierarchy of strength, with the caveat that size still matters to some degree: Churches > houses >/= commercial > barns (I believe houses are generally stronger than commercials, but that might be worth testing further). Also note there are likely some bugs lurking in the independents. If you note a solid, undamaged wall porous to small arms fires, or allowing units to observe / be observed, you might have found one. (Any help identifying these with repeatable tests would be most appreciated).

What good would that do you? Protection corresponds to the building 3D model, which does not vary when the textures are swapped. Larger generally equals tougher, but obviously windows and doors are also a factor.

Textures are purely aesthetic. They do not correspond to protection. Some buildings have options for both stone and for half-timber textures. Changing that does not change the protection.

Then he should be able to demonstrate it is a routine problem.

That is way overcomplicating things. You can look at this on an individual basis, so there is no need to come up with some formula for unit suppression. On an individual basis, a man that cowers and stays cowered for some reasonable amount of time is surely suppressed, a man who only momentarily ducks or doesn't take cover at all and continues to observe and engage the enemy surely is not. I am under no illusion that tests could show a 5, 10 or even 50% discrepancy. My only concern is an impression (not tested) that in a situation where a field manual (for whatever it is worth) suggests a 90% probability of significant change in behavior, in the game there is a 0% chance of significant change in behavior. I am particularly concerned about the effect that this has on the casualty rates of units in defilade cover. To put this in other terms, my impression (again not tested, and maybe not worth testing) is that in CMBN a near impact from a single HE mortar round has the same morale effect on a target as a near impact of a bullet or short burst of bullets.

No, a suppressed unit should not be able to observe or fight effectively. A unit with one or two ticks on the suppression meter is definitely not suppressed.

If I recall correctly, some very rough initial tests suggested the deviation is significant. FM 7-90 says: But I would observe the following in CMBN: If a 60-mm mortar round lands within 20 meters of a target, the target will probably not be suppressed, if not hit. I would equate suppression with the "suppression meter" in the red zone, meaning the target remains "cowering" (hugging the ground, or in the bottom of their foxhole) until the meter recovers. Consequently, a individual/unit would not be able to observe or fight for the duration of a barrage of any reasonable intensity. This has a very significant effect in the game, especially on units in foxholes/trenches. Because units are not effectively suppressed by indirect fire that has not caused a casualty, they are more likely to remain exposed, increasing the chances of subsequent rounds causing casualties, especially by FFE following a series of spotting rounds. This in turns devalues the surprise effect of registered (TRP) fire (at least against the AI).

Nothing gets changed through fits and rage quitting. I also suspect suppression from indirect fire is undermodeled. Luckily this is testable in the game (using TRPs and direct lay mortars to carefully place impacts) and we have some real world data to compare against tests. I've been meaning to set up a test, but short on time lately. Maybe I'll get around to it, or maybe somebody else will step up... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-90/Appb.htm Obviously the 120mm prox. round data is not relevant, but the 60mm and 81mm impact HE data should be comparable to their WWII counterparts (with an understanding that 1.) greater efficiency in fragmentation might marginally increase suppressive effects, and 2.) all this is within the great grey area of psychology).

Thanks Snake Eye. The OS-specific problem should be fixed in the next version.

37mm canister was heavily used in Normandy, where it was found very effective in hedgerow fighting. IIRC, some light tank units took to carrying up to 80% canister in their ammunition load.

Video does not include all the rounds expended getting on target.

I thought it was the opposite due to the elevation limits of the BMP-1 gun in comparison to the BMP-2 (or perhaps that was Chechnya).

Ammo sharing happens amongst units immediately subordinate to a flagged HQ. If there are section HQs in between the mortar platoon HQ and mortar teams, then ammo sharing is going to happen at the section level rather than the platoon level. The section HQ and its subordinate mortar teams and ammo bearers should all be able to share acquired ammo.

I see the area swept by the wipers. Looks nice.

Okay, I should have just started up the game in the first place. In the 3D view, it is SHIFT+ALT+LEFT CLICK on the building you want to destroy. Destruction will start with roof, then proceed by floor until it is reduced to complete rubble.

Oops, maybe the combo needed is CTRL+SHIFT+LEFT CLICK. I suppose I should open the game and remind myself...

Ctrl+alt+left Click

It think people are confusing scouting in front of an advance, patrolling and observation/overwatch, and expecting to find a way to have a single unit effectively fulfill all three roles simultaneously. I don't think it matters whether scouts in front of an advance have good C2 or are effective at spotting the enemy (which is why Erwin finds his run/hide method works). Their chief role is to force the enemy to disclose his defensive plan while minimizing risk to friendly forces.

Couple of quick comments: 1. HESH should not look like a sabot round. 2. RED should have 5.45mm rather than 5.56mm assault rifle ammo.