akd

WO 291/1186 (May 24, 1950) The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given as follows: Theatre (tanks)....Mines.ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total NW Europe (1305) 22.1% 22.7%....14.5% 24.4%...14.2%...2.1%..100% Italy (671)...........30%...16%......12%...26%......9%.....7% ...100% N Africa (1734).....19.5% 40.3%....38.2% nil......nil....2%....100% Mean values.........22.3% 29.4%....25.3% 13.5%....6.1%...3%....100% Taking tanks and SP guns together, you get 38.9%. That kill ratio isn't exactly spectacular for the side generally on the defense (although a very much devastating reality for the guys who had to fight in tanks in Normandy).

Scrim is pretty difficult to do in 3D in an attractive way at this scale. It could just be put on the texture, but that's a bit lame. I think that will be left to the modders if desired.

Well, they are howitzers assigned to the infantry. The gun/howitzer distinction is not so rigid in practice (e.g. look at the British). German IGs were used for indirect fire, including high-angle indirect fire.

The process for moving and setting up a Flak 88 was far more complicated and time consuming than hooking up an AT gun. I think it is considered beyond scope for the game.

Only god knows how many times it wasn't hit, so why are trying to draw conclusions?

Sorry Mord, you misunderstood me. There is no Sherman IIC in CMBN not because it is "missing," but because it never should have been in CMBO in the first place. It is not included, nor will it ever be, afaik. Also, you've still got the Humber LRC listed as Mk. II.

You can add Stuart VI for CMBN. Should be Humber Mk III for CMBN. M5 Halftrack is in CMBN. Stuart Ram? No such thing. Was this really in CMBO? Sherman IIC is not really missing. More a bug fix. Sexton is not a Tank Destroyer, but SP Artillery. British Priest will also be included.

It's in "The Flare Path": http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/12/02/the-flare-path-simkhana-2012/

So before ever encountering a Tiger II they already had a name for it and knew what it's armor protection was? There seem to be many versions of this story. But as the photo shows, a Sherman did meet a Tiger II.

Fun story, but the invented dialogue makes no sense.

Pz VIb's combat debut was in Normandy. There were more Tiger IIs than Stupas in the campaign and they were in action earlier.

Use "target light" to lower rate of fire. Otherwise, instead of direct lay, call an indirect mission through a spotter.

Wind arrow?

Yes, although I can't remember if the conditions page changes.

Ground condition will become increasingly wet as the scenario progresses.

Did you try cleaning your computer? When this once happened to me, that solved it.

Making up or exaggerating numbers to support your "point" (which is nothing but a subjective standard of "fun") is not a good way to go about having a discussion around these parts.

Well, Sherman has higher ground pressure than the other tanks. Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you can carefully control the factors in the test and isolate down to a reproducible set of factors, then go for it. I haven't seen enough to conclude there is a problem worth testing. p.s. I just glanced at your test course. Each tank was run through 1.4 km of mud and river. Having on average a third of your vehicles not requiring recovery is really not that bad.

If it is happening in a particular circumstance where it should not be, it is probably a bug and will be addressed if reproducible. But that has nothing to do with your overall point. I think it is fun.

No reasonable conclusions to that question can be drawn from your tests since you included mud and water. There is no dry mud or dry water in CMBN, so this is not really a test of the effect of dry conditions. The speed results are interesting, although I'm not sure definite conclusions can be drawn from this particular setup.

Is the "scenario editor" button disabled on your copy of the game GaJ?

No, it is as c3k outlines above. If you can't trace a line from your unit to the the middle of the action spot of the floor you want to target because of an intervening obstacle, you can't area target that floor. This only occurs in very limited circumstances.

Tests of modular buildings have shown this. Again, too broad of a generalization. And barns in Normandy should not be flimsy structures.

Prove something is wrong in a reproducible manner and it will be addressed. One bug related to building cover has already been squashed for the next patch, but there may still be problems with many independent buildings, either in overall cover or in apparently solid parts being porous to observation and fire. However, there is no wand to wave and these things have to be tested and problems specified down to the particular building.

Yes, units do spot briefly while hiding, but they will not expose themselves over the top of linear cover to do so. They stay low behind walls, hedgerows, etc. Troops peaking over walls would be particularly easy to spot.