bisu

Thx guys for posting!

Good point. Where can we find the list of fixes? I can't see it on the main page..

Auto-refresh feature for the purpose of new releases! That shouldn't be that much programming effort. Beer and pizza waiting ready in the fridge.. Wife and kids sent to the countryside.. How much longer should we wait? How much longer?

Well, in my experience urban maps tend to be rather sterile environements with blocks of buildings sepatated by paved roads usually. Only minority of designers make the effort to put some terrain features which enable placement of AT teams (with the limited representation of rubble in game). In such setting an opponent with basic tactical skills has an easy task with clearing the exposed road crossings first, before advancing the tank (which supports them from behind knowing there is no threat from the adjacent buildings). In H2H play you must be very lucky or have a less demanding opponent to get a tank within your infantry AT assets range in urban fight..

This tank vs infantry issue (including related topics as urban fight and tank spotting) keeps reappearing on this forum on regular basis really. This confirms that it is among the most crucial problems currently for the majority of players (including myself). Therefore I think it is by no means a "wasting of scarce resources" issue. Once we had this MG effectiveness discussion which was of comparable intensity and ultimately led to a fix which most of us regard as a small breakthrough in the game mechanics.. I don't remember whether Steve made ever any statements according BF plans to look closer at the tank vs infantry problem. I think it is good timing now for that and most of us would acclaim an improvement here.

So that concealment bonus for not having moved the gun after setup does not seem to be worth much..

Must be spotting rounds

You can't give orders simultaneously with your oppo. That can be a considerable waste of time..

+1 And on top of that Pzfaust and Pzschreck shots from interiors are not allowed at any circumstances. Fixing the tank awareness issue would be first on my personal priority list.

Good point. And is it really only a fraction of users waiting for this feature?

Oh Jesus. Now I have enough..

There is nothing subjective in it. See Banemans post No24. Hard data: it is more difficult to hit an exposed infantryman than a shield-protected gunner.

Thx Bil and Aragorn fot the support. And womble, JasonC and others for interesting comments - you forced me to go through my references on Hanomags again. Sorry womble if my replies sounded sometimes harsh, it was nothing personal, just to keep the right temperature, you know In fact I usually agree with your comments in other threads (excluding your view on Hanomags use of course). The most important thing as Doug stated, with which (I hope) everybody agrees is that there is something wrong about the current behaviour of Hanomag gunners in game. I hope BTF will have a look at it, and fix it ASAP to increase the fun associated with playing their brilliant product even further..

JasonC , thanks for really impressive amount of data on Hanomags. Well, I am basing my point of view on several monographs on Sdkfz 251, including those from Osprey (by Bruce Culver), as well as on pieces of archive footage showing Hanomags in action,as well as German training films for PzGrenadiers from the period ( ). The German Panzer doctrine was modified after Poland 1939 where assaults made by tanks only proved to be frequently ineffective. It became clear that it is necessary to provide tanks with mobile support of infantry. But it could only happen when the Grenadiers operated in direct proximity of the assaulting tanks. Osprey says they followed about 150-200 meters behind the tanks, and infantry left the vehicles only about 100 m before enemy lines. So this is an engagement distance for the SPW gunner. It is absolutely logical for me. What do you think is the benefit of having Panzergrenadiers during an armored assault when their SPW's are parked somewhere back in the woods? I also don't quite understand why you are abitrary claiming that such an indispensable element (close collaboration of infantry and armor) of the german armored assault doctrine was neglected IRL on regular basis? Your examples, although multiple and intersting are still anecdotes and can't be used as prove that a behaviour other than official doctrine was standard. The lower numbers of lost SPWs in comparison to tanks does not prove that they were not used in supporting role. Are you referring to absolute numbers or ratios of vehicles lost? There was a scarcity of SPW and none of german pzgrenadier units (apart maybe from Panzer Lehr indeed) was fully equipped with them.. In summary, keeping in mind the initial topic of this thread I still claim that SPWs gunners had many opportunities to use their MGs in combat, so it is not at all gamey. I have said differently. NOT ONLY transport.

My point is to rectify the false statements presented in your original post: 1. Hanomags were not only "backfield buses" and were used as infantry support vehicles in combat. 2. Therefore using them in this role in-game is justified and the associated excessive loss of gunners is not amenable to wrong doctrine but to a bug.

Ok, but now you are changing the meaning of your previous post which was more general. Adding more detail clarifies many issues. When you say that the distances in Normandy were to small (sometimes they were I agree), you admit there WAS an engagement distance for Hanomags. No they are not, but on the basis of your original post one might think that he is losing gunners because of bad doctrine and not because of the bug. Probably I can use the search function even better than you, as it is well known that the early war thing was NOT to use Hanomags in direct combat. For that reason the first versions were called "gepanzerter Mannschaftstransportkraftwagen" before the name was changed to "Schutzenpanzerwagen" later during the war. The cited field manuals from my little article are from 43-44.

Hmm, womble I don't know what is the source of your knowledge about the use of Sd. Kfz. 251.. Backfield buses? According to my knowledge they were actively used as infantry support on the battlefield. Here is one link with the list of reliable references which supports my point. http://www.panzerworld.net/mspw.html I know you are sceptical about the idea of this particular bug from the start of this thread, but even leaving doctrinal discussions aside, Banemans tests revealed something which is completely illogical: currently in game it is more difficult to hit an exposed soldier standing in the open, than a protected halftrack gunner (of course assuming identical conditions). It is as simple as that..

Baneman you really did a piece of thorough testing work. I appreciate it. But I also think that at this stage you as the author of these tests should draw some clear cut conclusions which could be then passed to BTF. Having hard data from your tests will make it easier for them to find the cause of the bug and fix it in the next patch.. Maybe we have a broader problem after the last patch with all unbuttonned vehicle gunners/TC who die really fast now - in fact I don't remember any situation where a TC managed to button for protection in response to incoming fire - they always just get killed. I don't know if this is realistic but for sure it is completely different in comparison to CM1, and as far as I remember also in comparison to previous versions of CM2. And I must admit the issue with the Hanomag gunner is quite a battle breaker for me, as is represents an important limitation to my available tactics..

Thx Baneman. Well done. I assume the riflemen and the hanomag were at the same elevation and there was no forward tilt to the track Anyway, your test confirms that the gunner gets shot within 2-4 secs in most cases. That means to me something is wrong. As you have the test setup ready maybe you could repeat it at bigger distances to see where the gunner starts to be effective against riflemen. Another problem is that there is no go-around this issue because AFAIK if there is infantry passengers in the hanomag, one of them will always stand up and man the gun. This way they can be shot one after another like ducks if they happen to travel in the proximity of the enemy..

Yeah, on Normandy maps I thought Hanomags could be ideal for guarding narrow roads with tall bocage on both sides, where you can reliably assure there is no fire coming from the sides. From the front the gunners targetable profile thanks to the armor plate is very small so it should be hard to eliminate him with small arms fire. Unfortunately he dies within seconds as Baneman stated.. It looks like this plate is not involved in the calculations of the incoming bullet's trajectory. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qw4ik5u1nun2m53/MJ-rEanacw

After playing several QBs as Axis I have the impression that the vulnerability of Hanomag gunners is exaggerated in game. I had numerous situations on attack and on defense where those gunners got shot at various distances like 100-300 m from the front with small arms fire immediately after having been spotted without any chance to return fire. They got always killed earlier than anybody from the accomanying infantry. I know one might say that they are exposed cause they are sitting high on the vehicle but OTOH they still have the protective armor plate in the front. Unfortunately I do not have any hard data to confirm my observations, but they were so striking to me that I would like to know whether any of you guys had similar impressions? I lost about 10 gunners during a 1,5 hrs game to the point where I gave up using Hanomags as infantry support..

That's really interesting data I i didn't know about. Vanir where did you get it from because I can't find it in the manual. Many of us play in some sorts of ladders and tournaments where point count matters at the end, so for them the knowledge about point calculation mechanics is essential. In CM1 these issues were predefined with point assigned for holding flags and destroying enemy units proportional to their purchase value which was reasonable and clear to me. You could more or less predict the final outcome of the battle knowing how many flags you hold and how much casualties you have suffered. The CM2 system is more flexible, more designer input is allowed on final calculations, but a detailed description of how it really works is nowhere to be found AFAIK. Maybe someone knows more about the scoring system in CM2 and could shed some light?

I liked this movie a lot. I think it is much better than any american movie covering this topic (including the frequently appraised "enemy at the gates").. So I am curious upon what foundations your statement is based.. Could you justify your point of view?

But the 3rd squad seems to be in C2 with Battalion HQ (green dot), even though it is out of C2 with the Company HQ. Was the Bat HQ in the proximity as well?

Sublime and VAB -- That's really interesting data on battle settings you use. I agree that you need a big map but what is the force size (in points) you take on a lets say 1.8x1.8 km map? Any rules for arty purchase? Any fixed infantry:armor ratio?