PzKfW

K, so the problem is not that they won't fire. It is that the "generous" direct LOS targeting for indirect fire weapons is not applicable to the mortar once it runs out of HE ammo... My scenario has two panzers in a forest, kind of like two rude pigs in a blanket.

Unfortunately it won't let me upload as the save game file is 20mb.

I will try to post it in a bit. It's the first mission of the battle pack campaign "Amiens tonight".

By the way, they will shoot smoke OK as long as they have HE ammo remaining, but it doesn't seem to fire like regular mortar smoke, rather has a flatter ballistic arc.

Could you open your own thread? This one is for 2" mortar round smoke being bugged. It's a serious problem as every British squad has these mortars.

I am, and I did, and they did not.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread... But DAMN I need smoke and those mortars can't fire it! Using "target smoke command" but every thing is "out of range" and the mortars won't fire either WP or smoke!

Random smallish scenario with historical purchase of units, no off board arty or airstrikes please PM for email address - but only if you PROMISE to finish the scenario

^^^ exactly

Anyone who has dealt with trying to accurately model afvs, knows that the intricacies of period radio equipment, and which could communicate with which, are not something to be messed with lightly.!

Heheh, most likely, most likely... I hear gamey complaints start early most of the time

Hey, far be it from me to point out, that you posted that update well after I PMd you. Get back to me on that last PM...

Well, I sent you a PM and no response...

Like the title says. Shoot me a PM. H2hh/dropbox

Armor quality was more important in being able to sustain multiple hits without cracking. Reduced quality was a function of over hardening vs. optimal hardening (alloying materials very important here).

You just made me spill my coffee.

Hope so! Sooner the better!

2.01- much improved. Thank you.

I certainly hope so.

I cannot get the QB "attack" map deployment zones to be correct. The listed attacker always gets at least half the map to deploy in and the listed defender gets far less (and is not in control of the objectives). What gives?

The Panther was only about 15% more expensive in terms of materials to make than the PzIV IIRC. It was, by no means, a deal breaker for the Germans in terms of cost or production intensity. The Tiger I, on the other hand, certainly was a highly-labor intensive and expensive machine to make. I am sure it was designed on a far higher "precision" scale than the later tanks like the Panther, and from a quality standpoint, I am certain it was held to higher standards than the Panther. However, in war, the equation being sought should be a different equation than straight craftsmanship... simply, "Cost = value??" In this regard, the Panther was, far and away, the best tank the Germans fielded in the war. It was, in no respect, a breaker of the German economy. This is also the reason the Tiger I production was halted in 44. The Tiger II was horrendous from a quality standpoint, and don't even get me started on monstrously horrid beasts like the JagdTiger... whose gun would unmoor and come seriously out of calibration with the optical gunsight if the driver of the tank took too tight a turn, or braked too hard... There were weapons which were rediculously unrealistic and wasteful, at a time when the Germans were in no position to waste anything. A few of these were armored vehicle designs, but many, like the V2, were simply last ditch efforts of a failing political apparatus... The Germans knew they were done after the eastern offensives of 44...

I have done the bowling green test and noted a few very large improvements. 1. MGs now fire randomly spaced bursts 2. They tend to fire more bursts, and the ramp-up on ROF is quicker, distance-wise 3. They are more accurate 4. Suppression effects from small arms fire is increased, but a large amount so for MGs 5. There is an extra crewman for the HMG42... I believe Overall, the feel is very much improved and more believable. It really is something, those random bursts... BRAAAAP........ BRAAAP, BRAP, BRAAAAP....... BRAAP. You get the idea. And although my 1 US rifle squad vs 1 German HMG42 testing showed that while the HMG crew did still take losses, it was a much dicier affair for the rifle squad and the US squad both was pinned a huge amount of the time, and took over 75% casualties before the HMG crew took 50% (when the US squad was close enough to engage)... I stopped the test because I did not forsee the rifle squad being able to close to within 200m (closest they got was 250m). Massive improvement in my book. Even if I was playing the US (I assume their HMGs were improved as well).

Let's see what the update brings.

Increased ROF is the big issue but whether it can or will be addressed in the upcoming update is the question. CMx1 style abstraction of weapon effects has its advantages (but is now discarded) and BF are committed to making a dual wego/RT go of it. To fix the ROF, a target light option seems best to me as it gives the option to the player (full Rof vs half or 1/3, whatever lower amount). In a game of this complexity, that is always the safer bet. The player base obviously is dedicated to the game and will learn what needs to happen. (Nature of this beast, gentlemen, if you are interested with, and tread on, grog territory you end up dealing with grogs. Best accept it) But maybe that is more in the realm of changing German hmgs, and less the global hmg issue. I see them as two separate but valid issues.

Ultimately, as long as HMGs are more effective than LMGs, especially at range, and especially against infantry in the open, then the changes will be an improvement. We should hold further opinions until the new changes have been observed and evaluated. We should also be glad that Battlefront is taking this thread seriously enough to address it with meaningful and measured action.