Bud Backer

November 1944…

Equal forces, 1818 points (I think "Small" battle size). This is a QB on the Stoumont master map. 

From a battle with a friend I’ve called Hide and Seek. No terrain objectives. It’s literally us trying to find, fix and destroy each other on 15 square kilometres of map…
 

From a battle with a friend I’ve called Hide and Seek. No terrain objectives. It’s literally us trying to find, fix and destroy each other on 15 square kilometres of map…
 

November 1944…

I’ll let the images suggest a story rather than fill in the gaps…
 

 

From a battle with a friend I’ve called Hide and Seek. No terrain objectives. It’s literally us trying to find, fix and destroy each other on 15 square kilometres of map…
 

I’ll let the images suggest a story rather than fill in the gaps…
 

 

I’ll let the images suggest a story rather than fill in the gaps…
 

 

From a battle with a friend I’ve called Hide and Seek. No terrain objectives. It’s literally us trying to find, fix and destroy each other on 15 square kilometres of map…
 

I updated today and CM (including CM Helper) is working fine.

Mine is later than that LOL 

I am somewhat sympathetic to the petition but I don't know what could be done about it. BFC have been consistently hostile to subjective price adjustments and without access to the formula it's hard to say how the changes could be made without introducing cascading effects throughout the system.
Discounting turretless vehicles would help the StuG, JPz IV and JPz IV/70(A) which I think are all a little pricey for what you get, but then the Hetzer, JPz IV/70(V) and Jagdpanther would also benefit and I don't think they need it.
The accusation hurled at the Panzer IV is that its front turret armor is thin so perhaps increasing the weighting of front turret armor in the formula would help. But the Panther and IS-2 have even weaker turret armor relative to their hull armor and so would also go down in price while Tiger tanks would go up.

This is something we discussed with @Battlefront.combefore. We have toggleable smoke. We have toggleable trees. We have toggleable artificial brightness for night battles. Toggleable fog/snow etc is no different. It is NOT directional, there is no arc, it changes nothing in the engine in terms of showing what a unit might or might not see. Just like turning off or on smoke changes no spotting information. It makes a heck of a difference in what the PLAYER can see and that is what we proposed for fog, rain, snow etc. It is very difficult to intuitively gauge what the guys on the ground can see when the player can see almost perfectly in dense fog. 

This is something we discussed with @Battlefront.combefore. We have toggleable smoke. We have toggleable trees. We have toggleable artificial brightness for night battles. Toggleable fog/snow etc is no different. It is NOT directional, there is no arc, it changes nothing in the engine in terms of showing what a unit might or might not see. Just like turning off or on smoke changes no spotting information. It makes a heck of a difference in what the PLAYER can see and that is what we proposed for fog, rain, snow etc. It is very difficult to intuitively gauge what the guys on the ground can see when the player can see almost perfectly in dense fog. 

This is something we discussed with @Battlefront.combefore. We have toggleable smoke. We have toggleable trees. We have toggleable artificial brightness for night battles. Toggleable fog/snow etc is no different. It is NOT directional, there is no arc, it changes nothing in the engine in terms of showing what a unit might or might not see. Just like turning off or on smoke changes no spotting information. It makes a heck of a difference in what the PLAYER can see and that is what we proposed for fog, rain, snow etc. It is very difficult to intuitively gauge what the guys on the ground can see when the player can see almost perfectly in dense fog. 

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

Tank gunners aim center mass because that is the only practical option.

Aiming for specific parts of the tank is some gamey **** straight out of some arcade tank "sim" game like War Thunder, where distances are compressed hilariously and engagement ranges are consequently stupidly short.
 
This is a modern thermal gunsight. That object at 0:12 that gets shot at? That's a T-55, skylined, in the open, on a hill, under 12x magnification.

Good luck finding let alone hitting comparatively tiny "weak spots" when the reticle is the same size as the entire damn target, with your WW2 daylight optics and fire control methods amounting to "estimate the range and then adjust by observing fall of shot".

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

🤔