PhilM

Not specific to CMBN: IIRC = If I Recall Correctly ... Hope this helps.

Does it make a difference that (in the case I am thinking of) they are Brit 51mm mortars - and therefore not "heavy" weapons? The circumstance is that, in a user (not me)-created scenario, it starts with the recon teams outside their (purposely) immobilised carriers. The teams' main armament is PIATs, for the scenario purposes, but the teams can be put back into the carriers and "acquire" the 51mm mortars and the ammo, both of which are still in the carrier. Perhaps this "contrived" set up position is outside normal operating procedure?

I'm pretty certain I've had a Brit team acquire a mortar and its ammo from a Carrier??

I'm looking at mine on the Kindle app on an iPad, if that helps?

I think he meant it's worthless, and therefore priced correctly at free ...

Thanks for this extra tip: was getting nowhere in my UK location Amazon until I tried this, and it worked. And of course thanks to Fenris for the original heads up.

But if it had two rails, only one would be gauche, the other would be ... droit ...?

Exactly why I raised in my two posts to Steve if there was a possibility of a mismatch between what we see as in game graphics of the HT gunner and the size and location of the target area that the gunner represents within the game mechanics ...

But, such absence is sometimes an improvement over spellcheckers that correct as you go: ask me how I know that the spellchecker thinks that a hurriedly typed apology for the inconvenience should really have been an apology for the incontinence ...

Thought I should re-read it: A bit of setup: MS Word to do the write up. I suck as spelling so If ever there was a place for a typo ...

Thanks for sharing these - very interesting. If Ian's comprehensive AAR guide doesn't put you off (), I'd really like to see an AAR too ...

If you are using a card to pay in the UK, the card will pay BF the store $US price and charge you (after a fee!) about £1 = $1.50. So, divide the BF web store $ price by 3 and multiply by 2 = approximate price in £s. There's no additional tax to pay with no physical import of goods going through HMRC.

Plus 1 to all the other thanks and praise: cannot now do without this!

Steve, Thanks for your comprehensive answers. Just for clarification - and given what you said about test results, I accept that and so don't necessarily expect any further answer here - the point I managed not to spell out in my first post was to wonder how the exposed target of the gunner is calculated for game engine purposes, and IF there might be any possibility that, for the unique (? - similar to, but not the same in detail as an unbuttoned TC) case of a HT gunner, there could be a mismatch between the representation we see as in-game graphics of the exposed firing gunner and the "exposed target area" for the gunner that is being used in the target selection/aiming/shot result calculations in the game, such that it could exaggerate the other primary effects which reduce their survivability that have been discussed here?

Steve, Just to clarify, if I understand you correctly there was a "not" missing from your point, which I have added in my quote above? I take your, and everyone else's similar, points about the best remedy being to adopt prudent tactics that don't treat the halftracks as mobile pill boxes. But ... there is still a but, as set out Kenzie, that considers not how fast gunners get hit per se, but how fast they get hit compared with other (part or whole body) human targets? And they do somehow seem easier to hit than ostensibly more - or at least, as - visible other targets? Not because it will "answer" the question, but only out of curiosity, is it possible for you to explain how the shot result calculations are affected for the target of a firing halftrack gunner? I realise that any explanation will be limited by a)game secrets and what I can understand. (You'll likely find the second factor a much bigger limitation than the first ... ) I am thinking of issues surrounding their presence in a vehicle, but not being treated for this purpose as protected crew and so not subject to vehicle penetration calculations and algorithms. They are a (part) human target, with variably small parts of that target covered by armour, but potentially moving around the battlefield at up to 35 (?) km/hr (though often not). What factors determine a) the priority of their selection as a target by the enemy tac AI, and how many aimed shots will hit them?

Only because it confused me at first, and for anyone else as dim as me, "replay" should be (?) "reply" ...

So does that mean, for BN, that the patch is actually (say) v2.11 - ie it is an enhancement to, and needs applying on top of, MG 2.1? So you will also need the patch even if you have MG, not just if you don't and are patching CMBN (and CW if applicable)?

I think what he means - it has happened to me - is that the map will only accept the opposing forces one way round. Instead of being able either to attack or defend as Axis or Allies, the two forces will only go on the map one way around, despite what you choose in the menu. So, you try to attack as Axis, say, but the Axis forces go in the defender setup zone.

Like paper tigers (!), paper tanks are likely to be holed quite easily ... Sorry, couldn't resist! On a more serious note, I share the same view expressed in other posts that moving tanks seem to spot too well. Yes, those tanks will be on the lookout for enemy tanks; but there should be a big difference in what is spottable from a noisy, bumpy, pitching and rolling moving tank compared with one that is stationary. On Womble's point about hits on the visible turret being more severe in effect; yes, but given the relatively small size of the turret target versus the whole tank, these should be a higher proportion of kill shots out a very (?) much smaller number of hits overall given the much smaller hull down target. (Otherwise why favour the hull down position?) I'm assuming and hoping that Cmx2 correctly captures the smaller target being aimed at; but you would expect many more initial misses, e.g. trying to get the range and not undershoot into the blocking terrain or overshoot over the top. I'm not sure that this seems to happen enough (very unscientific I know ...), especially given the fire is from recently - or even still - moving tanks?

Hope that (my bold bit) is a typo and not an omen ...

I share your sentiments of confusion! But if I understand the logic correctly (which ain't necessarily so ...), until a later, stand alone, game engine refresh to 2.1 (upgrade or patch?) comes out for those who have not bought MG, it is the MG module itself which updates v 2.00 thru 2.01 and to 2.1. So it (my bold bit of your post) should read "MG 2.1 (incl. 2.01) + 2.00 combo" as a literal description of what is included?

I have installed 2.9 on a Mac: it remembers your old games. With H2HH closed down, I sent the old version file from the applications folder to the trashcan and then placed the newly downloaded version into the apps folder in its place. Start it up, and all the previous games are there in the correct state. Worked for me!

As a Mac user, I'm very interested in features like those suggested being cross-platform, or not ... FWIW, I would prefer not to have H2HH start automatically when I start my Mac, so to have it do so would need to be an option that I could decline. (Just me I guess, but I prefer to have as few things as possible start automatically; it's not hard to click an icon to fire it up.) Also, when it is running I like the icon in the menu bar to say it is doing so. The present arrangement of no icon = not running, unlit bored face = no turn waiting, lit smilie face = turn waiting, works fine for me.

Exactly the reason why, for me, if anything like this were ever implemented, it would need to be a toggleable option that I can switch off. (And, on the basis that its development would cause other improvements to be later and / or not appear, my vote would be for it to wait in a longish queue!) I care about the nuances of tank combat! I want it to matter to the game outcome if my Sherman hunting that Mk IV is an M4A3; an M4A3(W); or an M4A3(W) 76mm. (I'll take the 76mm ...) But what I don't want is a tooltip that says I have 73.2% probability of penetrating the Mk IV for a given shot at xxx metres distance; but if I set a waypoint move 20 metres closer and change the angle by 35 degrees to the right and target (which part of the opponent tank?) from there then the probability goes up to 81.6% - or whatever. Leaving aside all the questions set out in previous posts about how the result could be calculated accurately because of all the variables involved, even if it could be done I don't want to see it. Cmx2 does a great job of helping me suspend my disbelief that I'm playing a computer game; this would smack me hard in the face with the game. I too find it interesting to study and compare unit data: but is this something to do during the game? Am I being boring to suggest reading the manual between (before!) games? Study of the manual already gives "an impression" of the likely outcomes, and suggests that, for example, it is better if you have the choice to match up a Firefly rather than a standard 75mm Sherman against a Mk V . Beyond that, and trying to adopt good tactics and positioning, I don't think I want to know.

I know the feeling ...