Bulletpoint

Hey, I did take note of that On topic, I think that Battlefront are at times victims of their own success - the old Combat Mission engine was full of abstractions, but it also clearly looked that way. The "new" engine works more 1:1, but there are still some abstractions. It's just that it looks like a high fidelity simulation, so when something doesn't work out quite as it would in real life (or as we assume it would work out), then that sticks out and becomes much more noticeable. Another example is infantry movement. Usually, it works like it should, but then sometimes, when some lone trooper suddenly doubles back, runs 3 metres, then turns again and continues in the right direction, that seems bizarre. I posted a couple of times on artillery acting strangely, and there are many other things like that which Battlefront hopefully will continue to improve in future games. See also: uncanny valley.

In my experience, this doesn't work - since the halftrack is much taller than infantry, it sticks out of cover and will be targeted by all the guns that don't see my infantry screen, but can draw LOS to the top of the vehicle... However it does look good when I manage to get lucky and drive a halftrack up to a sniper position, guns blazing, then have the troopers jump out and clear it

But at what distance? The numbers above seem to indicate that they were vulnerable at closer than 100 metres distance. Also, if the halftracks had been abandoned, it would have been a small matter to drive up to them and "drill" through the armour by firing at the same spot. And who knows, maybe the tigers had AP-ammo for their MG34s? Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone here, just raising the question. If halftracks were just "anti shrapnel trucks", I wonder why they bothered putting machineguns on them.

Commissar tank? To fire at the enemy and meanwhile shoot deserters, cowards and other enemies of the people.

If I start over the same mission, I know that it's possible I will "draw" another AI plan, meaning that the AI will do something different than last time. However, is it also possible that the AI troops also be located in different positions? This would mean a lot for replayability, as you wouldn't just be able to rush through areas you scouted out as safe the first time. I did some reloading of the same map, ceasefired and then looked at the enemy setup, but it seemed every time the same.

So it would make more sense to duck a bit more down, also for shrapnel. If the passengers were sitting like that in real life, I'm happy with it. I just suppose I would duck down a bit if it were me. Then again, I'm not very brave

I expect or at least hope the same, and if you know of any sources with different numbers for the penetration, I would be interested in knowing about it.. my sources were just what Google came up with after 2 minutes of searching.

Someone from Battlefront will have to give the definitive answer, but my guess would be that high-quality sound files are expensive, at least when you need to purchase a license to use them for a commercial game. Mods don't have this issue, as they are not commercial products. But, I agree with you. Would be great to have the real sounds of the weapons in the game. I'm not sure my old computer can handle sound mods though.

Forgot the decimal points They should be in now.

Bonus question: How come the heads of the soldiers in the halftracks are poking up over the sides - doesn't this make them very vulnerable to shrapnel/stray bullets, negating the point of riding a halftrack in the first place? Or is it on purpose to improve spotting?

Ok, before I start this post I should make clear that it's not to complain in any way about the game, and that I have already been searching for posts about this and reading a fair bit. With that out of the way: How vulnerable were halftracks really against small arms fire, as compared to how they are in the game? According to this site, halftrack side armour was 6.4 mm thick. According to this site, MG42 regular bullets could penetrate 5.0 mm of steel at 100 metre range - and that assumes a perfect 90 degree angle of attack, that was rarely ever achieved in battlefield conditions. So, if we believe this info, shouldn't halftracks be protected against machinegun fire, unless it comes from closer than 100 metres? In the game, the halftracks seem to be made of tinfoil, hardly providing better protection than a regular truck (I've seen trucks drive all over the place while getting hammered by machineguns, of course they don't survive forever, but they keep trucking for a long time) . So, what's your take on it? If you think the halftracks are modeled well in the game, then please explain your point of view. It's always nice to learn something new.

So, if I select a squad that is currently in a "mixed state" (beginning to sound like quantum physics now!), and then plot waypoints, then I'll get the grey target line from alle those waypoints, because the game assumes that the squad will continue in its mixed state at those waypoints?

This is useful info, but if some of the squaddies are prone, others kneeling and a few running about, then which "stance" is the squad considered to be in?

I suddenly realise that it might just be my mouse and mousedriver doing this. I thought it would be the same for everybody. In webpages, my scrollview also scrolls in "jumps", maybe this carries over into the game. As for the 2D/3D issue, I don't have an ax to grind with anyone. I know that in some ways, we already have lots more info about the terrain than a real commander would have had. Then again, in real life, the platoon commanders and the squad leaders would make many of the decisions that we as company commanders impose on them. This might include how to best use micro scale terrain to conceal an advance. Just looking for some gameplay tips about how to best get an overview of the terrain, get situational awareness and plan ahead. I'm doing it my way at the moment, which generally works - I pride myself on a mission won with low casualties - but it's always nice to get some inspiration from others.

I'm not asking for certainties or guarantees, and I do like a challenge. But my problem is with a 3-d world represented in 2-d. Lack of depth perception makes getting an overview (arguably) more difficult than it would be in real life, and lack of a topographical map means that each bump in the landscape needs to be closely studied by panning and scanning the camera, then making what seems a guess as to visibility/vulnerability to and from each point of interest. I'm using a mouse with scroll wheel, and it takes me up and down in jumps as I roll the wheel. I can hit what seems to be turret height from a Sherman, but I'm not quite sure this is the actual measuring point for the LOS. As for infantry, the camera either seems to hover above their heads or at stomach height, never getting all the way down to the grass. That being said, my post was just to know your techniques to get an overview of the battlefield. Womble's "drunken walk" for example hadn't ocurred to me, I kept issuing a new move order, cancelling it, issuing a new one, and so forth. Maybe tonight I will have a whisky and try this method.

I usually prefer playing small maps, but recently I have begun moving up to "medium" sized maps such as 'Carbide Carbide'. It's the kind of map I like: a really beautiful, well-made and realistic looking place - and also damn difficult to get an overview of. I usually zoom down to the lowest levels and fly across the map a couple of times, looking at it from different angles, trying to get an idea of the lay of the land, potential cover, firing arcs and so on. But I find it is very difficult to get a good impression this way. Part of the reason is that I don't know how high the camera is at the lowest levels. Head height? Then how to do a check for prone troops? And how about tanks? If I select the next-lowest level, is that at tank turret height? Also, trees seem to not block line of fire or line of sight very much at all, so often I'll take fire from positions I thought well out of sight. All this adds up to a lot of headache for me, and really keeps me from playing the bigger scenarios, as the amount of potential lines of fire grow exponentially on larger maps. I feel I'm "flying blind" sometimes, despite rigorous checking and re-checking I just have to pray that there won't be some odd line of fire to my Sherman from the location I'm sending it to. How do you go about getting a good overview?

I think you toggled the shaders off. Try pressing Alt+R, it should give you a little message in the top of the screen saying "Shaders on"

Could they have it through radio contact with their HQ tank? Sorry for asking these newbie questions, but even after a year of playing this game, I still do feel like a bit of a newbie when it comes to the inner workings of the thing... I think I know how it works, but I'm never sure.

Might be because of modern war movies going for a desaturated look. To make things look more grim.

Thanks. On one hand, I'm happy to have this info, on the other hand I'm a bit disappointed, since I was sure that you needed to unbutton (and risk your crew) to share spotting info. So it would be a risk/reward scenario. Now I'll just keep the tin cans closed.

For a game that does so much for realism, I feel it should stick to "what you see is what you get". If you see a shell blowing a big hole somewhere, you should be able to safely assume that no enemy is waiting at that particular place any longer (that is, in the actual shellhole). If arty is too strong in the game, then there are other ways to balance it. Give less of it, make it less precise, make it slower to arrive. But when it finally does arrive on target, it should be deadly when it actually hits..

Can this happen if the friendly tank is buttoned?

Bonus question: How long does it take for spotting info to travel up from infantry and down to tank crews, if all are in C2?

Yeah, if the spotting round is not on target, or if the spotter can't see the spotting round, then he should not call fire for effect. I don't think that's how it was done in the war either. Unless in desperate situations, and that's when you would use 'emergency' in the game. Pretty sure it's a bug.

Sometimes they do have LOS but are too far away to spot what the other guys can see by being closer.. Then when they share info, they spot the enemy and open up. Maybe especially with armour, I'm not so good at pulling it off but in theory your infantry company's spotting info should end up with the tanks eventually if they are in C2. However, about your question, no. You won't get more info about the AT gun because you have a company HQ. you will stil only get the best info that your most informed squad has seen so far.