Pak40

All these are good ideas but certainly will not happen for CMx2. However, this is a good starter discussion for CMx3 development, the future of the Combat Mission franchise.

Assuming that: surrender = losing remaining pixeltrupen on the map & total defeat cease fire = keep remaining pixeltrupen on map & accept current victory conditions Why then would anyone ever want to surrender in a campaign? You would get the worst possible outcome AND lose all of your pixeltrupen that could have been used in future battles. And when the AI decides to "surrender" then it's programmed to use surrender and not cease fire? Kind of seems like the AI gets the short end of the stick in this case.

When this happens I've never viewed it as a surrender of forces but rather a surrender of terrain. In other words, the last remaining forces decided that holding on to the terrain is not worth the cost and decide to pull out, i.e. surrender the terrain. The forces may be available in the subsequent battles if it's part of a campaign. However, I'm not sure what's really happening behind the scene. Is truly counted as a surrender of forces or a truce? And what if a human player decides to quit a battle as part of a campaign? He currently has two options - cease fire (which the AI must accept), and surrender. Is there a technical difference? Do I get to keep my remaining troops with the cease fire option? It's probably all in the manual but I don't have it in front of me at the moment.

I'm not sure if you guys have seen this yet. Just a teaser trailer but it left me a little choked up at the end.

All these old quotes are quite generalized. You could ask one soldier who maybe only encountered German Ost units and he might tell you that they weren't that good. Ask another that had to deal with determined Wehrmacht or SS troops and you 'll get a totally different answer. However, it's hard to deny that despite the fact that the Germans in 44-45 were outgunned, outnumbered, didn't have air superiority, naval superiority, or adequate men and material to replace what was lost, they were still quite an effective fighting force.

As if Monty were on the front line directing fire . And I'm almost certain that it was not common knowledge that Monty had been given control until SHAEF announced it some time later. But seriously, the only reason he took control was because Bradley, located south of the Bulge, could not even communicate with his armies on the north side. So it makes sense that Von Manteuffel would come to that opinion. In my opinion the northern shoulder was plugged up quite brilliantly between Dec 16-20th before Monty was given command. It may have been rag tag ad hoc units that barely made it to the choke points in time, but it's quite evident that these units did the job to contain the SS and the rest of the 6th Panzer Army.

Never ever use a covered arc in limited fashion like that. Set it very wide or at 360 degrees. If you want your unit to focus on a direction, just use the face command. Arcs are best used to limit your units from firing at long range targets, thereby giving away their positions at a low chance target. In limited visibility, there's really no need to even use a covered arc because the unit can't fire at targets past it's visibility anyway.

I like the CMx2 engine also but it's run it's course. CMx3 engine better not be a mobile game. That's a horrible thought. Not sure if browser based is a viable option for an advanced wargame.

Have you ever read any detailed accounts of the Dom Butgenbach battles? There's ample evidence there. I've read in more than once source that these 57 crews did have some of the coveted British rounds that were so effective. This battle area was basically a wide open ground with gentle slopes, however it seems the Americans used reverse slope tactics in most cases which would certainly mean closer ranges and probably not the typical 800m engagement range.

Since you're original post was about CMx3, the quotes from Steve in the past about financial viability may not apply to the new engine. Also keep in mind that if and when they do develop CMx3, things like "~2 minutes looking at loading the screen" probably won't be an issue since it will be in a different 3D engine. So, if they don't provide a valid TCP/IP method of play then we can still resort to PBEM with much faster load times. I sincerely hope that CMFB is the last of the CMx2 engine. I know they have some x2 modules to release but as far as "new games" I hope CMFB is last one.

Well the max number of men in an action spot (8x8m) is typically 5 because most squads break down into teams. The Italians might be an exception, IDK I don't have CMFI. In any case, I think BF had to strike a balance between having a detailed map and dispersing 5 man teams. They could have chosen to make CMx2 action spots at 10m or larger but then you loose map detail. They also could have chosen to make squads split into yet smaller teams but this makes the game to much of a pain to manage and would not be historically accurate. In the end I think they struck the balance between action spot size and squad dispersal based on the historical team sized that they operated in. Having a single team occupy more than one action spot would have been a terrible choice because then we'd all be complaining that our digital soldiers aren't in the exact action spot that we specified.

Have you ever played War Thunder ground forces? Way better than WoT IMO. But then again, I haven't played WoT since it first came out. It seemed like I was controlling go-carts with guns, not tanks.

I've been playing War Thunder's ground forces and they do indeed simulate the ready rack. If you fire off a few quick rounds and then sit idle without firing for a few seconds you'll see a small circle with a +1 appear. It took me a while to realize that this was the loader replenishing the ready rack. War Thunder is a great game to see the advantages and drawbacks of many types of tanks. It's not quite a simulation but I think it's a lot closer than WoT.

Shift8, this is not what ASL said. He said you have to prove something is wrong, he said nothing about game code. In other words, you need to find a source of data that says the the "real world" data shows X but what happening in the game is Y. We know that Sherman's M3 gun has a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute (source: American Arsenal). However, this is in ideal test conditions and probably wasn't done in the cramped confines inside a tank, without ready rack limitations or targeting specific objects. Other "real world" data you might want to include is any proof about time to acquire target and aiming time for point blank targets. Include sources.

I didn't see any posted data on tank firing rates on the previous page. Which exact post are you talking about?

I think you just buy the 3.0 upgrade now. It says you only need the base game for it. see similar post: version 3

CMFB has just one engine version and the recent patch. If your question is for CMBN then I think downloading the "all-in-one" package as StieliAlpha says will get you 3.0

I do recall seeing this in documentary, probably on the History Channel. IIRC, the real life camera man was being interviewed or narrating the footage. I wish I knew the title of the documentary.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the "in game" footage. I'm talking about the the old WWII video footage that shows a sherman squeezing off 3 rounds in about 3 seconds. Shift8 thinks the video is not edited and the the tank actually shoots 3 rounds in 3 seconds. Impossible for a Sherman. The video has obviously been spliced to appear that 3 shots have been fired that quickly. The smoke is the dead giveaway.

yea, awesome footage. It's been posted countless times.

Hmm. I wonder if C2 played a role in this behavior? The initial tank radio'd the other tanks and reported the contact, therefore all the tanks stopped because of the Hunt command.

That video is definitely edited. The smoke basically disappears when the next shot goes off.

OK, maybe a bit of bad memory, not 50 ft but it did bust the guy's knee cap. The quote can be read here. Pages 322 and 323. The 50ft remark may be from another incident involving a British 17lb gun at Arnhem near the drop zones. I'll try to find a source when I have some time. The recoil springs do take up energy but they are also part of the gun. The gun still takes the full portion of the energy no matter if there are recoil springs are not. The springs just help spread the delivery of the energy over time (a fraction of a second) instead of all at once, probably so the gun doesn't crack under pressure.

Yes but not practical and certainly not worth BF's time to program all the intricacies of manhandling AT guns and firing them. For example, in the photo you supplied, there is a crew of 4 and at least two of them are holding down the gun. What happens when the crew is reduced to 3 or even 2? BF would have to program logic and code into all these "what if" scenarios. I remember reading about a 101st Airborne soldier in the defense of Veghel. His crew was reduced (I think) and they had just wheeled their 57mm into position on the highway when a German tank appeared at point blank range through the smoke. The gun wasn't braced at all but he had to fire, it was do or die. The gun flew back 50 feet or so and broke the guy's arm or leg. So while these circumstances certainly existed I'm not so sure it's worth BF's time to program all these things that are possible but very rare.

Yes, i do believe some of BFCs reasoning for the long packing, setup and moving times account for this. Instead of animating the soldiers packing/unpacking and carrying the rounds of ammo, it all abstracted. And that's what Lt Bull doesn't seem to realize. However, it does seem somewhat extreme.