MG TOW

Does anyone use a dual monitor system with cm2? I was looking at getting a second monitor, I play some 3d shooter and flight sim games on occasion so I have an idea how those could be utilized in those game set ups. But how does a 2 monitor set up in Windows 10 look for cm. Does the map split and continue to the next screen. And the user interface, with unit display on the bottom, is that split? Or is it on one screen only. If cm2 doesn't work so well then I will probably not bother then with a dual setup.

I did a quick search on his reference at the end of the video. So I take it his pictures referenced the 63rd soviet naval infantry brigade one and the same? https://laststandonzombieisland.com/tag/63rd-soviet-naval-infantry-brigade/

Black Sea has a very different feel to it than the WW2 titles (I suppose it goes without saying). So if you like CM but want something quite different at the same time its worth looking into. If you are stuck in WW2 and want more, then CM:FB or CM:FI with Gustav module (a must) will give everything you like, but with more variety. But hey ask tomorrow and I'll probably change that answer.

One thing I tried was to send in a pioneer squad, ordered a breach onto the next floor hoping the blast would effect the holdout. Unfortunately blast is not an offensive command and it didn't do what I had hoped. This is what I save flame throwers for, if you happen to have them.

Those 7 story church steeples can be the worst. You pretty much have to let the tac ai get fire superiority. Yes friends on the outside firing at the floor help too. An ai lone BAR gunner once took out 11 of my squadies trying to go upstairs until he ran out of ammo.

I should add, I don't have a problem with this, sometimes I figure the crews' limited POV from the viewing ports, and perhaps their experience or morale, plus the distraction of nearby activity, troops, ordnance going off may have them distracted. It happens for a reason. Then I, the all seeing eye of the battlefield swoops down, wacks the helmet of the TC and gives him a direct fire order on the Nashorn sitting in the distance to his 3 o'clock.

... don't forget the sontarins, Sontar Huh? But no, well for me I'd be all for the Reagan years cold war battle, simply because it would feature great weapon systems that were never trialed in real life on a large scale The Leopard 1's, oh and the mystical T-80 protos. Its way before counter measures and since I was big fan of SSI's Mech brigade which followed Kampfgruppe, so yeah bring it I say.

When it comes to the quick draw you are probably better off giving a direct target assignment to a tank. The can suffer a little ADD and start waving their barrel around. I give it a direct target to fire at, and the tank's barrel quickly locks in and launches. I'm sure if i sat back it would have been nailed.

So I'm surfing for a movie and catch sight of this "Seige of Jadotville" Flick because there is a soldier pictured holding an FN Fal. And I'm a sucker for a movie with a guy holding an FN on the covershot. So without IMDBing it or anything I dive in. So its about an actual incident in the congo, 1961, A company of Irish UN peacekeepers go into Alamo/Rorke's Drift mode against 3000 French Foreign Legion backed local militia supported by a mercenary jets and 81mm mortars. Not to mention your typical Dshk support platforms and the like. Its before my time, but I'm wondering why did I never hear of this? This is like...I dunno, Czechoslovakians killing Bulgarians or something, during the cold war, its just an odd political situation for these adversaries. Now the movie itself does suffer the odd anachronism. And it does scale the perspective down to a platoon. Even though its about a company, I swear i didn't see more than a platoon doing the defensive fighting in the movie. I did cursory research online and the most of what occurred in the movie did actually happen historically, although to a supported company of 153 men. The movie's perspective is out of sync with history in that respect. But, I'll accept the occasional embellishment and recommend this movie as "worth the watch" simply because it is a well done action movie over a lesser known conflict in history.

We are venturing into the eye of the beholder territory and I'm not talking dungeons and dragons. I appreciate seeing bolts on my tanks, road wheels, and not having color filtered into the high ranges or detail smudged over with a smear brush. My eye picks up on every 4th pixel troop with the same rip on his left knee. And seeing rusty tanks that look more post apocalypse than day of defeat. Sure the Germans were great tank washers, fixers, and painters even when they were down to their last six, and those tanks stayed that way for 30 seconds, but mud and snow is present too. Personally I do'n use alot of art mods anymore. But I think what mods are there look very good, so its great to have variety.

Aragorn, I'm curious about one thing as someone who has not read the references you presented. Is there any mention of Senator McCarthy, and if so, is this embedded communist threat during and post WW2 what got McCarthy started, or was he acting on totally unrelated sources

I haven't tested this. But I thought I noticed German infantry going free fire with their panzerfausts when either the tank threat was eliminated, or there were no tanks on the map to begin with. Forget it, probably coincidence.

I hate to ask, but what scenario is this? Or is this a quick battle. Are there any enemy armored vehicles you might have to face, or maybe you don't know that yet. I have a theory which could be confirmed or squashed based on your reply.

Also how does this carry on in campaigns if a tank is a core unit? In keeping with the Op question as well what is knocked out in that regard. Tank is damaged crew is OK, crew is killed tank is minor damaged. Do we see the unit carry on in a camp?

The Brits are already in Final Blitzkrieg since it was Montgomery who essentially took command of the 12th Army group, which would be the those allied forces you are using in that module . Even Hasso von Manteuffel said they fought more coherently under Monty's leadership... OK I'm running and ducking now.

I prefer meeting engagements as I don't have to be concerned about AI defensive positioning. As such, the AI in CMFB is pretty good compared to some earlier titles. Just choose a longer duration for the battle as the AI is cautious and takes its time on the advance.

Love the video thread concept. More please. Enjoyed watching that Reiter, looked like a VC ambush there for a while

Reminds me of The Thin Red Line

This all looks really good in any season but my ultimate favourite is the look in patchy snow conditions. Very pleasing, a notch above what it was.

I agree with landser.

This is pretty much my only tablet game and I originally got it for when I fly. But to my surprise I have to be connected to the internet to play. I suppose there is no way around that.

Usually I want more tanks, in this one I desperately needed more troops, especially engineers. I was treating that little breach team with special care. Just how many hits can a panther take? No its all good. If you can get an Arty spotter to soften up a concentration it helps. And come in from the side, won't say which, keeps the pressure on the enemy and opens a back door.

I found this on IMDB. Very interesting...Columbia Pictures was all set to make a historically accurate major production of the Bulge, but Warner Bros beat them to registration with their abomination so Columbia scrapped the project. Would have been interesting if Columbia would have went ahead with this. An article dated December 2, 1965, and circulated by The Washington Post, said thatDwight D. Eisenhower was "outraged" by this Warner Brothers movie. It said that Columbia Pictures had long had an epic movie in the works about the battle that had the cooperation of the Defense Department, as well as many of the generals who had been involved, including Eisenhower and Bernard L. Montgomery. The working title of Columbia's movie was "16th of December:The Battle of the Bulge." Michael Andersonwas slated to direct from a screenplay written by Byron Morgan and Tony Lazzarino, and the project was to be co-produced by Lazzorino and Kenneth T. Hoeck. The former president's son John S.D. Eisenhower was writing a companion history of the battle and serving as technical advisor. Anderson was quoted as hoping to have Van Heflin as Eisenhower, David Niven as Montgomery, John Wayne as Gen. George S. Patton andLaurence Olivier as Adolf Hitler. Shortly after Columbia announced that filming would begin during the winter of 1964, Warner Brothers registered the title "The Battle of the Bulge" and announced that it was going to make its own fictional movie, upsetting the plans for Columbia's epic. Columbia obtained an injunction against Warners, dropping it after Warners agreed that its picture would not use the names of any of the real-life figures that had contributed to Columbia's project, such as Eisenhower, Montgomery,Omar Bradley, Anthony McAuliffe, Patton and 10 other figures. The Defense Department had also urged a Federal Trade Commission action against the movie on the grounds that its title was misleading the public. When the article appeared it stated that Columbia's project would go forward, with filming to begin at Camp Drum near Watertown, NY, in the fall of 1966, but the project fell through and the film was never made.

It pays to lurk.

Ack right in the first thread, missed that, thanks. Downloading now! (the PDF manual that is)