Sgt.Squarehead

Which, truth to be told, is probably about right.....Jabos effect on AFVs was much more psychological than physical as a rule. Despite the stories we hear from Falaise & elsewhere the actual hit rate for aircraft against AFVs was pitifully low, but they sure were scary (especially when your own aircraft were so conspicuously absent), which more than made up for the lack of actual lethality against a demoralised & routing force trapped in an ever shrinking pocket. PS - My maternal grandfather drove through the aftermath of Falaise, I got the impression it was quite formative in his overall impression of the Normandy campaign, which he summarised thus.....'Dead horses & traffic jams'.

Excellent.....Another new tool (provisionally) on the list. I too would like to see it stay. Can you give us any updates on the status of IEDs/VBIEDs and other UnCon goodies? Is something resembling a suicide bomber likely to become a viable option?

Ah, gotcha, apologies for the misunderstanding.....TBH I was tempted to add Stalingrad, Warsaw & Berlin to the list. Fighting in cities has always been catastrophic and very little has changed despite the advent of precision weaponry, we've seen exactly how much use that actually is in a densely packed urban environment all too frequently in recent years.

Likewise and it definitely seems to make a difference in CM:A.....Not so sure about CM:BS as I don't play it much and CM:SF as I tend to use UnCons for Opfor.

What about Fallujah? What about Ramadi? What about Mosul? What about Raqqah?

It's intentionally a rather vicious fight.....It's more intense than I'd ideally like, but with the way the game behaves it would be too easy to sit back and pick ISIS apart were less pressure applied and we know that is not what happened in Mosul. The Iraqis were forced to use their air & artillery support quite heavily, especially in West Mosul (just take a look at the state of the place these days) in order to keep their own casualties down: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/15/world/middleeast/mosul-before-after.html This is what I meant by the Iraqi commander's dilemma, you do have all the tools to complete the mission, but using them will not be at all kind to the local civilians. @sburke summed it up beautifully in testing: It's by no means a no win situation (all outcomes are possible and the game engine is actually quite forgiving of the player on this front, you really do have to go the full Stalingrad to be seriously penalised), but it is something of a balancing act.....I'd guess you've been just a bit too kind. Sad to hear that you are not enjoying it though.

Err, the bigger issue would be that there are no US units in CM:A.

Fair comment fella, TBH I rather like mucking about in the editor, so I'll take a look.....Mostly up to my elbows in Shermans at the moment so it might take me a while though. Trying to find accurate armour numbers for modern AFVs is like hunting for Unicorns.....WWII was just so much simpler.

Not really one for CM:A.....CM:SF I or II would probably be the best way forward for this. Only two main types in Afghanistan, T-54/55 & T-62 (during the 14 year period covered by CM:A).....Know them by their road-wheel spacing and gun design: T-54: Gap after first road-wheel, no fume extractor. T-55: Gap after first road-wheel, fume extractor at end of barrel. T-62: Gaps between 3rd 4th & 5th road-wheel, fume extractor 2/3 way down barrel FWIW

My understanding of Soviet theory is that by the time you are dismounting the enemy should mostly already be dead!

I'm not suggesting that should be the only possible outcome or even the most probable, but it surely should be a possible outcome.....To date I've never seen it happen (with 122mm, don't think I've tried 152mm). I'll accept that some of my comments earlier may have rather over-egged the cake, but there's a big difference between what we perceive on an 'End-Screen' to what we perceive during the game.....Can't tell you how surprised I was to see a Bradley that I'd clubbed with PGMs suddenly move off and start shooting when I activated a trigger (I believe), nevertheless it happened. Keep in mind that this is an IFV we are talking about, not an MBT.

Steve, maybe take a look at the results that @Rinaldi posted on the previous page.....They do raise some questions, particularly the shot that hit the TOW launcher twice, it appears to me that the launcher is still functional (one of the two slots is still green): This in itself seems a little unlikely. The fact that none of these 'three round bursts' of fairly heavy artillery achieved a kill on an IFV suggests, to me at least, that something is wrong.

That's a very clever idea, but sadly I don't think it would hold much appeal for the 'control freak' element of the CM community.....There used to be an option to 'Bake' scenarios in CM:SF (possibly CM:A too), which would cover the initial barrages, but a bit of concentrated mortar or tank fire mid-game can still create 'terrain modifications' that the designer can't cater for in later scenarios. This is probably the best solution.....Create a series of scenarios for two players and a referee, the latter being responsible for updating the maps and controlling reinforcements from higher echelons etc., but it's going to be quite a workload for the referee.

Did anyone come up with a solution for the issue with vehicle hull facings with a Retreat order yet? In my own experiments the turrets would face in the correct Direction, but the hulls would point toward the unit's intended location.

You don't actually have any kind of point (let alone insight or knowledge) at all do you? You are just attempting to fan flames in an attempt to get someone (me) banned.....That's pretty classic troll behaviour. Done with this discussion.

So we're going for personal insults now are we? Your efforts are looking weaker by the second, you'll have to try harder than that if you want the Troll-Crown.

Fascinated by the idea, but I don't really get how you plan to implement it without persistent map damage?

It took some pretty drastic improvisation on the first occasion and that's a fact! See now there you go characterising my pointing out a perceived (& bloody obvious to anyone who looks) problem with the game as whining.....Trolltastic. Keep working on it, I'm sure you'll get there in the end. Ah yes, the invisible muzzle flashes issue.....How could I forget that classic.

Strange that.....See I've won it every time, just not using anything resembling realistic tactics or Russian SOP. Did you rage quit.....I'm strongly suspecting that you did. So basically you are admitting that this is an obvious and notable problem with the game and also that you are one of a number of active US trolls on the forum.....Bravo at least it's out in the open for all to see now!

That is indeed a very clever idea fella.

Clearly. Have you played 'Galloping Horse Downfall' as the Russians (Iron)?

I've experimented with spot objectives a few times and I've never noticed a 'crunch & text'.....If it could be triggered it would be a very useful feature as you could use the objective name to confer other info. TBH my experiments have been pretty open & shut about the objectives in question, 'It's a big green tank with missiles and a twirly radar thing on top' etc.

Oook?