Dr.Fusselpulli

Hello, I was driving around with a few scouts in a jeep, giving them a very small target arc, so they wouldn't shoot around to not draw unnecessary attention. That didn't seemed to help, the passengers still opened fire with their small arms in a drive by against a single infantry soldier they spotted about 200 meters away from them, without getting under fire by him, as he was still waiting in an ambush position. I tested this further then, armor arc or hiding doesn't really work neither. It seems target arcs are not working if infantry is used as passengers in vehicles. It is not an important issue, as this is a very rare case and it is probably a consistent "bug" also within other Combat Mission titles, but I wanted the developers to know. Maybe they want to change this behavior.

Looks kinda funny, if a tank rolls up a +4 slope with the "ditch" setting. But yeah, now that you mention it, I think I have read about some ditch option a while ago, but never seen or tried it.

Oh my god! That works? Is that a new feature? Does it work in other CM games as well

Yes, that is true, I just have to agree. There wasn't probably that much change in the TO&E, the rarities are probably changing more than the equipment itself. Raritiy points are not relevant for campaigns or scenarios, but only for quickbattles. On the other hand, there is no backstory on quickbattles. So no need for an 1983 extension here. Just checked a few systems: The M1a1 Abrams for example was only introduced in 1985. There was an M1IP in 1984, but even that is out of the scope of my idea. The Bradley M2a1 was introduced in 1986, as well outside of the scope. The BGM-71C TOW is in the game already and the BGM-71D TOW was introduced in 1987. Dragon II is 1988. On the Soviet side, the T80BV was introduced in 1985. The SU25 might have become of higher significance, but that plane is already part of the game. I can not find any new ATGMs in the scope of CM for a 1983 scenario on the soviet side. Even on equipment outside of the game as it is, this seems to be the case. Marder 1A1 is from 1979, Marder 1A2 from 1984 The Leopard 2A1 already existed in march 1982, and might become a part of a possible DLC. But even if not, this would not be of significance. The Leopard 2A2 would not exist, even if the game was extended to 1983. It seems the significant change in TO&E and equipment indeed happened between the years 1979 and 1982. If there is any change in equipment between 1982 and 1983, it seems to be just insignificant. I was not able to find any so far. I also just noticed, that the year is stated nowhere in the Scenario. Not in the conditions or anywhere else. So it would be easy to just create a campaign and explain the briefing that it is in fact the year 1983. You are right, everything is already there, no change needed at all to get the full 1983 experience. You could even set the date to late October and state it is November or December. So yep, I happily take my wish back

I would also love an expansion of the game into the full year of 1983. Not so much because of the equipment, but because of the rising political tensions between east and west in that year. Late October, early November 1983 might be the most believable point for a "what if" scenario. The time before was already a time of rising tension. There was a shift in equipment and doctrine for important Nato countries in the late 70s to early 80s, Leopard2, Abrams, Bradley, Marder with AT-ability. The F14 Tomcat and the F15 Strike Eagle were relatively new planes, getting in service in the mid 70s. Tension was especially rising, with the NATO Double-Track Decision from December 1979. In May 1981 the Soviets started Operation RYAN the biggest intelligence operation of the cold war, to find out, when the nuclear attack of the Nato against the Soviets would happen, to be prepared and to act first! From 1981 to 1983 the US had a series of naval operations to demonstrate their ablity to come close to important Soviet naval bases. In March 1983 President Ronald Regan had his "Evil Empire Speech" attacking the Soviet Union. In May 1983 there was FleetEx '83-1, the biggest navel exersice since WWII executed in the north Pacific within fighting range to the Soviet Union. On 1st of September 1983, the concerned Soviet Air Force interecepted and shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, as they were convinced it was a spy plane. Leading to further tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. later in September 1983 was the annual Reforger Exersise in Germany (Confident Enterprise). While this was an annual event, it still is concerning one for the Soviets, as it could be used as a disguise to mobilise troops secretely for war preperations. During this Exersise in September 1983 was the Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, in which the early-warning system of the Soviet union got a false first strike alarm of US nuclear ballistic missiles. Only because Stanislav Petrov, the officer on duty decided it was probably a false alarm, the Soviet Union did not respond with a scheduled nuclear counter attack. This already could have lead easily to war, most likely to nuclear war. In October 1983 Operation Urgent Fury happend, the US invasion of Grenada. In preperation of this Operation, Nato communication multiplied, while for Operation Able Archer in early November 1983, Nato switched to new encription methods, never seen before by the Soviet Union to simulate nuclear war on HQ-level. This lead to mobilisation and immediate war preperations in the Soviet Union. During Able Archer 83 it was the first time, that a move through the DEFCON stages was simulated. This now could have lead to the believe in the Soviet Union that a Nato attack is imminent. In Soviet doctrine, the war was not to be fought as a defensive war on Soviet territory, but active, to turn the fight into the land of the enemy as soon and fast as possible. For this reason, I think a late October, early November 1983 campaign would be the most believable. As all the political background already happened, and just the final order to attack in defense by the Soviet Union was not given.

Nice! Thank you. You have any idea when the 11th ACR got Bradleys and Abrams? What is "Fire and Fury"?

Uhhh... fancy!

No, Trenches deform the ground as well. Place 3 trench elements on the 20s fields, surrounded by these hights for example: 23 - 22 - 20 22 - 20 - 21 20 - 21 - 21 You will notice, that the trench will be sunken into the ground very naturally, but that the ground will pile up in the trench a bit, until the Setup phase is over. Soldiers sitting in the trench during the setup phase will now float in the air, above the trench, as they were formally standing on said ground. When they move, they will move into the depression of the trench.

The official way sounds to be straight forward already, I will do it that way, thank you.

Hello, I would like to make gift to a friend of mine and get him Combat Mission Cold War. I know there is an option on Steam to gift a game to another profile. Is is also possible to buy a game for him here on Battlefront? This would have the advantage that he could get and play it right now and it would be a better support of Battlefront as a developer, as the full amount of money goes their way. But I am not sure how I can get him the game from a technical perspective. I already bought it, and wouldn´t I just have two copies of the game within my account?

@Double Deuce, ah okay. Understand that now. So the player would still play that other assets issued by the battalion, but it is only added to the core force to keep track of the losses. About the thread: is it possible to get a AT-4B Spigot Team as a single unit in the "specialist teams" category? For now only the AT-7 Saxorn is available there, while AT-4B Spigot is only available as a Battalion asset in some formations.

How would you archive that? What would that supporting assets do and how?

Isn´t the TOW wire guided? How can a wire guided missle mismatch with the wrong tracking unit?

What I would wish for would be the option to have an AI plan for friendly units on the map. Make some of the friendly units not playable, to stay true to the scope of this kind of warfare, and adding another leven of immersion to the battlefield, because you are now not the god controlling everything, but just one gear in the machine of war. Of course, this would come with other problems, to keep these forces performing in reasonable behaviour for the mission designer, which would be the job of the scenario creator, but overall, I think it would be a great addition. It would give you as a player a smaller force to take care for, so you can focus on your units. I am still creating an experimental scenario, in which you will play as a Soviet BMP company, within a bigger soviet attack, just to check for the possibility of this kind of gameplay.

As far as I can see, there are only shelters, but no bunkers with stationary weaponary inside available in cold war. But what I noticed with a trench was, that infantery sitting in the trench at the setup phase would sit on the ground, sticking through the trench, and staying there (in the air) when the game starts and the ground is getting shaped for the trench. So they are not properly in cover as they are supposed to be.

That is the case for all Combat Mission games. Fortifications have an effect on the terrain and are lowering it to the lowest point of their placement after the setup phase. The same is true for buildings, but changes for buildings are done instandly. So, even if you place a trench of a bunker in the editor, you need to test it with "Scenario Author Test" beyond the Setup phase to make sure the trench or Bunker is placed in the way you want it to be placed.

Love XMal Deutschland, they have quite a rough and haunting sound. "Orient" is one of my favorite tracks. Anja Huwe now is a painter in Hamburg.

Unfortunately not. I just saw it two times on a Livestream by @Aquila-SmartWargames

There seems to be a bug with the Vulcan. If the vehicle gets destroyed and the crew want to bail out, one crewman gets stuck in a loop and stuck in the vehicle. Getting stuck is not good, especially if your Russian step bro is approaching...

That works indeed if you are facing ATGM vehicles. If you have a vehicle which needs to shoot ATGMs by itself, this manouver doesn´t work at the moment because of an engine limitation:

Oh yes! You are right, that is true and probably the most elegant solution.

Hobbits maybe?

@The_Capt yes, I understand. I would also understand if Battlefront never changes this behaviour and just leaves it as it is, although it is annoying and a limitation to the player, it is surely not game breaking. But for example an motor rifle Battalion attacking a NATO defense line in doctrine with BMP and T-80 or T64B would never use their ATGM in the attack, if the player plots out the fire halts with pauses. But their ability to shoot ATGMs is crucial for their ability to overcome an armored NATO defense line. The only way for the player to overcome this AI behaviour is to plot out he waypoints in a way, that the Formation would come to a halt and fire their ATGMs before the end of the turn, then give new waypoints in the next turn, or to play in real time instead, which would be highly stressful, because you have to micromanage at least an entire Battalion, AND you can't plot preplaned fire halts with pauses as well. So I assume Battlefront would be interested to change it at some point and the only question is, how easy this change can be made and if it is worth the efford. Thank you very much for helping out.

@domfluff, that sounds reasonable. If you have 10 tanks against one. It doesn´t really matter, that the one spots first, because it will reveal itself when it fires the first shot. Even if it does kill one of your tanks with the first shoot (and more kills with the first shot are not possible), now the other 9 tanks now where it is and will start open fire against it. And there is even a high chance that the tank will not hit or that the first shot will be deflected by the armor. In addition, moving targets are by nature easier to spot than standing ones. So even if soviet tanks would have the same ability to spot enemy armor than NATO ones, they would still come second. So buttoned up it is.

I just tested my hypothesis. If Infantery would behave the same way as ATGMs, when it comes to leaving vehicles, then Infantery would leave the vehicle immediately at the last waypoint, regardless of a pause order or not, while they would stay inside the vehicle, if there are still open waypoints for the vehicle. And this is indeed the case. @The_Capt If the Battlefront team is interested to look up for the reason, here seems to be the solution. Again my suggestion is, to check for the variable "Driver=Driving" instead for ATGMs, to make shoot and scoot manouvers possible. Although I don´t know how easy it would be to change this script.