Killkess

Commtest, commtest.... Battlefront, some official statement?

I came to the same conclusion during my mp-games. The US infantry (squad er squad) is in an inherent advantage no madder what range. Imho its due to the bad representation of the abilities of light and heavy maschine guns. They shot not accurate enough, they dont shoot in fast short burst and they shoot with to long intervals. While the german light mgs gave the allied some hard time to overcome, you can almost ignore them in cmbn. This ruins the german idea of a mg-centric squad and looks like a bad historical representation. But you can overcome these shortcomings a bit if you split into teams and so build a force of a) troops with many automatic weapons b)mg units. Place the autos in good positions for ambushes and use massed mg´s for overwatch work etc. I tend to play wit splitted teams most of the times as germans while i almost never do so as US.

While i´m with all what have been said i want to highlight once more that in reality any defender who successfully inflicted around 30% of cassualties rendered the enemy force combat ineffective. Give it a try and play a battle with forces in low moral state. After taking to many cassualties in a short time the attacker will no longer be able continue his attack because most of his units are broken etc. This way ambushes and repositioning realy works, even if you dont kill them all, the rests will to fight is broken. If you play with "kamikazeeeee" units, the numerical advantage of the attacker and the possibility to concentrate the attacking forces in a "Schwerpunkt" will almost certainly overwhelm the defense.

As far as i remember, back in CMSF Steve said it was a deliberate design decission to let it out. I guess they planned to give the AI a much better routine for weapon selection than what was finaly achieved. One of the problems i remember is that neither in cm1 nor in cm2 the AI is able to use the armored arc at all. But the lack is still one of the most annoying problems for me.

My experience is that people tend to "buy" units with much to high moral and experience levels state during QBs. That regulary ends with an unrealistic fight to the last men. Imho a defensive which is capable of inflicting more than ~30% cassualties should break further offensive actions. If you know your opponent, try to make some houserules about force selection. The outcome will change quit a bit.

Thats not a real choice. Think about it this way: Will your already excisting costomer buy an extention which includes the same flaws? I for myself will not buy new stuff before the basics are fixed.

Shameless bump

Is this beeing looked at by BFC? From cover/concealment tests i noted this beeing a reason why troops in foxholes are getting spotted easier than in the open. Troops hiding in foxholes tend to begin crawling out giving their position away by this unneccessary movement. Troops hiding without foxholes stay put.

Another question into the same direction: Why the men who even were in a foxhole/trench sometimesbegin to crawl outward?

WYSIWYG? Kidding? Those trenches and earthpickles werent even above earth constructions and like we know the cover is pretty much abstracted in CMBN. There is still much abstraction going on in CMBN so the 1:1 WYSIWYG argument has no point. IIRC there were trenches which were specially constructed to incorperate at-guns IRL.

My bad, what i meant was "really". And besides your english lesson: If it was so common, would you pls share your sources with us? Both timescales would be out of the scope for the cm-battles. Maybe it would really be a good idea to retricts the linear command to the prepared fire-missions.

Do you have any evidence for this beeing realy used?

I tried to raise this issues about linear and point target command in WWII evironment already for at least 2 times without any satisfying awnser. Good luck So far noone could provide any documents/evidence that linear fir missions were used at all, besides lining up the whole battery. Not even the 1944 us army field artillery manual mentions it.

My all time favourite of SPR: Sticking a Tommy gun through the drivers visions block of a TIGER and shot the driver All in all a quit typical HOLLYWOOD action movie.

What realy makes me wonder about the effectivness of the mortars is the comparision between mortars and heavy mgs. While a single mortar team is able to whipe out a whole platoon running in the open at 200-300 meters a heavy maschine gun team is barrely able to stop 2 squads charging at the same distance. What also kinda looks strange is the accuracy with which the mortar teams can apply lead to moving targets or almost instantly change targets almost on the other side of the map.

Which kinda sound like a Holliwood movie

Cast armor or not?

What strikes me again in this situation is the fast spotting/aquisition time of the buttoned Panther. He first was distracted by a tank engagement to the left and almost instantly spots a small puff of smoke, identifies the target, rotates the turret and engages the targt even before the bazooka round strikes? Sure.... or did he fired thw bow mg? Which doesnt seem much more reasonable for me.

Not to use the covered arc leads you to the nice situation in which the AT-assets open fire on every grunt it can see.

A shamless bump....

While i agree with your general thoughts i must admit that CMSF currently offers such a big variety of outcomes for a given situation that it sometimes/often feels like randomness. Back to the smoke-shells: Was it common practice to use Wp rounds against german heavy tanks? I remember reading about the use of WP rounds for this porpouse.

Besides some anecdotes from people someone has heard off... any facts? Ive tried to look up informations in old field manuals, combat reports. I find no evidence. For me this looks way like asimple hangover from CMSF times.

I wonder when they will at least take away the unrealistic linear target command and the ability to call for unbelieble small point and area fire. I once already asked: Can anybody provide information about the historical use of such techniques?

Which sounds pretty pretty wrong. Neither were Foxholes constructed above ground nor they used sandbags for the construction. I see no reason for people in foxholes getting easilier spotter.

What i meant was that the ability to call for artillery via aerial FOs is another topic than using TRPs. The aerial FO would allow you to make normal artillery calls on the whole map (including spotting procedure), the other would give you the ability to fire "blind" on almost every location without delay.