Odin

I've read quite a few of them and I tend to find a common theme running through them. When something goes wrong its another unit's fault, when something goes right they're claiming the plaudits.

There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are regimental war diaries

People are gullible, although most on the BF forums seem to have enough analytical intelligence to realise that Hollywood is more than happy to fabricate history, 80-90% of the movie going public take what they see as gospel, or at least close to it. It also happens in literature, for example it's comical the number of reviews on Amazon for books written by a 'Wolfgang Faust' - which purport to be autobiographical accounts of his service as a panzer crewman - who take him at face value and praise what he wrote. I read Tiger Tracks and found I only had to go a couple of pages into the story to realise it was complete BS, but most who took the time to review it thought it to be genuine - this being despite the fact they probably had a prior interest in WWII military history if they went to the trouble of purchasing and reading one of his books. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tiger-Tracks-Classic-Panzer-Memoir/dp/1539588114/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Steve, any word as to when 4.1 is due? Apologies if it's posted somewhere else and I've missed it

After my old laptop ground to a halt I have bought a new one. I am now midst reinstalling software. I have just purchased the 4.0 upgrade, but want to know if I'll have to download and install all of the CM upgrades and modules before I install 4.0? Thanks

My OS will stay on the old hard drive.

So just to confirm, I should also drag the 'my documents' folder to the SSD hard drive as well?

Thanks for the advice guys. By the sound of things it's worth me going for a larger SSD so I can put all my CM installs and mods on there. A quick question - it sounds like I will have to reinstall all my CM games on the SSD, rather than just drag them over to the new location and change the shortcut exe path?

The storage on my pc is nearing its max capacity so I'm thinking of purchasing an external SSD hard drive (USB 3.0). If I transfer my CM installs and game files to the SSD will this result in faster load times than keeping them on my old non-SSD hard drive? I mainly play PBEM and find I usually spend 2 minutes upwards loading some of my larger PBEM turns, so I'm hoping an SSD could cut this down. What say you good folks with experience in this matter?

I reckon I'm roughly with you there Phil, possibly 70% watching replays and 10% inputting orders for me (although higher in the setup phase, first few turns, and turns where reinforcements arrive), but even so the actual input of orders is by far the smallest element of my playing time. I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see a 'move via cover' option for example, in order to take away the need to plot movement paths at all times (although I would still probably want to plot my own paths a lot of the time), but if there are significant constraints due to man hour shortages which BF can put into improving the game mechanics for 4.0 and 5.0, for me there are more important elements to improve. Although I admit I have absolutely no know knowledge of programming, my gut feeling is some of the simpler 'FOW' ideas, like having options to extend turn times or adding a time delay to area fire (with an extra delay for units without C2C), wouldn't take an inordinate amount of time to programme, so I hope BF can crowbar some sort of extra FOW options into the game in either 4.0 or 5.0 .

While I'd agree it's not the prettiest of UIs and somethings take a while to learn, I personally think the UI works well once you've got your head round the basics. For example, rather than trying to move units individually I'll often move whole platoons or companies in one go by selecting the platoon/company HQ, and then adjust the movement paths of individual squads if needs be. While for target commands I pretty much always use the target briefly command to limit the amount of micromanagement required for targeting. Making good use of those two features alone saves me a lot of time. A lot of the FOW suggestions put forward here would not add to the time it takes to micromanage the game (eg a time delay to area fire commands) and, ultimately, I don't play CM because it is a quick game, I play it because it is an accurate game. But I suppose it goes to show that different players have different priorities.

That's sad to hear as ultimately CM stands apart from its competition on its ability to simulate RL tactical combat. What we are talking about would also largely be optional features, so those that didn't want to go down the extra FOW restrictions would not need to.

There could be an OOB 'data' button which if pressed at any point in the game brings up a list of your own side's units, the units' strength, and numbers of casualties suffered by each unit. At the final AAR screen this could be expanded to list the number of casualties which the unit inflicted (which is already available to see) as well as access to your opponent's OOB data screen. If these could be downloaded as spreadsheets all the better.

Implementing those suggestions would certainly make the AI more of a challenge. Re things that BF could do to increase the effects of FOW through an extra difficulty level, a really simple idea would be to add a time delay to area fire commands, of for example 20- 30 seconds. This could be increased to 45 - 60 seconds if the unit being ordered to area fire isn't in communication with its HQ. With BF's time and resources being limited, including an extra difficulty level like this could be a quick and easy hit for those of us wanting extra FOW limitations.

I couldn't agree more. Also interesting house rule, I keep telling myself at sometime in the near future I will try to force myself to play under self-imposed harsher FOW rules, but because I only play PBEM I keep chickening out.

Something like that would be great. I think this would be an excellent way of balancing out the recon by fire dilemma, BIG +1 from me

What do you mean by SOP (standard operating procedure of some sort I suppose)? Personally, I don't think having an option to increase turn length would require a complete overhaul, particularly if the extra couple of movement commands were incorporated to take account of a few extra eventualities. Ultimately, even if these extra commands weren't included, as things stand the AI will take over in a number of situations - eg stop a unit's movement, cause it to retreat, return fire, or just cower. Plus given that communication technology back in WWII was pretty limited compared to the modern battlefield, I don't think it unrealistic for a squad to halt for a minute and a half or so until they are given a new order. From a programming point of view I would guess that the increasing turn length option would be the easier to implement. I agree recon by fire is an important element, this is why I suggest that if a squad has communication links with its HQ (or maybe it could be extended to any HQ unit) it be allowed to fire on any square. Not perfect I know, as you may want to send a couple of scout teams forward, but I think it could offer a better balance than the current situation. I agree with you that many CM players wouldn't like this so I would only include it in the game as an extra difficulty level option

Unlikely I know, given that BF already seems to have ideas penciled in for 4.0, but I would love to see an extra difficulty level added to CM which focuses on increasing FOW. Currently, due to player input, I believe units in WWII CM titles enjoy 21st-century levels of 'battlefield awareness'. To make things a little more realistic for reflecting WWII FOW I have two suggestions. The first is to have an option to increase turn lengths from 1 minute to 1 minute 30 seconds, or even 2 minutes. The premise for this suggestion being that it would require players to plan a little more and lower their ability to just react to events, and it would also have the added bonus of speeding up PBEMs. To aid this it might be useful to add a couple more movement commands eg 'move quickly to contact' (ie a quick hunt command), and a seek and destroy command which would order units to move until they made visual contact with the enemy, at which point they would fire on the enemy and only start to move again once the enemy is either destroyed or visual contact lost - this last movement command would be particularly useful for armour. I also feel, where the WWII titles are concerned, too often area fire from squads can be directed at targets too quickly. In reality, back in WWII, due to poorer communication technology, units which did not have contact with the enemy would have experienced much lower levels of battlefield awareness than the input from the all-seeing CM player currently reflects. So my idea for increasing area fire realism goes as follows: Unless a squad or 'non-HQ' vehicle has a command link with a platoon HQ or higher, said squad or vehicle cannot area fire on squares where it cannot see a sound or visual contact icon (or maybe squads without C2C could area fire on a location within three squares of a sound or visual contact). If a squad does have C2C with its HQ (which in turn should have radio, visual, or voice contact with other HQs), squads can area fire on any location. The reason I suggest this is because back in WWII squads would not have opened fire on a building or area unless they either believed an enemy unit to be located there, or had an order from higher up to do so. Yet in CM a squad or non-HQ vehicle can be ordered to fire on an area which the player knows to contain an enemy unit, despite the squad itself having no idea that the enemy is located in the vicinity. I realise these suggestions would not completely remove the advantage which players can obtain by being able to oversee everything on the battlefield, but they would IMO add more realism by getting players to plan more and not just react to events, as well as get players to think more about C2C .

+1 from me

Could one of you kind fellas tell me if someone has managed produce software which extracts scenario orders of battle and casualty information? For example, software which can extract from a CM turn file the number of units (including any which may have been annihilated or exited from the battlefield), each unit's name, and any casualties suffered and then place this data in a spreadsheet? I have a hazy (and probably mistaken) memory of someone producing such software for CMx2 1.0, but that it didn't get updated for 2.0 onwards and so stopped working. The reason I ask is because it would be really useful for running multi-player campaigns. I know the new upgrades for 4.0 have been outlined, but such a piece of software could be really helpful - not to mention interesting to see at the end of the battle (as would casualties caused by off-map artillery!). Cheers

There is no need for your posts to be laced with patronising sarcastic comments when all people are trying to do is discuss points of the game which they feel could be improved upon. Re rifle fire inaccuracy, I had a lot to say on the subject and said at its current level of CM effectiveness it is too inefficient/inaccurate with regards to its historical value at medium and long ranges. Both the issue raised by @sonar, and the one about rifle fire inefficiency can be present in the game. Men sitting on top of one another leads to greater casualties from HE and MG fire. If squads were more loosely spread and rifle accuracy was improved, you'd just see visible pixeltruppen being picked off a bit more frequently by rifles, while you would probably see casualties from HE fire drop slightly.

I don't doubt that in RL the vast majority of the .303 bullets fired would have been fired blindly in 'area fire' type situations. Most of the bullets I fire in CM are indeed in similar area fire situations, and I agree that the ratio of casualties to per bullet fired should be extremely high in such circumstances. However, both Migo's and my tests were not attempting to test such 'area fire' circumstances. What we were testing was the accuracy/efficiency of rifle fire against exposed 'enemy' targets, visible to the shooting pixeltruppen. OK that really is me over and out.

This statement is not backed up by any of the evidence presented. CMFDR's WO evidence clearly shows that single shots from an 'unrested' iron sight bolt action are more accurate than burst fire from an LMG which had the advantage of being fired from a rested position. Your logic about a burst of three bullets from an LMG being more likely to hit a target than three individual rounds from a rifle does not make sense either. The guy firing the rifle has the chance to readjust his aim with his second and third shot if he misses with the first; while someone firing a burst of 3-4 shots from an LMG misses, they have to fire another burst to readjust their aim and could end firing 9-12 bullets for a rifleman's three. That is not correct both Migo's test and my test took account of WIA, as well as KIA. It is also reasonable to presume that the game translates x percentage of hits into casualties. If the results were close I'd agree it would be hard to pinpoint whether rifle or LMG fire is more accurate in CM. However, given CM's huge discrepancy in accuracy between iron sight bolt actions and LMGs at ranges over 240m it is logical to assume that the game's algorithms have LMGs marked down as far more accurate weapons, per bullet fired, than iron sight bolt action rifles at medium and long ranges. This IMO does not reflect the statistical and historical evidence presented by myself or CMFDR's WO report. To summarise my view: to me LMGs' advantage over rifles at medium to long range should be their rate of fire, not accuracy. Their rate of fire alone make them more effective weapons in RL. However, the game seems to also incorrectly give LMGs accuracy advantages over iron sight bolt action rifles. I believe bolt action iron sight rifles are next to useless in CM at medium and long ranges given the huge amount of rounds it takes for an iron sight bolt action to inflict a casualty on an exposed target (so area fire doesn't come into it). Medium range squad rifle fire against exposed targets in CM should probably be similar to tank fire. It takes a few shots for the squad to find their range and adjust their sights accordingly and then fire, which is far more accurate than the CM test results represents, starts to go in against the target. Given the evidence I'm resting my argument on, I feel that iron sight bolt actions should have a per bullet accuracy rate somewhere between a scoped rifle and an LMG in Migo's test. As it is though, rifle fire is literally way off the mark. Scroll to around 2.45 in this video to get a vet's opinion of the enfield in the hands of a trained infantryman: I've said all I've got to say on the matter for now, so until some new evidence is posted I'm going to give this thread a rest.

I don't know on what basis you can make that assertion of accuracy, and it doesn't seem to based on any evidence other than your opinion. One thing that the WO results do show is that when a Bren fires a burst at 25 yards, from a rested position, it had a wider cluster (4 inches) than the rifle's cluster (3.1 inches) which was fired from an unrested position. When the Bren fires a single shot from a rested position, its cluster is almost identical to the rifle's - which was at the disadvantage of being from an unrested position. In CM LMG's fire in short bursts rather than single shots, so why is it that Migo's CM test show LMGs to be twice as likely at scoring a hit, per shot, than a rifle should at 300m range? Why do the bolt action rifle effectiveness results dramatically tail off in CM at ranges over 220m, no other weapons hit rate drops off like that? This seems to confirm that the SMG accuracy results in the WO tests quoted by CMFDR are flawed. Yes I agree the WO test results for burst fire do not indicate per shot accuracy and I said as much. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, the WO test was actually carried out on a 30 yard range with the 200 yard results just abstracted from firing the guns at 30 yards. That is a fundamentally flawed way of test the effectiveness of any weapon, as it doesn't take into account the variables that occur when the weapon is actually fired at 200 yards. Everything I've read about the sten suggests it was relatively poor when firing at such ranges: It seems to be supported by this vet who says it was good at close quarters but was ineffective at 100 and 200 yards: Shift8's experience firing an AK, which also has none adjustable front sights, seems to support this view. The WO test results seem to be seriously flawed when it tries to abstract 200 yard range effectiveness from a 30 yard firing range test.

@CMFDRgood to see some WWII War Office stats. They roughly seem to match the comparative weapon effectiveness illustrated by Migo's test results at 200 yard ranges. A few points though. Firstly, the bolt action results in Migo's test dramatically drop off after 220 yards. Unfortunately, the WO stats quoted do not contain data to compare like for like at longer (200 yard+) ranges so it's difficult to quantify Migo's longer range results next to the WO's; and it is at longer ranges where my issue is, as I don't know why in CM the per shot accuracy fired from a bolt action rifle should be dramatically less accurate than the average per shot accuracy of an LMG at the 300 yard mark. This is not to say that the LMG is a less effective weapon at the 300 yard range I've focused on, as I agree LMG rates of fire make it a more deadly weapon. My point is that iron sight bolt action rifles in CM seem to be next to worthless at the 300 yard mark, which I don't think matches RL accuracy levels; and while the other weapons show a relatively steady curve of decliningg accuracy, the iron sight bolt actions drop off a cliff edge after 240 yards. A couple more points. Firstly, you highlight the sentence in the WO report which concludes that the Sten is more efficient at 200 yards than the rifle. Again, due to its rate of fire I don't completely discount this. However, there are two major caveats to consider. Firstly, the Sten's advantage seems to come from its 4 round burst, rather than the accuracy of each shot fired. Single shot accuracy in the WO's test shows that the rifle is almost twice as accurate as the Sten in the when both weapons fire single shots from 'unrested' positions. The WO's stats do not contain 'rested' firing position results for the rifle, if they did we can only presume its accuracy level would increase. Another major factor is that the report mentions that the '200 yard' test was infact carried out on a 30 yard range, which means that they just shrunk the size of the target to represent a man standing 200 yards away. This is a poor way of testing the sten's accuracy as it has a much lower velocity than rifle which would be more adversely affected by range. Due to the test being carried out on a 30 yard range, the report would have failed to take account of this critical element and, therefore, its estimates of accuracy at 200 yard are spurious to say the least. @shift8 The abstraction you mention should apply to all small arms fire, so I'm don't think it should sway results in favour of one type of gun over another.