Pewpewchewchew

It'd be nice to see the ability to make preselected forces for quick battles. Going one step further, it'd be really cool to let the AI use these force selections from the player's pool. Going even further, being able to set different filters such as battle size, map type, rarity, attack versus defending role, would be extremely neat especially if the AI recognizes and uses those settings accordingly.

Is that Battledrill blog still being updated? Looks as if nothing has been changed for quite some time.

One big "lump" I think some people run into is accepting that losses will occur. Don't qive up the when your initial force runs into the enemy and takes a few hits or even routs. Sometimes that drive for a perfect match bogs you down in the idea that an expert player won't lose anything during the match.

I think they'd have to drastically revamp the infantry combat for it to work. IMO close combat isn't something the CM engine handles very well. For the jungle terrain, they'd have to really tie down the abstractions to what the players see or else it'd be really frustrating advancing forwards. Aside from that, the infantry would also need to have a very good tactical AI that uses rugged terrain and suspected enemy locations to a much greater degree.

Very nicely put together, can we get an overhead shot of the map?

Noticed This in CMBN, same problem of sorts.

I find using short 10-20m quick commands with long 20-30 second pauses seem to work nicely. I find that in these areas the main thing is spotting the enemy,with a long pause I find my troops spotting enemies farther than grenade range with really saves on casualties.

Doug, I'm using words that communicate my thoughts in a concise way. I feel like those words give the impression I want to communicate and I don't feel as though they are either complex or vague in their meaning. I agree with you that Battlefront is under no obligation. I've said multiple times in my post that I'd like to hear them. Furthermore I've already acknowledged their right and said that I'd like to see a response even if it is just to decline speaking and explaining. Rather than examining my diction, or restating something I already recognize please contribute something like Vanir or Ian that adds to the discussion.

I'd really like to hear Battlefront's 2014 take at this, either their reasoning or at least a statement declining or listing why they can't say for transparency and acknowledgement. I think that would close up the steam discussion here in a prompt way that's also intuitive. Currently, I think that the discussion on Steam's cons and its community is a tad petty and pretentious. At the end of the day, that discussion takes a very exclusive stance on the topic of video games, something that really shouldn't be fought over or even taken that seriously. In light of that discussion, I think that it'd be better to have a presence and invite anyone who wants to participate rather than shun "kids". Arguably, war games give younger audiences more of an educational, or rather functional means of entertainment over traditional games. I mean war games do incorporate a good deal of history, and critical thinking. More interestingly, I'd like to see Battlefront take advantage of other online sites like namely GoG and Kickstarter programs. If they have the corporate rights and all that, I'd like to see the other CMx1 games on GoG and some of the older games like Shock Force on there as well. Speaking of Kick-starter, I think it'd be a nice way for Battlefront to measure what the community wants and also a means to fund, create and maybe contract some projects that may not be feasible otherwise. Namely, the DCS community managed to fund two modules, a WWII one and a Mig 21 module.

I personally like the SU-76 a lot. It's not the best "tank" in any means for for the amount that you can bring its definitely something.

I saw CMBO on GoG.com under the related games there. It looked pretty fun albeit dated for 2009/2010.

Firstly try reconnaissance by fire. There's really no need for stealth at the point of a village assault. That was one really big problem I had some time ago. Secondly, Check if you have any demo charges. I think in that campaign you get a platoon of pioneers as a core unit. If there are troops holed up in buildings with at least a side without windows I'd just blast in there, pinning and kill the most of not all at once. Thirdly, in general it'd be better to just force the enemy out of the buildings and kill them outside. Try to "isolate" buildings with your troop's line of slight. For example, if you find a building complex full of enemies try to surround every angle of the building so that once the troops bug out, they get cut down in the streets.

How exactly do I read the pencalc chart? http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#

I just did a quick test on this. The AI seems to be doing to same thing to a lesser extent. The AI did garrison about a platoon in some buildings however the vast majority was not. I don't recall this happening in CMFI in the eariler patches however.

I've been trying to pick out a few QB battles to play and I've noticed that the AI appears to love forested tiles to the extent of avoiding objectives and buildings. After a few trials on village and town maps I thought that this might just be an issue with these maps with clustered buildings, however this applies to cities too. In the attached screenshot, you'll find that the battalion of Russian defending infantry has exactly zero formations inside buildings, they seem to prefer the little shrubs and even to open terrain. That screen shot was made on the Attack setting, with Germany Attacking with a single spotter unit and a battalion of Russian infantry. The map is picked out by me, it is the second small city map on the list. The time and weather is set to random and rarity on none. Both sides had preview option on infantry only.