Kaunitz

Regarding recon by fire, I can only underline what MOS:96B2P has said: By firing, you give away your own position to the enemy. So keep your fingers crossed that you're area-targeting a spot close to the actual enemy position. If you guess wrong, you're firing at a bush whereas your enemy is aiming precisely at your soldiers' muzzle flashes. Also, recon by fire is very dangerous if the number of possible enemy positions is greater than the number of positions your troops are able to suppress. So I think it's a good idea to "prepare" a recon-by-fire. In most cases, you'll need to concentrate forces in order to be safe. Other than that, I think that a prepared recon-by-fire is the way to go when crossing terrain which can be controlled at close range by positions on your enemy's side (for longer ranges of 400m+, the effect of first fire is usually not that decisive so you might risk crossing without recon-by-fire). I think it's very sound to fire at areas of likely enemy presence (because of confirmed contacts/suspected contacts/prior enemy movement towards that area). My experience with the game has made me play in a way where I get confirmed contacts only very rarely (except for vehicles/tanks-engagements). I'm positive that a high reliance upon area-firing not only leads to less bloody encounters, but also these engagements have a more realistic feel to me. If you keep in mind estimations of how many % of bullets actually hit something and if you take the notion that only a small percentage of soldiers was psychologically fit to aim at other human beings with at least a little grain of salt, I think it's safe to assume that area-fire is pretty realistic. Tactically, area-fire is very interesting as well - to a point at which I don't consider it to be gamey at all, but rather part of the game (especially if you're playing against human opponents). You start to think in terms of volume and saturation of fire: how many bullets are needed to suppress an area of this size (at distance X)? Directing area-fire is a very delicate affair and proper management of fire-volume is the key for success. I think that some instances of area-firing can be rather unrealistic. Specifically spotting enemy units with one unit and area-targeting that very precise same spot with a different unit (e.g. a mortar) that is unable to see that enemy unit. Doing so practically takes out and bypasses the entire information-flow-system of the game. Sometimes, when playing singleplayer, I force myself not to do that. However, even though the result is refreshingly interesting and realistic (all of a sudden you start to understand why there are so many HQ-units!), you will run into time-problems very fast as many scenarios become impossible if you role-play communication. Of course it all depends on how many radios your force has at it's disposal. If you play the Italians, for example, and to a lesser degree the Soviets, you'll spend a lots of time waiting while messengers are running back and forth between HQ-units. Also, this aspect of the game is not fully optimized yet. The system itself is in place and is working like a charm (information-sharing via communication-links), however in order for it to work more fluently, I'd welcome a messenger-unit (single men - I don't want to let whole squads run around as messengers; this could be another administrative-squad-split-command) and also I'd like to be able to distribute my radio-operators over my troops as I wish so that I end up with a communication structure that fits my plan. PS: I'm currently doing a quick-battle AAR (half way through) where you can see how much I rely on area fire. You might find it interesting to watch. Coming up soon on youtube (me = youtube-user "Kaunitz")

More sound-files: the MP 40 and Soviet SMGs (PPSh and PPS-43 use the same sound-file): MP 40 video Russian SMGs video I'm not entirely happy with the Soviet SMGs. It's tough to make them sound good because of the sheer quantity that are being fired off by those SMG squads. Kaunitz_RussianSMGs.rar Kaunitz_MP40.rar

I'm looking forward to peeking around corners! I'm currently working over some weapon-sounds that I'm not happy with. The vanilla sounds are unfortunately rather bad. Mods help a lot, but some sounds are still a bit weird. I'm going to collect my additions here and at some point I might request to register as a modder at the cmmods site and "release" them as a package. Here is my first attempt: the MG 42 sound. I got the base sound from a reenactor's video on youtube and edited it with audacity. I tried to come up with an okay mixture of "pop" and "noise". Judging from videos, the MG 42 seems to be rather "noisy" though. Sorry for the clipping, but if you want make firing sounds drown out other sounds (engines, voices, etc.) and if you want to make them audible over the whole battlefield, you need to amplify them over the top - otherwise the engine fades them out by far too quickly. Kaunitz_MG42.rar

I've been playing a bit lately (engine version 4 just came out? Yippie!) and I came upon two things that I wished were part of the game: 1. "Dug-in" tanks. I'm not really a modern warfare expert, so I don't know the proper name of it. I'd love to see if we could buy and place some parapets made of earth for our tanks - artificially made hull-down positions protecting three of the four sides of the tank. Often, as the defender, I get the feeling that I would not let that tank stand in such a position concealed but not covered at all. I feel that this is really missing from the list of fortifications at our disposal. 2. This is something that came to my mind while playing Black Sea: I think it would be interesting to have some kind of "bail out/re-man" option for infantry-manned support weapons (recoilles AT guns, deployable ATGMS, AT guns, etc.). Often, I get into a situation in which the crew dies horribly because, instead of seeking cover and hiding asap after having fired their weapon, they start to pack up their weapon (otherwise they can't move!), while one of their tank-targets has all the time of the world taking its aim and knocking them out. Also, would an unmanned support weapon be more difficult to spot?

Hey Gamma, are you still interested? I'm not a very experienced player but I'd love to test my luck/skill against a human opponent. I prefer tiny/small - medium scale battles (not exclusively armor) in all kind of terrain - preferably not exclusively urban though. I'm open for all kinds of scenarios, but I prefer clear roles (attacks/assaults) over meeting engagements. As for the factions: I don't care. Over the next few weeks, I can play 1-2 hours per day in the evenings (more on weekends) and I'm based in Europe (Austria).

Hallihallo! Noch Interesse vorhanden? Ich wäre für eine rundenbasierte Partie zu haben. Ob email/file oder per direkter Verbindung ist mir egal, habe aber gelesen, dass man sich bei der direkten Verbindung den Zug nicht in der Wiederholung ansehen kann, sondern nur einmal live? Würde kleine bis mittlere, eher Infantrie-lastige Spiele bevorzugen (so in die Richtung 1 platoon bis 1 company, mit APCs oder Panzer-Unterstützung). Reine urbane Settings wären zwar nicht meine erste Wahl, aber wenn sie gewünscht werden okay. Ich habe Black Sea (oder Red Thunder oder Italy/Gustav Line oder Final Blitzkrieg) im Angebot, bin aber - was Multiplayer-CM betrifft - totaler Neuling. Ich sollte die nächste Zeit regelmäßig jeden bis jeden zweiten Abend (so ab 21.00) zumindest 1-2 Stunden Zeit haben. Bitte bei Interesse antworten/melden! lG aus Wien

This would be nice. I don't know which one would be (theoretically) easier to implement: a "stance-switch button" or "stance-selection according to desired LOS". I think recon by fire would not suffer a lot if the effectiveness of fire at "non-contacts" was reduced or had a chance to target an adjacent square (with the exception perhaps of obvious landmarks, such as buildings). There would still be some suppression, just not as much. The question is: What is and what should be the purpose of "recon by fire"? Since target area-commands can be used for both, "realistic" recon by fire/precautionary fire (I use it myself a lot!) and "unrealistic" targeting of enemies that your own units should not even be aware of, I think a middle ground would be a good compromise: confirmed contact: very effective fire / suspected contact (or a square close to it): effective fire / non-contact: comparatively ineffective fire Maybe it would be good to automatically make "area-target" target an actual area (5 squares?) instead of a point (single square), unless it is a landmark/building. This would still make area-fire effective, but it would take more time and give the "defender" better chances to get away. Shooting or spotting? Sounds interesting!

4. What about peeking (or even shooting - with one man) around a corner in urban settings? I assume it would be incredibly hard to get that into the engine and might be consiedered a bit too "micro" for the engine's scope. But I think it would be nice if a unit positioned at a corner would get some LOS around the corner - it could very well be low quality LOS, only giving you suspected contacts, not confirmed ones. The current method - moving the whole unit "around" the corner blindly and potentially exposing them to devastating fire - has little appeal. 5. I applaud CM to the relative spotting- and also the information-sharing system. As we all know, however, it can't be brought to full effect because the player can still let units area-target spots without good reason (the firing unit has no suspected contact-marker there). The player = god problem prevails. So I still wonder if the whole information-thing could be enforced to actually produce effects and have a high influence on how the game is played. There is such an awesome communication-system under the hood, yet players don't really have to pay attention to it if they don't want to. I guess it has been discussed ad infinitum, but why not allow area-targeting only on/close to spots with suspected contact markers? For precautionary fire on suspected positions, players could make use of target reference points. The maps are not that huge so that a few TRPs should suffice to cover all the obvious spots on the map? Or else, what I'd like even more: give area-fire directed at a spot at which a unit has no "suspected contact-marker" a chance to be directed at an adjacent spot (instead of the original target) or make the fire much less effective to simulate the same effect.

Hello! I'm a big fan of the series and have released some videos of my latest battles on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheKaunitz/videos). However, in my games, I came upon a few things that I think might be improved. Not CM:FB-specific, more related to the engine/whole series: 1. I'd like to be able to chain multiple "target briefly"-commands (i.e. multiple area targets) together in one turn for a stationary unit. Some weapons should be able to "spray" more than a single actionsquare in one minute/turn. E.g. in 1 minute, a MG should surely be able to control more than a section of 5 meters? Right now, the only way to do so is by moving units back and forth "on the spot" to give them multiple waypoints with a new target for each waypoint. Needless to say that this is fiddly and does not work for certain weapons (infantry-handled MGs that have delploy-times). Alternatively, I've often wondered what would happen if one changed turn-intervalls from 1 minute to 30 seconds. 2. I'd like to have control over infantry's stance (prone, kneeling, standing). LOS of a unit (to determine whether it is allowed to area-target or for indirect-fire-missions) seems to be calculated according to the current stance (of the majority of soldiers of? the unit leader?) a unit which is almost entirely a matter of contingency. It's not impossible but rather unelegant and very fiddly to get the desired results sometimes. E.g. if I want my FO-team to have a LOS over a ridge (so it needs to be standing), I need to give the unit a movement command after a 45 seconds pause so that it will be moving DURING the turn intervall, so that at the start of the next turn it will be moving=standing and have the desired LOS. Other than that, soldiers do whatever they like: some stand, some lie prone (even though this means they have no LOS and don't fire like the rest of their unit). The only way you can influence their stance is the "hide" command (which will make the whole unit go prone reliably). I think that LOS is by far too important to leave it to chance and coincidence. 3. Certainly more ambitious and more "fluffy"/superfluous: Some kind of incentive to evacuate wounded soldiers. Buddy aid is nice, but I'd like to see some incentive to and some way of transporting wounded soldiers (to an exit point?).