Anson Pelmet

I've worked out the problem. I'm running version 3. But I definitely bought the upgrade to 4, and seem to have lost it somehow. So I went to the new Battlefront website expecting to go to 'my account' to check a list of my previous purchases and their activation keys and I can't find any such list. Can this be done anymore on the new website?

Toggled smoke on and off on the hotkeys. Went through my mods removing all graphics packages and smoke mods. Still no gunsmoke! But thanks for your prompt attempts to help.

I have the latest version of Final Blitzkreig (FB), and like all the other updated CM WW2 titles there was smoke when individual soldiers fired their guns. But then in FB the smoke from soldiers' guns stopped, while artillery, AT guns and tank guns continue to produce smoke. Anyone had this happen to them? I didn't change anything with FB's settings (as far as I'm aware) before the change happened.

The ability to orchestrate and view a battle from half a mile above, then replay and join a single sniper team as they break cover, miraculously avoid a hail of tracer, and make it to cover. All thanks to WEGO!

It costs only one or two points to increase snipers' levels to 'elite' and 'fanatic', then I place them in a building at the edge of their range and usually they're able to fire way from that one position for quite a long time until they're spotted, and sometimes they're not spotted at all if the enemy has other things to look out for. They're very effective at pinning down groups of infantry and getting tanks to button up. Quite often I end a game with a sniper team that has 12 kills. (Though that is playing against the AI).

Are they flying a Ju 52 after the crash? How many do they have? Did they discover the cause of the crash? If not it would seem odd to be flying the same type of plan again.

Yep, thirded! You've done all the explaining you need to do, and I suspect your responses have left all members thinking more highly of you and caring more about you than they did before.

Not wanting to take this fabulous video too seriously, but I read somewhere (but don't remember where) it's a myth that someone suddenly decided on the battlefield to use 88mm guns against tanks, because to use them against tanks you need armor-piercing rounds, which had to be supplied in the first place. So, the argument goes, it was always envisioned as part of the 88's role that they would fight tanks. One interesting point to come out of the video, though, is how more realistic and inventive damage effects on vehicles and soldiers would improve the immersiveness of CM.

The heads-up is much appreciated. Been playing Combat Mission since Beyond Overlord was your only game, and nothing sampled since has come close to matching its realism. Especially looking fwd to the WW2 East Front addition. I and others appreciate your honesty, and the integrity of your product!

I agree! That's probably why my Marder IIIs - hidden in trees at the far end of the map, with a limited keyhole of sight - regularly end up with higher kill counts than my expensive big cats!

Hi Dagonwynn, I'm reluctant to criticise your Zitadelle campaign because of the effort and enthusiasm you've put into it, but you did ask for feedback. And besides, my criticisms are only of areas where the campaign didn't match my needs. I found the opening mission a turn-off cos it was in the semi-dark (not aesthetically appealing) and consisted of too long creeping up hills following lines of stakes and taking occasional mine casualties, which was about as exciting to me as doing my tax return. I know, as you said earlier, it's realistic to start the campaign at night, and there were lots of mines to clear, so you can justifiably call me a shallow and undedicated CMer. But I might speak for others when I say I would like to see more campaigns that don 't start in the dark, and consist of small or medium-sized battles, because of time and PC capacity constraints.

A fascinating AAR, and a work of art!

In the UK and Australia better-educated (or snobby) folk pronounce it 'aitch', and the less-educated say 'haitch'. Online research suggests the divide goes back centuries, and the only reason 'aitch' is considered correct is that posh people use it. Regarding the Stavelot AAR: It's interesting from a technical POV, but personally I prefer AARs that consist mostly of close-up action. Combat Mission can be a beautiful-looking game, and it pains me to see AARs in which coloured objective squares and landmark names are left on. Some of the best video AARs are done by Josey Whales. To me, the game's great strength is the ability to follow multi-unit strategy as well as the 'adventures' of individual soldiers and vehicles. And the only way to properly appreciate both aspects is to use WEGO, so you can go back and immerse yourself in interesting incidents on a micro scale!

I rarely find the sort of scenario I most like, which is a large or huge battlefield with a very small number of forces. That way the attacker has various points at which to attack, and the defender has to spread their forces and try to anticipate where the attack will come from. Nothing more exciting for me than having a tiny ambush/lookout force encountering the enemy and assessing their strength, and me as commander having to ration out reinforcements from my small reserve to plug a gap...

This may be a bit unconventional and unrealistic, but when I can't be bothered to do all of the movement necessary to be the attacker (which is most of the time) I select a medium-sized assault and I give the attacker a 70 percent boost to its forces. Then I choose the attacker's forces manually, doing it as fast as possible and without looking at the display of what they have, in the hope I'll forget exactly how many tanks they have, and then I choose my own defending forces. My thinking is that scouts might have observed the ememy's approach and have a decent idea of their configuration. This is not ideal, but better then having the computer select its own forces. Even in its latest iteration, I find time and again the game chooses an attacking force consisting of nothing but tanks, or no tanks, lots of troops, and about 50 useless half tracks, despite my clicking 'mix' for the make-up of the forces. (Btw, couldn't battlefront get somebody to make up, say, 20 different configurations of attacking and defending forces for each side and then have random selection operate between those configurations, so each time you let the computer choose either your or the emeny's forces you got some sort of workable combination?). Basically, when I choose to be the defender in a quick battle I make the attacking forces massive, to try to make up for their tactical stupidity. This might even be fairly realistic if you're defending against the Russians on the Easter Front, or against the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge (I've read accounts of extremely dumb tactics by German local area commanders in that battle, probably due to their lack of experience)...

My input: Dunkirk (seen on an IMAX screen in 4K) was gripping and beautifully photographed (that Spitfire gets treated to the sort of lovingly obsessive gaze that Hitchcock used to give Grace Kelly), with a score that ratchets up the tension almost unbearably. My only criticism is that Nolan is a bit fanatical in his opposition to CGI, and the film would have benefited from added soldiers on the beach and some extra aircraft. All we see are 3 spitfires, one Me 109, and one Heinkel 111. He could have still focused on a small number of characters and situations, but given us glimpses of the vast scale of what was happening in the background - ie, 4000,000 mean trying to escape, and hundreds of aircraft in the skies. But overall, it's unconventional and brilliant, and packs ten times the punch of a hundred DC, Marvel or Michael Bay movies.

By the way, dragonwynn, I should have added my thanks to you for making the effort to put the campaign together! I'll load the updated version and play it with great interest. I recently finished 'Kursk The Greatest Battle' by Lloyd Clark, which was informative although not written with much flair. The book altered my previous (and not very well-researched) impression that the battle was one almighty slug-fest in which both sides suffered rapid and horrendous losses. Clark paints a picture of a fairly successful offensive (initially at least) in which reasonable advances were made without great losses, and it was for that reason that the Germans were lured into persisting with the attack for so long, in pursuit of an elusive decisive breakthrough...

Watch out! I tried to save my progress on the first mission and it said that the file title was unacceptable or something like that, and I had to quit. Luckily I was still in the process of setting up my units, so I didn't waste too much time. But it would be very frustrating if I'd gotten well into the first scenario...