Leaderboard

DOH! I somehow posted the link to this thread instead of the damn file! NEW WORKING LINK TO FILE BELOW!!! >>>> Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf <<<< While I'm at it may as well make up for it with a few teaser previews:

Bits of toying around with @Lt Bull ´s TEST GAP battle today. Results for me are the same as reported. After bits of experimenting I came to a somewhat unexpected "solution" (or hint for debugging). By use of Instant Commands button "Pause", I set all forward defending german units to Pause mode (“Pause for further orders”). This in setup phase, before hitting Go. Surprisingly during execution phase this nailed the german units in place (despite heavy suppression). Next command phase showed that various evade commands (incl. those forward through bocage) were plotted by the TacAI, but not executed. This also allowed seeing the TacAI´s intended evade moves (fast into "best" cover and face toward apprehended threat), as otherwise the WP´s would be gone (all PTroopers KIA/WIA = WP deleted). Now what the manual (p. 62) says on Instant Command "Pause": “Pause for further orders” PAUSE - instructs the unit to temporarily halt all active orders and wait. This is the equivalent of yelling “Halt”. This button is a toggle, and by pressing it again, the unit is ordered to resume what it was doing. Interesting that Pause also works for orders not yet given, particularly those from the TacAI (evade). Always assumed it works for user given movement commands only. So maybe someone likes to test/repeat the procedure? Load TEST GAP.btt, do nothing but clicking "Pause" button for german units and hit GO.

I originally played the excellent Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign that I believes comes with CMFB several years ago and forgot about it enough for me to warrant playing it again. One thing I really appreciate is playing on battlefields that are based directly on replicating the actual historical battlefieds itself. I believe all the maps in this campaign are like that. One battle in particular caught my attention (again) which is the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and it's map. After play as the German attacker I wondered how much more challenging the German attack could be if a human player played as the US. I was inspired enough to extract and create a H2H scenario battle version of the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and let's just say it is quite interesting to see how that battle plays out when a human calls the shots for the US defenders. Anyway, having extensively surveyed the CMFB map in preparation to play the battle, I really got a good feel for the battlefield itself and started researching the actual battle that did occur there on the 19 Dec 1944 between KG Peiper and the US garrison defending. I started looking at the amazing historical combat action photos and videos taken by the Germans during the actual assualt on the 19 Dec 1944 and it occurred to me that my familairization with the battlefield just from playing CMFB was essentially enough for me to have a good enough idea where virtually every photo/scene was taken/filmed. While searching for more photos and information from the battle, I did stumble across a Youtube video of Before & After photo comparisons of the battle of Stoumont that basically confirmed some of my guesses. I then decided it might just be worthwhile trying to recreate as many of the photos/scenes from the historical photos and film as possible, just for fun, and to see how CMFB compares. Using the before and after comparison screenshots from the Youtube video, I conveniently added my own CMFB versions to complete the trifecta of comparisons, in cases where the "after" photos (current day photos) had been compared to the historical footage/photos. I recreated in CMFB a number of other photos/scenes for which no "after" photo comparison were suggested/offered. PDF link below: Youtube Video: Battle of the Bulge Then & Now - Stoumont Then & Now! CMFB Comparisons: Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf And a big shout out and tip of the hat to @Pete Wenman for researching and designing the map you see featured! It's amazing what can be achieved by some within the CM Scenario Designer. Much appreciated.

Its been almost five years since I started this thread and would have thought that the issue(s) originally highlighted would have been fixed long ago via a patch/update etc. This sadly is not the case. The issue described is not a "cosmetic" issue with no effect on gameplay. Contrary, it has the potential to turn what players would think is a relatively safe move order for infantry in to a order that may result in the entire enemy unit being decimated, as I had experienced when I first noticed the issue all those years ago. I am revisiting this thread and the issue that was discussed because I was just curious to see what, if anything, was achieved in first highlighting the issue almost five years ago. I also like to think even trying to address such issues on these forums is not just a complete waste of time and effort. If anyone can point to a thread where Battlefront had at least previously acknowledged this issue, that will be good. (I should also add that I did actually stop playing CM around that time out of a frustration that gameplay issues like this weren't being addressed, let alone acknowldged by those in a position to do something about it. After coming back to CM after a many year hiatus, I really was surprised that this issue was never fixed. I have stopped playing CMBN because of a new odd suicidal TacAI behaviour issue (apparently introduced after a recent update/patch) that can result in infantry defending and under fire behind a line of hedgerows deciding to break cover and run laterally along the hedgerow until they reach the infantry-sized gap in the hedgerow and start running through the gap towards the enemy/incoming fire, invariably to their death (read all about it and see for yourself here)) Perhaps this post (unlike Battlefront), will warn both players and probably more importantly/practically, scenario/map designers, that certain buildings from the Scenario Editor if used in scenarios in certain orientations will definitely result in the kind of unexpected infantry building entry/exit behaviour discussed above (and more comprehensively below for your convenience) that really can turn players off. I cannot confirm (have mnot searched) if there are equivalent issues with certain other buildings or in other CM titles, but I will qualify that they definitely do exist in the building types I discuss below in CMBN. I have just reviewed and tested ALL seven types of "Independent>Other" buildings available in the CMBN Scenario Editor. I have created a scenario file and two game save files to download to see for yourself that features all seven buildings in all four possible facing orientations (north, south, east, west) with all the infantry already setup and given move orders to enter the building from one end and exit it on the opposite side. The buildings are laid out as follows in the scenario/save file(s): Typically all of these buildings are assigned a "direction" by the Scenario Editor, and visually/cosmetically all appear to have two doors: one on the "front" and one on the "rear" assigned faces of the building (through which it is expected infantry can/should and be only able to enter/exit from). The side walls of all seven buildings clearly have fully bricked side walls devoid of visible. eg. rear view of Independedent>Other building "C". Note location of door on right of rear face, alongside the left edge of the building. It is expected that if an infantry unit is located just outside the front or the rear face of the building and given a move order waypoint located inside the building, then the infantry unit will take the shortest route to the waypoint and move towards and through what is nearest respective door, located on that front or rear building face. Similarly, if a unit is already within the building and given a waypoint directly out the front or rear of the building, the infantry unit will exit the building using the respective doors in that direction. If you run the save game files provided, they are already setup with movement waypoint orders assigned to infantry squads located at the front and rear of the buildings: the first waypoint is in the building, the second is on the opposite side of the building. File 001 has units positioned north and west of the buildings. File 002 has units positioned south and east of the buildings. Links to test files and the scenario test file itself: Scenario file: CMBN Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test.btt Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 001.bts Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 002.bts A few key points: All the buildings tested definitely have one or two entry/exit points, though not necessarily where they are otherwise graphically indicated on the front and rear of the building. It depends on the building and it's facing. When some buildings are placed on the map in certain orinetations/facings (at the map designing phase stage via the Scenario Editor) it will determine if one or both of the graphically represented doors on the front and/or rear of the building will cease to operate as entry/exit points during the game. In these instances, an apparent "invisible" side door (or entry/exit point) instead will apparently appear to function along one of the non-front/rear faces of the building, located close to one edge/corner of the building face. The location and existence of these "invisible" side doors is predetermined by the building orientation/facing. The test files feature 10 man squads. Using smaller squads may show more consistency in whether ALL pixeltruppen enter/exit a building via one entry/exit point, or whether the pixeltruppen will enter/exit the building using both entry/exit points during the same move order. Random localised positioning of each pixeltruppen seems to be a factor in some cases determining whether all, most or some of the pixeltruppen belonging to a squad entering/exiting a building during a move will use one or two of the existing building entry/exit points. Unless a player uses the Scenario Editor (or the save files provided in this thread) to learn to recognise/identify the 7 types of Independent>Other discussed in this post, they will invariably be unable to recognise them in any CMBN scenario they choose to play that features them. The comprehensive table of results of testing is available as a PDF and Excel file at links below: Excel: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.xlsx PDF: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.pdf Preview of table: The table text and cells are colour coded for each situation to aid in interpretation as follows: RED text indicates (and warns players) that it has been demonstrated that it is possible (though not guaranteed) that at least some pixeltruppen MAY avoid the nearest door and instead, if entering a buildings, route around the sides of the building to instead enter the building via the indicated door on the OPPOSITE side of the building from where the unit started it's movement from, or i exiting a building, use the door on the opposite side of the building to where the waypoint was placed. Planning/expecting to enter/exit a building via a door on the near side but finding pixeltruppen entering via a door on the direct opposite side of the building is probably more likely to be of a tactical concern/disaster than say if it entered/exited the building via one of the "invisible" side doors, that's why I have highlighted the text in red alerting players to that possibility for that situation. Backgrounds of shades of GREEN indicate that all the doors indicated on the front and rear of the building do actually work as advertised and no "invisible" doors exist. It is a darker GREEN if in the limited trials conducted, no instances of the "wrong" door being used by any pixeltruppen in that situation was observed. This would be updated if more testing at least reveals one case of a "wrong" door being used. Note that for larger sized infantry squads, it is no guarantee that all pixeltruppen will use the right (nearest) door for each situation listed (see notes on RED text). Note that this possibility is probably reduced (possibly to zero), the less pixeltruppen in the infantry team. My guess is when six or less pixeltruppen exist in a team. Further testing can confirm.. Although some cases of entering/exiting the buildings are listed with darker GREEN backgrounds and as "All enter OK" or "All exit OK" (meaning it was observed in the limited trials that all pixeltruppen enter or exit through the nearest graphically represented door as expected, the ideal case), as alluded to above, it has been noted that repeated testing can turn up cases where at least some of the pixeltruppen involved in the move order will use the second entry/exit point of the building, be it the one on the opposite side of the building, or one of the apparently "invisible" side doors that apparently exist for some buildings when facing a certain way. Backgrounds of shades of ORANGE indicate the existence of at least one "invisible" side door through which infantry can/and will apparently use to enter the building depending on the circumstances. The darker ORANGE background indicates that either NONE of the graphically indicated doors on the building are functional in that situation, and instead the building features one or two "invisible" side doors, one on each flank (or side) of the building, or only one "invisible" serves as the only entry/exit point to the building. In summary, a review of test results: Regardless of which of the seven types of Independent>Other building feature in a sceanrio (regardless of their orientation), players can expect to be "surprised" by the path and subsequent entry/exit point chosen by each pixeltruppen to enter/exit the building during a single move order if the infantry team has greater than typically six pixeltruppen, if they expect a) infantry to ALWAYS use the nearest entry/exit point and b) expect the only functional and possible entry/exit points of buildings to be where they are graphically indicated. The only Independent>Other building that feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised regardless of orientation is building "G". Of the remaining six buildings, all will feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised if in the following orientations/facings: I can only suggest regular players of CMBN scenarios to be at least aware of these buggy Independent>Other buildings, especially on maps that are likely to involved and rely on very precise "house-to house" fighting and manoeuvring. They can really unexpectedly wreck you plans especially if they are embedded somewhere near critical terrain/victory locations. To the scenario designers/map makers, I would hope they see the sense in completely avoiding the use of all building type/orientation combos that are not listed in the green column of the table above. Note that even using those buildings/orientations featured in the green column, it has been shown that at least some pixeltruppen will nevertheless choose to enter/exit from the opposite side door from which one might otherwise expect them to use when the unit size is greater than 6. Perhaps some scenario/map designers might even feel inspired to revisit previously released sceanrios/maps that feature the problem buildings and modify the maps accordingly. Of course vigilant capable players could do this themsleves. A scenario comes to mind already...the one that I was playing when I first encountered this issue almost 5 years ago...Lonsdales Block. I clearly remember where that damn building was that led to the decimation of a complete para squad trying to enter it.

This is part of a five part series on the UC. This illustrates everything from Bren handling to grenade throwing from inside the carrier. Of particular note is the material on the 2" mortar, which has a specially drilled set of mounting holes to firmly attach it to the UC. No standard 2" mortar will work. When so fitted, the UC has twelve rounds for it, and the ammo split's given. The procedure for conducting observed fire by the VC with the mortar in full defilade is shown, as is use of the mortar in DF role. The first video in the series is the get acquainted one, and it shows the dazzling agility of this vehicle. For large radius turns, the track on the turning side is actually pulled in a bit. For short, sharp turns, one track is braked. So nimble is the UC it can reverse course near instantly. Short of having an autocannon or HMG, I'd think it would be a nightmare to hit if evading. Regards, John Kettler

I think many CMBN fans simply install the game but not the latest update which seems to be where the problem started. I find updates are often very subtle and I rarely notice significant improvement - it's usually that some unit is missing or some graphic anomaly is fixed. So, play should be fine with earlier versions.

its a version 4 bug i think has been said, i've got upgrades waiting but won't until this is sorted

I posted this about 6 threads down - “Bug with upgrade” (It also happens behind walls and in buildings I goin a message from a couple of guys who quit playing ww2 scenarios and a couple of hard cores saying - live with it. (These are the same guys who bitch if you knock any thing about the game) Apparantly it’s been posted and reported numerous times with no reply from BF management - happens every time from them - if they can’t make money - so be it. (If I had new modules coming out - I’d fix the current problems before release so people buy it - just my thoughts) As is - WW2 is unplayable BN especially. I’ll try the pause option though. Really wanted to buy all the modules for ww2 - I have BN and SF and SF 2 but can’t as is.

Done & done... Hence my comments.

hahahaha!!

I forgot to add and perhaps ask... While researching the battle of Stoumont I discovered one book that has actually been published specifically about that 19th Dec battle. I would of definitely bought it already however there is something about it that is making me hesitate: Duel in the Mist: Kampfgruppe Peiper, Stoumont, December 19th, 1944 v. 1 Would really like to hear from anyione who has viewed the book, let alone own a copy of it. Really curious to know what kind of new info/photos etc it contains.

4.

Excellent video, thank you Aquila. Love you Youtube channel !

I follow a gamers Youtube channel called Gameranx and they have 5.7 million subscribers. They put up a top 10 most historically accurate games list and it was pretty much the usual suspects, big games and so on. As I was watching it I was cursing to myself why these channels never do wargames in a serious fashion, but guess what? Wait for it .... ... and yeah, 5.7 million people might get exposed to a REAL game series

Hey ive seen ths before....ah thats right! x png

Oh, not a complaint, just wondering. I know he's got a huge ask ahead of him...

From what I can see a relatively small % of what I sent has made it to CMMODS IV as yet. We're talking about half a terrabyte of mods - a truly huge amount of work when you see how Bootie is attractively presenting the info on his site. (It would have been a lot easier and faster imo if the same simple format was used as for the old greenasjade CMMODS site.) Am sure Bootie is doing his best to get stuff up.

Great little video... and a reminder just how good our combat mission games are. I'm pretty sure when I played this mission my casualties were quite a few more!

Nope, they reserved a lot of emergency beds (ICUs) in germany for covid (50%) and had to sent staff home because elective surgery practically was forbidden. The covid patients never materialized. They now reduce this to 25% reservation rate for covid patients and open up hospitals for normal surgical procedures again. So these guys are spot on at least for what is happening in germany. If you look at the numbers of early tests in the country you find that in a covid hotspot area (Heinsberg) 15% of the people were positive for antibodies (were already exposed to the virus) with death rates at about 0,4%.

Anyone who watches this clip I then suggest you read the following... (The truth is out there, imo usually not in YouTube clips...) https://theprepared.com/blog/dr-ericksons-viral-covid-19-briefing-video-is-dangerously-wrong/ His starting point is seriously flawed... "So if you look at California—these numbers are from yesterday—we have 33,865 COVID cases, out of a total of 280,900 total tested. That’s 12% of Californians were positive for COVID. So we don’t, the initial — as you guys know, the initial models were woefully inaccurate. They predicted millions of cases of death — not of prevalence or incidence — but death. That is not materializing. What is materializing is, in the state of California is 12% positives. You have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID in the state of California." Here’s the obvious reason why using a 12% test positivity rate to claim that 12% of Californians already have SARS-COV-2 is so dangerous. Right now, the USA and many other countries are limiting their testing only to people who show symptoms of COVID-19. Furthermore, in many parts of the country since this all began, only those with the most severe COVID-19 symptoms have been tested. We aren’t testing 100% of the population. What Erickson does in this video is conceptually the same as sampling a communion line to figure out how many Catholics live in California. Or estimating the prevalence of alcoholism by sampling an AA meeting. It may be hard to believe that a physician would do something so dumb, but that’s exactly what he’s up to in this clip.

I'm not playing anything with bocage until resolved. Hopefully we can get an update soon. Thankfully that still leaves quite a lot.

For once I feel pretty good about aging. Hey if I lived near you I'd grab you some. We actually haven't bought toilet paper since this started. We had a typical pack that we buy, but just lucked out in that we had just bought it when this kicked off. I have seen TP in the market, but didn't purchase as we have enough for a bit yet and we aren't hoarders. You need to buddy up to some of us geezers, we can be bribed.. pretty cheaply too.

Mord.

Grand, hope you enjoy it Thks bby Yes, the quality of life improvements from the new engine are really nice. And the presence of actual fortifications makes missions like this much more interesting. I agree about the mines, it was highly irritating that I kept my breach team squatting on top of the things for the whole battle and they only spotted one little patch. Thanks, glad you're enjoying it.

I love the Panzer Brigade Panzer Grenadiers in FB, since they're all armed with MP44's. Hope we'll see something similar in FR, as well as the Volksgrenadiers. Begleitgrenadiers are the best way to stand up to Soviet SMG squads in RT at the moment, but I'm looking forward to more options.

The module takes CMRT from the end of the Bagration era (September 1944 iirc) and brings it all the way through to May 1945. So yes, it adds fall, winter, and spring to the game. Not entirely sure what you mean about assault squads, but the Volksgrenadiers featured in CMFB will be present in the CMRT module, and they are basically assault infantry when armed with the MP44. The module also adds in the SS, Luftwaffe field divisions, Kriegsmarine, and Volksturm for the defense of Berlin. So there is plenty of stuff to play with, both new and old.

I would use the Schwimmwagen to run away

Pretty much. Many of CM's maps are often scaled down a size more appropriate for a level battle *below* what the scenario designer was considering. (ie: Pairs of Companies fighting on maps appropriate for a Platoon.) It's been brought it up many times but it's fairly common for the scenario designers to excessively pack maps with units, thus causing nearly every battle to become a set-piece offensive. Putting an infantry gun on a map with most lines of sight measurable to 250m or so is a symptom of this. If fighting was expected at those ranges most (but not all) Commanders would be inclined to just ditch the gun somewhere and find spare rifles and grenades for the crew.

This review covers the included campaigns and scenarios with briefings and first impressions.

hard to resume after !!! scouts in foot

tank in french color but American-made it's tough !!!