gunnersman

It does not stop them from trying! I have had my Fenek spend many rounds trying to shoot through a knocked out BRDM to hit the crew who has taken cover behind it.

Is that Pak30/38/40 () that is straddling a foxhole considered to be in a foxhole? Is that considered to be behind cover?

Thanks guys.

Is the process for calling in artillery going to be similar as in CMSF? Similar in that you can ask for how many tubes you want, how heavy and how long the arty will fall? I don't know how they did it back then. I know there are no VT fuses until later. What about on the first turn of the scenario? Can you still control how long you want the volley to be? Or is it all or nothing as in CMx1?

Somewhere between now and then.

Look Steiner! I can shoot without looking!

In the quote below Steve is not speaking to hand to hand combat specifically. But he might as well be talking about it. Found in the CMSF forums, preCMBN website. (PCMBN...if you will? ) http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92917&highlight=hand&page=3

A true warrior. The kind of man I hope to be. This world has lost a good soul.

There are many times while playing CMSF where my soldiers are on a small ridge line or crest of a small hill for enfilade cover and shooting at a distant enemy through trees or something equivalent. But I noticed that not all are shooting. Maybe half of the squad (or less) is shooting. The other half are in la-la land (at least that's my thinking). And I'm yelling "dont you see them!?!?! Shoot you dumb SOBs!!!

It could be Monday the 10th of January. Then again...maybe not.

I think part of the draw to the game was that the player can adjust the skill sets of each soldier and tanker as the player would like. After each battle the player can choose who get's medals and who increases in skill for a given skill set (scouting, gunnery, driving, etc). I think it was an attempt to add some human experience to the game and make the player care about those under his command. But it was all pointless because half of them kept dying off after each mission. Speaking of missions... And then there were the campaigns. Each battle of the campaign seemed to have alot of time elapse in between. Weeks. The battle before really did not have any effect on the battle after. About the only thing each battle had in common were the soldiers, gun crews and tankers. The personalities were the same but the fact you could mix and match soldiers, gun crews, and tank crews as you pleased did not sit well with me. At any rate...back to the topic...you can't do any of this in CMx2. As it should be.

What they said.

Accuracy was probably a poor choice of words. When I mean to say is more in terms of the FoW of an unfolding battle. For instance; one of your tanks is destroyed but you didn't know it because your attention is at another end of the battle field where some other action is unfolding. That destroyed tank was a critical part of your plan. So your plan becomes unraveled very fast because of that destroyed tank and you have no clue. There is a message system that tells you these things...but it can get busy. That's too much for me. (Yes, yes I know. Allowing the plan to hinge on one unit was bad planning to begin with. But that's beside the point!) CMx1 and x2 allows you to review a 60 second bit of the battle before moving on. Its not how a battle really happens, but it makes it "fun" for me.

I've played ToW. I have not played ToW2. I even had the opportunity to help play test ToW. From what I can tell the creators seem to put alot more effort in appearances and effects than in CMx2. I didnt really get much of the "experience" as I do from the CMx2 series. They put alot of detail into the game though, such as pieces flying off of a tank when it is hit, any soldier or tank crewman manning another tank or crew served weapon. It's all very interesting and the "wow" factor is high. But the real time only element was difficult for me. And because of that the battles were hard to follow. There is too much micromanagement and too little to help the player follow what is going on IMHO. That equals not much fun for me. The CMx2 series has some similarities to ToW. But a big difference is CMx2 is "WeGo". WeGo is bascially turn based but events play out in front of you in 60 second increments. You plot your orders, press "Go", and the orders are carried out (or attempted to be carried out) for 60 seconds. After that 60 seconds time freezes (so to speak) and you make decisions based on the last 60 seconds on how you want to proceed with the next 60 seconds. Rinse. Repeat. There is a real time option in CMx2. CMx2 does not have the level of unit detail and damage detail as ToW has. But that's fine with me. One thing I always liked about CMSF (and CMBO/BB/AK for that matter) are the tracer bullets from small arms are waaay over modeled. Instead of every 5 bullets being a tracer...every bullet is a tracer. And bright! It makes it easier to follow the battle that way. The tracers are very realistic in ToW. Which means they are subdued and not as bright. In fact ToW always struck me as having alot of emphasis of accuracy in general. Maybe too much. Which takes away from the fun for me. Some like that. But not me.

It's also called "marketing".

Speaking of spotting; how about this guy from Elvis' DAR. Is the fact he is sitting under trees and what looks like in the shade considered in the spotting calculation?

HA! Even better!

Beautiful...just beautiful. It even LOOKS like he is sitting in the shade. I wonder if that effects the ability to spot him?

Is the guy on the far left getting ready to cover his ears?

I don't know how it works exactly, but, playing CM:Afghanistan calling arty during a scenario (as opposed to during the setup) I've had arty land nowhere near the intended target when the rounds were "firing for effect". Happened several times. But when I called in arty during setup, all rounds were on target.

I did like the way CMBB/CMAK handled it with color coding. Colors represent armor thickness. The representation would go both ways for bullet penetration as well. It was a simple reference. In CMSF, weapons capability of the different nations were pretty much the same. Higher muzzle velocities negate the need for armor angle. Armor angle is a moot point (for the most part). The only real difference between the nations on the battlefield is armor thickness and technology (Chobam Vs ERA). In WW2 there are many different guns with many different bore sizes and a few guns (like the Panther's) having a much higher muzzle velocities. The muzzle velocities in WW2 are generally lower than modern Anti-Tank guns. So armor angle has more of a consideration. But that is still something that can be simplified by the color coding system.

Thanks Gibsonm. You beat me to it. I have not had time to find the post, but there is a pre-CMBN website discussion (years ago, I think even before CMSF was finished) where Steve mentioned that he didn't like the whole CMx1 GUI and thought it was too clumsy (my words). What Gibsonm posted is a result of that thinking (I believe). I imagine the CMBN GUI will be built with CMSF philosophy in mind. More simpliciy. You guys gotta a least try the CMSF demo. It's free! ;-)

Are the FO/HQs spot on all the time? Does the accuracy of the arty depend upon the experience of the FO or HQ?

JonS, You use the term "Beaten zone" almost as if you are able to target an area with the HMG like you would target an area when calling in artillery. Are you physically targeting an area each turn using "Area Target" and changing where the HMG aims or can you create a target circle like you would when calling in artillery?