Sgt Joch

That is the problem with this particular bug, it is hard to reproduce, so hard to figure out what could be causing it. I have played a bunch of scenarios recently in CMBS, CMRT and CMFB and had zero issues moving tanks and other vehicles across bridges.

Those comments actually originated with Germans who had served on the Eastern Front. Many remarked that U.S. infantry was very cautious when compared to how the Soviets used their infantry to blast their way through German defences. Of course, we are talking about totally different systems. The Soviets could get away with stuff that would have been unthinkable in the U.S. Remember Patton and the soldier slapping incident in Sicily. I prefer to think of it as fighting smarter. BTW it was not just the U.S., the British infantry were the same. SOP in an attack was to first bombard with artillery, then move up the infantry. When the infantry met resistance, move up AFVs and artillery up to blast the enemy strongpoint, then move forward again. Rinse. Repeat. By late 44, everyone, the Russians, Germans, British and even the U.S. were facing a manpower shortage. Infantry casualties in Normandy were a lot higher than anyone had planned and the infantry units were chronically short of replacements. Many U.S. infantry divisions going into Germany in 45 were understrength. The U.S. even resorted to "unofficially" de-segregating the Army and incorporated many African-American infantry units into nominally "white" divisions. Both the British and the U.S. realised they had a pretty much overwhelming advantage over the Germans in terms of material: number of AFVs, artillery, aircraft and the ordnance they could pour onto any one spot occupied by the Germans. It would not make any sense not to use it. As it was, what really slowed down the U.S. (and the Russians) was over-extending their supply lines and being forced to stop and re-group before the next offensive.

I am not sure why you ask questions if you then dispute the answers... Just ran a quick test, CMFB, battalion and platoon HQ, regs, calling 105 mm matchup level is green. estimated time delay is 12 minutes for both, battalion HQ had rounds falling on the target in 12 mins and platoon in 14 mins. If you keep running your test multiple times you will see there is randomness. A test is also different from a scenario.

Hi, the time delay which is shown is an average wait time, depending on the matchup level and HQ type, it may be a lot longer than shown and sometimes faster. For example, if you call in artillery with a platoon HQ, the receiving, preparing and spotting phase may easily be up to 5 minutes slower than the delay shown before you reach FFE and you may notice the end result from the artillery strike may not be as accurate or as effective as you hoped. With a veteran FO with a excellent matchup level, you may get to FFE faster than you expected. There is a randomness built in which you will notice if you pay attention to it in game.

yes, I have been playing too much CMBS lately. It does look like there is a bug with infantry platoon HQs, it has been reported.

yes, even as early as the Seven Year's War, bayonet charges were obsolete and musket fire would break up any attack or defence before the troops came into contact. In 1756-57, Frederick The Great ordered his troops to attack by bayonet charge alone thinking that by not stopping to fire, battles would be decided more quickly. The only result was 2-3 bloody battles were Prussian frontal attacks were repulsed with heavy losses. After that, everyone went back to standard stand and shoot tactics until one side breaks and run.

EW is a feature which is not used very much. In MP, players usually prefer no EW so C2 works as it should. I have experimented in single player scenarios, but it is not clear how much of an impact it has on the AI other than the obvious effect on artillery/air support. As to its use in RL, that is always hard to determine since a lot of RL EW work is classified. In Ukraine in 2014-15, it seems the Russian used it to jam Ukrainian comms. In the 2008 Georgian war, the Russian GLONASS system (their GPS) went down for a few days. Some speculated the U.S. was behind the shutdown, but never saw any evidence of that. Even way back in the 2003 Iraq invasion, U.S. forces jammed and degraded the Iraqi comms network, although its is not clear how much effect that had on a CM level tactical battlefield. So certainly all EW levels in the game would be realistic in 2017 (CMBS) and would be possible in 2008 (CMSF).

are you trying to call in air support? You need a Tac Air Control unit for that.

I am reminded of a RL story. A few days after D-Day, German forces were counterattacking in the Canadian sector. At dusk, two Panthers approached a village. Crouched on the edge of town was sergeant J.L .Lapointe with a PIAT. One Panther went ahead while the other provided cover... sgt. Lapointe coolly waited until the tank passed, then took it out with a PIAT shot to the rear. He then machine gunned the crew as they tried to escape. The second tank, having witnessed the event, proceeded to shell the village for a few hours before withdrawing. All this time Sgt. Lapointe remained hidden, waiting for a second kill... Never underestimate a determined infantryman.

I ran some more quick tests in CMBN, U.S. regular infantry HUNT towards single shooters. Ignoring situations where there was a hit, it seems to take an average of 2-4 shots before they stop and go prone from an unseen enemy. There may be some tweaking required with single shooters since they do not generate much suppression, unlike MGs or automatic weapons. Watching the suppression meter, I see the guys go prone as soon the 2nd line lights up, so way before 50%.

Ok, so your issue is not the behavior but the sensitivity to fire? That is always a tricky issue since you dont want a squad to stop just because of any firing in the general area. This sounds more like a design issue than a bug.

Just tried again in CMBN, 1st mission of the Scottish corridor, split all the squads and gave each team a HUNT order towards the German lines. They will stop and go prone as soon as they are fired upon, 1 or 2 bursts, even when the enemy is unspotted. Not one took any casualties before going prone. You can test it yourself right now and see for yourself. The behaviour looks very realistic to me. I think the issue, and you have to check each team to see, is whether the fire is aimed at them or targeting other teams.

I just did a quick test in CMSF2 and do not see any bug. Infantry units on HUNT will stop and go prone in 1-2 seconds when under fire from an unspotted enemy. You should post a save game so we can see what you are referring to.

All the beta testers play the game regularly, many of the bugs reported here were already picked up by us beforehand and were already reported. When a new bug is reported here, someone will always check to see if in fact it is a bug and not user error. If it is a bug, it will be reported and BFC will decide if, when and how to deal with it.

Hi, as mentioned above, units will ONLY execute the orders you give them. The only time they move on their own is if they perceive an imminent threat, are under fire and suffer a severe morale hit. As mentioned above, you highlighted all the units which the game interprets as giving the same order to every unit. A common mistake when first playing the game, but you quickly get used to it. Note that you can show all movement paths for all units with the alt+p hotkey which allows you to do a quick check before you hit GO.

Interesting. It looks like it is immobilized at least. I’m guessing the same thing will happen in game, but will test.

Infantrymen getting stuck is very rare lately. Pretty much all the pathfinding bugs have been squashed.. There is a confirmed bug which has been reported regarding units getting stuck in "Bocage" terrain in CMBN. It seems to happen when you give a general order to say a squad and the AI seems to have trouble figuring out the path. Then some men may become "stuck". The workaround is to be careful around Bocage terrain, split your squads into teams and give them easy to follow movement orders through or around the Bocage. There is also a much rarer bug which I have seen where you give a long or complex movement order and you cancel the order before it is finished and/or the troops become pinned on different action squares by enemy fire. Normally, the troops should eventually rally on adjacent action squares, but in some cases, one or two men may become stuck on action squares far from the main body. I always keep an eye for these potential situation and if necessary move the team back to recover the stuck men. I also get the impression the problem is more prone to happen in older maps like in CMBN or CMSF. I have been playing a lot of CMBS games lately and have not seen one instance of men getting stuck.

We would have to see the save game to see what happened. I have been playing a lot of CMBS games lately with infantry under attack by artillery, both in and out of foxholes and all my troops stay put, even when they suffer casualties and/or are shaken.

IMHO It makes more sense to compare CM to something like IL-2 Stalingrad which is the same kind of hard core simulation with similar pricing. https://steamcharts.com/app/307960 IL2 also has a very motivated player base and is still producing new modules. Compared to IL2, CMSF2 has very respectable numbers.

The leadership bonus is supposed to affect firepower. I do recall reading that in one of the early manuals for SF1 or maybe CMBN?. In terms of what it does, my understanding is that it gets more men shooting in the right direction and at the right targets, which will of course increase how much damage they inflict. edit: found it, under the heading "Leaders" in your game manual: "Leaders...direct fire to be more effective". (ref: Game Engine Manual v 4.00, p. 68)

Personally I never put much stock in STEAM reviews since they always seem to be all over the map for any game. So far CMSF2 has mostly positive reviews which is really the best you could ask for.

Well "close" on a modern battlefield is always relative. The ideal position is in a relatively hidden/hull down/protected on the sides position where the AFV is relatively secure, but in a good shooting/overwatch position where it can engage threats immediately as they are spotted by the enemy.

Modeling spotting correctly has always been more art than science. We all know what the human eye can potentially see, modeling what the brain perceives and when however, especially under very stressful conditions like combat is infinitely harder. On the whole, CM gets it right, despite the occasional hiccups. re: the game. I find the best use of AFV/dismounts is to work as a team, with AFVs close to the infantry, that way AFVs are always just there if the infantry spots an enemy unit. Yes, you run the risk of losing more AFVs that way, but I think the advantages outweigh the risks. re: evolution of tanks. I doubt AFVs will ever go obsolete since the reason why they were invented in WW1, i.e. help infantry cross the battlefield, still exist. That does not mean however that the concept cannot evolve. For example the BMP-3 is often though of as just a modern Halftrack, but it is more powerful than any WW2 tank and can carry and protect infantry as well.

Depends. Russia would likely use larger units in the event of an all out war with the USA, but the chances of that happening in the next 20 years is basically nil. What you are more likely to see in the next 10-20 years, would be the same kind of low intensity warfare you saw in Ukraine, either in Eastern Europe or Central Asia. The military involvement of US/NATO forces, if any, would probably be limited to training local forces and providing advisors and special forces unit. So yes, trying to figure out now the best way to defeat a Russian Battalion Tactical Group operating independently makes sense. Grau in the “Russian way of war” also views the BTG as the basic tactical unit employed by the Russians (see page 37): https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf

"portée pratique minimale" means "minimum effective range", so may not necessarily refer to arming distance. note that "portée pratique maximale" means "maximum effective range".