Sgt Joch

I dont think the card is an issue, I have a Gigabyte R9 290 (full specs in post #4) and all CMRT scenarios work fine at best/best, 4xFSAA.

interesting debate, but let's keep in mind: 1) no one knows how effective HMGs/LMGs/SMGs/Rifles, etc. are in a combat situation. All we really know is that they are less effective than on a range for a variety of reasons: stress, fear, adrenaline, confusion, visibility, spotting, etc., etc. We had long discussions about the effectiveness of HMGs/LMGs after CMBN came out. As a result the accuracy/ROF of HMGs/LMGs and their suppression effect was increased. Is it more "realistic" now? probably, but again we have no real life empirical data to check again, just many anecdotes. 2) you also have other "game" issues that have an impact on the effectiveness of firearms, i.e: a) players tend to be more aggressive with their "pixel truppens" than a RL commander would be with his troops, resulting in higher casualties; "spotting" is easier in game than in RL, again making it easier to locate and fire on enemy pixeltruppens; c) "pixeltruppens" tend to be more suicidal than real soldiers, continuing to carry out orders, i.e. charging at a HMG instead of going to ground when fired on. and c) can be dealt with, i.e. making it harder to spot the exact location of enemy troops, making the pixeltruppens auto-cancel orders/be suppressed or pinned more easily, but it would make for a more frustrating game. Not much you can do about a) though.

interesting, I just built a new system: i5-4670k, AMD R9 290, ASUS Z87 mb, 16 gb DDR3, Adata SP920 SSD 256 gb, win 7 64 bit and I have load times similar to Hpt. Lisse. From the ResMon, I have one CPU running at close to 90% while loading, so I assumed the CPU was the bottleneck, but the loading times Buzz posted would point to a software issue. Anyone else getting fast load times like Buzz using Win 7? I would like to know what to tweak. I have used the Adata tweaking software, but it did not improve load times. All my other games show vastly improved loading times, "Rise of Flight" used to take up to 2 minutes to load and it now takes less than 15 seconds. CMx2 is the only one that is an issue.

The above figures from Dunn are very general. You also have the excellent tables prepared by John Salt: http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdf Salt's work shows why getting actual WW2 performance figures is so frustrating. There are actually a very limited number of real empirical tests and the results are a bit all over the map. However, most results show the 85mm gun in the T34 penetrating up to 100-138mm of armor plate at a 0 degree angle at 500 meters. The 130-138mm figures are achieved when firing the best AP rounds. Note this is roughly twice as high as the 75mm gun in the Sherman. This is partly a function of the caliber, but also because the 85mm had a higher muzzle velocity.

Dunn, "Hitler's Nemesis", p. 156 gives some info. The 85 mm gun on the T34/85 could penetrate up to 138mm of armor at 500 meters and 100mm at 1,000 meters. In comparison, the 76mm Sherman could penetrate 212mm of armor at 500 meters and 179mm at 1 km. I was surprised to find out that many Russian tankers preferred the 76mm Sherman to the T34/85 and in 1945 when it was widely available, many units traded in their T34s for Shermans. I visited the Canadian War Museum a few weeks back. They have a Panther, Sherman and T34/85. I was surprised to see that the Sherman and Panther are both really big tanks, the Sherman looks as tall as the Panther while the T34 looks a lot smaller.

I have also donated, CMMODS is an essential resource for the community.

It was not covered in school up here in Canada, but yes, I know of the story. A lot of movies refer to it, including... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC0xRS-ECJo

Actually we do have some testers that have the problem (I am not one of them), the issue is trying to find the cause and the solution.

Here is the official status update:

ok, I have a i5 chip and win 7, but a ATI card and do not have this bug.

Am I correct in assuming that only players with a i7 chip have this issue?

Glad you guys enjoyed it. I actually first designed it as a pure tactical exercice to test firepower modeling in CMRT. The Soviet troops follow typical assault group TOE for june 22-23 (the Russians did carry out company and even battalion sized probes) and the German TOE units/defences are based on what I could as best determined to be average defensive positions in that front, as best as could be modeled in game. The Germans did make great use of reverse slope defences. You should view it more as an advanced training scenario to test your tactics.

Yes, to a certain extent. In the WW2 Russian Army, there were no radios at the infantry company/platoon level (and none in game), yet Russian infantry Platoon/Company HQs have a limited ability to call in artillery fire. We actually had a long discussion about this in the Beta forum during the run up to CMRT without coming to a definite conclusion, although the ability to call in artillery in CMRT is more limited than in previous titles.

I have nothing constructive to add, except to say I am glad Vanir is now a Beta Tester.

We are taking an objective and critical look at all available sources of information. I think most gamers will be happy with the results.

Without getting into the political aspects, air strikes are tricky. First, as to actual air stikes, you would need U.S. personnel either on the ground or surveying the terrain via air recon to know what you are actually targeting. If a U.S. air strike kills civilians, the U.S. will get blamed, not the Iraqi FO. Second, what are you supposed to hit? In Lybia, strikes targeted actual military targets, air defence assets and AFVs. In this type of insurgent warfare, how do you differentiate the civilians from the enemy fighters?

During the "Surge", U.S. forces had defeated the precursur to ISIS, in part, by forming alliances with moderate Sunni leaders/groups in the region. The Maliki govt has squandered all that goodwill by systematically excluding Sunnis from the government. Local support explains, in part, ISIS's success in Sunni areas: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/isis-mosul-takeover-residents-blame-iraqi-army.html http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/iraq-mosul-fall-army-breakdown.html#ixzz34QTsrhwr What is less clear is what will happen when ISIS tries to capture more Shiite areas like Baghdad.

A lot of people are looking forward to CMSF2...

Great site John, very entertaining. Is Putin really an Alien?

sort of tangential, but one interesting fact I came across recently was the disposition of German forces in 44. It is always repeated that 2/3rds of the Wehrmacht was deployed against the Russians, which is true, but in june 44, roughly 50% of German AFVs (1500) were in France, around 1300 or so were facing the Russians and another 200 were in Italy. so it is a bit of an exaggeration to say most of the Germans were facing the Russians. That is true for the non-mobile infantry divisions, but not for the Panzer units.

On whether the Russians, or at least their elite forces like the VDV, are tier one or tier two is an ongoing debate. Nothing has been ruled in or ruled out. As to their current capabilities, much is of course classified, but there are some good open source articles, i.e.: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1096 http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1069

BTW, the first version of mission 1 had TWO Russian infantry battalions. THAT was massive. I don't think having only one Battalion takes too much away. When you read up on june 22-23, you see that even though the Soviets often had up to 10:1 superiority in certain sectors, many of the attacks were in waves, i.e.: 1-initial attack by 1-2 battalion; 2-if 1 is unsuccesful, then second attack by reserve battalion; 3-if 2 is unsuccesful, then repeat 1+2 with another Regiment, etc. The Germans had good defensive positions, excellent defensive terrain in that area and were at full strength. Their big problem was that they were too spread out and really had no reserves so the Russians just had to keep piling on until they broke through.

Don't worry, reinforcements won't be an issue. In mission 1, your only objective is breaking through the German lines. Do not worry about losses....Comrade.

Hey Luke, Its only the "HQ" trucks, i.e. HQ to a truck unit, that have the extra commander in the back. Regular line Studebaker trucks only have a one man crew, i.e., the driver.