Sgt Joch

Actually we testers did notice and complained about it a lot, but problem is you are trying to graft a system, PBEM+++, onto the CM engine which was not designed that way ... so you have to use a lot of duct tape and cross your fingers 🙂.  Hopefully, it will be improved, the team has been working on it a lot over the past few months.

The name is my WIP reference name and refers to a rather confused action around the village of Jasienica and the town of Tluszcz in Poland mid August 1944.
This map is fairly large (4x3km) but has been giving me a bit of trouble to sort out. Its low laying terrain with a rather complicated rail network on often embankments. looks easy but trying to get everything to match up... Also progress has been glacial slow due to RL. Still getting there.
This is the real world location on period maps and aerial images taken before the actions occurred (though judging by the shell holes it was getting some hot attention from bombing raids I suspect!



So first step was sketching out the map in CM.

This was pretty quick to do as effectively this is just sketching using the overlay. I'm not a fan of zig-zag roads. So i end up making compromises to 'fit' the overall 'feel' of the road/track/rail. I think this makes it easier for the player in game to plot road movements etc. So I compromise map accuracy for ease of play.
The real work comes when you start adding the elevations... This was a tough one as there are also lots of water features. Lots of do and re-do to only re-do-re-do...

So slowly taking shape. This is the railtrack at the north of the above maps looking west.

Looking south, from the west edge of the north of the map, towards the large wood block (on Google earth they are marked as 'Budziska'.

Looking back east from the above wood block - way in distanced will be Tluszcz (not started on that yet)

View of current state of work of the map. Only about a 1/4 done regarding terraforming! A looong way to go yet. The view here is the same view as above but slightly higher. I'm just starting doing the village of Jasienica itself (top right), which will take a wee while.
Cheery! 

That's a mistake. It is good and as you say, the spotting is complicated. Sometimes the Soviet tanks don't see anything, and then I am in a PBEM where my TTS M-60s are losing badly to T-64Bs at 2000 meters.
At the very least the focus on range for spotting issues is misguided IMHO.

Operation Barbarossa did pretty much as well as it could, starting a few weeks earlier or capturing Moscow would not have made a difference in the long run. The Op was based on the belief that the Communist regime would implode. That was not the case in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption based on opinion of Russian emigres, the purges in the Russian army and Russian performance in the Finnish war. US and UK in 41 also expected Russia to collapse.
Once it was obvious Russia was fighting on, the Germans had to face the fact that the logistic challenges made it impossible to conquer all of Russia. Based on pre-Op planning, the Germans estimated that the maximum that they could supply their troops was 500 km from the bases and that is where the initial offensive petered out in July. After that, they had to move bases forward to support additional offensives. Problem was the railroad network was inadequate, not just the type, but the number. The Germans needed at least one dedicated rail line per army, they fielded around 10 armies, but they could only count on really one rail line per Army Group, so troops on the front line were always short of everything. Best example is winter clothing. The Germans had all the winter clothing they needed for the entire armies in the east in storage in Germany and Poland, problem was the entire rail capacity in Russia was taken up by fuel, ammo and food so they were unable to transport winter clothing to the front line troops.

Problem with threads like these is that people make assumptions about how infantry behave with a HUNT command without bothering to check how they actually do behave in the game. When this topic came out last year, I ran a series of tests to see if there was an issue. As far as I can tell, infantry on HUNT behaves in a realistic manner. This are the results I had posted:
so, basically, infantry on HUNT will cancel the order and go prone in the following circumstances:
1. they spot an enemy unit;
2. they take a casualty;
3. their suppression meter goes up to the second bar, which can take as little 1-2 MG bursts coming close or 2-4  shots from a single shooter coming close.
Tweaking the sensitivity to fire is always a balance, you don't want your troops to keep advancing when they are fired on, OTOH you don't want all your troops going prone because of some enemy fire in the general area.
Again if anyone has a save game where you feel infantry is not behaving in a realistic manner, post it so we can take a look at it.

The issue with adding women is that all the soldier units are the same size so you only need one set of animations. To have a realistic woman model, you would need a smaller more feminine looking model which requires a new set of animations, uniforms and gear, so a lot more work.
The other issue is that women did not generally serve in front line combat units in the WW2, Cold War or even Shock Force period (2008), so this is only really an issue for Blue forces in CMBS, women are not in combat units in Russia as far as I know.
The simplest solution would be what other sims do and as Erwin mentioned, having women voices in air/artillery missions which only requires new voice files and could be added as a mod.

The problem with determining in game RPG-7 accuracy is that the RL data is all over the map. It ranges from Russian claims that it was a garanteed 1-2 shot kill at 300 meters down to the U.S. Army estimates that in a typical battlefield situation 1st shot hit probability on a hulldown M-60 might be as low as 15%. Based on conflicting or missing data, BFC's approach is to make a best guess estimate. Based on the quick tests run by TheCapt, in game accuracy seems to be within the expected results.
 

The problem with determining in game RPG-7 accuracy is that the RL data is all over the map. It ranges from Russian claims that it was a garanteed 1-2 shot kill at 300 meters down to the U.S. Army estimates that in a typical battlefield situation 1st shot hit probability on a hulldown M-60 might be as low as 15%. Based on conflicting or missing data, BFC's approach is to make a best guess estimate. Based on the quick tests run by TheCapt, in game accuracy seems to be within the expected results.
 

so, according to this 1976 U.S. Army document, hit probability of a RPG-7 against a Hull down M-60 at 225 meters is as follows:
- 1st shot 15%
-2nd shot 30% 
/tardir/tiffs/a393159.tiff (dtic.mil)
see pages 15-16.
That more or less matches the test results by Capt.

so, according to this 1976 U.S. Army document, hit probability of a RPG-7 against a Hull down M-60 at 225 meters is as follows:
- 1st shot 15%
-2nd shot 30% 
/tardir/tiffs/a393159.tiff (dtic.mil)
see pages 15-16.
That more or less matches the test results by Capt.

But in between shots he will have to reload and thus 'lose' the aim. Depending how much zoom the RPG optic has, determines whether there is any improvement after one or two ranging shots. Also, depending on the accuracy at a given distance there might be more offset from the rocket inaccuracy than the ranging increment will make.
Anyway, for in game I don't know if it's modelled that after each shot it will get more accurate. 
No worries. Frustrating: I understand  
 
I don't think that is what anybody is saying. 
However, chance can be a frustrating thing. Especially when the chance is close to 50%. You expect to have 'it' happen once in every two events. But if your unlucky it might not happen in 20 events, or heck 1000 events. Now the chance for the latter is quite low, but there is a chance.
So, if you have frustrating bad luck once that doesn't mean it happens often.
Also, it is not per se unrealistic. Let's say if that document is correct and after one ranging shot the chance is 70% to hit. Let's also assume the chance stays 70% after that. I forgot the formula but it's quite a small chance that you won't hit with 10 shots at 70%, but still a chance. 

So if it happens a lot it is a problem and unrealistic. If it happens only once it's just a small chance.
What did you expect? Is any occurrence of a rare event per definition unrealistic and therefore a problem? 
If I'm honest it seems you are reacting from frustration and not from ratio. 

Well, you are picking ONE outlier event which means it is worthless as an exercise in predicting game outcome.
I have also seen instances where the same type of AT weapon scores a kill on the 1st hit, which is just as meaningless.
If you really want to see if there is a problem, do what we do, setup a test scenario with 50-100 shooters trying to hit a stationary target at 225 meters, then come back with the results and we can see if the accuracy needs to be tweaked.

Not necessarily. Are you talking about RL or ingame? 
Do you realize that if a chance for something is 50% than it doesn't matter how many times you run it, it will remain 50%?
For example in roulette the chance for red isn't higher if you just had a black number.
Although in RL the operator might learn to aim a bit lower or higher. But between reloading and the rocket standard inaccuracy not sure how much that would mean. 
In game I don't know if chance gets bigger.
But what's your point anyway? you haven't made one.

I've never had that problem - and I've played a lot of Combat Mission.

Keep playing, get better at the game and at tactics, and 'random bugs' will happen to you less often...

Agree with a lot of the comments. Been playing CM on and off since CMBB in 2002. I have often gone off for several months several times playing other games, other genres, other periods looking for the ultimate realistic wargame, but I always come back to CM which despite its fault is still the best overall simulation of tactical company/battalion level warfare.

Agree with a lot of the comments. Been playing CM on and off since CMBB in 2002. I have often gone off for several months several times playing other games, other genres, other periods looking for the ultimate realistic wargame, but I always come back to CM which despite its fault is still the best overall simulation of tactical company/battalion level warfare.

I would call him Mr. President. He had his faults, but in retrospect was a much better POTUS than the current occupant who is turning out to be a senile wimp.
p.s. - there is a reason why political comments are not allowed.

I would call him Mr. President. He had his faults, but in retrospect was a much better POTUS than the current occupant who is turning out to be a senile wimp.
p.s. - there is a reason why political comments are not allowed.

I would call him Mr. President. He had his faults, but in retrospect was a much better POTUS than the current occupant who is turning out to be a senile wimp.
p.s. - there is a reason why political comments are not allowed.

Problem with threads like these is that people make assumptions about how infantry behave with a HUNT command without bothering to check how they actually do behave in the game. When this topic came out last year, I ran a series of tests to see if there was an issue. As far as I can tell, infantry on HUNT behaves in a realistic manner. This are the results I had posted:
so, basically, infantry on HUNT will cancel the order and go prone in the following circumstances:
1. they spot an enemy unit;
2. they take a casualty;
3. their suppression meter goes up to the second bar, which can take as little 1-2 MG bursts coming close or 2-4  shots from a single shooter coming close.
Tweaking the sensitivity to fire is always a balance, you don't want your troops to keep advancing when they are fired on, OTOH you don't want all your troops going prone because of some enemy fire in the general area.
Again if anyone has a save game where you feel infantry is not behaving in a realistic manner, post it so we can take a look at it.

I would call him Mr. President. He had his faults, but in retrospect was a much better POTUS than the current occupant who is turning out to be a senile wimp.
p.s. - there is a reason why political comments are not allowed.

Anyone reading this looking for a challenge join this. @slysniper's CMBS tournament was really good. Very different and challenging. Totally worth playing. None of this balanced scenarios stuff - this is way harder.
 

Only infantry units can use the ACQUIRE command to replenish ammo. This is clearly stated in the game manual.
As to why Tanks and AFVs cannot replenish ammo during a game, official reason is that this is typically outside the scope of CM. Normally tanks low on ammo would go to the rear and take new ammo which could take several hours.

Problem with threads like these is that people make assumptions about how infantry behave with a HUNT command without bothering to check how they actually do behave in the game. When this topic came out last year, I ran a series of tests to see if there was an issue. As far as I can tell, infantry on HUNT behaves in a realistic manner. This are the results I had posted:
so, basically, infantry on HUNT will cancel the order and go prone in the following circumstances:
1. they spot an enemy unit;
2. they take a casualty;
3. their suppression meter goes up to the second bar, which can take as little 1-2 MG bursts coming close or 2-4  shots from a single shooter coming close.
Tweaking the sensitivity to fire is always a balance, you don't want your troops to keep advancing when they are fired on, OTOH you don't want all your troops going prone because of some enemy fire in the general area.
Again if anyone has a save game where you feel infantry is not behaving in a realistic manner, post it so we can take a look at it.