Apocal

I remember being able to do this back in CMSF days, but I can't seem to figure out how to do it any more. I checked the manuals for CMRT and couldn't find mention of it anywhere. Was this feature removed or am I missing something incredibly obvious?

No. 1 isn't even wrong. A machine gun's rounds do create a conical (or oval-shaped, depending) beaten zone. Have you ever fired one for real? Short and medium range firepower are not why HMGs are employed.

I'm not sure why you keep posting videos on a forum full of people who've fired machine guns, including some in combat...

For someone who didn't play CMBB enough to notice, what was the morale system like in 1.0?

Decided to test this, took a large QB map, placed approximately 60 HMG teams on a hill, set down a "defending" force of about two companies on an opposite hill, started a real time game and let them rip. After five minutes did not notice any appreciable slowdown and stopped. edit: I knew this gave me deja vu for a reason.

Would further saves help?

(source: http://www.atlantikwall.org.uk/wn62.htm) WN62 had as its major armament two 75 mm cannon housed in H669 casemates. These are bizarre as it would seem that the camouflage is on the interior of the casemate and not the outside. One of the guns had been moved away from the site by D-day. They were aimed along the beach to the west and had large concrete walls protruding to the seaward side at the front to protect then from an attack directly from the front. Although the Germans manning the guns were billeted in the village a house nearby was used to feed the troops and allowed them to rest whilst on guard here. There were two small bunkers used to house ammunition. Two larger bunkers, served to house ammunition, and in times of bombardments personnel, which the nearer D-day approached the more bombardments were received. Various machine gun posts were also installed and it is typical of the Atlantik Wall defences that various calibre's were thought to be in use here. There was also an anti tank gun and an 50 mm mortar mounted in a Tobruk. In common with most strong points there was a small fire control post or observation bunker to keep watch over the sea. Emphasis mine, but I'd also note that minefields were noted as a source of casualties as well, liberally employed to channel the assaults. Casualties in the hundreds inflicted by overall defenses is probable, 2000-3000 would be more men than the totality of those who landed in that area.

Does anyone have a link to the previous thread? I didn't have much luck with searching.

One disconnect I encountered was that dug-in machine guns would frequently be described as stopping "a full company dead in its tracks" or similar, with no indication that the "full company" in question consisted of something like seventy men total and only a small portion were actually hit.

The platoon leader has contact with company and company commander with battalion? I don't think can share with anyone except those in his vicinity, except very slowly.

I threw together a pair of delay missions using stock QB maps, just to try to get experience working with exit and force destruction scoring, they were reasonably fun, if really unpolished. I'm pretty sure it can be enjoyable even if you're absurdly outnumbered, as long as the player's forces aren't forced to be wiped.

He's probably just really annoyed at playing H2H games and getting the guy who demands meeting engagement, open or rough terrain, day light, rarity off and facing Tigers and Panthers every. single. time.

Yes. That's one way of doing it, although I prefer to just go to a tank platoon and delete a few tanks, since its cheaper points-wise than buying attached vehicles. And speaking of "not sure what you have" are you aware you can expand the purchased forces menu to see individual squads and vehicles? (I'm assuming you're playing an attack, as the attacking side) 1. Use map preview if available, take a minute or two to figure if the map is going to tank-friendly or not, i.e. do you see a way to gainfully employ armor with minimal infantry support? Long lines of sight, overwatch positions, open terrain, few dead-zone for infiltration or ambush, etc. 2. 2a. For a tank friendly map, I buy a full medium tank battalion ("tank regiment [medium]" in Soviet parlance) first and pare it down to a single company, then add a company or so of infantry. If I'm still over points (~3000 for a medium attack, attacking side), I might strip a platoon from the infantry, then one or two tanks, which has always kept me within limits. 2b. For infantry-centric terrain, I go through the same process of stripping down to a infantry company that you do, usually keeping battalion mortars, more uncommonly battalion machine guns as well. 3. 3a. I don't generally bother with much artillery on tank-friendly maps, maybe a section or platoon of mortars for quick suppression of anti-tank guns before rushing tanks within LoS and pounding them. Tanks, employed intelligently, do most of what I wind up using artillery for (blasting dudes out of close or built-up terrain) except without the massive delay. 3b. For infantry-centric maps, it really depends, although I generally buy a set or two of TRPs, heavy mortar section or platoon above what comes with the infantry battalion, one or two medium howitzer batteries, etc. On some maps, I'll buy three sets of TRPs and twice as much artillery, including a heavy battery and just take the brakes off the rapetrain that way. 4. Sometimes I'll take a dedicated large-caliber HE thrower like SU-122 or StuH, for a map where I expect to be fighting in/around sturdy buildings, extensive field fortifications, etc. Engineers/sappers if I think there are going to be mines or I might need to blast my way into buildings. Attached TDs instead of turreted AFVs sometimes, if I want to save on points for somewhere else. 5. Leftover points get spent on recon cars, up-vetted snipers, attached MG and tank hunter teams, additional TRPs, low-quality AFVs etc. Is that what you're looking for? Obviously I left out some stuff for competitive reasons, but the jist of it is a pretty toolkit for most situations.

Probably a better showcase for unequal fights would be a a campaign, where the player could face a more realistic approximation of the actual decision made in the real war. Regarding the OP specifically an advancing Soviet player would be tasked with exploiting as fast as possible with his armor, but encounters an obstacle along with some resistance... is it a sham putting on the bold face of a determined defense? Or is it a real defense, intelligently laid-out and adequately supported? Can I push up armor aggressively and sweep the defenders off their feet in a few minutes' time? Or do I have to take my time dismantling it, bit by bit? Or have I encountered a strong front that I can't punch through without prohibitive losses, so I should back off? For a German player (I actually haven't played the German campaign yet), the questions could be something like: can I hold here with the forces I have? Can I at least delay or disrupt them? When should I extract to ensure my forces in contact aren't cut off and destroyed? Is there a possibility for counterattack? At what cost? I think that could be pretty entertaining the context of a campaign, but I can't think of any way to make scenario feel right in the case of weak (or mostly non-existent) German resistance or running into an out-stretched fist of a tactical situation that has "back off" as a correct solution. For a "typical" German situation, I can see how a scenario/campaign designer could maybe make that interesting, but I've gotten the impression (since CMSF really) that many players dislike force destruction/preservation and exit objectives compared to terrain objectives.

The Soviet campaign isn't really massive in scale, moderately larger than previous ones however. CMRT overall is pretty good, given the engine has had like six years of refinement.

Play meeting engagements at night, with bad weather, if you feel tanks are too dominant in that gametype. Bad weather and night does more to neuter tanks than anything else you can do in game short of decisively winning the overall tank fight. Although some of the maps with marshy terrain are nearly as good in that regard.

Most stuff is suboptimal - and some of it detrimental, like aircraft - in a H2H QB.

I'd prefer seeing the Korean War.

Yes. I'm assuming "bylfe" is "Bulge" when you have your finger on the wrong home key Anyway, I certainly noticed all sorts of accounts of 40mm, 37mm/50cal, etc. AA guns being used in improvished roles, but I missed out on any that involved 90mm guns. COuld you give me a steer towards specifics? If its buried under subtext I probably conflated it with artillery or more common ATGs.

Well, I was going to leave the matter at rest, but since you insist on bringing it up again (but in a different thread, the world wonders...) I couldn't help but notice you never did provide any of those loss accounts from the Soviet side. And the MG42 is hands down better in-game than the Maxim/DP, I had no idea this was even something up for debate.

Is there any reason the M1A1/M2 90mm gun was never used for towed AT or direct fire support work? The US Army had a seriously huge AAA branch, gobs and gobs of mostly underemployed gun AA battalions, but unlike other combatants never felt the need to use the gun involved? What gives?

So I can see what I've lost when playing real-time without needing to waste brain cycles flipping through all my units continuously.

How does that make sense at all? If I split teams manually and micro them to do fire-and-movement, they do not share suppression. If I use the assault command to automate the exact same task, then they do share suppression. Tell me I'm not the only one who thinks that is oddly inconsistent.

So is it also a feature not a bug that split teams do not share suppression?

I'm able to effectively micro five or six teams at once, I would be able to do a lot more if pause command + order-stacking worked in real-time multiplayer. It doesn't so you have to deal with stuff as it comes.