Apocal

What makes you think that four years of actually fighting had somehow made them worse at it? Did they take their lessons learned and do the exact opposite thing?

Inability to call for another fire mission on the exact same bit of terrain I just hit with a barrage. Not really a battle breaker in most cases, but annoying and moderately ahistorical. I remember in CMBO, they'd gleefully run themselves into LOW status firing at anything they could potentially kill. Someone mentioned this was an easy way to game the AI, hang out at long range until their weapons were dry, then advance. Not that it doesn't still work in CMx2, except in the case of HMGs.

What is the point of having two regiments of tanks when your supporting infantry's staying power is the limiting factor?

The game would need better feedback and more detailed automotive modelling to make that worthwhile.

The key point is that it was a 60mm mortar fired at a low rate. Against larger pieces or a more intense rate, you can't realistically clear the lethal radius unless you get lucky. Very few people have the balls to try something like that against a steady beat of 82mm.

I have a few more questions about CM:EF and since there isn't an EF forum, I guess I'll put them here. Is the Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive going to be covered in the main game, a latter module or not at all? Was there even enough differentiation between the two offensives to justify a separate module?

We saw the penetration, but you never actually said the tank was dead...?

Yes, the TacAI can be dumb at times. I do find myself wishing for a dedicated "render aid" command, especially if it could be tied to multiple AS or as an area effect.

Ultimately, I don't think the VLs are going to be terribly relevant in this case; armor on both sides, long lines of sight and not much infantry AT means that whoever wins the armor war is going to be able to dominate the fighting afterwards.

Confirmation bias: the pilots and gunners who died screaming in their burning aircraft aren't around in the post war to write books and give interviews. It is the same reason practically every aircraft of WW2 bar the Japanese models has some anecdote about how tough it was.

JasonC, that is very helpful, as always. Thank you.

But the Western Steamroller is what we're playing right now...?

I keep thinking I'd love if someone would redo the campaign from Close Combat 1 in CMBN, but then I remember we don't have persistent terrain and the troops are abstracted blobs rather than individuals. :-/

Eh... the idea is that you, as a player, should be reaching for some other tool than a daytime infantry assualt when confronted with MGs. As long as (H)MGs can effectively cockblock that, the combined arms relationship is balanced and you get real tactics out of the deal.

I came really close to knocking out your Tiger with one in our last H2H game. Fortunately (for you) I decided I wanted more bazookas so I skimped on getting a regular crew. I can't remember if I won or not, but I do remember the hair on the back of my neck rising when I heard your Tiger shift and repositioned my troops just in time to chop the hell out of the platoon acting as it's advance guard. Good times, good times.

Well, I don't really want to start a new, semi-O/T thread just for this one question so I'll ask it here: What is up with the Soviet "Guards"? I understand it was a distinction given to units that had proved themselves them under fire and soldiers in Guards units received more pay, but why did they have a separate TOE? How does this tie in with some units receiving locations as part of their unit name? Also, was there a real distinction made between Guards units and regular units at the tactical level, i.e. "we have to perform an opposed river crossing, regular troops won't do, call up the Guard!" or otherwise?

Is that the paratrooper one with the bipod? Then yeah, it does, but the others (regular 30cal, 50cal) don't.

This sounds like Twilight 2000.

You can already (somewhat) do this: in the branch selection block on the left, go from purchasing formations to specialized teams or single vehicles and select which HQ you want them under. You don't have full and absolute freedom, so no making a platoon with six rifle squads, for example.

Yeah, I wouldn't argue it is even the remotest bit realistic, it is just a fix for the TacAI being relatively poor in its target selection. And mortars firing without guidance from above at whatever target happens to be in front of them is just as unrealistic. If he's playing as Americans, undeployed MGs won't fire. I don't mind if they fire rifles and carbines, in fact I prefer it in most cases since I primarily play real-time and can't always spare brain cycles babysitting mortars to ensure their safety and self-defense.

Probably CM:EF, but CMSF2 is a close runner-up.

August 44 rarity cost: ∞

Hmm, some testing shows that this is happening to me as well. Wonder if it is a bug or unintentional behavior?

Am I really the only person who leaves his mortars undeployed to keep them from wasting rounds at random targets?

It isn't. Taking fire from an unspotted unit, you only hear the sounds of the rounds passing by your troops or flying into the air. You shouldn't be able to do this until the unit is actually spotted, according the manual (in the section about difficulty settings). What you can hear are the rounds in flight. Now, with that being said, I'm not sure how that connects with sound contacts being a thing in CMBN.