Apocal

I only briefly played the CMx1 series but I seem to recall there was also an option for forcing relatively balanced force mixes as well.

I've been playing a MP more and more these days and I'm starting to notice little things that *should* be happening that aren't. One of these is that buildings, when destroyed, essentially implode as if it was done by controlled demolition. Since we don't actually have an option available to rig buildings to blow, it should be far more chaotic just where and how the rubble is distributed. Right now, there is nothing in terms of rubble, debris or blockage outside of the original building footprint. Any chance we could see some realistic devastation?

1) In-game play is great. 2) Getting to that point can be a hassle and there is a lack of feedback on what is going wrong from the game itself. 3) There is a large "seam" created by not having a lobby function, since you can't smoothly transition to the next game.

Most straightforward is "recon by death." Break off a pair of scout teams and move them forward in bounds, wherever they die, that is where you have enemy contact. Go to the "SPECIAL" (S) menu and select "Open Up." There is no hotkey assigned by default, as far as I can recall. Not yet. Later this year there will be a Eastern Front game centered around Operation Bagration, the Red Army's liberation of Belarussia and eastern Poland, using the same engine as Fortress Italy.

For the M1-series of tracks, you still get the benefit, the only dudes to turn out are loader and commander. The gunner still puts his full and complete attention on his optics while the commander and loader give a modest, but tangible advantage to spotting, especially close-in, off-angle threats. On the defense, there aren't a whole lot of reasons to not be turned out, just because the disadvantages are minimized.

I have to ask, are you guys taking care that there is a gap before you throw down the waypoints?

Marked fields have a white sign.

This can't be real.

I have never lost a man to mines using "MOVE" through a marked field.

Kind of. If the density is low and you have luck on your side, you'll get some conveniently placed shellholes, but it isn't at all guaranteed. Also: if you run troops into a minefield, find AP mines the hard way and have engineers clear them, that does not clear AT mines, even though the field is marked white.

They work for TRPs as well, not all indirect fire modules, but most field artillery as far as I can tell.

lol, are you kidding?

Thanks for all the posts. Do you guys know any reasonable online sources I could peek through that would give me a good overview of this kind of stuff for the Red Army? The whole internet is awash in stuff about American, British and German forces, but relatively little on how the Red Army fought, as opposed to what they brought.

Just to preface this, I don't know nearly as much about the East Front as I do other areas of the war, so please bear with me. In the context of CM, how did Soviet infantry differ from German or American infantry during WW2? What considerations did they bring in terms of company and platoon level formations that your average west front focused American would mis-interpret or ignore? Did they have any glaring equipment issues? Did they have any bright spots? Finally, what kind of support would your typical attacking Soviet rifle company have attached to them?

SAWs vs. BARs and 240s vs. 30cals.

Simplification. They wanted it to be accessible, easily and quickly. Or at least that was the answer Steve gave (I think it was to me?) back in the days of CMSF. It would be confusing to people if medium gave 30 rounds per tube against a point tank target but when you made an area target to encompass a pair of tanks they only fired 10 rounds per tube. See what I'm getting at? This is a legit request and I believe it's been made before.

So there is no actual in-game variable effected by camo?

It isn't a perfect analogy but it suffices. There is mostly bug-free, press button to start gaming available in the form of console games. The consumers that don't settle for buggy, unintuitive products migrated to consoles.

Because the "appliance" of gaming is a console and PC gamers enjoy niche products that aren't viable console games.

If you want them to reliably fire, you need the middle waypoint so they are forced to pause. Depending solely on the TacAI in that regard is hit-or-miss.

lolwat? Anyway, is there any difference in the effectiveness between camo and plain uniforms? For spotting purposes? You have the month set to August, after the 82nd and 101st Airborne were pulled back to England. Pick June or July instead.

Oh OK, I see what you're trying to accomplish now. Add a bit more tree cover, something to shield a squad or two within about 150-200m of one of the HMG positions. Then add the third platoon and the attached MGs, but not mortars. It *should* allow the attacking force to cut things fairly evenly, with the distribution being slightly biased towards defending HMGs, but often the result being a stalemate; attackers sitting on one knocked out HMG, but unable to press the attack on the second HMG position.

Tell the passengers to unbutton, IIRC. And make sure they half-track is positioned in such a way it can bring both to bear on the target.

Terrain consists of few gentle folds (not more than +/- 3m) and light woods, enough to provide "shadows" of broken LOS, but not enough to conceal the force entirely. For the defenders, 2x HMGs, approximately 300-500m apart from each other, foxholes, interlocking and supporting fields of fire. They should be situated in such a way that on can not be assaulted without being exposed to fire from the other. Regular experience, leadership and morale. For the attackers, two platoons of infantry without mortars or company-level MG support. Regular experience, leadership and morale. They should not reliably break this position. I can probably make a map once I'm done with my stuff for the day and run tests myself, if you'd like additional data points.

Not at all to me. They shouldn't be much of a trump card when you're talking about sub-500m engagements anyway, since its so viable to get a good side shot in.