Pak40

Yea, I see your point that it must remain in the game for these things to work. However, I never use this tactic with area fire. I've learned that the TacAI knows best in these situations and will fire on the biggest threat. Let's take your example of a unit crossing a field with a rise in the middle: If you preset an area target from a waypoint at the crest of a hill on a known enemy location, let's call this UNIT X, then they will not be able to switch their fire to a possible greater threat. If UNIT X turns out to be a couple of rifle men but a greater threat such as an MG42 is located on the other side of that crest, then I want my team to try to suppress that MG42. You example of a tank using a pop-out attack is valid (for me) but only if the tank has seen the intended target spot previously or is in C2 with a unit that in theory could tell the tank to target the intended location. I often give tanks those pop-out commands, however, I never specify a target but sometimes set a covered arc in a particular direction.

I'm talking about using targeting orders from a way point. I've never used that. If I'm using a bounding tactic then I set target commands before the team moves. I've used area fire many times but only from what the unit can see at the present, not the future.

While I do appreciate the humor of your satire, I never said I thought the game needed to be 100% realistic micromanage nightmare. I'm just saying that it's not needed and actually makes the game more unrealistic than if they didn't have it. A couple of counter points to what you said above: I've never viewed Combat Mission to as a game where the players assume the role of the highest HQ unit. Players instead assume the role of every HQ and squad/team leader on the board. Each individual unit in real life had the ability to make decisions on their own without the need of their HQ unit to micromanage every minute detail. Combat Mission simulates this by allowing you to control every unit and see what they see.

The game completely works without it. I know this because I NEVER have used this feature to target a particular unit from a waypoint. I simply let the TacAI use it's brains (and it generally does a good job) and decide what to fire on if it encounters enemies at particular waypoints. I have played the full gambit of campaigns and lots of scenarios (mostly successfully) without ever having used this tool. The only thing I have done for waypoint commands is to give units facings or fire arcs. I don't agree that it's necessary at all. The camera, although even more approximate, is sufficient in giving a more realistic amount of information to the player. Because, IRL, a squad leader wont know what can or can't be seen until he reaches the top of that hill. At best the squad leaded would have an educated guess; in most cases he wont have a clue at all. People often complain that fog of war of the terrain in Combat Mission is one of it's weaknesses. i.e., both sides know the exact map geography from the beginning of the battle. Tools such as LOS from waypoints, which as you've said, is more accurate than camera eyeballing, makes the fog of war even weaker.

I agree with both your points, especially #2. I am of the mind that games like Combat Mission are designed to mimic reality to whatever degree is possible within the budget of the game developers and technology available. Giving more information than would be available to a real life unit is not only unrealistic but it's also an unnecessary cost to the developers that have a limited budget in a niche market. This also goes for the LOS from a waypoint feature. Unfortunately this has already been implemented. I think unrealistic tools such as this should not be implemented. We already have the ability to zoom anywhere on the map at level 1 and do this. Do we really need a tool?

Sorry, I meant to say that you don't have to confine units to arrive on the edge of a map. Well, the para drops went on for 15-30 minutes typically so some would definitely arrive later. There are many cases where paras landed on hot drop zones, so if a designer wanted to do this then it's not out of the realm of reality. Also, I was more thinking of a night time Normandy scenario where para "reinforcements" would suddenly appear in the middle of the map because it would simulate a small group of 3-4 troopers that find each other in the dark and form an an ad-hoc unit.

Yes, and you don't have to confine the units to arrive in the middle of the map. You can make them arrive wherever, simulating drops right on the map. If you couple this technique with completely random AI plans then you have what seek.

The BA2 screenshot reminds me of Spaceballs the movie

I'm more interested in where you get your 1947 black and whites (aerials?)

I've still seen split squads have issues with foxholes in open terrain. In one of the MG campaigns, I had split teams in foxholes on top of sand dunes and I still had to fiddle with them. The issue with the hedgerows is more understandable and probably the reason why you can't put a foxhole on a bocage AS.

This is one area that certainly needs improvement. I'm not sure why it's hard to do. The TacAI is supposed to seek the best cover isn't it?

I think SS formations were introduced in the Commonwealth module. Weapon allocation depends highly on each particular type of unit. I think there is some randomization from squad to squad, but in general the SS units are well equipped with the best automatic weapons such as the STG 44. Likewise, you will see FJ troops with the FG 42 mg. BF has done a very good job modeling the formations with their historical use of weapons.

Really Jon? You just can't let it go, can you?

Ditto also. But in addition to fog they really need better night time combat modeling, including parachute flares fired from mortars.

don't forget relative spotting. The game tracks each unit's spotting individually. No Borg style collective BS.

there's a reverse command for vehicles. A word about casualties: Most battles are designed to be challenging to the player and often you will have lots of casualties as a result. So it's quite normal to experience these results. Clearing woods is a frustrating job. Low visibility leads to close firefights. I often use split squads close together with the hunt command. Units will stop immediately upon seeing enemy and have a better chance of inflicting casualties before taking massive losses themselves.

Azintus, also search YouTube for some instructional videos, use "Combat Mission tutorial" search string. Read the manual, if you love all the games you've listed then you're probably the type that doesn't mind sinking into a good manual to read when you're on the john.

What's the pack time for the gun and have you waited that long?

It wasn't the engine that made CC3 meh, it was the terribly spread out campaign system. Once you finished the barbarosa campaign, you immediately started the next campaign which might be a year later, but somehow your forces were still depleted from the barbarosa campaign! CC4 had a better operational map campaign system but the battles were largely a joke. Calliopes vs 5 Panthers, WTF? Matrix has since acquired the code and released some pretty good remakes. The operational layer really shines now and if CM had something similar but slightly more realistic then we'd have the best of both worlds. Unfortunately it still suffers from a very basic tactical AI and a very poor setup AI, constantly setting up it's units in the open to be immediately mowed down. Apparently they are working on a new engine for the next one, so we'll see how that goes.

Hmm, but there are ways around this. Not ideal, but there are ways. For example, Squad Leader and other board games have the same issues, the terrain is seen by both sides. But SL had those concealment counters which allowed a player to put either a fake unit under it or a real unit. The opposing player never knew exactly where the real units were. In CM this could simply be done by placing a lot more foxholes than you need, which is wise to do anyway. Ideally enemy foxholes would be treated to similar spotting rules for enemy units. If they're spotted then they become visible to the opposing unit, otherwise they just blend into the surrounding terrain as if they were't there.

I agree that CM should allow fox holes to be placed on a bocage AS. I don't really understand why they don't allow this - it's possible in the editor if you place the foxholes first and then place the bocage, as LT Bull's screen shot clearly shows, so why not allow a player to place foxholes near the bocage? I think the answer is because in CM, foxholes are actually above the ground and would give the defender an advantage of both using a foxhole and bocage at the same time - this leads me to another issue, and this is important for people to understand, IRL foxholes next to bocage cannot be used simultaneously while the unit is firing over the bocage. It's one or the other. I think this is the real issue with CM because the TacAI doesn't really understand this concept. The TacAI sees the foxholes as cover yet the player may want the unit to be "out of the foxhole" so that it can defend the bocage. In order to fix all of these issues, Battlefront would need to: 1. properly model foxholes as holes in the ground as opposed to the current above ground fortification (this goes for trenches too) 2. allow foxholes to be placed under linear structure tiles such as bocage, hedges, fences, and walls 3. Develop the TacAI and/or command system that soldiers to use the foxholes when artillery is incoming and get out of them when they need to look or shoot through the bocage I don't know why #1 isn't possible. Battlefront has previously explained why but I don't remember their reasoning. Surely, it must be possible because craters from artillery actually carve a hole into the ground. #3 obviously would be the most complex part about this.

The minimum elevation of the gun is 5 degrees which in theory could be used as indirect fire over very low targets. So, I suppose the minimum indirect range = direct minimum range. The gun has a maximum elevation of 45 degrees which means that small ranges have to be fired at a low trajectory which may cause unintended collisions with trees, buildings, hills, etc.. I wonder if CM is accounting for this Lt Bull's case?

double post

Ha! Warts got busted.But seriously, I to am sic of people mispeling stuf on the forem when their's a dam spell cheek bilt into the damn thing. And even if its spelled rite but uzed in the wrong grammer then they should have the commen courtsey to dubble check their text. Come on guys, were not in 3rd grade anymore!!!

me to