Pak40

Using sounds mods. Honestly, the stock small arms sounds were pretty weak IMO.

The better answer is for people with outdated machines to quit holding us back! But seriously, there are a lot of PC games that have come out in the last year or two that are not optimized for multi core processors and probably even more that are not optimized for 64 bit. ARMA II was one of them.

I've seen some long attempts by bazookas but 180m is pushing it. I wouldn't fire at that range either unless I was already spotted and had no alternative.

Xian, The mortar team does not have any rounds left on their persons. If they did, the rounds would show under their personal ammo display (on the left). The 25 rounds listed on the right are rounds available from a nearby unit, probably another 60mm mortar unit or a ammo bearer unit. If you can get that unit within 8 meters of your empty mortar then they should be able to share ammo.

From the Handbook of German Military forces: Pak38 AP ammo can penetrate 2.2 inches at 30d from normal @ 1000 yards Pak40 APCBC ammo can penetrate 102mm(4.2 in)homog. at 30d from normal @ 1000 yards Shermans' armor vary based on type but typically the side hull armor is at least 1.5 inches at vertical angle. That would put a Pak38 possibility kill at well beyond 1000 yards. Shermans frontal upper hull armor is at least 2 inches at about 50 degrees angle. Turret frontal is at least 3 inches. (these are just minimum values. Actual values depend on tank model and vary on different areas of the tank) Also, I'm not sure if Shermans are Face Hardened plate or homog plate. These have different capabilities against different types of AP rounds that the Germans used.

Or how articles from the past end up becoming true... http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/

Only if people take the time to actually read it. Now that Martyr, err, I mean the manual, has laid out the unit attributes in plain and simple English, I have some questions regarding the Experience and Morale: Are the two completely separate now? In CMx1 a crack unit by default had better morale. Is that still the case? In CMx2, does a Crack squad with -2 morale equate to a Veteran unit with normal moral(as far as morale is concerned)?

Yes, but I'm not sure it was 100% smokeless. You can youtube some videos of german AT guns and small arms. There is little smoke although there is some. But when compared to U.S. ammunition that produced white puffs of smoke it was a big advantage.

LOS <> shot trajectory.

So, did the Brits have organic tea making units in their battalions or did each section just carry their own brewing equipment? And, will BFC model tea time?

It hit a tree no doubt. I've seen this a number of times, usually with High explosive but a couple of times with smoke.

So what's the benefit of being able to abandon guns if you can't recrew? Is it just to save the crew? If playing a campaign, will an abandon crew get it's gun back on the next battle?

I never really have had a problem with the floating icons but it would be nice to make the height adjustable AND have the option to switch between floating icons or bases like in CMx1. I'd say BFC has about a zillion other cool things they'd like to add before this.

Umm, what about if your foliage is turned on?

As did the guy who was bunny hopping his troops.

No, it's quite on topic. I was responding to someone else's idea that there be different types of pre-registered TRPs. The accuracy from aerial FOs could be quite good. These are piper cubs that work closely with artillery battalions. They literally are based near them right behind the front lines and don't have to fly too far to find targets. So, as long as they have accurate maps and good training, they will know where they are. Often they were used to register fire on to known towns behind German lines but they were also used to call in fire on moving columns of enemy. There were used to good effect in the Bulge when visibility was good.

Sgt, I like those ideas. Especially rarity points for TRPs. One major thing would have to change: Currently anyone can simulate pre-registered artillery anywhere on the map if placed in the setup phase. One can also put time delays on these to make them come in later in the battle.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with successive losses resulting in penalizing the player. A good CO should realize when his units need additional help to get the job done. I.e., if Company A has failed twice to take a hill, then the Battalion C.O. is not likely to send them up a 3rd time without additional assets. Just doesn't make sense. However, I do like the idea that if the player keeps winning that it should get tougher for him. After all, everyone likes a challenge more than a cake walk.

There have been many cases where attackers have per-registered artillery, especially on fronts that have been static for any duration of time. Fluid fronts like August to September 44 might have less cases of this. Maybe pre-registered art. should be limited or eliminated on meeting engagements, but I think even that is not realistic. Aircraft often spotted for artillery, so ground units don't necessarily have to be in visual contact to adjust the fire.

Actually, I picked one of the more formidable looking 'low' bocages that I could find. There were others that looked lower and thinner. However, I will concede that it seems that the bocages next to the roads seem to be managed (trimmed or sprayed). I imagine the bocages in the fields are allowed a little more growth. Let's say you were walking next to a low bocage. Can anyone honestly say that they wouldn't be able to get over these obstacles if the were suddenly under fire from the other side of the field?? You bet your sweet ass you'd get over it in a hurry. You would find a way. Obviously assaulting under fire across a bocage is an unwise tactic. It would leave the soldiers in vulnerable state for however long it took them to climb over. IMO this should be modeled in the game because it is possible and often there are times when there are no enemy to oppose you.

As JyriErik mentioned, it completely is up to the campaign designer. They have the ability to make semi-dynamic campaigns. Ie, all the battles are pre-made but your success/failure will determine which is the next battle played. There is a really cool tool for download in the repository that will break down all of the campaigns' battles and how they're linked. LINK

Yes, I suppose the hedge can be used to this effect but then the issue becomes a map designer issue. To date, nobody has really been using the hedge as a passable 'low' bocage, at least not in the stock battles. And, I doubt the hedge has the same cover properties as the low bocage.

Usually. I'm not knocking the saves because the game saves automatically after each battle anyway. Just suggesting that the attitude that "I must win every battle" isn't the best way to experience the campaigns (IMO).

Hey guys, I'm not knocking the way you all play campaigns, to each his own. But, if I may suggest playing out the campaign the way the designers intended. If, after every battle you lose, you load a saved game in order to win it, then you're basically cheating yourself out of re-playability. Campaigns have branching paths of battles depending on how well or bad you do. If you only play the "winning" path every time then you're not really getting the full experience of the campaigns. I suggest you play the campaigns out with losses and all. Then at a later date you can replay the campaign. The second time you play it you'll probably win all or most of the battles anyway, but you'll also probably get to play some different battles giving you a different experience. Just a suggestion.

I'm discussing low bocage, which is the thread's topic. As much as you pretend to know more than the rest of us about the intricacies of bocage, you are not the definitive source on the subject and this does warrant further discussion. And we are not talking about the typical bocage that is probably referenced in the AARs that you mention. The facts are that there are varying degrees of bocage(height and width) all over Normandy. For simplicity sake, CMBN has narrowed these down to two choices, normal and low. I'm talking about the "low" bocage that is roughly the height of a short man and sometimes shorter. A typical example can be found here not far from St Mere Eglise: The left side seems to be a typical example of "low" bocage, the right side would be the "normal" bocage. You can use Google street view and see many more examples all over Normandy yourself. Most "low" bocage that I've seen is quite accessible to a human. I agree that a casual stroller would not want or attempt to traverse normal or even low bocage but a physically fit soldier can, with varying degrees of effort, get across if ordered to.