Renaud

Yawn. I don't see it as a show-stopper if some missiles need to be finished up at the end of a turn. Sure, it would be nice if the missiles froze in flight at the end of the turn so we could look at them and say 'COOL' and for a wonderful sense of temporal continuity. But if I can see the frozen missile during orders phase, I can trace it's flight path and get a good idea of where it came from, knowledge that wouldn't be available in reality (the missile is a blur or dot at best). That's a big deal if we are talking about missiles with reduced or no launch signature such as javelin launched by grunts who need to remain undetected to live. So optimally, you freeze all the missiles during orders phase, but they are invisible, or at best small directionless dots. FOW would apply to spotting launch signatures.

My impression from watching guys fire TOWs and vids of dragon and Saggers is that the old wire-guided first generation ATGMs were hard as heck to control. Especially dragons and saggers. Saggers had this silly little joystick which controlled the directional jets. Javelins and such are nothing like those old ATGM's. For starters, they aren't wire guided. They are usually electo-optical or somesuch with fire and forget capability, target recognition, etc. I imagine the newest rusky ones are too. Not to mention top-attack. I was with E Troop 2/3ACR (loader-driver, then a bit of gunnery, the usual progression). Then in 91 was a reserve tank commander (!) with a V Corp replacement battalion at Graf during Gulfwar. That was fun. Got a friend in Korea now, 1LT with mech infantry. Hey redcon I remember that. I bet that 14 sec figure comes from 'average flight time at 3000 meters' or somesuch nonsense. Took some stones with the old M113 TOW, where you had to be standing up with the launcher. :eek: At least on the brad you can be hull down and it's a remote launcher/sight.

When I was on M1's (late 87-91) we did do 'sagger drills' in which you speed up to 35-40mph and swerved in big arcs. The commander was supposed to lay the gun toward the puff-o'-smoke indicating the launch site while the gunner was in 3x power. The gunner would then acquire the target and start hosing it while the commander fired .50 in the general direction. (the loaders m240 was useless beyond 200 meters) This all assumes you actually saw the launch signature, which is unlikely unless the crew is unbuttoned and looking in the direction of launch. Even then, unlikely. All in all, we didn't kid ourselves about the chances of the sagger drill one day saving our bacon. More a tactic of desperation. We hoped the armor was up to the task. Which it largely turned out to be (from the front, mind you). In training, a simulated OPFOR sagger which hits was assumed to KIA any M1 from any aspect. I always assumed this was done on the theory that overestimating the threat was the best course. In reality, I don't think the original sagger could penetrate the frontal armor of the original M1, probably not even the side turret or hull. Unless it hits the drivers hatch, which is a narrow/small weak point, but very real. Or the turret top/engine deck/rear, all of which virtually anything can penetrate (20-40mm plain steel). I wonder how BF will determine what weapon can penetrate what armor...much simpler in WWII where you have ample historical research, yet we still argued about the minutea for days on end. Modern weapons are often top secret, like the details of chobham armor, kinetic penetrators, advanced defense systems and systems to defeat those systems. It's bewilderingly complex and mostly unknown. I for one won't expect some pie-in-the-sky realism. If its plausible, i'm good. Judgement calls will be part of the modelling here, much more so than even in armor/penetration modeling for a WWII era game.

"• The ability to send messages in between commanders, including the delay of those messages based on communication mechanisms used." Based on this, I would say yes. Can't see any reason why not, if they implemented comm delay between manuever element commanders.

What I am not sure of is the setup for embarked artillery unit in travel mode when they encounter another enemy unit (hiding or otherwise). That's an ideal use for light mech/cavalry/recon units: raiding the rear areas and trashing embarked support/artillery units. Will these units be forced to start turn 1 embarked and in a crappy elongated setup zone? This would be ideal, but that would mean some major programmatic changes in the CMBB setup code. Or perhaps could they hijack the existing 'padlock' code...hmmm. Are padlocked units unable to be disembarked by the player during setup phase? Can't remember.

Here is my educated guess on this question, based on little bits of info I have collected: YES, map battle damage will be saved during a campaign. I say this because of 1) unofficial info hinting that operational level urban square graphics will change to show damage; 2) CMBB can save map data after a battle (as a save game file) and reimport it in future battles (the QB map 'import' function). So they could hijack this functionality for CMC. Maybe i'm being overly optimistic here.

"Pixel Artist Required at Hunting Tank Software" "Friday, February 11, 2005 - 2:06:36 PM" Judging by the screenshots they got that position filled. Yea, I wish they had used standard NATO icons and a 2d top-down map, but then i'm an old school wargaming nerd. I can live with the cute horsies and stuff. Bring on the campaign!

Wow, upon reviewing the site again, looks like you will be able to play a solo campaign and command 1 or more units while AI handles the others on the operational map. Engagements which your unit are not personally involved in can be automatically resolved at the operational level. So you will get to have your personal unit "KellysHeroes"! (dunno how they got to the east front...) Even looks like you can save the OOB after the campaign, then load it into a new campaign, thus preserving your unit presumably with all it's awards, experience, casualties, etc. This is an extrapolation/guess on my part though... Haven't been this excited about a game since CMBO was in beta!!!

They got Charles to write the data import/export interface into CMBB, essentially creating a new CMBB executable which will ship with CMC. No screenscraping or funky java mouseclicks required. PeterK, that you even attempted that says something about your fanaticism regarding CM! This might sell a few thousand copies to weirdos like us, so it truly is a "labor of love" as moon or hunter or matt said. But what do I know, maybe the CMC/CMBB combo will become the next classic.

Ok. I realize that the CMBB maps can be wildly different from the CMC map, which is just an operational guide really. See my post in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=53;t=000054 for my further ruminations on the river crossing problem.

I really really doubt the new CMBB executable that comes with CMC will mess up any existing functionality. But just in case, you could create another install with the original CMBB exe. Or just rename and swap exe's as needed.

Looks to me like rivers run along the edges of 2x2 full tiles, as 76mm stated. At least in the screenshots. Roads run through tile centers.

That's a possibility, but what I said before still applies. A battle in 7 would deny the sov unit the advantage of defending against a german tactical bridge crossing, unless the river runs through 7 to some extent.

Wouldn't a 3,4,7,8 scenario substantially cancel the benefit of defending the bridge between 6 and 7? One wonders how the setup zones would be laid out for the 3 sov units in 3,7,8. I would hope for some dynamic combination of parts of 2x2 CM maps to allow a 2,3,6,7 battle and other adhoc combinations. I realize this is probably wishful thinking. Hopefully someone in authority will be along shortly. EDIT: On further consideration, you could get around the bridge-defense problem by making your 2x2 maps with the actual river course running 500 meters to one side of where it appears on the CMC map...so the setup in quadrant 7 would have the german setup zone firmly on the friendly side of the river, forcing the germans to make a tactical bridge crossing. This does give an advantage to the defender when attacked from 6 into 7, and disadvantages a defender in 7 when attacked from 8, for instance (since most of 7's setup will be on the attacker side of the river). [ October 14, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

My semi-educated guess would be 2,3,6 and 7. These 4 CMC sectors would be simulated by a single pre-made CMBB 2x2km map with the river down the middle, a bridge, etc. Did I get that right? Anyone?

A related question... If I am moving my german towed PAK40 battery ME down a road in travel formation and I encounter a russian mechanized battlegroup ME heading the other way, the towed Pak40 ME is SOL, right? I imagine the resulting meeting engagement will have my pak40's embarked and trucks lined up on the road. Is something of the sort modeled, or does the pak40 battery suffer relatively no disadvantage in such an encounter?

We track every dude. </font>

I think modeling is the time-waster. A strange hungarian tank might be a major development time-waster in CMBB since it's never used yet requires a unique model, unit data and textures. If you can include a BMP-3M without having to create an entirely new model, perhaps just by plopping on a modified turret and weapons data, it shouldn't be that hard. If you have to model some new weapon with unique graphical effects, that could be a problem. Such as the 3M's 100mm low velocity HE/rocket combo. Unless you can borrow the data and effects from something sufficiently similiar and already coded. Theoretically adding vehicles should be easier with the new system than in CMx1 which was all hard-coded. My guess is that Charles has at least tabelized unit data for import into the source code prior to a recompile. This would allow a non-technical designer to work on OOB's and unit data seperately from the source code. Or perhaps CMx2 system allows import of unit/OOB data via a developer-only interface while running the executable. Wouldn't that be handy!

I have a big (long/narrow) Kursk breakthrough map I made using that concept. It has only the static fortification units, no others. I can send it your way if you want to use it for something or just look at it. The idea is that german engineers must clear openings for the vehicles, while under fire. Used it once in a massive QB campaign recreation of the eastern front war, for june 43 of course (1 QB per month). Worked pretty well.

We didn't get armor companies in CMx1, so we aren't likely to get them in CMx2 which is supposed to be smaller scale. But yea, I would have liked full armor companies in CMx1 with CO and XO tanks (at least for western OOB's, just CO tank for Russian). I often cherry pick squads from unexceptional platoon leaders and combine them into a 'reserve' force under a decent Company CO unit. Sometimes I even strip all squads from totally vanilla PLT leaders and use those LT's for recon duty. Elite LRRP I call them. Other times I just use the orphaned leader units for static spotting duty since they have bino's. Someone will be along shortly to point out this is a-historical poo-poo, gamey, etc. Simulated or real combat is about what works, toss the rest. Reenactments are a different matter.

In CMBB & CMAK engineers will automatically remove daisy-chain AT mines, without using satchels. You just have to get them close enough and wait a few minutes. Lanes of these mines can be used in scenarious to simulate previously reconnoitered fields. Your sappers can then clear lanes for the tanks. It's only the revealed AT and AP minefields they throw satchels at.

ditto...

You will definitely be wanting to split that squad! :eek:

Another thing to remember: a FAT red line indicates you and the enemy are targetting each other. A thin red line is just the selected unit targeting the enemy (he's not targetting you yet)

A 'gun hit' disables the main gun in addition to the coaxial MG. Think of a gun hit as a jammed turret traverse or main gun elevation. Since the coax is generally fixed to the main gun mount, damaging either takes out the coax as well. To tell you the truth I can't recall if a turret mounted AA MG or a rear-facing ball-mount turret MG (such as on the KV1) will continue to function after a 'gun hit'. My guess is the AA MG will function (with cmdr unbuttoned of course), but any rear-facing MG will not. In any case, hull mounted machine guns will still function after a 'gun hit'. Ren