Lt Bull

With patch, I have seen the ATG bunkers fire are very high angles, so that the gun barrel is actually poking through the concrete, beyond the slot width. Will try to post a pic.

Hello, I am curious to know how others have fared in the CMRT scenario "Minsk Express". Please state what side you played, whether it was H2H or vs AI, the battle outcome and any relevant comments that might explain the outcome. Bonus points for posting the AAR screen. :cool: Cheers Bull

I have not played too many armor on armor heavy CMRT scenarios, but the one that I did pla it was the "unusual advantage in terms of spotting as well as first-hit-probability/accuracy" of Russian over German tanks that was EXACTLY the issue I felt I actually was going to post a thread specifically about a particular scenario "Minsk Express", which I played WEGO PBEM, where it seemed like it was the stationary, ambushing German armor that had the spotting disadvantage against the advancing Russian armor (IS2s, T34s and SU-76). So many times the stationary, unbuttoned German tanks, many in concealing terrain, waiting to spot and ambush the approaching advancing enemy armor found themselves being spotted first and ambushed by fire from an unseen tank that had advanced towards them. The funny thing was is that my opponent who had also played the same scenario from the German side against another opponent experienced the same thing going on in that PBEM as well. What I experienced in the PBEM I played really put me off CM/CMRT as I have long questioned the integrity, consistency and mechanics of the CM LOS engine. NOTE: All this occurred in games played prior to the latest patch. I can not vouch for what might happen if played with the latest patch. Now that this issue has been brought, I will start a thread on the scenario I played "Minsk Express" asking for others to post what they found in their games. Thanks Rokko for starting this thread.

Yes to having opened forum page and seen all threads unmarked (ie. indicated they have been read) when I have not actually read them, indicating no new unread content. What failing PBEM issues are you referring to?

Yes, though I would refine it as where there is no LOS but potentially could be LOS if one/or both units were to change their stance (ie. from prone to standing). It seems that perhaps Elite looks at whether at least one of the units could theoretically spot the other for visual C2 to be established. Either way, I don't think the manual definition is the full story, as we have seen in both examples we have shown.

I don't think that is the case here. Read on.. I understand and I am not disputing any of that. The problem is that VISUAL C2 does not exist between Section HQ and Detachment 1. Not that those green dots do not indicate the type/quality of C2 link (would be useful if they could, using different colours). ?? Not sure what you are saying/implying here. If 1 Detachment doesn't see 3 Section HQ then why does the 3 Section HQ icon appear when I select 1 Detachment during the replay phase (doing so shows all icons of other units spotted/seen by the selected unit). Might not be necessary just yet, but you have said nothing to convince me that a misunderstanding of how icons work is responsible for the oddities that I am reporting.

Thanks for that Vanir Ausf B, I realise now I had never understood the difference between Elite and Iron correctly. Funnily enough, I may actually have you (and womble) to blame for that misunderstanding! You quoted Peregrine and I followed the link to where you got that from. What a great read. I am sure I probably read the first few pages back in the day and just believed what I read: Maybe that thread was the reason why others may still not properly understand how Iron setting works. Anyway, I have started to do some test of my own using Iron setting. What is strange is that I honestly believed (remember) that when you clicked a friendly unit during either the replay or orders phase, that, as has been described, the only friendly units you would see would be the ones that the unit currently has LOS to and has spotted. For some reason I now see that this only applies if you click a unit during the REPLAY phase! What the?? During the ORDERS phase all friendly units remain visible (just like in Elite) regardless of whether you click on a unit on the map or not. I have conducted back to back Elite and Iron mode C2 tests and have also (quite randomly) been able to find a situation where in Elite mode visual C2 can be established but in Iron mode it seems apparently impossible. I happened to choose a scenario called "Clenbienne Allied vs AI". I was just playing around with a Section HQ and it's squad unit, moving them around, in and out of LOS and testing/checking how C2 worked. In Iron setting, I had the HQ unit inside a building looking out towards a road that led away from the building. There are two hedges between the road and the building. A LOS check from the HQ to the road reveals that there is partial (grey) LOS and can spot all the friendly units in front of it. For whatever reason, I could only establish both audible and visual C2 if the squad unit was literally in the action square immediately adjacent to the building. One action square away at a range of just 12m, and the visual C2 link disappears, the audible C2 link remains. According to the "only what the unit can see information" revealed during the replays, it did appear that the squad actually can see the HQ unit. So why is there no visual C2? I then proceeded to move the squad further away until the "only what the unit can see information" revealed during the replays told me that it had lost LOS with the HQ unit. This seems to occur one action square further away from the 30m range it last could see the HQ unit. Even when I gave the HQ unit int he building area fire orders in an attempt to make themselves revealed/visible to the squad unit looking their way just 12m away, teh squad unit still could not spot the HQ unit. Screenshots below taken during movie: Squad sees/spots HQ.. and HQ sees/spots squad... ...yet visual C2 doesn't ever seem to occur, even at 12m range! PS: Apologies for the poor graphical quality of the in game graphics in the screenshots. Some terrain in the CM screenshots I take seem to get blurry for some reason (be nice if someone knows how to avoid this). If you try these same things on Elite however, visual C2 exists between these units even if the squad unit moves 100m distant up the road from the HQ unit in the house. If LOS is symmetrical (ie. if one unit can spot another then the other can also potentially see it), why doesn't this seem to apply in Iron? It seems having mutual LOS between units in Iron (even at 12m range) doesn't guarantee visual C2 will eventually occur. Something doesn't seem right here. :confused: Here is the IRON saved file that you can repeat the same tests: https://db.tt/fpyooMgT PS: I just realised how confusing it can be playing in Iron if you are trying to determine during a turn whether an out of visual C2 unit actually has a LOS to it's HQ unit (or vice versa. note: both units must spot each other simultaneously). You need to wait for the replay to click on the unit to really tell what it has/hasn't actually spotted.

OK, I think I will need to ask more questions to test my understanding of the significance, situations and implications of this. I think I understand the whole "friendly units need to spot each other" (ie. unlike Elite, if LOS is possible, spotting is not automatic), but how does this really affect things in a game? Is it just that there may be a "spotting time delay" when establishing a visual C2 link between leader/subordinate pairs hence making it more likely that units remain out of visual C2 with their leaders? Do we know what kind of time delay we are typically talking about? Is it typically always just a few seconds? If so, then I wouldn't expect the extra few seconds of having a unit NOT in visual C2 to have much (if any) influence on gameplay. Does the need to spot other friendlies in Iron potentially also affect the gameplay outside of just C2 links? I mean, does a unit care if it can see/has spotted other units besides it's own leader unit? Am I right to assume that a game played on Iron would/should in theory require more PC resources because LOS checks are now being performed not just between friendly/enemy units but also between friendly/friendly units? Can anyone recall any scenario they have played (or even a situation) where they believe an outcome would have been different had the setting been Elite as opposed to Iron?

Seeing people still discuss this after all this time makes me doubt what I think I already know about the difference between ELITE and IRON difficulty settings. From the manual it says this: Iron Iron is an optional setting that goes even one step further than Elite, and introduces special restrictions on what the player can do and when. While even more realistic than the other settings, this option introduces a number of interface limitations which might put off the casual player, so it is strictly an optional choice. - Friendly units need to be spotted just like enemy units. If you have a friendly unit not inline of sight or in contact with another friendly unit, then the only way to find this unit is by either re-establishing contact with another friendly unit or by clicking through the chain of command in the game interface, jumping from unit to unit. I just need to confirm what it is I think I know about the differences: From a WEGO gameplay perspective only, it was my understanding that there really is no point in playing in Iron. It doesn't make the game anymore realistic or challenging than Elite, certainly not "even more realistic than the other settings" as stated in the manual, which I think is misleading. All the gameplay and C2 mechanics remain the same, Iron just makes it perhaps at times harder/less convenient for the player to find where units are on the map. Playing unpaused RT however, I could understand that playing Iron would be more challenging as the player can experience FOW with his own units whenever they selected any unit. Is this evaluation correct?

Nice one! Yes to this!

OMG, I certainly didn't think this one through properly before I posted. Of course that would be the case and as a consequence probably more effort and involved than it's worth, and would never have suggested such a proposal had I thought through it more. I think I just don't like the idea of having to create, remember and manage my own unique/random passwords for each and ever PBEM and end up using just one, as well as having to manually enter it in each time. OK, so rethinking this again, what I should have probably suggested instead was to potentially have the ability/option for CM to: 1) randomly generate and assign a password automatically to a PBEM game (a "enter in password or automatically generate?" option) 2) save this password to a local file which is automatically used once the incoming PBEM is received (game would look for key text string in the ema filename) This would remove the need for a player to create, record and/or remember each and every (unique) password used in their PBEMs AND remove the need for them to manually enter in each password everytime they receive a PBEM file. If the player ever wanted to share their PBEM ema files with anyone else, they would just use the one that was randomly generated by CM for that PBEM without any problem. Haha yes, there are some well produced ones out there. My reason for sharing wasn't necessarily to show uber cool stuff. More for allowing others more freedom to scrutinize the goings on of a battle first hand, potentially from both sides of a battle. Hmm...I know about H2HH but didn't know about this program...will look in to it.

Hello I think a good feature to add to CMx2 would be the ability to change a PBEM password, mainly so that it could be removed at the end of a battle to allow you to freely share PBEMs/your battles with others. Has this ever been considered?

I never did but don't have issues (that I know of). What effect might leaving the Z folder have?

I see. I just tested this by deleting some of the walls and this does seem to be the case. It is still very strange it ends up like that. What is even more odd is that the TacAI only seems to care about walls/cover that is to the LEFT of the unit. :confused: If a unit is running along and there is wall nearby to it's left, the TacAI will make the unit "gravitate" towards the wall effectively slowing it's speed down by 25-33%. However if the same unit is running along and the wall is on it's RIGHT, the TacAI will completely disregard the wall and not "gravitate" towards the wall and keep running straight, effectively 25-33% faster what it would be travelling at had the wall be on it's left. It seems that even a wall 70m to the left of a unit and parallel to the direction of travel of a unit has enough "gravitation" to pull the unit 70m side ways so that it continues to move up alongside it at the slower speed. Here is a screenshot of my test with units given orders to run up the map with some walls removed. Notice the bunching of units to the right of the walls (note: that group of three units just to the left of the 1760 landmark text are all actually to the RIGHT of the wall closest to them), and the two left most units ignoring the wall to their right and hence moving at a faster speed. Take home message: If you want your infantry to move at maximum speed, try avoiding having to move along a path that has walls to their left.

I thought I recalled reading something similar so I searched and found this: Sherriff of Oosterbeek | Can't pass under rail bridges Looks like a bug in the way the map/underpass is made. I thought this scenario came with CMBN:MG so I am unsure whether it's something BFC would want to see it fixed or if it is up to the player/scen designer to deal with.

All units are carrying 2 panzerfausts. Edited post to state v3.1. What version are you running?

Hello "The Sherriff of Ooosterbeek" SCENARIO SPOILERS BELOW: V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V I have just started playing the scenario "The Sherriff of Oosterbeek" after upgrading to 3.1. I gave orders to my two Stugs (that were at ground level on the road) to move under the railway underpass. I never watched them move but they have ended up like this: The two vehicles are superimposed on each other and have become stuck somehow off the ground apparently resting on the railway track. Saved file is here. I never played this prior to 3.1 so not sure if it is related to that. Bull

Hi, While doing some testing for other reasons, I inadvertently discovered something peculiar about infantry movement speeds. (I am running v3.1) I deployed ten (identical as far as the Scenario Editor goes) 2-man German tank hunter teams in a test where they simply line up at one end of a map and move across it. The odd thing is that one of the teams always move significantly faster than the other nine teams. The nine other squads typically travel about 135-140m/60sec MOVING FAST across flat pavement. This one squad however travels 175-180m/60sec. That makes that one unit approximately 25-33% faster than the rest. They are all listed as: Exp: Regular Motivation: Normal Fitness: Fit Further making this odd, I edited the scenario to change the fast team to: Exp: Conscript Motivation: Poor Fitness: Unfit and the unit still is just as fast, but fatigues much sooner. This screenshot shows just how far ahead of his colleagues this unit is able to get after just 3 turns: I do not believe that this large discrepancy is intentional. Makes me wonder if other unit characteristics also vary by so much. Is this some kind of bug? Here is both a saved file to run and see for yourself and the scenario file: Scenario file Saved file Bull

Hello, I recall originally playing CMBN (pre v2.1) and finding that when my squads gave Buddy Aid to casualties that carried things like SMGs, LMG and AT weapons, they would invariably also pick up (scrounge) their fallen comrades "better" weapons and ammo to replace their own (usually a standard rifle or pistol). This was kind of key especially when an infantry squad/team lost it's LMGer for example. It made perfect sense for one of the remaining members to drop their rifle and replace it with the LMG. Unless mistaken, I do not find this happening as it used to. Has something changed with the way scrounging weapons now works? Bull

Don't think even starting from a between mission save is working here. I just opened up the save file from the start of the battle before "Labyrinth v2", surrendered (to just quickly get to the next battle "Labyrinth v2") and the floating movement markers persist in that battle. I didnt check but I am sure the LOS issues would also be present. Here is the between mission save. https://db.tt/LtmJuIvL

Hello, I have just updated to 3.1. I have resumed a WEGO campaign I was playing (Road to Montebourg, can't confirm which version) and have just entered in to the battle "The Labyrinth v2" and noticed some multiple cases of obviously bugged out LOS mechanics going on between units that have multiple rows of hedgreows between them. Here are some saved games: https://db.tt/uk7Umubn https://db.tt/6p97S71h Whats the issue? I can't really continue the campaign with this craziness going on. PS: I am also noticing that the movement waypoints seem to float way above the ground surface! Probably related. Bull

I do remember that my infantry did pick up SMGs (and other weapons) quite regularly. Typically any rifleman would pick up an SMG or LMG or AT weapon after giving buddy aid. However, I have noticed in the few times I have played CMRT that it doesn't seem to be quite as common (if at all). Maybe the 3.0 patch did something to stop this from happening, which would be a backwards step.

I am surprised by some things that are being said and claimed here with such boldness/authority/experience/affiliation to BFC. They deserve to be rigorously tested as they certainly sound bogus to me, misleading at best. eg. Really? So like in my example above, if one tank can spot a part of another tank it should be able to shoot it? Lets set up probably the most basic clear cut situation one could think of to test this. I have set up a simple map that has a building, a Sherman and a PzIV (eyeballs A). Unlike the representation of say trees/foliage, the representation of the corner edge of a building in the game is at least much more definite and clearly defined (less abstract, even ZERO abstract?) to a player as far as assessing LOS/LOF etc. I placed the PzIV beside the building so that it's rear hull peeps out from the side of the building. I then placed a Sherman on the other side of the building. From what is graphically represented, and if CMx2 LOS mechanics work as mentioned above, then the Sherman crew eyeballs should have no trouble "seeing a part of eyeball A's ride", establishing LOS "then that vehicle can be shot at". But what happens (can happen) instead? The Sherman can not spot the PzIV that graphically should be clearly visible to the Sherman even at virtually point blank range (12m)! Even more bizarrely, it is the PzIV that can spot the Sherman! (albeit with no LOF and after I rotate it on the spot). Here is the video of that (spots Sherman at about the 47sec mark): PzIV sees Sherman (better to download the linked video files locally and watch, the Dropbox viewer is a bit sucky) What is interesting is that the vision of the Sherman coincides when the driver vision slot seems to swing past the building corner (this could be purely coincidental though given the abstract nature of what CMBN LOS mechanics appears to be). Here is a save to play around and see for yourself: CM LOS Mechanics.bts It is quite clear that if anything, it should be the Sherman that (both in reality and as per the claims made as to how CMBN LOS mechanics actually work): a) readily spots the rear part of the PzIV sticking out from behind the building just 12m away is (as per the claims as to how CMBN LOS mechanics works) able to readily establish LOF and shoot at the "part of eyeball A's ride" that is visible. Lets investigate further. OK so the Sherman can't get LOS (let alone LOF) on the PzIV rear. Lets see if we can "trick it" in to hitting the "invisible" PzIV to prove to us that the PzIV really is there waiting to be hit by the Sherman if it could establish LOS/LOF naturally by itself. By targeting a point in the distance with a LOF that would pass through the area next to the building where the "invisible" PzIV would (should!) be clearly visible to the Sherman: Like this: Here is the video of that (from the perspective of the "invisible" PzIV): Hitting INVISIBLE PzIV The fire from the Sherman is clearly able to hit the "invisible" PzIV. LOF technically CAN exist between the Shermans main gun and the portion that would (should!) be visible to it. The PzIV really is there, just waiting to be spotted and targeted, but the Sherman TacAI can't see it. What I have presented indicates to me that the LOS mechanics in CMBN has a very obvious fundamental flaw which prevents it from achieving the kind of realistic LOS/LOF fidelity and resolution you would expect from a game that deals with tactical level combat. Clearly there seems to be a three way disconnect between: a) what is graphically presented to and interpreted by the player via the graphics the LOS/LOF allowed/not allowed to be established by the TacAI to potential targets c) the actual LOF that actually/theoretically does/can exist in the game Given how LOS/LOF can/can't work in this very clear cut case, is it really any wonder players like myself have had reason to doubt the fidelity of the CM LOS mechanics here and in other posts? I set up another situation and swapped the Sherman with the PzIV. This time, both tanks get LOS to each other after 10sec, but apparently have no LOF to the other. (I am still yet to determine if the LOS to/from the PzIV is fundamentally any different to that to/from the Sherman). What is graphically represented leaves no doubt that at least the PzIV should have been able to shoot at the "part of eyeball A's ride" Check out the video: BIZZARE LOS-LOF mechanics Shermans view So lets assess these words (and a host of other things I have seen posted here and elsewhere on theses forums) again: Really? With clear cut cases of odd LOS behavior like this evident in the game, it really is disconcerting and a shame that so much effort at these forums is put in to discrediting, detracting and talking down anyone who dares question the accuracy/fidelity/realism of the LOS mechanics in CMx2 (or virtually any other feature in the game). As a player I don't want to be BSed to. I just want a warts and all understanding of what this game is meant to be/not be and how it is supposed to work/not work. I probably should have carried out these tests the first day I started playing CMBN. They speak more truth about how CMBN LOS mechanics work/don't work than many of the words being thrown around in this thread and in other threads by individuals who frankly should know better. My opponent has abandoned this game and refused to tell me his password or co-operate in other ways so as I could investigate these issues further. Perhaps if the request came from BFC he might assist in that way but I don't think he cares too much about trying to improve this game. The saved game above however actually has the section of map and the two tanks positioned as close as I could to where they were in the PBEM. I have not yet got them to be exact so as the LOS tool feedback in the PBEM is 100% identical, though it's very close. I might still keep trying to fiddle around. Regardless, what I find can happen is just as extraordinary. I might post about this later. PS: If the same types and findings of the LOS/LOF tests I conducted are "old news", please, let me know and where/when it was described.

Yes, I would like to do this. Unfortunately my opponent was unwilling to co-operate. I don't know if BFC can do anything with a PBEM without the password either. How can you say the Sherman's vision is blocked by foliage when you can see in the video I can draw a LOS line with the LOS tool to the zone where the PzIV was? Claiming the Shermans LOS was blocked (ie. it never had "potenial LOS") whereas the PzIV LOS wasn't, contradicts all that has been said about the supposed reciprocal nature of LOS in CM. I understand that the LOS tool itself is a quirky tool anyway like in this situation. Without a target to snap to, the LOS tool seems to pick a point at what seems to be close enough to ground level, rather than at some distance above the ground where a target would actually be. This can be seen when you might hover the LOS tool over a wheatfield/long grass. LOS may appear to be blocked but if you check the LOS to the same spot which now has a physical target to snap to, LOS will be shown to exist. Short of trying to recreate the situation manually by editing the scenario and adding the tanks to the map as close as possible to where they were in my PBEM (I think I will actually try to do that), I can not check to see if the Sherman would ever have spotted the PzIV or if this was even an outlier.

I have made quite a comprehensive video of the Sherman/PzIV incident. PS: The Sherman TC is a +1 (not sure why -2 was mentioned earlier on). The Sherman is kind of more on the edge of an orchard than a forest I have to removed the transparent trees mod so that the "default" foliage graphics are used in these videos. The video starts with an overhead look at where the Sherman and PzIV are located so you can get an idea for where the PzIV is located. I then add video I took when I loaded up the previous turns order phase (prior to the PzIV showing up) and did a few LOS checks from the Sherman to and from the spot the PzIV ends up occupying. I also get down at tank level to show what is graphically represented in the game. PS: Don't watch these with the embedded viewer in Dropbox. The playback quality is poor. Download file and watch. Sherman LOS checks.mp4 I also have added a video of a LOS check from the movement action spot located where the PzIV ends up back top to the Sherman as a reciprocal check. PzIV LOS.mp4 A few things: 1. Based on the default graphical representation of trees and foliage in the game, you are hard pressed to think that ANY LOS between the PzIV and Sherman could ever exist. It is a shame that the disconnect between the graphical representation and the actual in game LOS mechanics (of which I believe the LOS tool is an extension of) is so great. It does make playing this game very difficult. PS: The original videos I posted up featured the transparent tress mod which may have given the impression that based on graphics alone, that it was more believable that LOS could exist. 2. For all the graphical representation of the foliage we see in the video, which we know is over-re-representative because the in-game LOS mechanics DOES tell us LOS does/can exist, it is still incredible that the one vehicle with a dead TC that was preoccupied engaging multiple targets and firing it's main gun and MGs for 40sec, was the the one vehicle that remained unspotted at the end of the 40sec, whereas the vehicle that was just sat there unbuttoned with all crew spotting saw and heard nothing.