Holman

"Mixed camo" is an option for some units in the scenario editor. It's historical.

Can't you also make multiple copies of the basic hull, each with a different number? If the first 5 are copies of the basic and the sixth is the one with a panel, you'll have a 5-to-1 ratio (on average). My assumption is that game picks one of the series randomly whenever it spawns the vehicle. Is that not it?

There's a Steel Beasts scenario set up more or less to mimic that exact exercise.

One useful trick: Give a turreted vehicle a Target Briefly order combined with a 15 second pause, then give it the shortest possible move order straight forward or back. At that new waypoint, plot another Pause/Target Briefly and then give another tiny move order, and so on. With this method, you can have a single well-positioned vehicle lay heavy suppression on three or four different targets (for instance, a line of adjacent buildings) in a single minute.

BTS has mentioned that more in-depth engineer activity is planned for the future.

Given the spread of an AGS firing directly, I'm not sure I want them lobbing shells indirectly anywhere near my troops.

Yes. I do it all the time. In this case the Pause and Target Briefly orders are tied to their initial position. You could even have them run somewhere first and then (selecting the new waypoint as the order location) have them Pause there and Fire Briefly there before moving on to a third location. This is especially useful for storming a building. Rush up to the outside wall and Pause there 15 secs, Firing Briefly inside before rushing in. Your units will spray in through doors and windows and also toss grenades inside before entering. You can get a similar effect by using just Fire instead of Fire Briefly, then attaching an Facing order to the final waypoint. Facing cancels any Fire orders in place.

Thanks for the Strykers!

I heartily endorse this fudge. Having to run the loose soldiers to their parent squads, wait in place while they rejoined (or not) and then move on from there (the work of two or three turns) would be less realistic than the present model.

Actually, the game's Bradley fudges reality slightly. From the manual (pp. 73-74): "Note: We have artificially increased the passenger capacity of the M2 Bradley to accommodate a full rifle squad. In reality, a full rifle squad cannot fit in a Bradley, so there is a complicated cross-loading routine that results in members of multiple squads mixed together in the platoon HQ Bradley. Needless to say, simulating this is more trouble than it is worth!"

Thank you, Vin! These are great as usual.

All of them! Do what I did: start at the end of the thread and move backwards, downloading mods as Kieme posts them. Eventually you'll come to a post that includes links to all the mods he has posted so far, so you can stop moving back at that post--everything up to that point is listed there.

And anyway, if we had MLRS then the forum would be deluged with "Why no TacNukes??" threads.

I am also seeing the weird terrain in the OP. Win 8.1 64-bit desktop Intel i5-4570, 8 GB RAM Video card GeForce GTX 760 2GB

The manual text says that, but has there ever actually been a HQ version of the Jagdpanzer IV in the game?

I think it's expected that we don't use a Z folder now. For CMBS (and also CMRT and CMFI--everything after CMBN), the standard is for mods to go into the "Mods" folder in the Documents location, like so: C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Battlefront\Combat Mission\Black Sea\User Data\Mods

I don't remember every seeing difference. There's not a special command version of the Jgdpz IV, is there? Where would the extra man sit?

BTW, these all look really fantastic! I've just spent the hour downloading everything.

Funny! But is there is any AI difference? Does the player's ability to micromanage really highlight (as I suspect it does) the AI's hide-bound nature?

Is GreenAsJade's CM Mod Warehouse planning to support Black Sea?

I've been playing exclusively WeGo since the release of CMBN, mainly because I play a lot of PBEM. It occurs to me that I don't know how the AI actually performs in Real Time play. I know that (regardless of WeGo or RT) the AI works from a script set by the scenario designer, and I assume that everything that happens beyond that script is the responsibility of TacAI only. If this is the case, I would guess that RT play gives the player an even greater advantage over the AI since he can stop and give orders above the TacAI level whenever he wants to rather than having to wait for the one-minute turn to end. For those who have played a lot both WeGo and RT against the AI: do you see a difference? Is RT a dramatic "force multiplier" for the human player? Or does it (for some reason) go the other way?

Is there anything required for late-war Italy that isn't also required for late-war northern Europe? Aside from scenarios and different camo schemes, it seems like the development of the Bulge game includes everything required for Italy's completion.

I've got a question about tanks and other vehicles spotting the enemy: when hunting, is it better to be unbuttoned (getting those eyeballs out in the open) or to remain buttoned? In the WW2 games, unbuttoned TC's have a spotting advantage because they're not limited to narrow periscopes and viewblocks. In the modern era, however, vehicle-mounted FLIR and other electronic viewing devices are better than the naked eye at spotting hidden enemies: a vehicle or infantry squad hidden in the trees might stand out like a sore thumb on a thermal viewer. So, in CMBS, is it better (in terms of finding the enemy) to be unbuttoned or buttoned? Does an unbuttoned TC lose the spotting ability of the vehicle's electronic sensors, or is it assumed that the gunner (or someone else) is using them while the TC looks around? What about at night--do TC's generally have night vision goggles even when regular infantry (such as Ukrainians) don't? I know that unbuttoned commanders are more vulnerable to enemy fire, but I'm not asking about that.

Yet somehow I lost lots of battles in CMSF, and I had fun doing it.

The fun of CMSF was how asymmetrical it was. We have WW2 for stand-up fights, and now we have CMBS for conventional warfare with the latest high-tech equipment. I'd love for CMSF2 to keep its focus on the original imbalance of forces but to add features making that imbalance even more interesting: false intelligence, more robust infiltration, civilians, scripted events, etc. Bring the asymmetrical elements to greater life.