ASL Veteran

You can't.

There may be parameter objectives which are threshold based, but yeah, what you mention there is essentially as I understand it with regard to QB.

The destroy objective doesn't work in Quick Battles. My assumption would be that it doesn't work because there is no way for the game to assign a destroy objective to a unit automatically. So in terms of Quick Battles it is true that casualty victory points don't work. In terms of the game itself however, they are present and are frequently used in scenarios. In terms of the OP's post, if he was referring to QB only then he is correct. Casualty victory conditions don't apply. If he is referring to CMx2 in general terms then he is incorrect because the ability to assign casualty victory points is present and is used in scenarios and campaigns.

An excellent point. Considering that infantry in CM have nothing but ordinary hand grenades as equipment then whether or not the infantryman is physically standing on the vehicle or not is really irrelevant. In FM 21-75 on page H7 it lists several weak points on a tank that are suitable for infantry close assault. The turret ring, engine compartment, suspension system, ammunitions storage (inside the turret), and fuel tanks (external ones like Soviet tanks have). If you subtract the fuel tanks and the ammunition storage (behind armor) then you are left with the turret ring, suspension, and engine compartment. In no case does the Field Manual make a recommendation that a simple hand grenade be used to attack those weak points. Let's have a look at these weak points shall we? If a soldier stands on the engine compartment and places a hand grenade on it, would that be any different than if a soldier tosses a hand grenade onto the engine compartment? No, no difference at all unless there is some sort of a special location where the soldier can wedge the grenade into (and hope it doesn't roll off). Even then though a tossed grenade could end up in the same location without physical placement. So for that weak point it makes no difference whether the grenade is tossed or placed. For the suspension system, once again whether a grenade is placed or tossed would make no difference. In fact if the tank is moving it may very well be impossible to physically place a grenade somewhere in the supension system without losing part of your hand. What does that leave us with then? The turret ring. In most cases there isn't any sort of a gap large enough to actually wedge a grenade into the turret ring, especially from the front or the sides. Some tanks have a turret overhang in the rear for ammo storage like the Pz IV for example. Even in that case it's not entirely clear that the gap is large enough to wedge a grenade into. The presence of turret skirts also complicates matters since the soldier would have to reach past the skirts somehow. Suffice to say that wedging a grenade into a turret ring would be a challenging proposition unless the grenade itself had a means of sticking to the location that the grenade was placed. In most cases the likely result is that the grenade would just roll off the tank as soon as the soldier let go of it. The only thing soldiers are carrying in Combat Mission are hand grenades - no gasoline, no molotov cocktails, no crowbars, etc. Nothing other than hand grenades. If we make an assumption that hand grenades are not powerful enough to destroy tanks then the obvious conclusion would be that infantry in Combat Mission shouldn't have a close assault ability at all. The absence or presence of a wall, bocage, or any other intervening terrain is functionally irrelevant because whether or not the soldier is physically standing on the tank or not is also functionally irrelevant.

Maybe you missed it (in spite of your extensive experience with noticing things), but it was explained that the plate quality rating was deliberately set to low quality by the person who codes it. It was intentionally set that way. In other words, that was not a bug. It was intentional. When someone complained about it, the decision was made that it was probably easier to just alter the plate quality rating than to argue back and forth with forum members about whether it was the correct rating or not since the charge was being made that the game was inaccurate with regards to penetration of that particular plate. Once that happens, then the Armor Plate Pope calls for a crusade and the Jpz IV Plate Templars fire up a new thread every other week demanding a fix to the broken plate because they can't play the game anymore. The incorrect plate value has broken the game to the point where it isn't even worth playing the game and they would rather spend all their time on various gaming forums complaining at the irrepairably broken armor penetration model in CMx2 unlike CMx1 which was handed down to Hercules by the hand of Zeus for the masses to enjoy in all it's perfection. The only way to correct the matter is to pressure BFC with the blunt force of hundreds of repeated forum posts until BFC finally breaks and a proper solution is brought forth to please the masses. As demonstrated by the continued discussion of the Jpz IV plate, even the immediate adjustment of the plate value apparently was insufficient to distract the Jpz IV Plate Templars who apparently are continuing on in their crusade in spite of the fact that they have already won an easy victory.

Abstracted when there is no bocage but not abstracted when there is bocage? A little consistency goes a long way

Good for you. Maybe you weren't aware, but infantry have been able to close assault tanks across bocage since CMBN was released - so it has been that way for several years now. Now that you have discovered this game feature you can use it to your advantage more often.

What James has discovered is that AFVs within one action spot of infantry can be attacked by grenades and he is angry about losing his tank. The fact that bocage is involved is functionally irrelevant because in no case do the infantry in game physically climb upon the vehicle in order to attack it, therefore the implication that the vehicle should not be attacked because the infantry can't climb on the vehicle is meaningless since the infantry do not climb on the vehicle in game under any circumstances as it is now. Perhaps James would prefer to return to the days when infantry were not allowed to attack vehicles with grenades from within buildings the next time an enemy tank parks next to his troops who are inside one?

Message to Doug Williams from Darth Vader http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Ee02WLxGk

As interesting as the idea of user sold content would be, there is no way for the creator to prevent one player from downloading your work for $1.00 and then giving it to everyone he or she knows for free. The only reason that scenarios specific to a module or pack can't be freely transferred is because those scenarios and maps contain content that is specific to the module or pack. So unless your work is included on the game DVD there is nothing to force anyone to buy what you make. It's logistically impossible.

Just ask Steve or Moon. I'm sure they would be happy to oblige.

You are thinking of CMFI

Could the presence of the gun in the middle of the forward plate weaken the plate as compared to the Panther tank's front plate? :confused:

I'm only quoting you because you mention Paper Tiger, but my response isn't necessarily directed at you specifically. Paper Tiger has his own theory about experience and morale levels and within the context of what he does it works. He has a lot of fans who enjoy playing like that and his stuff will play a certain way because of that. He also has preferences as far as scenario time as well that some like and some don't like. The thing about this is that it's all subjective and each designer has to come up with some means of assigning experience and morale levels within their scenario. BFC provides the designer with several experience and morale ratings to choose from and designers are free to choose from that menu however they prefer to choose. What works for some may not work for others and I think that most designers will have their own 'stamp' as to how their stuff plays out. Because experience and morale are a subjective assignment there is no demonstrably 'correct' or 'incorrect' rating that can be assigned to a particular unit unless there is some sort of a detailed historical yardstick that can be applied and even that is still subjective. I think the best thing to do is just mention the specific scenario or contact the author, indicate your displeasure, and then move on. Many designers don't get enough feedback when they post stuff on the repository so they may welcome some comments from a player. Most of the stuff that comes with the DVD has been play tested, in some cases extensively, so if it's on the DVD and the scenario looks a certain way then the playtesters were generally fine with it in the form that you see it in. If the author continues to make stuff that you don't like then I think deleting them or not downloading their stuff is the way to go.

This really depends upon what is meant by 'update' the scenario. The only thing that can be altered in a scenario would be AI plans, maybe individual units might be added or deleted, maybe a building moved or something like that. These things are all independent of any engine improvements and the only way they might be altered is if the scenario designer went in and basically remade the scenario. As far as game engine improvements go - well those apply to the scenarios just as they would to any other method of playing the game. Since the engine alterations don't have a direct impact on the AI plans etc, then I'm not really sure what the scenario designer is supposed to alter. The fact is that what is a difficult scenario to play for one person is a piece of cake for another person. There is no perfect scenario that is just right for everyone who plays the game, so if a game engine adjustment is made in a patch and the scenario plays out a little differently than it did before that might not have much of an effect for some players and a dramatic effect for others.

Not enough information here to make a judgement. Are you playing a historical scenario or a fictional scenario? If you are playing a fictional scenario then it really doesn't matter what experience ratings a unit has because it is fictional. If the scenario is historical, then the scenario author has to attempt to factor in numerous sources of information and make a determination as far as what experience levels to assign. If the author has information about the battle that is detailed enough then the author should be able to make a determination as to whether the battle plays out in an appropriate manner or not. If you are playing a scenario without fully understanding the historical context and just making a snap judgement that "Elite and Crack are bad" then perhaps your judgement is the one that is faulty and not the scenario designer's judgement. Your perception of what Crack and Elite mean might be different to that of the designer's as well. Maybe you think that the only troops that rate as Elite is modern Delta Force soldiers but maybe the author did a detailed study of the battle and determined that, for that particular engagement, that particular force on that particular day fought as effectively as a Crack or an Elite force might and the scenario outcome matched the historical result. Aside from that - you are also discounting the morale effects. The morale rating of a squad has more of an impact on a unit's staying power than the experience level. Maybe all those Crack and Elite troops have low morale?

My mistake. Immobile units do not follow the AI plan to completion - that's true. There are no 'null' AI groups. If an AI group hasn't been assigned then the default is group A1. I'm not exactly sure what happens with AT gun crews, but they function differently than tank crews because guns are considered heavy weapons. If the gun is considered immobile, then my guess would be that a bailed gun crew is also considered to be immobile by the game for AI purposes. However, there is no way to get around the fact that tank crews will continue to follow the AI plan without one of the programmers making some sort of an adjustment to the game code as currently written.

All units eventually follow the AI plan to completion. That includes broken units. Panicked units will continue to follow the AI plan as soon as they are no longer panicked. There is currently no way around it because the AI plan groups are permanently assigned to units in the editor when the scenario is made.

AI crews are still associated with the AI plan and all crews will go where the tanks would go if the crews were still inside the tanks. At present, the AI crews are not separated from the AI plan so that's what you are seeing. The crews just keep following the AI plan to conclusion.

Don't be too hard on those of us who beta test. Although it may seem to some players as though there is a solid phalanx of supporters for all things BFC, the internal discussions are just as vigorous and multi sided within the beta tester group as it is on the public forums. The difference is that you can't see the internal discussions. Most beta testers will also refrain from arguing amongst each other on a public forum because we already have discussions internally and it's just bad form to take disagreements externally if something has already been discussed internally.

You are making a few assumptions here 1. The tank crew will be armed when bailing out of a burning tank. From my extensive reading, tank crews tended not to wear stuff while in a tank that could slow down their ability to quickly exit from the tank if it was hit. Sidearms could get caught on internal equipment and prevent a crewman from exiting as quickly as he wanted to in case of an emergency. Seconds count when flaming death is involved. There are one or two instances where I've read of tank crewmen who bailed out armed, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. In one instance during Operation Goodwood a King Tiger was rammed by a British Sherman and both vehicles were knocked out. I believe that is a rather famous incident. A personal account of that famous incident from the German side mentions that two opposing crewmen ended up right next to each other after bailing out. They both grabbed for their pistols, but neither was armed. After staring at each other for a short time, they both decided to leave each other alone and go their own separate ways. 2. The force of the detonations of the stricken tank will have more of an effect on the troops outside of the tank than inside of the tank. That just doesn't pass the sniff test does it? In fact, it's probably unlikely that the crew would have survived the first secondary explosion at all since it is apparently ammo cook off while they were inside the vehicle. Explosive force is multiplied substantially when it happens in an enclosed space. In this instance, why wouldn't the force of the blast have more of an effect on the tank crew than it would on the infantry nearby? 3. The tank crew has enough situational awareness to be able to successfully engage nearby infantrymen immediately following a near death experience. From my reading, most WW2 tank crews, upon bailing out of their vehicles, try to run for friendly lines as quickly as possible. Frequently they have no idea as to either the whereabouts or fate of their fellow crew members until they have had some time to get their wits about them. I think you can describe the state of mind of a bailing crew member as shock and disorientation. In one of my references, I have seen a before and after photo of a Churchill tank crew. The before photo they all look proud and confident. The after photo as prisoners they look shocked, disoriented, dirty, grimey, and although you can tell that they are the same men you can definitely tell that they have been through an awful lot. Is it possible that a tank crew could immediately bail out of a destroyed tank and take nearby infantry under fire and kill them all? I can't say that it is impossible. Is it probable? No, I would have to say that it would fall under the category of being improbable.

The other bridges are not diagonal and I suspect that the behavior is mostly due to the diagonal nature of that particular bridge. I can't guarantee that you will have no trouble at the other bridges, but I can say that I didn't have any trouble with the other bridges. The patch should be out fairly soon anyway so hopefully you will be installing the patch by the time you make it to the next bridge. Like I said though, I don't anticipate you having any trouble with the other bridges.

I was just reading about a battalion sized raid that was conducted by the 29th infantry division along the German border. They captured the town by surprise, engineers destroyed the buildings of the town with demolition charges, the Germans counterattacked and the battalion withdrew as planned before the counterattack could hit them to full effect. In approximately 4 hours of combat, the 325 men of 1st bn 115th Infantry Regiment suffered 16 MIA, 5 KIA, 48 WIA, along with 1 engineer KIA, 1 engineer WIA, and 3 engineers MIA. The objective of the attack was to capture the town and to level the town with demolition charges, then withdraw back to friendly lines. Two days earlier an entire company consisting of about 85 men with 3 M5 tanks in support captured the same town and the entire company was killed or captured and the supporting armor was all destroyed.

I don't think you would get a lot of disagreement from anyone about that situation. My expectation would be that the tank crew would surrender upon exiting the tank. I would also say that (based upon extensive reading) it would be more likely for tank crewmen to bail out unarmed than for them to be packing heat. Unless they were already wearing a pistol while in the tank they aren't going to be spending a lot of precious seconds looking around for their sidearms before getting out of a flaming metal coffin.