The_Capt

AT-4 are working fine, checked. It is you (why, is it always you?) Would very much like to see that 4km shot.

I will pass that onto the scenario designer, thanks. As to the OP, pretty much been said. I would say that US and Soviet doctrine did not evolve that much from WW2, in fact WW2 reinforced the doctrines. For the US, this was a real problem as they simply were not going to be able to keep up an attrition based strategy with the Soviets. They also had not shifted all the way into active defence or AirLand Battle as an offset strategy. So basically for a new player who has played the WW2 titles, I would start with the US as you will recognize a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to the other modern titles. Just be aware the US is really the underdog in this title, a scrappy underdog but until you get the M1/Bradley series on the battlefield (and they are in CMCW but in much smaller numbers) the US is challenged. Soviets and their tactics is where we hear a lot of...well lets just say "concern" in the feedback from new players. They often try to apply western tactics to the Soviets and most often fail, which leads to some disgruntlement. The Soviets are not mindless hordes of human waves, but there perspective on speed and mass is totally different. The Soviet campaign is basically a "ninja-baby-swim-test" we throw the player directly into it without water-wings. I would definitely play the training missions and maybe a few scenarios before jumping into the Soviet campaign. The Soviet campaigns are also really big. Every battle is MRB sized, maps are pretty much maxed out, you are basically fighting an entire MRR across the entire campaign (we built one as core troops). Last point on the Soviet Campaign (which seems pretty popular based on Youtube streams) there are two versions. Standard is more traditional in CM terms, there are second chances and better RRR. March or Die, is by far the hardest we could make it without being downright evil. You either win, or the campaign ends, no second chances. No RRR to speak of, you march...or die. We have had new players cry out that the campaign "is broken"...it is not. It is working pretty much as designed (although we did tone down in a couple spots) and it is by far the most realistic of the options; the soviets did not mess around. When you get to Alsfeld, post a screenshot

Only applies to a linear system. I am not sure that OP qualifies.

Answer to that is pretty simple actually, CMA occurs in the background of CMCW...in fact we could "re-imagine" it. In the background story in CMCW we basically spell that out. CMA would have to end earlier but it also starts earlier and more intensely. Likely 5 years for Soviet collapse, so say in 1985 (now there is a module idea a la "The Ten Thousand")

So all versions (BFC, Matrix and Steam) have both systems onboard. You can use the Slitherine system or the old BFC PBEM method, both work but I do not think you can switch between the two once a game has started. Airpower: As in other games, the effects of these aircraft are modelled (with pretty high detail actually) but no 3D models. AA and AD engage and they can definitely hit ground targets. As to which way you decide to purchase...totally up to you. Whichever way is more convenient but as has been noted, the keys are transferable so you really get access one way or another. And access is expanding (we are on GeForce Now...er now...apparently).

Brilliant. So the aftermath of the events of CMCW linked directly to CMSF in 2008 which then lead to CMBS and ultimately to a 2030-2040 great power war...I am in. Like we did in the alt-history for CMCW, the trick is to shape the narrative around shifts, disruptions and dynamics of power both internally and externally. So spit balling: - The loss of the war in CMCW has broad follow-on effects across the globe. The Soviet Union collapses 5-10 years earlier, as a start point. Historically the 90s were incredibly disrupted with respect to intrastate conflict, pull that 5-10 years earlier. - The rise of non-state actors and regional powers is an easy step to make. But we would need to take 9/11 off the board, it was too galvanizing. Instead a mechanism that see the US draw back earlier is required that allows regional powers like Syria to emerge dominant enough to even try to resist a US/NATO intervention. Economic is probably the way to go, perhaps back-date the 08-09 financial crisis. This sees the US draw back initiallty but then is forced to intervene and keep intervening. - US/NATO have to win and keep winning. Intervention strategy (Team America) has to work earlier and longer in order for CMBS to happen. - The emergence of other great powers (i.e. BRIC) as a response as pressure starts to build. Climate change as an accelerant. - Boom.

Wow, that is an outstanding performance! So this is a scoring oddity. We locked the Soviet March or Die campaign so that someone could not simply hit “ceasefire” and get a minor victory (happens with reinforcements and other conditions). To do that we add a Blue bonus and that is what you are seeing at games end, even though the US is wiped out. For Greatest Dawn (and a couple others) this means that Major Victory is the highest a player can go but it is a numbers thing for this scenario. Were we in a perfect world I could tailor the victory conditions and rescale the victories like we can in campaigns but scenario conditions are locked. But hey, who cares, your crushed it. You are going to miss those 7 tanks but you still have plenty more.

Oh my little puppet of a fallen empire, it may be insane but “broken”, no. Just because you found it too hard does not mean something is not working; despite what your parents and legions of liberal education may have taught you, the universe does not spin around your experience. So the Standard Soviet campaign is pretty much “as is”, we did add Tac Air controllers to mission 3, fixing that oversight. In March or Die, that has been tweaked with respect to VPs to make victory a bit more accessible but maybe still out of reach for your average troll. The Soviet campaign remains the most difficult of the series but I am delighted to see so much interest in it and a vote of gratitude for all those who are streaming their games.

Right?! The idea is growing on me I have to admit. We would have to model the zombies, which would be a big job on both behaviour and their ability to absorb damage. And the there is the zombie melee which would be different. But we already have all the “living” equipment including arty and air. I mean you could do a whole “escape from NY campaign”. I mean Steve will never go for it but a boy can dream…

Oh lord what an incoherent mess, topped off by an Adolph H quote…seriously? I am starting to feel guilty to be honest, this is like poking the town drunk with a stick on a Friday night because the power is out. Look if there is a language barrier here why don’t you try in your native language and I will try G translate (not perfect but better than whatever is happening here). So I guess all I can glean for this is that you do not think CM is realistic for a bunch of reasons. I am afraid that I cannot understand exactly what those reasons are nor have you really established or cited any real facts so I think you just keep restating your opinion just from different angles. So why don’t you go to the thread: This is how someone puts forward a clear and concise issue they are seeing in the game. We take these seriously and are following up on it because it helps us make the game better. Now compare this to your feedback so far and maybe you can see why no one is really taking you seriously. Honestly, if you have feedback that can make the game better we want to hear it (less the Hitler quotes, you might want to steer clear of Nazis in general) but I am afraid based on what you have provided so far: “Thank you for purchasing our product and we hope you enjoy it. If you have any problems with it please contact our product support department.”

Not sure what you mean by "too dense" to be honest. The frontages you see in the campaigns and most scenarios are pretty close to doctrine. That and the fact was (is) that on the assault, which is what a lot of CM fights are really modelling at different resolutions you are looking for up to 6 to 1 force ratios so density is kinda a given. Can't say thay HE/HE-FRAG are "reduced" for reasons of balancing, never was a conversation we had in development. We try and find historical sources and go from there. One thing we would like to see are multiple weapons releases from Tac Air. Currently TAC Air is making single pass strikes using single weapon systems (one pass = one bomb or strafe). In WW2 this made sense as most of those aircraft had limited payloads. In the modern titles it mirrors what we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan but in a WW3 scenario those planes would be making a single run and dropping everything on it, the air environment is just too dangerous to loiter. That is something we had to balance in content development, but the change will have to wait for the new engine.

Oh dear, well John should be by any minute now. To keep it diplomatic, I will quote Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view". Now let's keep it civil and above the belt but you are correct in no weapon of war is ever truly clean. But in the timeframe of the game we wanted to give the Migs a level of bad-assery and looming menace. Now if you want to honestly get into a conversation on the differences in Soviet ROEs in Afghanistan and US ROEs in Syria in 2019 I would suggest we take it offline.

I saw that and despair a bit: Bad here being a morale assessment, not an effectiveness one. The Mig 23 and 27 are "evil" aircraft, not "bad" aircraft. Why, well they bombed the hell out of Afgans for a start. " As such they were only able to deploy unguided bombs and rockets against Afghan targets. Missions included bombing of supply convoys, night bombing of troop concentrations, scattering landmines with cluster munitions, and marking or illuminating targets for artillery with SAB-100 flare bombs." from wiki.

So just to weigh in because I can't say I haven't thought about it but such a campaign probably crosses lines that I am not personally entirely comfortable with. So until we actually formally enter Cold War 2, China and Asian market will remain a significant customer base for any developers: This is from Steam and as you can see the US and Chinese market are pretty much equal (around 128 PBs per week) so before any company decides to stick a finger in the eye of that big a slice of global market, they are going to need to think it through. "But what about CMBS?" Fair point but also a cautionary tale in itself. BFC scripted that fictional scenario well before 2014, it turned out to be a very good scenario...maybe too good. Russia is about 25% the market of China, so there is that. I would argue that Taiwan is a much more sensitive subject, particularly now and fair objective treatment of the theatre by western based developers is going to be tricky in the extreme. Finally, unlike the Ukraine and Crimea, which up until "events" was pretty much accepted as an independent nation, Taiwan is, and is not. It might simply be rude to open this one up. I think it is probably a little insulting in this case, at least until something actually happens. If an actual fight breaks out, well all bets will be off anyway. This one might hit a little too close to bone given the global climate. I have no doubt someone will try it I, personally, am a little wary.

Damn your fuzzy Russian eyes! That campaign was creating buzz. Ok, ok...AT-4s are on the list. You wanted them as a buying option for specialist teams?

I agree, I think we have established that you are totally upside down on this one. I thought the testing that DM did is some of the most creative I have seen in a very long time. Yes. That took about 15 seconds to find btw. Also, for anyone who has played the game your statement is obviously false. Sure. You realize that military trucks are by-design all terrain? They spend billions on making sure that they can go just about where ever. So modding AI to do as you suggest you 1) be unrealistic and 2) restrain the player for no good reason. My advice...play better. AI and arty is one area that I would like to see improvements for in the next engines. That said, scenario/campaign designers use the reinforcement option to spread the AI use of artillery out in the game. For onboard indirect fire assets you can use the area fire command to finely tune mortars (you can even set it to triggers). So no, not "ALL". Prove it. As opposed to the "outgoing" plate of armor? In my experience if your veh armor is "outgoing" it means that you, personally, are the next set of "incoming" armour and I am pretty sure the game captures that. Probably about half the beta testers and myself personally. Pretty well. This is not a question. Now for you: when you are participating in social discourse and it has become apparent that your presence is being endured as opposed to valued, should this not lead to some serious self-reflection? Comment?

It passes the time and can be entertaining. Trolls in the wild…we should do a documentary. That, and that WWZ idea (legally distinct) is growing on me.

That, is an excellent point.

Ok, dug into this a bit. Looks like he used a British tank crew and Engineer Bn HQ to test the pistols. Still not clear on how he isolated the pistol shooter but I will take him at his word. This is really good and detailed testing btw. Anyway for the M1911: So what is the issue here exactly. If I am reading this correctly, sure the old 1911 could hit someone at 80m but it takes 135 rounds to do it. That is over 19 mags!! The M1 took 85 (which is worth looking at as it is a little low at 80m but these are targets in foxholes). The Lee Enfield and Kar 98 take 65-66 rounds per kill. The Springfield takes 30. How are these roughly comparable? (See pg 23 graph). They do seem comparable on kill per minute but this looks more a function of rate of fire, a semi-automatic pistol being much faster than a bolt action. This is a lot of hard work but it also misses a big question...how do these weapons compare in suppression? These would be some interesting results. As to the OP, did you actually check on this statement before you immediately tied it to your forgone conclusion? I am betting, no. God deliver us from lazy trolls. I have a lot of respect for hard working trolls, they put the time in. But this trend in lazy trolls who grab nuggets of information out of context just to reverse engineer to their assumption...well that simply will not do.

That might actually make more sense, submachine guns at 40-80m can put out a lot of bullets accurately and in many ways are superior to rifles at that range. That is why we came up with the assault rifle as an unholy hybrid. However, as with many of semmes posts, this remains enigmatic.

@dbsapp come back!! Huh, so I am not even sure how to test this. In CMCW, at least, I can't even find a tactical unit that is all pistols. Closest is a tank crew but even the Soviet crews have at least one AKS-74, US crews have Grease Guns. Even the Supply sections have rifles. I would very much like to see this pdf by "Drifter Man" to see how he isolated and tested pistol behavior. I assume by "effective" he would have to compare fire fight results against another small unit (same experience etc) armed with rifles and find that there was a 50-50 split in who won the fire fight? I mean the bullet from a handgun can easily travel out to 80m with lethal force so technically, from a strictly kinetic energy point of view (i.e. hurling metal) a pistol can be compared to a rifle, the same way a house cat can be compared to a Bengal Tiger...they both purr and will walk over your keyboard but the overall effect is quite different. As to "zombie-shooter", hey I like it. Have you seen what Back 4 Blood is making out there. Hell if BFC wanted to sell out we could do a WWZ (but legally distinct) knock-off and make millions (Battle of Yonkers etc). As to how it applies to the current series within the franchise, well it is an anathema (nice Scrabble word btw) because it is an insult to all those behind the scenes who spent hundreds of hours researching, modeling and building the game in order to make it as close to a "military grade" (not my words) simulator as we can get it. You can see that when a hypothetical incoherent troll comes onto the company forum to make unsupported claims in this direction that it causes a bit of push-back. But hey keep em coming, this is an interesting way to pass a Tuesday while awaiting Steam release.

I posted it here: Enjoy but be forewarned it is a two-player only scenario, no AI built in. The map is the exact same one from the US campaign.

Cool. But it must be variable because if the sighting pings like sonar every X seconds, would we not see multiples of that as a pattern in individual spotting tests? For example if a lone M60 is spotting a T72 at 500m. It pings at X, missed the spot and then ping again 7 second later, misses, pings again at another 7 seconds. I should be seeing X plus a multiples of 7 and I am not sure that we do. Makes perfect sense on CPU load, and in RL. No human can scan everywhere all the time. We have patterns of observation while scanning too. They happen to be more erratic but there are patterns.

Well the problem is more that people come on the forum and complain and don't do any testing nor do they back up any of their arguments with actual facts...but moving on. I am still not sure how your "spotting cycles" is unrealistic if we are seeing a range of spotting times from near-immediate. Again, you are not articulating the problem...you are simply re-stating your position. Ah, so you want the TAC AI to have more agency? Disobey orders, run away and decide to go in the opposite direction? Sure that would be very realistic, too realistic but then of course I could just send the enraged customers to you for a coherent explanation. Ok, well let me be the first one to break it to you, and I say this in the spirit of brotherhood and kindness...no you cannot. In fact I am having real trouble following you on one train of thought let alone multiples. We are pretty much at the point where I want to break the doll out and say "show me where CM hurt you" because right now I cannot figure out your logic in any of this. You position is loud and clear "CM not realistic - zombie something", it is how you arrive on that point that is eluding me. Anyway, I think we are at the point of "Thank you for purchasing our product and we hope you enjoy it. Any questions or concerns please forward them to customer support"