SlowMotion

If CMSF will be upgraded to CMx2 version4, some units will need updates as well. Here's one from Nato module: http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/dutch-cv90s-to-become-first-nato-combat-vehicles-to-receive-active-protection

Finns didn't switch sides. Some quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War "An armistice between the Soviet Union and Finland was signed in Moscow on 19 September 1944." " Finland was first required to expel all German troops from its territory within 14 days. As the Germans did not leave Finland by the given deadline, the Finns fought their former co-belligerents in the Lapland War. " Germans had about 200 000 soldiers in Northern Finland and there was no way they could leave in 2 weeks like the requirement was in peace terms. So Finns had to continue fighting after September, now to get Germans to move towards Norway. Had this not been done, Russian army was ready to give some assistance. And in fact they were attacking Germans at the same time in eastern parts of northern Finland and northern Norway.

No idea about the gas, but I read that now ordinary civilan drones have been used on battlefield: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/13/how-consumer-drones-wind-up-in-the-hands-of-isis-fighters/

I'd like to see a new feature to all CM games: when selecting options for a new QB game it would be VERY useful if maps could be previewed BEFORE choosing it. Now you can only preview the map when purchasing units.

I wonder if I'm the only player who could use Hunt Reverse command? It would work just like reverse, but if enemy appears then my unit would stop and fire its weapons instead of reversing further. Sometimes there are cases when I reverse from cover towards a better firing position.But if enemy spots me I'd like to fire immediately because 1) my firing is more accurate 2) reversing further might bring my unit to view of even more enemy units.

1. I would think that the closer the sound the more likely your soldier would be to turn towards it. 2. I know that RPG has a minimum range. That's why I wrote that below that minimum range they could use whatever weapons they have, like hand grenades to defend themselves if the enemy has spotted them. Or if no hand grenades try run to cover (tanks pop smoke and reverse when they notice enemy is aiming with laser).

I don't know if units spot enemy based on sound, but it would make some things more realistic. Now it sometimes happens that a tank is moving in forest very near, let's say within 20 meters. And an infantry squad does not spot it at all. Even if they cannot see it, I think it would be cool if the infantry turned towards the sound of the tank so they are ready to spot it quicker. Another related thing which has puzzled me, not sure if it's a bug or not: if infantry has anti-tank weapons like RPG7 and the tank is too close to use it (within 10 meters), would it help if they used hand grenades? I'd think it would be better to use any weapon or run to cover rather than stay in same place and let the tank slaughter the soldiers.

HW power that makes running these things easier is improving rapidly. I remember the last time I was buying a PC I bought a display card with 2 gigs of video ram. Some people were saying no game needs/uses that much. Now AMD introduced their new product which has 1 tera bytes video ram! http://ow.ly/Pkhj502NiPm

It seems that in future APS could be available for many new vehicle / tank types in addition to those mentioned in Black Sea manual.

This same idea would be useful when puchasing units. Players could select that some units are unavailable and the game would prevent buying those. During CMx1 there used to be buying rules like: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/57218-fionns-short-75-rule-question/ It would be great if these rules could be somehow selected in the game, maybe stored to a file and then later used by many people afterwards when playing QBs.

I've thought about having a Linear Target command for units in general, just like it is for arty. This would make it easier for example: - shoot at several windows of a building during one turn - clear units standing behind a hedge - put some harassive fire to a larger area, not just one action point

Agree on all these

I have now watched some turns and it looks to be user error indeed. I usually play so that game's camera viewpoint is quite high above the map and I can't see many details about vehicles. So I probably ended up using Move and Quick instead of Reverse.

I play turn based games, so such files should be easy to do if developers ask. This happens often. IMO Quick turn's colour is yellow and for Reverse it's light green. EDIT: Just tried this situation when playing the scenario in 1 player turn based mode and the problem didn't happen. The vehicle reversed just like it was supposed to. So either the problem happens in PBEM mode or then it's really user error time and time again, like you suggested. I must pay attention to this while continuing PBEM.

Here is something I've noticed while playing a scenario in CMBN 3.11: Germans have several flak vehicles which cannot shoot straight ahead. . Because of this limitation it often makes sense to keep the side or back of the vehicle towards the enemy that you intend to fire. One such vehicle has 4x20mm, another one 37mm gun. I try to make short movements using Reverse order. Once the vehicle stops it is immediately ready to fire. BUT: often the vehicle won't move using reverse, but instead decides to make a slow 180 degree turn, then drives forward and stops in orientation so that it cannot use its gun. IMO this is quite annoying. Movements take much more time and the vehicle is very vulnerable every time it cannot protect itself. What do you think - is this a problem? And could it be changed so that for these flak vehicles it would use Reverse order if player has plotted that order?

I mean turkey shooting kind of tough. Like armored vehicles trying to cross open areas when they know the opponent has Javelins in several locations + more and better armor. No chance what so ever. I suggested making changes to units and not VPs because I don't play for the AAR score. I don't care how many points each side got. For me the played turns during the battle are the reason to play and if they are not interesting enough players tend to cease fire when there are still lots of units left. For H2H games I try to find battles where both players have proper forces. I've never played against a human who liked having clearly inferior units. Those battles might be realistic and ok against the AI, but I don't like them for turn based H2H where players use many hours of their time. This was just a suggestion. I know that BF has lots of things to do and no idea what kind of features they intend to implement during the next few years. But IMO now that the game engine is working so well I think this game mode specific playability is one area that could be tweaked one way or another. Merry Christmas...

That's exactly the point: I don't mean the battle should be equally hard for both sides, but it should be playable. You know, that you feel it makes sense to still send your next PBEM turn instead of players pressing Cease Fire. The AI moves units according to AI plans. It doesn't have the skill and experience of human player, so it's good to give it some additional units to compensate.But currently that often makes things really tough for one player if you decide to play a H2H game.

Yes, but currently you see whether some scenario is really good for some playing mode only after playing it for quite some time. This can mean several weeks of PBEM if you're playing something that is advertized as good for H2H, but really isn't. I don't think many people want to cancel their game, add more units and then restart the PBEM. IMO the idea I suggested could be a very quick and simple way of making scenarios more playable in all playing modes. Tweaks needed in the Scenario Editor would be small. I'd guess it wouldn't cause huge changes in other parts of the game engine.

Only BF people can say how much work it would mean, but at least the basic principle should be very simple and clear. No difficult and timeconsuming calculations. Just one new field to units where you now have Experience, Fitness etc. 3 values in list: "always", "for blue AI", "for red AI" or something. Since most units are always included I think scenario designers could quickly add a bit help for the AI. If human player has infantry + 3 tanks in use, AI opponent could get an extra tank.

Here is an idea I've thought about while playing various CM games during the years: would it be possible to have different units included in different playing modes? Now many scenarios claim they are suitable for H2H and human vs AI modes. Once you play them you may notice that one side may be clearly stronger because units have been selected to really make it playable against human vs one_side_AI. So I thought: would it be possible to add a new data item to all units in Scenario Editor: Include Playing mode: By default units would be included in all playing modes, basically this is the situation for H2H playing mode. Normally when playing against the AI, the AI side is given more units than human player. For these playing modes you could select some units "only for Blue AI" or "only for Red AI".These units would not be shown on map when playing against human opponent. With such simple addition I think ALL scenarios could be made playable with properly equalized units in all 3 playing modes: H2H, human vs red AI, human vs blue AI. Of course if the scenario designer does not WANT to add support for all modes, like adding AI movements for playing modes including AI opponent, it would not force him.

http://www.photobucket.com/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-russian-mythbusters-shoots-an-rpg-at-45-layers-of-bulletproof-glass

If Repository will be improved would it be possible to add a feature so that it's easy to find scenarios intended for H2H?

Currently air support and artillery units that are available to player during battle are shown so that if there are many units you have to scroll the list horizontally. My request is: would it be possible to display these support units so that destroyed units (like a helicopter that has been shot down) would be shown at right? This way the still active units would be shown at left and player wouldn't need to scroll as much as now.

CMBS with the new v3 game engine has given me more thrill than the older CMx2 games. Some of the big, hilly maps included in the game make really great, long battles possible. I don't like flat maps where it's possible to control big part of the battle field from one well chose location with anti-armour missiles or several tanks. But if there's enough cover the resulting battles can be extremly good.