c3k

Also, the game may be using the OLD resolution. Go into the Battlefront game's folder. You'll find a "display size.txt" file. It will have three numbers in it, e.g., "1920 1080 0". You can reset them to "0 0 0", or just delete the file. Then, open the game, Menu/Options, select "Desktop Resolution". That should reset the game to your new desktop size.

Yes, he did, but to give due credit, he did say it was a 210 ton vehicle.

It's a command failure kind of thing. Obviously, your men were afraid of the StuG and what it could do to them if it saw them. Quiet as a mouse... You need to make your men fear YOU more then they do the enemy. I will occasionally order a machinegun nest be charged, just so they understand what's what. (Kidding aside...yeah, we've all been there and it's frustrating as all get out.)

Well, the M829A4 (and previous variants) have a muzzle velocity of over 5,000 fps. That puts these rounds squarely at the threshold of the hypersonic regime. (Mach 5+) (Sigh: okay, it takes ~1658m/s to reach Mach 5. (Mach is dependent mainly upon Air Temperature: it slows as the temperature drops. Atmospherically, the temperature stabilizes ~35,000 feet. So, Mach gradually reduces in speed from Sea Level up to 35,000' and then stays pretty constant on up from there. Sea level, standard day, Mach 1 ~ 335m/s.) Where was I? Ah, yes, the M829A4 round and hypersonics. Given the various M829 penetrator weights, they have various muzzle velocities. (The Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun comes in L44 and L55 lengths. The longer one, with a tungsten penetrator (lighter than the US depleted uranium ones), has a significantly higher muzzle velocity. It's on the order of 1750 m/s...or more.) The M829A4 is ~M4.9, or so. Again, dependent upon atmospheric temperature. The energies with which these ~10kg weapons impact their targets gives a good idea of the power of hypersonics.) (I lost track of my parentheses, so here's some more to make sure I close this out. ) ) )

Checking Spielberger, the later PzIVs all have 50mm of turret face armor, inclined at 80 degrees. The mantlet (called "roller mount") is also 50mm, curved. As can be seen on the US Army's 37mm penetration tables, this puts the PzIV at risk of turret penetration somewhat beyond 500m.

An infantry support gun has been needed since, well, they've been around. The WWII 75mm and 150mm Regimental Cannon were gradually superseded by the various SPGs to tote those big 150mm's. Today? Well, thinking in naval terms, I like the idea of a land-monitor. I envision a support vehicle, in US terms, to aid the mounted infantry. There are some very good breech-loading 120mm mortars, in turrets. They are capable of direct fire (flat trajectory) and indirect fire with precision. Toss them on a Stryker or a Brad (or its replacement), add some vertical launch Javelin-ERs (a six pack?), and put 3 or 4 vehicles in the company support platoon. Allocate them to the maneuver platoons as needed, one support vehicle available per maneuver platoon (?). Direct lay: Got a bunker ahead? Fire 120mm HE goodness in its face. Same with a fortified building. That's much more efficient than thousands of rounds of small arms or needing an MBT with a hyper-velocity round. If you've got dug-in baddies, then the vehicles with the OTHER platoons can rapidly provide indirect mortar support. Again, 120mm goodness, organic to the company, will allow each platoon to help each other out. (Or, range dependent, the vehicle with the platoon.) If enemy armor appears, well, it's not there to fight tanks or IFV's, but with a six-pack of vertical launched Javelin-ERs, it's got fangs. Obviously, since firepower if fun, I'd add a commander's RWS...in .50 cal. No, not the Ma Duece. I'm talking a GAU-19. That, to me, is the concept of an infantry support vehicle, modernized.

I find that, when leading my men, if I have a low-cost victory and all (or most) survive, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened. When my men die and suffer needless casualties and fail, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.

Occasional typos are a thing. Illiteracy reflects poorly on the writer. Its or it's. You're or your. Could have or could of. (And by posting the above, I've put a bullseye on my back. )

As stated, this is a known bug. To avoid it, set shorter movement paths. This will tend to keep the men together and none should get stuck. Also, break down into teams. (The pathing uses teams. A squad path is based on the teams in that squad. Breaking the squad down simplifies the AI "problem" and "solution".) If it DOES happen, stop all movement orders. Then, take a single point movement command with an endpoint in-between the split team. E.g., if 3 men are up by a wall and 1 man is back at the previous turn's start, 100m away, the start point will be the geometric mean of the 4 men's positions. From there, draw a short (10m) move (Normal, Quick, etc.) back towards that 1 man. In a turn or two, the team will rejoin at that endpoint.

PM me.

I'm going to use your statement as an example. Don't get upset. "Drop down immediately": so, when 6 men are behind bocage (or whatever) and 1 man is close to the enemy and 3 men are in the middle of the open street, you want them all to "drop down immediately". You know, and I know, that would lead to issues. The one man who is close will die. The 3 men in the open will die, the 6 men "back there" will drop and not contribute any suppressive firepower or spotting that could've aided the rest of the team/squad. Bad idea. "when taking fire": what does this mean? Bullet striking flesh? A single round of 9mm 30 feet away? Four bursts of MG42 in the squad center? Etc. This is why SHOWING a savegame is so much more helpful than a statement. HUNT is a problematic movement command in that it is more like the old "Move to Contact". There are an infinite number of combinations of events that could be construed as "my men should've sought cover" or "my men should've kept moving". If there is an egregious issue, it should be fixed. If there is a consistently wrong borderline case, it should be fixed. So, savegames help. I have an hour or two of playing this series. I have not seen anything that strikes me that HUNT is broken. Not saying it isn't: just saying a savegame would help.

Dude. How did you score that "CM Beta Tester" title? I know I've been behind in my dues. Is that it?

Oh, and one more item: the internal tracking system is approaching 10,000 items. I'm not going to see how many are open, how many are bugs, uniform errors, the wrong location for the PzVII b A7 (experimental) smoke discharger, or other such items. Each could be called a "bug". Can you imagine a forum with 10,000 separate threads??? The tracking software does a great job. It is far better than having some sort of open list (that would have to be managed, updated, etc.). Just wanted to give you a sense of the scale involved.

My bold. Your thread has an update.

Hmmm....can't say I never noticed that definition, but you did. I'll toss it into the internal Beta Hopper and see if it gets spit out as a bug, or if the manual gets changed. Thanks.

As a beta tester (mention this because it's not obvious in my sig Edited to add: woot, I changed my sig. ), I will say that there are lot of issues reported as "bugs" that are really design decisions with which someone disagrees. I understand and sympathize with the user who sees something and doesn't know if it has been reported or not or if it's a bug. (Without a deep search and the time it takes to do one...no snideness meant: this is reality.) Other things are not bugs. They're something misunderstood (either historically or gamewise). But, some of the known, internal, bugs are pretty minor. Some are not yet known. Others are obvious. Some have some big effects but are tough to kill without messing up other stuff. (I cannot say what, but there was a feature that was wanted by beta testers. It was created, baked into a build, and...oh, my: it was horrible in the game. A great lesson.) A public list would create a fulcrum upon which much would be leveraged against BFC. Haters gonna hate. (Not that your suggestion is one, nor are you a "hater". Just sayin'...) If you see something, a beta tester should come along and either show/state why/how it's meant to be that way, or dig into it and internally get the process underway to bring it up so BFC can work the issue. (Oops, "problem". )

Perfectly normal.

He was, and will remain, an icon for all things early CM. He set a great example.

A hide with a covered arc usually allows intermittent spotting. I'm not sure if it is applicable to this specific instance, but it would be interesting to set a short (50m?) pie-wedge covered arc towards the target while also Hiding.

I do not have any experience firing a Thompson. However, despite it having a 10 1/2" or 12" barrel (depending on model), the muzzle velocity I've found online is listed at about the same as a 5" 1911. Having fired a 1911 many times, when trying for 100+ yard shots, the drop is...significant. I would think the effectiveness would be pretty good out to 50 yards. Somewhere between there and 100 it should drop way off in effectiveness. Anyone with just partial exposure would be pretty tough to hit at 100 yards, unless they stayed there as the shooter walked the rounds onto the target. All IMHO. (I did see a youtube video of a well-regarded shooter hitting a 4x8 piece of plywood with a .45 at 1,000 yards. He held VERY high. )

This. I install all my CM games on a separate, dedicated, SSD. They patch just fine. (Like MikeyD, as a beta, I delete, reinstall, patch, etc. a lot more than the average user.) The savegames go to their default locations, My Documents. (There is a way, in Windows, to change your location of My Documents. I have tried moving it and keeping it in the default C. CM works either way.)

The default file location for savegames/scenarios, etc, is different for all games other than CMBN. (A windows thing.) A quick way to find your location: open the game, editor. Make a game (default map), save as, say, "qqqqackerzzz are fun". Close out. Do a quick search "qqqqackerzzz are fun". It'll find your location.

Real-Time and WeGo have different "rules" about loading/unloading. Try both ways of playing, and TEST everything you've been told here so you get a feel.

Good. Something else to do is put pauses in the various units' movement orders. That is worth learning how they interact with one another.

Oh, the times I wished my riflemen could shoot bullets that penetrate tank armor and explode like small tactical nukes. Really, my martial prowess would be unstoppable with troops like that. And when I use them in a QB against an opponent? Lolz. I would crush his very soul. (Of course, I would also mod my men so their lightweight cotton uniforms could stop the depleted uranium penetrator fired by an Abrams. Duh!) And, I'd modify it so anything that would kill anyone else, even with the armored cotton (155mm to the head?) would only result in yellow icon, light wound. Yeah, I would reign over the battlefield. Is that what you meant?