c3k

Don't forget: within the editor you can substitute equipment based on the quality of the troops. For example, different rifles, different AFV sub-models, different ordnance. That would create sub-branches of the TOE. CM has created on of the most detailed TOEs available. It is very accurate. I cannot imagine the size of the spreadsheet that would be needed to encompass all this information.

Link arms, shout "Urrah" and charge!

Yeah...the crew are definitely manning the gun. Got a savegame?

@Lt Bull, great post. It will be used, internally.

I'll offer the standard: contact the BFC Helpdesk. https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/login/create_request#/ticket-form/19756 Elvis is VERY responsive and will certainly get you a fast resolution. In the meantime, if it worked before (since you're reinstalling it) it may be as simple as a pausing/suspending your antivirus during install, or creating an exception for the executable? Ken

I answered this upstream (4). FWIW, I'm a beta tester and can see some of the stuff that happens behind the curtain...but am not allowed to speak about what I see. The reason I'm quoting this, in full, is to highlight the fact that you included a test file showing the problem. (Yes, this is known, but still...) It is extraordinarily helpful to have savegames or test files. Videos showing issues are descriptive, but savegames allow wrenches to be turned on the engine. Having said all that, yes, this is known. No, I do not have something to say about a fix. (See the above part where I'm not allowed to speak about that stuff.) If it were simple, it would've been fixed already. You're not alone in the frustration from this behavior. It is, thankfully, a very specific case. Ken

4.

Grenades: (Germans, IRL, had offensive as well as defensive grenades. The defensive grenades (I've forgotten the designation) were essentially identical to US "pineapple" but smooth. Nicknamed "eggs". In-game, they just use stick grenades (offensive ones). IRL, more blast, less shrapnel and thinner shrapnel. Closer to a deadly flash-bang than a frag. FWIW. My understanding is that the game treats all grenades identically.) The more grenades a unit has, the more likely they are to use them. Splitting off an Assault Team will make that team heavy on grenades. They'll toss them with abandon...if the situation warrants. After much play, I've found out that the enemy grenades land with unerring accuracy and will cause casualties among my most critical unit. Like the panzerschreck gunner, just before the enemy tank hoves into view. As for MY grenades? Yeah, they never land near their target and when they do, they seemingly turn the enemy into enraged berserkers who then kill all my men.

This is a great summary. As well as stationary pose, in action the Leader of a unit is often in the front, in-game. The first man in the entry stack is the leader. If there's an enemy inside waiting, the leader dies. Etc.

That MAY have been true... The current engine has added a delay to any close-in fire by AFVs at nearby troops. This is to simulate the historical difficulties vehicles have at spotting nearby enemy. Or, you could say it simulates the crew trying to micro-position the vehicle to enable the weapons' arcs/elevations to engage the troops. What it means in terms of the game is that close in assaults now have a chance. No, don't run up to the front of the tank. So, if you're a tank owner and you notice that your tank is waving its barrel about but NOT firing at enemy RIGHT THERE, well, that's what's going on. FWIW.

Gents and Danes (see? I read all the previous posts ), The basis of SPOTTING is that it is a time-based check. The seed for the initial spot-check and the interval for subsequent spot-checks is somewhat difficult to determine. In most cases, a 15 second interval will ensure at least ONE spot-check. Now, that spot-check is based on the many factors Steve et alia posted: experience; fatigue; LOS; target location; etc. Let's say you have an audible contact on a tank. There's dense vegetation, some trees, and some smoke. As well, due to incoming fire, your men may be suppressed. To hope that one spot-check cycle will roll a good contact is...optimistic. Instead, skew the odds to favor your men: give them a PAUSE! I would suggest replaying that turn (if it's still available) and keep the Sikhs at bay for 1 minute. Yeah, baby, a sitting Sikh kill stack. THEN give them a HUNT command with an ARMOR ARC, moving just one or two action spots, then PAUSE for 15 to 30 seconds. Yeah, baby, a skulking Sikh kill stack. Keep plotting that style of HUNT/PAUSE until you're on the rear of the enemy. Yeah, baby, a satisfied Sikh kill stack. The key, again, is to allow your troops to accumulate more spot-checks. The only way to do that is to expend TIME. How do I know this? Let's just say that many men have achieved GLOOOOORY to let me learn this. Ken

@Bozowans Thanks for the work in your post. I've dug into it and here's a brief synopsis. First, there are TWELVE buildings in Stavelot with that issue. The issue is that the door is NOT where you see it. Yeah, that's a problem. Instead it is next to the shown location, but around the corner. In an isolated building that may not be too much of a problem (there'd have to be a specific circumstance where that would be a tactical issue, e.g., an enemy ready to shoot at the glimpse of men coming around the corner). However, in a rowhouse situation, well, the men have to run all the way around...as you've shown. Here's a picture of what the problem is: Regards, Ken

Let's say YOU made a scenario 7 years ago and put it online. It had a "bad" building. How are you going to contact all the folks who downloaded your scenario and tell them that it needs to be fixed? How many repository owners will open every map and see if there's an offending building? (I think the total number of buildings with this type of error numbers about 4 or so. <- Totally going off memory for that number.) How many folks who downloaded a scenario will download the UPDATED (and fixed by whom?) scenario? How many maps have been included in official BFC releases? (Yes, Quickbattle maps DO count.) That's why it's far more than "it shouldn't be much more work to do a quick flyover". Facade changes? Texture differences? Ugh. It seems like it would be A LOT of work. I cannot even guess the number of man-hours needed to look at every building on every map, let alone the permutations of the same building with different textures/facades or adjacency issues. If it were easy, it would've been eradicated by now. My .02.

If BFC fixes this particular building, the process would be something like this: 1. BFC fixes the building 2. BFC will remove the bad building from the campaign and then insert the fixed building. This will create a fixed campaign. 3. BFC will announce a patch. 4. The player will download the patch...which will include the fixed campaign. 2 Edits: A: I am not a BFC spokesman. I am just a volunteer Beta Tester. Nothing I've written can be construed as being BFC's official position. B: You can see how difficult it is to find each example of this problem. Just because the building gets fixed for FUTURE building placements, does nothing for any EXISTING implementations of the "bad" building. Every scenario that ever had that building placed before it got fixed, has to have the building removed, replaced with the fixed building, and then saved ("baked in") and THEN redistributed. Hence the reason why BFC will only touch the official scenarios.

Outstanding job showing a specific example. I'll take this and post it as a bug. FWIW...this has been a pita to find examples. 1. The game will sometimes make a door blocked if the building has been damaged. There is no explicit feedback to the player that this has occurred. 2. As mentioned by others in this thread, there were some specific buildings that had the visible door in a different location than the CODED door. The known examples of those in official scenarios have been fixed. Once a building is set and the scenario is "baked", then no updates will fix it. The scenario has to be opened, the offending building removed, then replaced, then the scenario can be "re-baked". (BFC has fixed the buildings...but they cannot "unbake" your scenario.) 3. In order for this to get fixed, we need examples like the one here. Showing the map and showing the building. It can now be replicated and reported. 4. See point 3, above. There must be a save and/or a specific example like this one. If beta testers cannot replicate it and send it on to Charles, it cannot be fixed. I'll send this one in today. FWIW, that does NOT meant that there will be an immediate fix. (Yes, I've felt the frustration from this issue. The voluntary suspension of disbelief gives me some options to "explain" this: the door LOOKS good, but has debris behind it (for damaged buildings); the previous occupants have barricaded the door; the wily Dutch have PAINTED the door on the facade to better make the industrial building blend in to its residential neighbors.) My .02: I'd prefer to have the movement orders be SUSPENDED if the entry cannot be performed through the side of the building that the movement path crosses. The cost would be borne by the need to explicitly path every building entry. (A corollary would be to allow window entry.)

Umm...apparently not. I thought that was supposed to work, but I've never tried it. Hmm.

Resupplying tanks In order to do this, the designer would have to manipulate the scenario. Since the game allows intra-platoon ammo leveling, keeping one (or more) of the platoon vehicles behind (or out of battle) is the key. Now, I'm not sure if a designer can specify which vehicle of a platoon can enter separately than the others. Say a full-strength platoon has 5 vehicles. The designer could put 4 on-map and have the 5th appear as a reinforcement at the 90 minute mark. It'd be up to the player to pull his platoon back to that vehicle and perform ammo-leveling. The other approach would be to just feed in a reinforcing platoon at the appropriate point in the battle. Neither approach is perfect. It would be far more interesting to have an ammo truck appear for resupply and to bring your vehicles back to it. Long battles, and campaigns with no/limited resupply, bring up a host of issues that affect tactics. No more shooting HE at suspected locations, for example.

@Attilaforfun has made a good point. I think what would be of more help would be to be differentiate the PROJECTILE from the LAUNCHER. Just because an RPG launcher is shouldered, does not mean the projectile is optimized for the target. A test would be fun. Toss some green/conscript irregulars with poor equipment on a map. Make sure their anti-tank ordnance is limited/old/non-existent and then drive some Abrams or Strykers past them. Count the launches. Count the hits. Assess the damage. Real-life experience is critical to use to assess the fidelity of the model. If there is such wide divergence between someone's real-life experience and his in-game experience, well, let's dig down. 1. The majority of what differs (impacts) could be ascribed to the aforementioned projectile differences. 2. Accuracy can be tested by varying the range at which in-game launches are initiated and the skill level (and other soft factors) of the unit. 3. Tactics would mostly be an examination of range. E.g., is the player driving into the main square with a single vehicle, or standing off at 700m+ with a platoon? Ken

Any and all will run fine under Win10.

An easy way to find a file depository to which you have access, like savegames, is to make up a unique name. Like, "c3kbringsinternstoluaus". Then, after creating that save, exit out. Go to your windows (you ARE using Windows 10, right?) search window and type in "c3kbringsinternstoluaus" and, Bob's your uncle! You've found it. Delete away in Windows explorer. Sort by name or date, left click, scroll, shift left click, and delete a 1,000 savegames of tactical effervescence. In one click. Or something.

No worries. My intern is holding my spot for the kalua pig roast, so I'm up on the hill where there's wifi. Yes, it would be good to be able to simulate a grenade bundle being tossed out of an upper floor onto a vehicle. (Although, really, how much damage would that do?) Hmm? Sorry, she just waved me back down to the beach. Off I go...

Mislabeled units is very much a known "thing" when there are mods or old/bad brz files. As suggested, a reinstall with fresh download will clear it all up. (Save your mods/savegames somewhere and just copy them back after you reinstall.)

^^^ What IanL is mentioning is that CMBN uses a different file location than ANY OTHER CMx2 game. (CMRT, CMFI, CMSF2, etc.) So, CMBN will put savegames, scenarios, campaigns, etc., in a subdirectory. The others put savegames, scenarios, etc., in the Users Documents, wherever you've put that. There is NO REQUIREMENT to have CMBN on any particular drive. One of my rigs has 7 different drives (NVMe, SSD, spinners). I've put my CMBN on my "F" drive, an SSD. If you just move your entire CMBN install to where you'd like it, and then repoint your shortcut, it should work just fine.

I find it far simpler just to use a sharpie on the monitor.

Great stuff! Keep 'em coming...