Vanir Ausf B

Units will take cover from shooting and explosions near them that originate from unspotted enemy units (as well as friendly units). It's not clear from your description if this is what is happening but I think it the most likely explanation. A definitive example of an enemy unit being spotted but not shown would be friendly units opening fire on it. To the player it would appear his unit was initiating area fire without orders to do so. I have never seen this happen.

I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I am dubious that any such feature is in the game, at least intentionally. The idea that spotted enemy units are randomly invisible to the player makes no sense and seems to run counter to CM's design philosophy. If that is in fact happening I have yet to see it, and if I did I would think it's probably a bug.

The upcoming patch is supposed to address some of the performance issues. But you won't be able to test it out without buying the game until they update the demo. I have no idea when or if they intend to do that.

Could be. There were many people who felt that using Green and Conscript troops led to much more realistic results in the CMx1 games as well.

When will it... oh never mind.

When will it be done?

Essentially, although this is actually true for all difficulty levels except Basic Training.

I've never played multiplayer in CMBN, so I guess the answer is "none". But I do intend to. Even if you discount the multiplayer aspect for whatever reason, it would also presumably help with the AI autopick issue the OP was complaining about.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101836

Of course it's a bit restrictive. That's whole point. But to suggest that it eliminates choice is completely wrong . Add up all the numbers in the categories I listed and they come out to be much more than 3000 pts so you do have some wiggle room. I assure you that you can get a lot of variety with that system. What it does do is act as a sanity check. You don't have to worry about someone spending half their points on artillery and just blasting you off the map. Sure, you can negotiate stuff like that, but that can be tedious. There is a reason why it was the most popular QB setting. As for gameyness, QBs give you a limited number of points to choose your forces with. Putting limits on the individual categories isn't any more gamey than the QB system already is by its very nature. I'm not seeing the downside here. It's not as if the Mixed/Unrestricted setting can't co-exist along with a Combine Arms setting. It was like that in CMx1

Did you check to see if the jeep driver was Chuck Norris? He could surround your force by running laps around it.

This is more of an argument against using AI picked forces than against a Combined Arms setting. At least the autopicker would be forced to spread its points around. But there are good reasons for it beyond playing against AI picked forces. Combined Arms was by far the most popular setting used in CMx1 PBEMs. It surprised me that it was not in CMx2. Lets just say that when I think of a combined arms force 5 tanks, 2 LMGs and an FO isn't really what I have in mind And apparently neither did the OP. In CMx1 the Combined Arms setting put hard limits on how many points you could spend on any category of forces. For example, in a 3000 pt attack/defend QB as the German defender you would be allowed to spend up to 2148 pts on infantry, 1288 pts on support units, 600 pts on vehicles, 402 pts on armor (in CMx1 light vehicles such as trucks and half tracks were in a separate category from tanks and assault guns), 750 on artillery and 600 on fortifications. As mentioned above, the "Mixed" setting is actually the same as the CMx1 Unrestricted setting, which was not nearly as popular with players.

The only way this will ever get sorted out is if they implement a Combined Arms setting. Calling the current option "Mixed" is a misnomer, since it is actually the equivalent of the CMx1 Unrestricted setting.

I like the idea. Perhaps units designated as reinforcements could be purchased at a discount. The later in the battle they are scheduled to appear the bigger the discount. I would probably only allow it in MEs or for the attacker in attack/defend games.

+1 I would like to have that for area fire with HE rounds and MG fire as well ( MG fire would be for a set amount of time ).

I think it can. It's been a while since this was discussed, but IIRC 12.7mm is the cutoff point for friendly fire casualties. Anything smaller than that will only add suppression.

US engineers at Aberdeen who tested a T-34 rated the starter as poor and noted that the engine dealt with wear by gradually losing compression until failure. Granted, it was a 1941 model.

The engine was still an improvement over the T-34s, which IIRC did not even have a decent air filter and would die after a few hundred miles.

Alcohol. Until the patch. Then it will be time for coffee.

I can't wait!

That's just my rule of thumb; my personal cutoff point. Plus, there are a lot of QB maps that shipped with the game that are just a little over 1 sq. km.

Just make sure the map is at least 1 square kilometer in size.

The reason that BFC has given for not making a Pacific Combat Mission is that they have zero interest in the subject. I suppose that could change but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I was really beginning to think this would never happen. The Commonwealth module just got some serious competition for my time this fall.

I'd just email the files along with a detailed description of the problem to phil at battlefront dot com It's probably safe to assume he'd be interested in having a look since that's sorta his job