Erwin

The quality already seems very good.

His first post said "I've been playing around with my CMBN and made a few observations along the way... I'll dump them here in case they could help polishing the game. Nothing game-breaking really." We've established that one person's nitpick is another person's major issue. The guy seems to be trying to be helpful by pointing out these items.

What resolution are you playing with? Image seems very clear and your camera can get very close to units so they appear large and imposing. (On my monitor and reduced res of 1920x1200 when I get too close, the view is quickly "inside" the unit.)

Yes, that is exactly what I do. Have been playing CM1 and CM2 for about 20 years (dear God!) and the enormous amount of mods accumulated for CM2 makes having a mod folder "strategy" essential. Otherwise it's overwhelming.

lovely. thank you...

I understand. However, the campaign is called "Shadow of the Motherland".

Just got it. Lovely, Olek! Just cos I wanted to see your Ukrainian. mods in action I put another campaign on hold and started Shadow Of the Motherland. (Unfortunately not as many vehicles as I was hoping for - but your BMP's and your uniforms look wonderful.) I hope you continue with your Tactical Life Hacks for modern combat. Sometimes it feels like hardly anyone else is playing CMBS as there don't appear to be other threads that address how to play the game well as the Ukrainians or Russians in a modern setting. CMBS seems to be the most difficult to master. Even when one wins a good victory it seems very expensive in terms of KIA men and vehicles. It's rather demoralizing.

I found something else odd. I had a BMP which couldn't decide what to fire at. I kept rotating 15 degrees right then left then back again ad infinitum... Until of course its target noticed and killed it. I vaguely recall someone else posting about his phenomenon. Presumably an LOS issue?? Not sure if its specific to CMBS or a problem across all the CM families. Oh, and I just noticed something else. A platoon HQ must have been KIA. So, in the new mission, one of its platoon BMP vehicles is now labeled as the "Platoon HQ". The inf team platoon HQ has not been replaced. Again, I can't figure out if this is deliberate design or an issue?

Fascinating. Thanks...

I have a Z folder for most mods. Inside that Z folder I then make a ZZ DESIRED MODS folder for the mods I definitely want loaded last (to ensure they appear in the game). FWIW I also split the Z subfolder further by having folders called Z SOUNDS; Z UI, Z UNIFORMS, and Z FX as well as a Z MOD SETS folder for campaign or scenario specific mod sets.

Started 2nd mission. Noticed that the recon HQ that was KIA in Mission 1 didn't get a replacement leader - thus leaving the recon squads out of C2. IIRC there had been a patch some years ago so that HQ's were always replaced (or am I misremembering)? Also, I must have had 2 Co HQ KIA in Mission 1 as I found a "Replacement Co HQ" in Mission 2. However, it was also called "1 Co HQ (Replacement)" rather than "2 Co HQ". So, now there are 2 x "1 Co HQ" units in Mission 2. Is that an error or supposed to happen? General question re use of dedicated Recon Units: Is it SOP to keep the squads together with the HQ so they can all support each other - on one flank for example? Or, would one parcel the recon units out as teams across the whole frontage?

There are so many major things that one could complain about like the LOS and UI issues. But what has become apparent is that when certain people complain about THEIR issues, they feel that they should be taken seriously - as in the above. But, when others of us point out other inconsistencies and issues that we believe should be looked at, somehow we are somehow not in the "same privileged club" and therefore our comments are not to be taken seriously. We end up with the incongruity of a player who hasn't bothered to even play a full campaign to conclusion, so hasn't even taken the trouble to experience or understand the full features of CM2, making snarky comments about people who make comments that he disagrees with. The technique is always the same. Turn an opinion one doesn't like into a personal attack - thus admitting that you lost the argument. All in an effort to suppress alternative views. (Then those types of people are surprised when in a secret vote Trump gets elected.)

"Most of us *do* want to see things get better / fixed." Of course we do. But there is so much. Need to prioritize what can be accomplished with available resources is what am saying. Worrying about such detail is akin to worrying about how many rivets are on the underside of the Pz Mk xyzv4.

Have often said that CM is a bit like "The Game Of Figuring Out LOS". One learns to live with it. But, yes, it is frustrating that the AI can spot a one-pixel wide gap between dozens/hundreds of meters of foliage and kill a tank. You as a human player cannot see that by getting down to ground level and eyeballing it. Also, in urban settings particularly, we often are unable to see or target an enemy when eye-balling would indicate there should be no problem. The WYSIWYG that is claimed does not often work in practice. However, imo best thing is to be happy with what aspects of the game work well (and that is a lot), and ignore the frustrating bits. Maybe CM3 will work out these kinks. A major reason am starting to look forward to that version rather than waiting for the game to get to early eras.

+1 pleeeze - crayon level instructions re what to do after downloading.

Lots of things need to be improved. This doesn't improve anything. It simply puts yet more items for people to complain about and on BF's "to do" list - and they are probably overloaded as it is. Have to be cognizant of priorities. The game will never be perfect, there will always be compromises. In terms of creating a fun and rewarding wargame experience, verisimilitude is much more important than getting technical physics aspects accurate.

Agreed. But when we all assumed everything was accurate, the game was great. Now, we find out that it's not so accurate - and it's starting to bother (some of) us. It's pointless. Better to not know this stuff is what I am saying.

Have experienced this as well a few times. The only issue with this phenomenon is that one has to run the rest of the team back to rejoin the straggler(s). Otherwise no biggy - unless it's an easy fix.

Is it therefore a historical misperception that the MP44 "assault rifle" was greatly superior to bother the MP40 "machine pistol" and the Sten? Or, does the game simply misrepresent them? And since it is a game, does it really matter? Wondering if doing this sort of analysis of an entertainment product is a bit pointless and mitigates the immersive verisimilitude.

Re the v4 big bundle d/l. I thought I would be efficient and copy the d/l's from my HD to a flashdrive so the install files could more easily be transferred and installed onto new computers. But, I got error messages that the files were too large etc. Am I doing something incorrectly? Or, is it required that we have to do separate d/l's of the big bundle install files to each computer?

Looking like a fun scenario, Tom.

Don't they mean "Remote Control Tanks" as in Drones etc? Along with remote controlled military aircraft (and auto-driving cars and trucks), that seems to be the future. Am more worried about the cars and trucks for regular use on roads as for sure they will get hacked. In fact I doubt we will see that happen commercially until a lot further in the future than the year 2025 being forecast by Uber and Musk etc.

Useful to know. Thanks MOS.

Interesting. Good to finally know that separation of tanks in WW2 combat should be about 50m, and also the recommended tactics for combating AT guns.

Hopefully, BF has included on their wish lists the ability for designers to arm units as needed - both ammo load-outs and weapon types (within RL parameters) - eg smoke.