Mud

*shrug* I remember the days fiddling with Shogun:TW, and seeing which nVidia TNT drivers would randomly explode compatibility or performance. Neither ATI nor nVidia is really known for putting bug-free standards compliance ahead of often-but-not-always performance.

At least you get some communications with your air support. Go try previous CM games to see what I mean.

It'd be useful in ambush. For instance, if you have a concealed ATGM team, there are situations in which the ATGM team should hold fire. It may even be obvious -- to them -- that they should hold fire, such as if the opposing vehicle looks like an M1 Abrahms moving on undulating terrain at top speed perpendicular to LOF at a distance of 1km and the ATGM is a AT-4C. I don't expect the manual to cover this in detail (as in, say, how slow a vehicle must be moving for a given distance for a hit to be 'likely') and some factors would probably be impractical to compute (ex. for non fire-and-forget ATGMs, whether or not LOF is constrained through a 'keyhole' that is not wide enough to cover the trajectory of the vehicle from launch to desired impact -- this would get real ugly real fast) but even a highly approximate in-game indication might be handy.

Wouldn't mind the targeting indicator give a coarse estimation of the likely effectiveness of firing. Let it be affected by FOW, experience, morale. By 'coarse', ex. "too far", "too weak", "easy kill", et al -- vague terms, not %, would seem reasonable.

On a related note... In situations like the demo scenario, where the buildings aren't military or government installations or anything related -- but you have reason to believe that there's enemy presence in the area, and that these buildings might provide long LOS to enemy spotters -- at what point would an attack on the buildings be considered justifiable in reality? For instance, should one wait until there's somebody actually spotted on the upper floors or roof, and when there's obvious enemy presence nearby (like an AFV or small-arms fire) so that any civilians are likely to have already found refuge elsewhere?

Auto-pause on the arrival of reinforcements would also make sense -- especially since there's no guarantee that the reinforcements aren't immediately taking fire, the controlling player might be busy elsewhere, and there's no mini-map or message log to indicate a problem. Aside from that... having the ability to customize one panel of 'frequently-used' hotkeys to avoid panel-flipping would be nice. 'Target' and a few other commands ('quick', 'reverse', 'fast', 'pop smoke' come to mind) might be used much more often than others when things get hairy, for instance.

After eyeballing those screen shots and the results of a Google Earth query, I'm impressed.

On the other hand, selecting a vehicle and highlighting an overlay ("places this unit can see right now") would be useful if doable. Or 'move until you think you could shoot at one particular selected point if you have to', doing periodic LOS checks and LOF checks (if LOS check says 'possibly') as need be. You -could- move the camera to each individual unit and pan/tilt it, but this isn't very practical in real-time unless you have extremely few units or what you have is quite tightly grouped.

Perhaps it's a can of wyrms they didn't want to deal with. If you have units trying to surrender, for instance, you might have units shooting them anyway. You might also have units pretending to surrender, and then blowing themselves up or continuing the fight (ambush trigger) when others approach... as well as abusing prisoners as bullet-catchers for recon or so forth.

'Smashing Metal'. I've also gotten a total US victory, 0 casualties, Elite, by advancing very methodically (and letting the M2A1s take the lead). Nothing special involved. Keep the Strykers out of probable LOS in deployment and group the M1A2s for a methodical center advance. They've got ample firepower and the first several vehicle kills will be essentially free (units moving across your field of fire as you sit tight). Never needed to dismount the infantry. Having a harder time duping the same feat as the Syrians. Obs. 1 -- AI will direct mortar fire in the initial deployment area of ATGM teams, regardless of whether there's anybody there. So don't put them there -- even if the mortar fire -didn't- happen immediately, it would, and LOS is much too far away. Obs. 2 -- trench isn't THAT great concealment. Hidden troops, short-cover-arc troops there will be spotted while enemy vehicles are still a decent distance away. Units in trench will be suppressed and killed fast. So, don't rely on these too much, even ATGM teams in trench that manage to fire at 220m-away targets before being spotted have a pretty good track record for missing entirely. OTOH AI will not pre-emptively smash the buildings with cannonfire, but against a human opponent this isn't the safest assumption... Obs. 3 -- your BMPs are very panicky and fragile, even when supported by T-72s right next to them. Crews fleeing perfectly intact vehicles is modeled, I can tell you. Obs. 4 -- 1 or 2 enemy M1A2 on the left hill can, with ease, kill any and all your vehicles on most interesting positions on the right hill before your vehicles spot the shooter, courtesy of much superior spotting/targeting systems and training I'd suspect. Some LOS/LOF glitches don't seem to help much. As in "you've just lost four tanks to one-shot kills from a single enemy tank (spotting according to other units) and none of your vehicles ever saw an enemy". Been there, done that. Obs. 5 -- AI game plan does indeed involve taking that left hill for M1A2 overwatch, if you don't. For reason above, this will cause problems. Option 1 -- Gamble early; keep BMPs on extreme left flank, pop smoke and rush towards hill but -back from crest- so you don't end up in LOS of entire force and dying in seconds. Save T-72s for when reinforcements arrive. Objective -- deny hill. Managed to smash all US vehicles, kill/wound all but one, with pretty minor losses doing this -- but got lucky with a BMP vs M1A2 duel. Option 2 -- Gamble early, gamble hard. Same thing, but load ATGM teams in, and set up ATGM teams on some convenient overwatch. Pray at least one of 'em survives the first dozen seconds. Pray that the ATGM teams deploy before they die. If they all die, the situation turns into an inferior Option 3 (no BMPs/ATGM teams). Option 3 -- Delay the gamble, but watch it turn into a bloodbath later. BMPs on right flank, mass with T-72s incl reinforcements, shred infantry advance (will likely incl 2 MG teams, one rifle, backed by Strykers). Bloodbath comes when M1A2s take left hill and start smashing you from long range while your T-72s won't even spot them unbuttoned while they're (M1A2s) shooting. You either cede ground and let the Strykers smash the trenches and buildings while saving your vehicles, or engage and lose many vehicles, but also quite possibly kill/wound every single US personnel and destroy all their vehicles(managed this, but at high cost).

Tricky. It's be unrealistic to apply strict hierarchical C2 requirements for giving orders, I think, unless you (a) had a smart enough TacAI to handle the results in a reasonable fashion (so they'd do *something* reasonable, even if it's not quite what you intended) and ( had a way to denote your long-term objectives so the cut-off units had some sense of what you intended for them even if they have to improvise, Hypothetically speaking, if you were in command of a large force of T-72s and were planning to split it into two groups, you'd probably want to put the other half in the hands of somebody who at least understood the overall mission objective and wouldn't simply go into stationary force-preservation mode the moment you were too busy to radio in the next set of orders. It -would- make some sense to have restrictions for a co-op game with players controlling particular formations (and restricting in-game messenging), but I haven't seen any mention or indication of this being a co-op MP game.

Well, from my CM:BO/BB days... that might be quite intentionally done by the scenario designer to prevent redeployment.

Interesting and good to know. Tried the demo lately, and was somewhat surprised that drones or other aerial recon didn't seem mentioned in either the manual or anywhere in-game.

The HQ tank thing was a bit suspicious as early as the Citadel scenario in the demo, but that was only because the Germans got nuttin' but a few platoons of tanks.

Hm. If memory serves, BFC already stated that the engine rewrite would be designed in such a way (more modular?) to facilitate using at least part of the same code for a variety of games; while AI, units et al would have to be reworked for different types, other elements might be more consistent. LOS checking or terrain modeling code might not be impacted too much by era.

Conscript aircraft and rocket barrages.

It also doesn't help when infiltrators and air attacks cause confusion and disrupt communications... especially when the rather inflexible (militarily, at least) Soviet system at the time was not particularly rewarding of independence among commanders. Combine that with Stalin's previous orders to avoid provoking a German attack, and extremely fresh memories of the purge...

You usually do want infantry up front. Not only can you usually afford to absorb more hits with infantry than with armor, but once you do engage guns with vehicles (and an opponent might well have a good AT gun with keyhole-sighting and an armor-only cover arc to prevent premature tripping of an ambush), any infantry that you can bring to bear on the target can help suppress the gun. Suppressed guns fire less, and thus should be less likely to claim additional victims. You're also bringing more eyeballs. On extreme FOW, sending only one or two vehicles in a probe might get 'em destroyed before you even get a contact, let alone an ID. Said eyeballs may also snag threats that you should be able to deal with much more readily with infantry, such as infantry with 'shrecks. Vehicles under fire might button up, and then -- at least those without a cupola -- they won't be seeing much at all.

Both sides? There's only one that matters -- the truth. Go read John Erickson's "The Road to Moscow" and "The Road to Berlin", for instance, which go into detail into such matters as the continued shipments of materials and the deliberate LACK of preparation for war in order to avoid providing any provocation. As for any alleged skills or competence, the results speak for themselves.

On the other extreme... has anybody actually FINISHED "To the Volga", and if so, have they posted an AAR on it?

To hose the Russians... I'd be tempted to focus on Tank Hunters (low range, low ammo, only two men per team), or again engineers (cost); flamethrowers, maybe 45mm guns or DSHK (for weight, possibly bad idea), but NOT PTRS/PTRD ATRs because Russian player is likely to buy trucks or other light-armored stuff for Germans; for vehicles and armor, the thin-skinned tankettes, trucks, and thin-skinned flame vehicles; for artillery, high-level conscript wire high-calibre artillery, since if he doesn't use it as a prep barrage it'll be nearly useless.

Hoooooooooookay. I think it'll depend on the terrain. For the Germans: Infantry: One option would be Pioneer Platoons -- not because they're ineffective or weak, but because their cost is high and their demo charges / mine clearing ability is unlikely to be used THAT much. Plus, they come with expensive, hard-to-use flamethrowers. Having one platoon is OK; a large all-Pioneer force is probably too expensive unless you're up against a minefield-crazy player. Support: For an ME, something nice and immobile if possible like a Size 9 gun, with as much experience as possible. Actually, any heavy gun will do so long as you don't give him the transport and the map is large/hilly/woody enough to make it useless while in its setup zone. Vehicles: Kubelwagons and trucks of maximum rank. Hotchkisses for the heck of it (unless those count as armor?). Armor: If it's terrain where bogging is likely, a Sturmtiger or Jagdtiger of maximum rank -- it's pricey, heavy, low-ammo, and almost certainly vastly overkill for anything your opponent would buy for you. And hey, you might get lucky and be able to kill it instead of bypass it. Less silly, maybe short-barelled PzIII. Artillery: Conscript aircraft might be an interesting gamble.

Hmmm. I think you might be seeing differences for multiple reasons. One is that for CMBB, the after-action report includes accurate per-unit casualties inflicted regardless of in-game fog-of-war settings. In CMBO, that information is still hidden even when the game's over. Therefore you might be seeing underreporting if you're comparing end-of-game results. Second, machineguns in CMBB can suppress units in an area rather than just the specific squad / team / et al that they're targeting. I've read that it's basically a circle of suppression (rather than, say, a cone). Third, the effects of pinning were increased in CMBB -- so squads are a lot more likely to be stalled by MG fire. Fourth, the attacker generally needs to be moving, and while he's moving he's less protected by cover. This is much more so in CMBB than in CMBO, so advancing against MGs means you're simultaneously more vulnerable than before plus you're more likely to pin and stall when the MG does fire near you.

Some differences that come to mind: CMBB gameplay has some significant differences that you may or may not like. For instance, machineguns and suppressive fire effects are a LOT more significant than they were in CMBO. Moving quickly lowers the amount of cover you receive more than before. MG fire rates even vary based on threat, if memory serves. SMGs burn their ammo much more quickly. All these changes mean that charging against an established defense fares far worse -- but if you LIKE the odd reckless overly aggressive game, you may want CMBO because you can't turn these changes off. The artillery model also changed; delays vary considerably (high-level Soviet artillery assets, in particular, can have remarkably long delay times), but prepared strikes are allowed. VT artillery is much more scarce -- none for the Soviets IIRC, not sure for the Germans since I play 'em far less in QBs -- compared to the American artillery allotment (155mm VT on enemies caught in the open is nastier than a moose bite). Western armored vehicles tend to be thinner -- the closest you get to the KVs might be the thick-skinned Churchill variants. At the shorter ranges in CMBO and with the older penetration model, AFVs tend to be much more lethal to each other. There's less of the "damn, what the heck do I do with PzIII vs KV-1 or T-34/76 versus PzVI at 1km away" situations. Infantry anti-tank weapons available to the Western allies are much nicer than the Soviet ones -- PIATS, 'zooks, and rifle grenades versus Molotovs, grenade bundles (?), PTRS/PTRD AT rifles (decent against barely-armored self-propelled guns, halftracks and similar, lousy against the terrifying PzIII...) and RPG-43 (not the modern rocket-type weapon, but a hand-thrown anti-tank grenade)... and the lighter Soviet AT guns ain't nothing to write home about, either. The Soviets need to depend far more on their other AT assets, in particular their own AFVs. If you want to play a "desperate infantry defend against Panzers" sort of game, either American or British paras would probably be a good pick.

Jack Ryan -- It sounds to me like you're looking for a completely different game. CM models at the level of squads, half-squads and teams, instead of individual men. Control is limited, since it's a full 60 seconds between order phases. Instead of crack shots with silenced weapons, years of training, a permanently level head, and advanced demolitions equipment, we have grunts with much more reasonably (low) marksmanship and realistically crude weaponry. Since tiles are 20m on a side and squad position is abstracted, you don't get fine positional control. To me, all these factors combined mean that stealthy "commando" missions in CMBO/CMBB simply aren't a good fit. CM can't really do "sneak in, blow stuff up and steal a ride out". Even "sneak in and blow stuff up and sneak out" isn't too likely, since that degree of stealth requires control much closer to that of FPS games -- you can't order the TacAI to "wait until the guard's looking the other way, then crouch and take cover there, and knife the sentry when he comes by" or anything like that. As noted, though, you can make high-value targets out of immobilized vehicles. You can even take elite trucks and drop rubble tiles on top of them (so they can't run away) if you want to make very soft unarmed targets. You can drop building tiles on units, too -- you can even create mined buildings that way, if you really want (although I haven't tried dropping buildings on vehicles...)