RockinHarry

I´d be interested in a summary of system specs of those who can load and those who can´t. OS (32 or 64 Bit) Ram Graphics adapter + driver versions Mainboard ... background tasks running and so on

Apparently not. It was mentioned (Steve?), that nobody actually used the bake function, so they scrapped it entirely for CMBN. I´d love to start on a map, that has dust´n smoke from a previous bombardement, shattered trees, and more. So far we just can place craters, predamage buildings and burning/destroyed vehicles/bunkers. A "damage" option should also be available for trees, walls n more. So far it´s a bit of a half hearted affair, as the functions are already in the game, not yet in the editor.

From official german field regulations, firing over No2s shoulder was a quick expedient to engage low flying enemy aircraft. Otherwise it´s not mentioned anywhere, but one can assume that it was also applied in other situations, when quick engaging targets was required and no other rest for the gunner available. (....LMG team in wheat field, engaging russian cavalry few hundred meters away and such).

That would add some nice varity! Maybe for the sergeants or officers voice? Guess your friend will add an appropiate authority tone! @ poesel: I´ll start digging my TM for phrases tomorrow.

Lets stick to english language in this thread, as many non german speakers might interested to read here too.

...think Herr Poesel was joking!

Yep, many of them are plain crap (...sorry to original speakers ). Non german speakers do likely not have an idea anyway and couple of german speakers probably don´t know RL german command language in WW2. So it´s not a problem for maybe 80-90% of CM players. I´ve couple of german original field regulations from WW2, giving lots of needed info about command language and terms: http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276 Beside helping with info, I´m also musician and hobby audio engineer, so I can do audio recordings and editing with comfort. Good work, with the wikia page! That should ease redoing files considerably. Best to start with the more "comic" or Hollywood style replacement candidates then. The worst I did hear lately (introduced in 1.01??) is "german chatter 4.wav" (Sie hören). I needed couple of listens to understand what the voice was actually saying. ...I guess the original translator meant to say "zuhören!" (listen up!). But then the fine point is to say it more in a command style tone. But there´s also some well done files, originating from CMX1, which actually do not need beeing replaced.

What about adding some hit or partial penetration marks to thick armor plates? Or bullet, shrapnel holes in the skirts? Anway...looks already perfekt to me as is.

As with all size battles, depends upon assumed initial situation. Is it a "framed" force, as part of a larger occupied frontline or an independent force operating with open flank(s)? When framed, an attacking (or defending) force can cover a frontline of particular width, which for a cpy sized force could be few hundred meters and for a large Btl. size force between 500 to 1000m (upto X2 and more when defending). So a framed force (with framing forces assumed outside the boundaries of the given map), there´s likely less room for "maneuvering" and no alternative to frontal assaults. If assuming an independent, advance force, maps s/b bigger, allowing more opportunities for maneuvre and requirement to cover "flanks". Personally I like big, Btl. size engagements on large maps (>= 2x2 km) for the combined arms aspects (infantry + heavy weapons, + artillery, + armor), which is more interesting to me, than pure small tank vs. tank, or infantry vs. infantry battles. All a matter of taste. Managing big battles is time consuming, but if a scenario designer allows for a long lasting battle (sufficient turns), one can make the most out of it, by playing the battle in phases. A reccon phase, moving to assembly areas phase, assault phase and so one. Thus one can move forces in defined stages, not all at once and contiuously. Thus even a big battle can be played rather quickly, if scenario length allows to make a reasonable attack or defend plan. Biggest time investement then is making the plan, which could take 1 hour or more. I´ll play mostly with watching the battle (WEGO) at map level 7-9 and switch to 1-3, when frindly unit icons start to blink (taking casualties) and enemy units show up. Repeating the replay then as often as needed to readjust movements ect. Overall, big battles play fairly well, if you get beyond the time consuming planning phase. Otherwise and when beeing rather impatient, just avoid them.

Read about that oftenly as well. Always depends upon type of building, if time is sufficient to turn it into a strongpoint, if it has a cellar strong enough serving as dugout AND if the building itself covers or integrates into an important part of the defense line. Otherwise, just as forest edges and other prominent terrain features, it will draw devastating artillery and support arm fires. Oftentimes it´s better to spare single buildings or use them as cover shield for units placed behind, thus creating some keyholed position. Elaborate defense positions oftenly have buildings integrated for means of comfort or protection of strong enough basements (dugout), with the actual fighting positions (foxholes and trenches) placed outside.

Yep, they get pockmarked pretty fast during a barrage, but the actual damaging process looks more like going "bottom up" and not "top down". I´ve seldomly seen damaged roofs/upper stories, before a building collapses and it more looks like the first floor receives most damage from blasts of near hits (lots of blown out walls), weakening the house enough, that finally all of the house will collapse. I´d expect a blast effect taking the way of least resistance, blowing out windows, doors, ect., but not entire walls that soon. So I have bits of my doubts with regard to the building damage simulation model. While the collapsing buidling FX technically is well done and nice to look at, it too oftentimes feels to be out of place with regard to assumed pre and after damage levels (pockmarking --> flat rubble). Hopefully BFC does some refinement to it. Back to protection vs. small arms fire: I still believe it´s not thickness of walls having the main impact, it´s rather an abstracted nature of (internally oversized) windows, serving as firing ports and openings for return fire. Things obviously get more fuzzy when a building has received some damage levels, either by live damage, or premade with CTRL-CLICK and ALT-SHIFT-CLICK. Lots of invisible openings and firing ports are created. Oftentimes it looks like soldiers are able to shoot through seams of adjoining (damaged) walls either sidewards or down- and up story. Although beeing realistic to some extend, the abstracted damage leads to some confusion with regard to assumed protection level of a building or parts of it. Another topic: Has any of CMBN buildings access to the roof, like in CMSF? I haven´t seen some yet, but I guess BFC has taken this feature out, due to 3D object collsion issues with angled roofs (as opposed to the flat ones in CMSF). However, I´d at least wish for roof access for FOs, snipers and LMG teams. Need to test about various effects of modular, multi story buildings, that receive some premade ALT-SHIFT-CLICK damage. On level 1 damage, the roof looks damaged, although the whole story below is made inaccessible as well and lots of random rubble piles (=flavor objects) are placed on upper and bottom most stories, but not intermediate (assuming, building has at least 3 stories). I´ve also noticed various oddities with buildings of various damage levels (or none) placed in adjoining "blocks". I.E if one adjoining wall has no windows or damage, but the wall of another one has, invisible access points could be created between. Would be nice if BFC sheds some light on those matters, as too many things aren´t covered in the game manual. I could have finished my MOUT scenario weeks ago, if I wouldn´t have stumbled into unexpected issues over and over again, requiring me to do detail tests on just parts of a map with limited forces.

Outstanding!

Think the question about general building protection and resistance levels has already been answered by enough testing: 1. Independent = light to very light (barns) 2. modular = medium to heavy 3. cathedral = heavy The "light" category does not quite work for a european setting, but is more probably ported over from CMSF middle east. Also yet might work for russia and parts of eastern europe. Particularly disappointing is the quick dropping of indi buildings, without showing intermediate damage levels. It´s simply wrong and crappy looking. Another issue is the quick rubbling of "walls" (low, high, stone, brick) by single 80mm mortar hits or near hits. Observed the same for 4.2" smoke rounds. How is that assumed to happen? That definitely needs some readjusting in the game. Me guesses there´s still some CMSF code involved.

If BFC adds this as expansion to CMSF, I´d purchase it full price. Fictional combat in eastern europe, or back dating the whole thing to a continued cold war, turning hot. ....well, as long as it´s not desert terrain again.

.."bake" scenario. Where is it gone? ..was in CMSF.

yep, straightly taken from Fleischers book. Can´t tell if it´s a typo or not. To be more exactly, it tells of "stamped concrete" and "steel concrete". Safe protection figures for a direct hit of single 105mm HE (no delay fuse): stamped concrete = 100cm steel concrete = 75cm The tables don´t tell if it´s protection vs. a particular nations small arms, but rather a general guideline for ALL sort of small arms & splinters (rifles, machine guns and aircraft light weaponry).

...definitely best so far!

Now that you say, I remember having it seen in my MOUT test scenario as well, infantry crawling through the streets in "max assault" mode. Looks like "max assault" would then be good for support units further back, OR for assault infantry attempting to break into a position just few meters away. Interesting...

Is there any inter awareness between different AI groups? Assuming sending forward a small reccon team (or a small HQ with radio, possibly an unused Cpy HQ) in Group1 and it stumbles into opposition, will it report back to it´s senior HQ (with all combat troops) in Group2 and influence it´s movement/assault behavior, when it starts moving? Or is it rather like: "Well, Group1..thanks for reporting, but we in Group2 have our (movement) orders and rely on our own sightings". Generally I´ll try to stick with simple plans and keep combat frontages into consideration, when assigning "assault" or "max assault" (or any other) orders onto a "map objective". Same goes for "assembly point" occupy zones, which should give a particular unit an appropiately sized assembly zone deployment, before it is allowed to move further on its "assault" occupy zone. Think this should then create an appropiately sized "company line", as the AI usually tries to "fill out" all of the assigned occupy zones. For a US infantry platoon, with all squads forward, this could be an occupy zone of about 80-100m width and at least 2-3 action spots deep. Yet need to test what the AI makes of more zone depth than "necessary" (100x100m, instead of 100x30m). So movement behavior from zone to zone also is influenced by size and shape of zones. Yet again need to test how the AI deals with terrain between occupy zones and if it sticks to a certain combat frontage (as predefined by zone size), or if it gets channelized by certain terrain elements, as well as enemy opposition. Interesting stuff....

Since most tests are done comparing US small arms ammo, here´s some data for the common german 7.92mm sS round (schweres Spitzgeschoss). Taken from german H.DV 316, Pionierdienst aller Waffen, table 12, 1936. Cover vs. rifle fire at ranges of 400m and below: earth, sand, clay = 100cm sandbags = 50cm grass pads = 120cm gravel = 20cm oak wood, round = 70cm pine wood = 130cm brick wall = 38cm (no protection vs. machine gun point fire) And some data from Wolfgang Fleischers "Field Fortifications of the german army, 1939-1945: This is general guidelines for safe cover vs. enemy small arms, 1944: stamped snow = 250-300cm fresh snow = 400cm ice = 80cm firm earth = 120cm loose earth = 140cm clay = 110cm sand, rubble = 100cm soft wood = 90cm hard wood = 75cm sandbags = 70cm soft rock = 60cm medium hard rock = 40cm brick wall = 65cm field stone wall = 40cm concrete = 20cm steel concrete = 20cm Some more interesting data re german 7.92mm sS bullet, taken from H.DV 73, shooting regulation for HMG, page 25/26, 1937: at 100m penetrates 65cm dry pine wood at 400m penetrates 85cm dry pine wood (!) at 800m penetrates 45cm dry pine wood at 1800m penetrates 25cm dry pine wood the fact, that the 7.92mm sS penetrates less at 100m is from the bullet misforming at impact with the higher V0, resulting in worse penetration. Brick walls of single brick strength (25cm), can only be penetrated by single bullets if they hit a joint by chance. With longer shooting and hitting at the same spot, even stronger walls do not provide safe protection.

Once I started working with AI plans 2 month ago, I wondered that these are not supplementary to any strategic AI, but instead are exclusive. There is no strategic AI, like in CMX1, thus the complete inflexibility and disregard for a scenarios goals. I´d intended to use AI plans (for an attacker) to lead to assembly zones and then let the AI do the attack and capture objectives, but apparently this does not work in CMBN. The AI player does not really know about what to "capture" and with a given "terrain objective", it would never move there on its own, unless just told to move to the area. So all the "attack", "advance", "max assault" ect. modes is just a "movement to" behavior, but not a "tactical" guideline to capture given objectives. And "movement objectives" is not equal "terrain objectives", so with the lack of the AI´s awareness for a scenarios "goal", I have doubts that at least an AI attacker can be given a halfway realistic attack plan, just by means of applying group movement orders. Beside end game scoring purposes, do have (Mission) Parameters, Terrain Objectives and Unit Objectives any influence on AI behavior during game?

Can just speak for what I see in germany so far, but oftenly applies to farm buildings and city buildings as well. Basements, that are not level with the surrounding terrain, having cellar windows slightly above ground, providing an excellent firing position for single LMGs or SMG gunners & snipers. These are hard to spot and hit in return.

While doing some further tests, I figured some visual indications to be somewhat misleading with regard to the protective nature of buildings. 1. Visual window sizes do not always (?) appear to match "internal" sizes of "firing ports". When observing soldiers shooting out of the building, they oftenly appear to shoot through the neighboring walls, which makes me think "internal size" is at least 50% larger (or wider) than what the visual windows indicate. If it is so, then it´s clear, that return fire into a house also offers more of a target behind the invisibly enlarged windows/firing ports. This is similar to bunkers, which have a very wide firing slit, as opposed to a small firing port, most bunkers normally have. I guess it´s all sort of an abstraction to enable single soldiers to find a firing position behind windows better. But as said, it works both ways (incoming fire). 2. Observing tracers from incoming fire (into a house) also makes one think, that many shots penetrate through walls, oftentimes right through all of the house and through the back wall. While it makes one think, these shots make a house swiss cheese, I can rarely observe any such shots hitting or injuring a soldier in a house. Maybe it´s a game limitation that stray tracers through walls are shown at full speed, while internally they should have lost most or all of their kinetic energy, during penetration. Most soldier hits/injuries appear to come through the abstractedly enlarged windows and not through walls. So if a buildings protective value appears doubtable, it´s less from walls not beeing thick enough, it´s rather from windows/firing ports internally calculated beeing larger. Best method so far to "fortify" a building: Generally don´t use upper stories as fighting position. Make 1m high berms around a house and just use the ground floor as fighting position. A single building placed "off center" (not filling whole action spots) can be given a protective 1m high berm, by raising all action spots beneath the house by 1m and leaving one action spot at original height (yet touched by the house above). Buildings stick to the lowest action spot they touch beneath. Example: Off center single spot building touches 4 action spots. One is 20m and remaining 3 are 21m. The building sticks at 20m, while the other action spots "partly" raise to 21m, creating the "berm" around the house. I haven´t experimented that much with "walls" intersecting (or placed within) a buildings 3D geometry, but I think from my obervations, this kind of wall placement is ignored, when it comes to (extra) cover protection. Non intersecting walls, outside a building would add benefits though. The 1m high berm adds effective cover to the house, unless an attacker has a considerable height advantage off course. A usable tactic is to let the defending unit blast away at approaching enemies freely and when return fire adds sufficient suppression, the automatic "cowering" makes soldiers more or less invulnerable. Yet incoming fire would be absorbed by the 1m berm. One minute of hide would break LOF to the attacker and with next unhide in coming turn, defenders again receive effective first fire opportunities, unless the whole procedure starts anew. At least works well vs. the AI.... So the main weakness of a building defense is: (internally) Oversized windows Too many soldiers bunching up behind these windows (can be solved by splitting squads and diverting teams to different walls with "face") Soldiers not reloading weapons in prone position or in cover (RL standard procedure). In case of a HMG34/42, crew members that normally go to cover when the gunner + assistant fight, unecessarily expose themselves, shooting at the enemy, ect.

Still the same for me. It´s now up to BFC "fixing" this.

You mean CTRL + CLICK on walls? Independent buidlings get damage at once, while for modular buildings one needs to cycle through all wall configurations, until the blown out wall appears (last before no wall, then starts anew). I´m not a MAC player, so can´t say if something has changed in 1.01