Euri

OK. This makes sense from an AI perspective

The thing is that when the tentative marker is deep opaque red, there is always enemy there of the type shown on the generic marker. It is not probabilistic, it is 100% certainty. In this case in a hostile environment I would guess that the obvious choice is one to engage, not to wait until one has discerned the exact type of enemy. "There is something there across the enemy line! Fire". That is my point.

I guess everyone thinks it is perfectly normal to look at an enemy tank and not shoot until I am certain about the exact type of it....Oh well...

Why the TACAI does not engage visual generic tank contacts until it has identified the particular type of the enemy unit? I refer to contact icons that are deep red (indicating the unit has indeed a visual on the target)/

In many instances I pefer slow instead of hunt. For example if I feel I have superiority of fire or simply dominate an area and intend to advance one or two tanks, I go for slow which ensures that my tank will engage enemies but will not stop its advance as is the case with hunt. I also feel that the hunt speed is sometimes too quick for good spotting and a tank on slow spots better. But this last point may be just impressionistic.

I hope you try it. Tell me what you think

That is one I have designed experimenting with the setting. The setting is mission specific. Therefore, yes, it can vary from mission to mission in a campaign http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons/seal-team-6-the-factory/

Thank you for the excellent ideas. Does this really work the way the CC is coded? I was under the impression that info disseminates only if the units share CC links. Otherwise they do not talk to eachother :-)

Seriously, don't tank crews have a handheld radio inside the tank? They have binoculars for example, which I don't believe that are removed tank optics LOL

In many missions (for example Dueling Shashkats) there is no higher HQ unit to allow the dessemination of information among the Mechanized Company and the Tank Company. Therefore things which the Mechanised HQ knows about location of enemy tanks are not know to the tank crews. And these seconds in spotting make a difference especially if one is playing the Ukrainias with the "rotating" Oplots. So I though "OK. I will disembark (i,e Bail out) the tank Company HQ, use it as spotter and he will be able to pass information to the other company tanks" The problem is that THEY DONT TAKE A RADIO with them and although they carry binoculars, they are totally cut out from communication with other tanks under their command

Do you have spotters and Air controllers in mission 4?

My feedback is as follows: Mission 1: nice work on map but ill conceived scenario. More like a WW1 battle Mission 2: Excellent map, very good scenario design. A great experience overall Mission 3: Nice concept but I the excecution was just ok. Too many infantry for both sides. Useless bloodbath. Again the WW1 - WW2 syndrom manifests iteself :-) Mission 4: Geat Map. The mission however is apparently untested by the author. No air controllers available for the air assets. As a result I stopped the campaign

Thank you! I had not noticed that there is such a tool!

Don;t you think that this mission should be also released as a standalone? I think it would be very interesting for H2H with the current balance of forces/

A thing you should explain at the campaign briefing (if it was there, sorry i missed it) is weather the core units get reinforcments during the campaign or not. Without any reiforcements, I will not sacrifice dozens of men to take out guarrisons on hills (this is so...WWI) which I could easity obliterate with heavy artyllery.

I am playing the 1st battle and have the same view as @Erwin It does not make any sense to bayonet attack hills in 2017. Some heavy artillery would do the job. If there was a fortified small village on the way and the attacker would prefer to avoid civilian casualties, that would be another story.

I am in the reading mood today and here is another interesting article to think over, this time from Foreign Affairs magazine https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2016-04-18/why-putin-took-crimea

https://next.ft.com/content/7ac5075c-1a96-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122 "Russia’s decision to dramatically build up its forces in Kaliningrad — the Baltic enclave between Poland and Lithuania — and substantial military assets in its border territories mean the VJTF would be at risk of being overrun before it was even ready to fight if it tried to set up “east of the Oder [the line of Germany’s eastern border]”, says one of the generals"

In respect of order 2: If you set Passengers Dismount, they will do so at the beginning of the order not at the end. In other words will go on foot and the vehicles will come along From the manual: "This option tells infantry carrying vehicles to Dismount its passengers or keep them Mounted. Keep in mind that this option is activated BEFORE the designated Map zone is reached! If you want to dismount after reaching a map zone, you will need to create one Order for getting there mounted, second order (with or without a Map Zone) to dismount on location."

Further, if you assign U-codes to certain units and same side has an exit objective on the map, any U-units not exited at the end will count as casualties

I have alreay passed the devilish details to my superiors in Kremlin. Too late to bother now.

Based on this incident I think there are some issues with the way RPO is represented in the game

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-t-90-tank-vs-the-javelin-missile-who-wins-15638

@danzig5 very eye opening testing for me. Until today I thought that buttoned up offered better spotting due to superior optics

I will stay with the pure minimalistic. Thank you!