Fetchez la Vache

I don't think there is a pathfinding 'bug' on this map around the bridge. It's just the marshy terrain around the bridge causes your men to move very slowly. The AI will try to move your men as quickly as possible to the next waypoint, which means using the bridge if you have plotted a long (ish) move. Just use a series of closely spaced waypoints through the marsh either side of the bridge and you should be okay. I quite enjoyed this map, in a funny sort of way. After playing the Road to Montebourge campaign I got used to low casualty rates and husbanding my PBI. Faced with a bridge assault at a choke point you have to develop a certain thick skin and accept many of your pixeltruppen are going to get killed/wounded. I lost about 70 men in total, most from mines and arty.

I'd still like a "stance" setting for each unit: aggressive (fire on anything); defensive (fire only if fired upon); passive (don't fire at all). Cover arcs work but I feel it's a workaround rather than a solution - admittedly a very old workaround that's proven itself.

I'm pretty sure I've chopped up my own squads when using 7.62mm HT-mount MG's to suppress a hedgerow - I used the "Target" command. Nowadays I'm very careful not to run my PBI through fire lines, even using the "Target Light" command. Yeah I should probably test it, but I've come to the conclusion that I actually quite like not knowing exactly how the engine works. Plus I can't be bothered. :-)

CMBO - watching shells arc over the valley of trouble CMBN - sudden realisation that in-game noises are subject to speed of sound delays* * yes I know this was in CMSF, but I didn't play it enough to spot this :-)

Fully agree with DLaurier's list. Was doing something similar earlier but he's done a better job. Two comments I'd make: Sherman Firefly gets my vote as the best Western tank of WW2. All the virtues of a Shermie, plus a big gun and it's got a bit of Blightly in there. Despite agreeing with the overall sentiment that the Sherman is the "better" tank, I still think if I'd been a WW2 tanker I'd have been happier sitting in a Panther facing Shermans, than visa versa. Mind you I'm ignoring the added fear of Jabos...

How about ruddy great stompy German panzerbot formations?

Not half as odd as if teen-age boys were asking for and getting breast implants. ;-)

To be honest I don't see how this video is showing a problem with foxholes or the 'hide' commands. I think there is a problem with foxholes, but I don't think this video proves it. :-) I see a group of green, cautious, troops hiding in foxholes. As a result of the 'hide' command they pop up too late to pin down the assaulting enemy. A bit of bad luck results in the first German shot missing and the American shot killing the German gunner (their main firepower) and causing the remainder to become "rattled". At that point it's game over unfortunately. My criticisms would have been about why a rifleman shoots first on the German side - the gunner should have been letting rip - and why the Germans didn't start firing by lobbing a grenade. Either of these actions might well have swung the outcome round the other way within 5 secs. And I'm not sure why on earth beta testers are somehow responsible for all of this...

Playing the second Panzer Marsch mission, I tried to drive 2 Panthers and some half-tracks through an existing gap widened by the engineers. 1 Panther simply refused every time to pass through the gap, but I was (eventually) able to drive all the other vehicles, including the other Panther, through the gap. The one that couldn't get through was the HQ late Panther G, with a -1 command penalty, whereas the one that could get through was an early Panther G with no command penalty. No idea if command penalties (or even the Panther model) would have affected the vehicles' abilities to drive through gaps?

Finish the campaign a couple of days ago and I would just like to say how much I enjoyed it! In CMx1 I would have run a mile to avoid such infantry-heavy scenarios but this campaign really showed to me how much better the latest engine is. I also really appreciated the effort put into the historical aspect by Paper Tiger. The briefings were interesting to read and I really liked the way the whole thing gave you a sense of pushing the front forward. Icing on a great cake! The only thing I would change is upping the level of difficulty a bit! Overall I reckon at extra 50% enemy would have made this more challenging to play since in general I was normally not worried about 'winning' but only about keeping my casualties down (maybe that IS historical though!). In a related way, I think the amount of HE charges for bocage-blowing could be reduced a bit to limit the offensive possibilities to only 1 flank maybe? Oh, I particularly loved pulling up Google Earth and finding the battlefield sites! :-D Fantastic campaign!

I think that shooting a TC in the back with a 75mm shell might be tricky for the crew to explain away... "I was just tapping my foot to a song I heard on the radio last night and I accidently hit the fire pedal... honest".

That would be 'gamey' in my own personal scale of measuring such things. A crew that has had a tank shot from beneath them is going to be in no fit state to act as infantry scouts. Player should move them back to the set-up zone... IMO. :-)

How about we pay for the download and Battlefront send us the DVD gratis as a surprise gift? ;-)

Personally I like "realistic" games and I would seek out opponents with the same attitude. So if played someone who did some sort of unrealistic suicide recon (whether it be a two-man scout team, tank-less crews or a jeep) then I simply would not be inclined to play them again since our two approaches to CM are different. Not wrong, just different. But, before anyone rushes that Kubelwagen forward, please think of the little pixelfrauen and pixelkinder. :'-(

I would personally love to see some sort of unit "attitude" or "stance" selection - e.g. defensive, agressive, neutral, etc - with which the player could use in combination with the standard move command. For example: 1) Slow & Agressive: unit moves slowly and engages first enemy target seen until it is destroyed or moves out of sight. 2) Move & Neutral: unit moves and does not stop if sighting enemy, although may engage on move if TacAI desides it is necessary. 3) Fast & Defensive: unit moves quickly and stops when enemy sighted. You could also included some sort of fire level as well to determine whether the unit opens up at anything it sees, only provides return fire, or else keeps quiet. Even a slector to determine whether to ignore certain enemy types (e.g. AT guns ignore infantry). None of this is new, it's all in the Men At War series or other similar of RT games. I think this sort of addition would add a lot to Combat Mission. Why add a separate command for everything when you could simply 'stack' commands and stances to provide a selection of effectively different commands?

Simply not cricket, what?

Okay, slight amendment. It appears that at least one tube IS firing on-target! So I think I have a situation where a battery has managed to split it's fire - half on-target and half off-target. I have no idea whether this is a design feature, but it still doesn't seem right. On the plus side at least my arty is managing to cause some damage amongst the German AT and infantry. :-)

I see the same problem. I have the impression it's only with high bocage. However I haven't found re-loading saved games helps in anyway. Weird thing is that on several Road to Montbourge maps I simply could not get US HMG teams to get LOS through high bocage. But I'm currently playing a map where it's no longer a problem. The end result is that I no longer trust my HMG crews to get LOS through bocage now, which is a shame.

Well I just had a rather annoying incident with my 105mm off-board arty. Spotter was battalion HQ, Veteran, had been under no fire for entire game, LOS to short linear fire plan. Spotting rounds landed 750m off-target but not in LOS with Spotter (although right on top of some of my men!). FFE then called on the spotting round location. Entire fire plan shot 750m exactly due east of the original plan, in a nice linear pattern mind you. Would have been devastating if they had been on target. :-) I see the need for some randomness in terms of arty accuracy, but I think a situation such as above is not historically accurate. I was under the impression that spotting rounds were a slow way of bringing artillery onto target, but pretty accurate.

A forum full of unopinionated 100% factually correct posts fully researched to a high degree of statistical certainty would be a very boring forum indeed. :-)

Stick a TRP near the minefield. Something trips your mines - smack it with quick arty. :-)

I only use "Hunt" for advancing infantry towards points with an unknown enemy presence. Using this command will ensure my Recon teams will hit the dirt at the first sign of an enemy and terminate their advance. I find very little use for it with AFV's, unless the vehcile in question is only making a short move to contact with a known enemy and there is no chance of a "2000m for 2sec" interruption. :-)

I fully concur with this. I think opening up on tanks (inc. targeting of the TC) with small arms should only be a result of a positive target by the player. I have also only seen 1 TC casualty from my time playing. Currently I find that moving in an unbuttoned AFV into a field simply a good way of getting all the enemy to reveal themselves to me. I feel this is rather unrealistic and bordering on "gamey" as things stand.

Liek the OP, I too find it easy to cross bocage using US squads. However there is a big "but"! I can only do it easily if I have achieved three things: 1) Spotted the enemy 2) Have superior numbers/firepower 3) Have overwatch/suppression On top of these, direct-fire mortars are a BIG plus for point 2 and if I can get them in action then it's game-over for the opposition (unless they can counter it, which mostly they can't). Currently the TacAI helps me out considerably by allowing me to spot enemy pretty easily, typically by simply opening fire too early. Also I think the (?) contact icons are too 'accurate' in showing me exactly where the noises, etc, are coming from. I liked CMx1's "ghost tank" sound contact. Also I do think the HMG/LMG fire from the enemy, once contact is made, is too 'light' since they are firing in bursts. I would have thought that contact with an enemy under 100m would at least entail a higher rate of rounds as opposed to regular aimed bursts at more distant targets. As a result I do feel that the Germans are not using their 'strength' of a belt-fed MG at squad-level to good effect and that in-game the rifle-based firepower of the US squad is much more effective in comparison. I know Germans had smaller/depleted squads though, but I thought the presence of the LMG/HMG effectively evened up the odds in the actual fighting in Normandy. I haven't played many scenerios where I try to defend bocage myself. I have been ruminating on tactics I would need to employ to counter my own assault tactics. I haven't come to a conclusion yet, although cover-arcs and hiding will definitely play a part! So overall, I do feel it's too easy to suppress and over-run bocage defenses, mainly from the fact I can easily locate the enemy and the German squad firepower cannot match that of the US squad (especially if you include direct-fire mortars). Then again, maybe it's because I'm doing the right thing!

Do the given wind conditions during a game affect accuracy/precision? IRL I would have thought you'd get a bigger 'elipse' if you have high/gusty high conditions...