Hortlund

Conscript troops, with high fanaticism and Crack Platoon leaders with bonuses would simulate that situation quite well. It is there right now. Not down to squad level but the available setup would produce the same results, game wise. Squad leaders unless handled internally by the engine would certainly add to the micro management of the game. If handled internally would we see different results then we do now? If different, how much different and why? What would be gained over the present system by dropping down another tier? Would there be enough gained to make it reasonable or worthwhile? The present system is very flexible as is.</font>

I call them 'regulars'. Since CM does not currently model anything but the squad and not the individual soldier, what purpose does your 'want' serve in the current model? How do your guys work differently from what we currently have as a maneuver unit, without going to the modelling of the infividual soldier?</font>

What if I want 17 yr old fanatic soldiers led by old combat hardened veteran squad leaders? I cant have that now can I? I was assuming that we are "brainstorming" about features that we would like to see in CM3, not something that should be included in the next patch. Maybe I was wrong?

121726278

Wonderful thread. Allow me to make some observations. Much of the success of the 12th SS lay in the unique combination of green, fanatic 17 year old soldiers, and experienced cool headed "old" (20-30 year old) NCO's and officers. If I remember correctly (dont have my books close here at work) the vast majority of NCO's and officers in 12th SS were drawn from Liebstandarte and Das Reich, two of the best performing German divisions. With that combination, the Germans got the best from two worlds. Fanatic teenagers who would follow any order given by an experienced veteran. If a change is proposed to the infantry quality system, we must not forget the importance of the NCO inherent in each squad. There are two reasons as to why the Germans performed so well on a tactical level. One is the emphasis placed on initiative, in the small unit leaders, the other is the MG. Not to drift too far off subject, let me just say this. If you do a bullet per bullet or rpm per rpm comparison between a 44 US rifle squad and a 44 German rifle squad, the US squad has better firepower. The problem is that in the US squad this firepower is "spread out" among the soldiers, while in the German squad it is focused on the MG42. Why is this a problem? This brings us to the US study made during the Vietnam war (I am really sorry but I do not remember the exact source, this is something I read a long time ago. Maybe one of you could direct me to the exact source) which stated that out of 10 men in a squad in combat, 1-2 would aim and fire their weapons at the enemy, 3-5 would fire in the general direction of the enemy, and the rest would generally keep their heads down. Back to our comparison between German and US rifle squads. In the German squad the squad leader always stayed with the MG. That means that the MG would always fall into the first category of fire. Back to the more immediate subject. Training/skill, morale and experience should all be modeled, that is an excellent suggestion. But in my opinion, there should also be a "second layer" added, training, experience and morale of the squad leader (not the platoon leader…I'm talking about the "invisible" squad leader). The squad leader is the key to the performance of a squad in combat. This is something that should be included. The first layer of training/skill morale and experience should affect how well the unit performs in combat. Things like well aimed fire, personal courage, ability to withstand incoming fire. While the second layer should primarily affect maneuver, delay, spotting etc. BUT it should also modify the first layer… kinda like how a platoon leader influences squads inside his combat range now. The difference would be that the squad leader will affect his men both in positive and negative ways depending on his "values".

It looks wonderful, truly amazing. Just one question, will this mod affect my frame rates (dunno a better word for it)?

I have one. But I'm not sure it would qualify as a bug. When you import units from one quick battle to the other, they keep their old ammo load (often no ammo at all). There should be an option to refill ammo.

And when you "import" the end game save file from your last quick battle, all units remain on the map in the state they were in that end game save file. This includes ammo load. Now, you set all parameters for your new quick battle, but you have all the "old" units for free. So if you designed battle 2 to be a 1000 point attack, you will have 1000 points of "new" units plus your old on the map units. The problem is that those units are pretty much worthless without ammo.

Punt It would be nice to hear what the rest of you guys think about this.

punt

Can it be patched? I mean not being able to change the setup zones is kinda like half the point with importing a map in the first place. Now it is possible to fight mini campaigns over the same piece of terrain. I love that feature, it is something I have been waiting for a long time. But... It is kinda (really) important to be able to have your troops replenish their ammo before the next battle. Otherwise those "old" troops will just sit there without ammo...

Anyone?

I noticed that when you choose to import map and units to a "new" QB, the units you import keeps their ammo load. Is there any way to refill the ammo before the new battle?

Thanks for the reply guys. Sidenote: Yeah, I definitively need more ram, but I had to change motherboard to be able to use this new 1800-thingy, and the new board only has two slots for ram...that came as a bit of a surprise actually.

ahh, and my teacher used to say that the only stupid question was the one never asked...

I'm not sure I understand the complaining about visual effects of HE. I mean...what more could you want? I'm in the middle of the Seelowe operation as German, and I almost sh** my pants when I was following one of my StuGs on view 1 and a soviet arty barrage struck. I suppose it all depends on how you play/watch the turns. Personally I use the 4 view for overwatch, and when something interesting happens I like to go down low and dirty with views 1 or 2. No complaints about visual effects here I can tell you that

Alright, this might be a horribly stupid question, if so, please accept my apologies in advance... *apologizes humbly* If I download and install a mod, will that lead to a cpu-hit? (Will the game become slower). The reason I'm asking is because I have noticed that my computer (AMD 1800, 256 RAM, GF2) cant really handle "To the Volga". In fact I havent made it past the setup phase due to the horrible lag. And I would not want to do some stupid misstake and make the whole game laggy like that. There are mods that modify the grass or how the factory's look. If I download and install them, will they take more resources than the "standard" bmps? I suspect the answer is something like "it depends on the mod" or something witty like that. But could anyone give me any idea as to how much it affects the performance of my comp, and if some mods are more resource demanding than others. Thanks Steve

I thought Infantry was the queen of the battlefield. Artillery is actually the king of the battlefield. While snipers would be the queers of the battlefield.

The blitz loader works! Brilliant! The "normal" one does not work though. It opens combat mission 2 alright, but after a 1 minute, 5 minute or 10 minute wait Im still stuck with the WG characters. But as I said, the blitz loader works. Shoerener, GREAT work.

I cant get the anti-WG program to work. I have installed it in the CM2 folder, and I'm running it from the start menu the way the readme instructs me to. After ~90 seconds I hear a "pling" that tells me that the patcher has started. Problem is I never hear that second sound that tells me the program is finished. And if I multitask out, the dos prompt is still open. What am I doing wrong? Maybe I'm interrupting the program too soon, I dunno. How long is it supposed to take? I have waited for ~5 mins after hearing that first "pling" my rig: AMD 1800+, 256RAM Regards Steve

Guys, come on, I know how to read, and yes, I did read the entire thread before posting. So the guy could have tried to be less provocative in his first post. But if you see past his rudeness, you will note that he has a valid point. I think it is kinda unfair of some of you who say that this is an old and well known issue. I sure as he** did not have a clue about how the game engine worked when deciding where a shot hit, and I have played CMBO for over a year. Maybe it is an old and well known flaw for some of you, but it is not old and well known for all of us. In fact this thread kinda answers an old question. Do you guys remember when the CMBB demo was released and all the surprised posts about how 37mm guns were able to take out T-34s from the front? link Do you remember the kind of responses that was presented in that thread? You wont find any mention of a flawed game engine there. No, instead you get the usual defensive ramblings: maybe the guns had tungsten rounds, maybe it was poor quality armor, maybe it's the combination of non penetrating hits and low crew morale, bah 300-400 m front turret penetration is normal because it is "close range", this is the T-34m-40 variant it is supposed to be crappy, the later T-34s are better, This is obviously what is intended by BFC and not a mistake No one said "oops" or "yeah, we know, it is an oversight in the game engine that give too high probability for rounds to hit vunerable spots" The game engine, as it works now, gives ahistorical results. Can we agree on that? Or should we have another round of "veteran gunners aim for the weak spots", "maybe it was poor armor quality", "it could happen/it did happen alot in real life" etc etc. The way I see it there are two possible reasons as to why the turret hit model is modelled the way it is a) this is a conscious desicion from Battlefront or BFC is/was not aware of the problem.

Short version. A guy finds a flaw in the game engine. When he posts about the flaw in the game engine he fails to show proper respect to the betatesters. Next thing you know, hordes of fanbois appear as if by magic to flame him. The guy apologizes, but it is too late, he now has a bad reputation on these boards, and no one wants to debate the game engine flaw.

What is this "SS" people are talking about. I thought Wittman was with the waffengrenadiers.

"The arrival of the newly created waffengrenadier panzerkorps with WG Totenkopf, Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler and WG Das Reich [...]" "The battle of Vienna was about to begin. The city would become the graveyard of the waffengrenadier." "Despite being forced out of the city a month before the panzergrenadiers of waffengrenadier panzer division Liebstandarte [...]" This is embarrasing... Exactly what does those German laws say anyway? Because I have a really hard time believing that there are German laws forbidding people to mention the Waffen SS. Especially in a document about world war two. I can understand the swastika-policy...but this? This is just plain stupid. You dont edit history books about world war two to remove any uncomfortable parts...that is revisionism. What next? "Grossdeutschland" changed to "Grossland". Who is responsible for this? It is a serious question. I would very much like to hear the person responsible for those texts explain about those German laws, because as I said, I think someone screwed up. I dont believe for a minute that there are laws in Germany forbidding people to mention "Waffen SS" when talking about detailed operations during world war two. And that person can also explain the logic behind why it is ok to write "Adolf Hitler" or "Totenkopf", but not ok to write "Waffen SS". As I said, I can understand the swastika policy. But when people start renaming units and start changing history it is too much. I mean, some people learn alot about ww2 history from this, and similar games. Best Regards Steve

Given the fact that there was no option to take the german guns into production this is actually meaningless info. </font>