JoMac

Bullet, I believe the MG'ers in the Pillboxes & all other Defenders should be given a Green with at most a +1 for Leadership or Motivation Give the U.S. Reg or Vet with a +1 or +2 Leadership & Motivattion. Go in the Editor and make the appropriate RL changes, then try the game again. The game will still be tuff, but at least more winnable. Joe

Willem, Email Sent... Joe

Lac, Just get all Games & Modules for all Fronts in due time...At this point I have CM:BN ( with CW...MG next ), next will be CMFI series, then CMRT series, then Bulge series, etc, etc. Joe

Frey, You could always go into the editor and change whatever aspects of the MG Map to give it a more Frenchy look ( ex, delete some buildings and add the Normans, delete Windmills )...This way, you can get the improved MG AI and have that Normandy/French look.

Lacroix, PM Sent... Joe

I have a Dell Optiplex 755 Win 7 Core2 Duo @3.0ghz ( intel 8400 ) w/Ati Radeon 7750, and just turn the Shadows off...the appearance of Shadows are blocky or pixelated when moving slightly, and not natural looking enough for me.

Actually, that's exactly what I was thinkng when scaling back the firepower...It's good that CM is now tracking individual bullets & Rounds, but Reducing the Spotting times, Troop Moral or Motcivation, and when & how troops fire their Small Arms might be a good part of the answer. Couple tactical things that come to mind: I have an issue when troops advance to a tall hedgerow ( not low hedge or wall ), and instantly spot and fire what's on the other side...I would amagine in RL that you would advance up to the hedgerow, then slowly move into it ( taking a minute, and getting their bearings ) to try and get a glimpse what's on the other side. MGs using a burst of fire to pick off an unbuttoned Tank Commander at 300 meters away...Well, by the end of an hour's CM engagement every Armor will have atleast one crew member KOed or Wounded. We are not talking about a Campaign or Operation ( lasting a week ) where there are reports of high casualty rates for Armored/APC crew members, but rather a single CM short-term engagement. As warrenpeace mentioned, there needs to be some sort of micro-cover management to allow troops to realistically take fewer casualties. It gets bad in a Turn-Based game to watch your Squad get pinned down, and one by one get KOed by end of the minute.

warrenpeace, I'm still with you and JasonC on this...CM simply causes higher casualites ( even at a Battles most instense firefights ) then necessary for the scale it's simulating ( the increased firepower of Small Arms in 2.0 makes it alittle worse, but that's not the reason ). Even thou CM is suppose to simulate the tip of Spear of an intense engagement, I would still only expect between 10-25% casualties at most...That's even if we assume that CM represents say 1 minute of game time eqauls 5 minutes of RL Combat due to CM's fast paced atmosphere. Maybe if the Small Arms Firepower was scaled back abit somehow, then it might come alittle closer to achiving these RL casuality rates.

Flying, Actually, The Bren/Universal Carrier has all the Good Points one could have ever hoped for in an APC. Joe

I'm guessing for Playability reasons and since the Tempo of CM is artifically speed-up, then such things as Vehicle Hatch operations, Crew Bail-Outs, and other Vehicle Operations ( such as the Mobelwagon situation ), etc are also. Joe

Dorosh...err, I mean Michael Emry's, I'm going to quit being right, and simply bow down and embrace the games unrealistic high casualty rates ( which were already high before the change )...I guess Beating a Dead Horse back to life isn't working, for some reason. Reducing the effectivenss of SMGs ( still didn't change much ) & Pistols ( good change ) and increase Suppression alittle is all that was needed...Instead, we get Higher Rates and more Accurate Fire. *Side note* Wonder how's he doing after all these yrs...Thought he got banned for some reason.

Yes, that's what I was thinking since CMBN: 2.0 Upgrade ( that I have ) shows the Small Arms increased effectiveness in the v2.01 patch description, and probably didn't get back ported to 1.10 or 1.11 I could just simply bow down and play CMBN series 2.0, CMFI series 2.0 fully patched and upcoming CMRT 3.0 like most everyone else is doing, and be done with it

noxnoctum, You may notice at the start of a game that your troops are in the same posture until they engage the enemy. Once your troops engage the enemy ( light or heavy firefight ) their posture changes, and will 'Cower' or 'Take Cover' ( lack for a better term ) alot depending on such factors as Moral, Motivation, Leadership, C2 & Suppression. Dont' take the 'Cowering' posture for face-value. Due to the Graphic representation of the game your troops are really just ducking in and out of cover at a moment in time, and not literally in a 'Fetal' position ( not that it's uncommon to see that if troops are in 'Panic or Broken' status ). I personally would like to see BF change the Graphics look of 'Cowering' alittle depending on 'Troop Status' so players don't get the wrong impression. Joe

Ok, looking for a couple answers to the following: -CMBN What patch in v1.0 Game Engine has the Small Arms/MG Lethality increase that's been introduced due to popular demand ? I know it was introduced in The 2.0 Game Engine as patch v2.01 . -CMFI What patch has the Small Arms/Lethality increase that applies to CMBN v2.01 ?...Would that also be v1.01 ( 2.0 Game Engine ), or was it automatically introduced in the Base Game v1.0 ( 2.0 Game Engine ) ? Basically, I'm looking for the last Game Engine or Patch for CMBN & CMFI that didn't incorporate the Small Arms/MG Lethality increase ( even thou I will be dealing with Bugs/fix issues )...If I can play CMBN v2.0 & CMFI v1.0 Base Games then that will work for me. Unfortunatly, I know the Small Arms/MG Lethality will be automatically introduced in CMRT 3.0Base Game ( since all successive patches are updated to new Game Engine ), but will get it anyways. Joe

This is a High Casualty Percentage Battle for sure in one hour engagement, and the forces didn't really engage each other that much...More like a Running Battle ( short engagements at squad-Platoon level ), then a Company/Battalion stand-up fight. Goes to show, CM continue to focus to much on High Casualites even if only small units are engaging each other at short intervals...Let alone anything bigger.

KHAAAaaannn !!!

I have no doubt that this is the case with many Armies at the tactical level ( Battalion-Regiment ) during WWII...Perfect scale for our CM games. I think the Russian Army at this level was just as capable as any other in corrdinating small level local counter-attacks. In general, and aside from Barbarossa, the Russian Mindless Mentality Sterotype comes when we talk about the bigger Operational Scale ( larger Armored & Inf formations ) of initial hasty Russian Counter-Offensess attacking Pak-Fronts or against effective use of German Armor Reserve of Spring 42 - 43'. This is the time where the Russians where experimenting with Armor, Inf & Arty combinations at all levels. Joe

I actually agree with you regarding this as an improvement in the future. Atleast for now, don't consider it to gamey as your opponent can do the same. Joe

There isn't any listed ( unlike in CMx1 ). You basically have to use your own knowledge over the years of gaming or reading books. The game is trying to simulate what you might know as a Commander at that time, and not what has been gained years later after the war. Joe

Hey mgk, I had same problem just recently, and emailed Battlefront Admin to fix issue which they did the same day. Joe

Ok, 40m long box does seem reasonable enough, and as you say, anything longer there is a good possibility of doing less damage to many units.

First off, your Inf Squads are not going to do squat trying to lay down suppressive fire at anything over 250 meters...unless its MG fire, then maybe upto 500 meters. Sorry, can't answer much more then that, or why certain types of Inf are singled out. I for one still think Auto-Fire is to accurate with the latest patch ( especially SMG's ) and should be nerfed down a bit to represent bunching of Inf in same or adjacent Action Spot...It's done for HE and so should for Automatic fire.

I don't think Flame Throwers should be used when firing from inside a building, particular if that building is easily flamable. In anycase, there should be at least a minimum of one AS ( not adjacent ) between the enemy and Defender ( or obstacle ) before a Flamer can be used ( any closer and there is a good possibility of catching your surrouning area or yourself on fire. It seems from this angle that the building or occupants should have a chance to catch on fire as the Flamer appears adjacent to the Defender.

Thanx for the info, Womble. Yeah, I was hoping there was a possibility for a plane to also make low level strafing runs ( shooting 2-3 bursts ) having the ability to damage Units in column...but, as you say it may not be the case. It would be nice if a plane essentially has a couple options; it could attack one or more units that occupy the same or adjucent Action Spot -or- attack several units strung out over several Action Spots. I guess future test runs are in order....

I don't know how Aircraft are handled in CMx2 ( just started playing around with CM:BN ), but can they strafe say a column of vehicles Inf Units or is fire concentrated only on same and adjecent Action Spots. ex...Can one Aircraft strafe a platoon worth of Soft-Skin Vehicles or Inf Units moving down a road or fields about 25 meters apart from one another.