akd

Germans had largely stopped using 50mm mortars by this point.

I've plotted probably a hundred or more setup fire missions at this point without seeing this, so there must be some more specific set of circumstances. You are welcome to PM me.

The wonders of high-angle fire on an enemy behind cover.

Yes, they are meant to used in multiples, and cannot be freely rotated because they need to align predictably with their underlying action spot for infantry to use them effectively. Foxholes are a better solution for a single fighting position.

Yup, but remember it is chain of command, not a web from the selected unit. It only shows the status of the selected unit to its immediate superior (the HQ at the top of the list. The next one down shows the status of the immediate superior HQ to its own superior HQ, and so up the chain.

Great post sir!

You were correct. And then I said "time" for the M56 above where I should have said delay, which just added confusion. Bit short on sleep. When I said "time" originally, I meant fuzed to burst after a set time in flight (to achieve air bursts). By 1944 the the 60mm HE (M49A2) and 81mm "light" HE (M43A1) used a point-detonating super-quick fuze (M52). The 81mm M56 HE-Heavy used a PD delay fuze (M53). But there was an earlier fuze that was selective: http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Manuals/TM%209-1904%20Ammunition%20Inspection%20Guide.pdf I wonder if the older M45 fuze is what you encountered in SA? As a side note, the M56 is actually in the game also.

US artillery had time fuzes, and towards the very end of the war, proximity fuzes, but US 60mm and 81mm HE mortar rounds only had point-detonating super-quick fuzes with one exception: the 81mm M56 "HE-Heavy" demolition round had a point-detonating delay fuze.

The older "tear drop" shape of mortar rounds would have caused increased dispersion in comparison to the modern, streamlined design, probably more so at longer ranges, but dispersion is not synonymous with accuracy.

"No line of fire" means something is physically blocking the line of fire the mortars would need to use to hit that spot. You will see this only occasionally with mortars, since they use very high angle fire. Usually it only crops up with those positioned very close to buildings. This is, however, a much more common occurrence with on-map infantry guns.

ASL Vet, this just got fixed pretty recently. A higher HQ can still take limited command of a unit even if the unit's immediate superior HQ is destroyed, but the same restrictions and limitations still apply.

This isn't a good idea for either, as you can end up suppressing your own men, causing them to change orders in some circumstances, or even wounding or killing them with ricochets or shards thrown off by nearby impacts. I don't think friendly-fire was removed from rifle-caliber and smaller guns so that you would be able to fire into the same action spot as friendly forces without consequences. I think it was mainly removed to keep individuals in the same unit or nearby units from shooting each other in the back if a threat appears in the line of fire from one soldier through another (otherwise they would require extremely complex repositioning behavior).

Unfortunately, the game currently doesn't distinguish between spotters that are co-located with the firing unit and spotters that are distant from the unit. If you ordered an "emergency" mission (this means no spotting rounds are fired, the firing unit simply makes their best guess at what target the spotter wants to hit and starts firing), the above outcome would be totally logical for a spotter and mortar team that were far apart and didn't know exactly where each other were on the map (remember no GPS back then), but when the spotter is right next to the mortar and can point "that way, 100m!", it definitely seems bizarre. Regardless, you should be very, very wary of using "emergency" type missions. The outcomes are always unpredictable.

"Blast" command should probably be renamed "breach." It is not an attack order, but a movement order that is meant to be used across an obstacle like a hedgerow, stone fence, or the wall of building to blast a hole in the obstacle. To use it, move your unit equipped with explosives against the obstacle and then issue a blast order somewhere on the opposite side of the obstacle (or into the interior of the building you want to breach). If you want your unit to use grenades and satchel charges (if they have them) against tanks, you have to move them right next to the tank. They will attack automatically. The movement command you use doesn't matter, but I recommend "fast."

Bailed-out crews continuing to follow the AI plans is a problem, but a minor one not likely to be encountered often, and when encountered likely to only be an oddity. Consider the following: 1. Only a portion of AI crews will survive to bail out of their tank. 2. Upon bailing, they will be almost always be in "panic" or "shaken" state and be unresponsive until recovered, which can take several minutes, if nothing happens in the interim to break their morale. 3. Even once recovered, they will be fragile and break again easily once put under stress. 4. If they aren't an HQ crew themselves, recovered crews will almost certainly remain out of command for the duration of the scenario, making them even more fragile. 5. Bailed crews are likely to have taken casualties, so the AI may have a 3-4 man fragile team with nothing but short range firepower and very little ammo. In addition, some crews don't have SMGs, so the AI may also have a team armed only with pistols (very short range firepower). 6. Those few crews that do survive and recover sufficiently to continue the AI plan are likely to following a plan specific to armor that will be useless to small teams of men armed with pistols and an occasional SMG. And considering the above, I'm not concerned at all about human players using bailed crews as infantry. Against a decent opponent, it would be pure folly.

Do you see this on one map more than the others? Do you see it if you reduce the "3D Quality" setting under "Options"?

Where did Steve say their product is perfect? If anything, CM excels because BFC continuously strives to improve their product. As Steve said, absolutely nothing new or insightful has been raised in this thread. And many of the loudest complainers are simply restating what BFC has already heard from them. I promise you that BFC does not set their priorities based on forum popularity contests. Steve, Dec. 2010, in this forum: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94386

If BFC didn't have confidence in this, they wouldn't be ready to release the game.

Right now you can set the weather to rain and the ground condition to dry and the ground condition will progress from dry to wet during the course of the scenario, so in concept you could go from light snow ground condition at the start to deep snow ground condition. No idea if this could also be visual, or just under the hood mechanics.

Well, there are "T"s and "S"s in your post, so there goes my tidy "someone stole your "T" and "S" key" theory.

Or you can left click while holding CTRL anywhere on the map area and the orientation will change.

Because the mortar team's immediate superior HQ is the section HQ, not the mortar platoon HQ, as can be seen in the c2 chain in the lower left of the screen. However, the mortar still has "in command" status (voice/visual icons) because of it's proximity to another HQ, so it won't suffer a morale hit for being abandoned by its own superior, the section HQ. Also be aware that the section HQ does not have a radio (you can see in your screenshot that the link from the section HQ to the platoon HQ is also broken), so to fully restore c2 up and down the chain, the section HQ must be in voice/visual range of the mortars and the platoon HQ must be in voice/visual range of the section HQ.

No, the lower left shows the status of the chain of command going up the chain from subordinate to superior HQ, not the status of one subordinate to all the HQs in the formation. In the example you give, the UI is showing that the squad is out of c2 with its HQ (platoon), that the platoon is out of c2 with it's HQ (company), but that the company is in c2 with its HQ (battalion).

Getting carried away with detail is what CM is all about. . But seriously, the hatches can all open, exposing the interior, so it might as well be right.

Nothing really. They are purchased and placed as "units" so they have the green unit base so you know which one you currently have selected. Even hedgehog obstacles have the green base, and when you see them it is obvious they have no "facing." Nah, it's pretty simple once you play around with it some. You can have pretty complex trench designs, but the individual segments will always be oriented N-E-S-W or NE-SE-SW-NW. Here is a complex shape thrown together with 10 trench segments. No rotating necessary, they just snap to each other when you place one segment in an action spot adjacent to another one. Note how when I placed 4 segments in the action spots at the NE-SE-SW-NW corners of the center segment, the center segment transformed into a "X" intersection linking all four. Bunkers can be placed and rotated freely. They are treated more as immobile vehicles that can be "mounted/dismounted." Trenches have to be at predictable angles in the action spot for the AI to position individual soldiers in them. The only problem is you can't change a single trench segment's facing from E-W to another direction, but single trench segments aren't really meant to be used alone.