apd1004

This is very important and until I saw it I couldn't get the installation to take. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the popup documentation. I downloaded the zip file into the main Combat Mission Black Sea folder and unzipped it to the same place. When I tried to run the setup from there, it hung for about 20 minutes and then I got an error saying the install failed. After I moved the 4 files to another empty folder and ran the setup from there, it worked fine.

Kudos to Battlefront for getting the M829A4 in-game. The Army reports as of April 2014 it will be fielded in 2016. http://www.army.mil/article/124313/Fifth_generation_Army_tank_cartridge_reports_loudly_for_duty/ Nice to see we tell the world about our technological capabilities. Didn't spend much time researching it but I couldn't find anything recent on Quick Kill. Most things I found were several years old. It's gone through some successful testing in 2012 but then information kind of drops off. My guess would be that it is on the back burner due to budget constraints. http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2251

Not to suggest a parallel between reality and CM, but it could probably happen although not likely with one of the more modern top-attack profile ATGMs. I'd also be surprised if an ATGM could fly that close to the ground and still maintain guidance/tracking, be it from the launcher or fire-and-forget. I'd also expect any armored vehicle to sink into the ground a few inches (reducing ground clearance even more) unless the ground is hard or frozen or something. You can read plenty of accounts of strange things happening on the battlefield and obviously from your example our CM battlefields are no exception. A guy gets shot square in the helmet but the bullet gets deflected enough and travels around the inside of the helmet without breaking the skin. There was a case in Iraq several years ago where a .50 cal SLAP-T round penetrated the side hull armor of an M1A1 and struck the back of the gunner's seat. Kudos to you for even picking up on that during replay, that is one for the recordbooks.

By doctrine at least in the modern US Army, you will find Lieutenants leading platoons, Captains leading companies, and Lieutenant Colonels leading battalions. You can go one down with rank if you have the Executive Officer in charge of a company or battalion, or in a platoon you might see a Sergeant First Class leading if they don't have enough officers.You will find them leading from the front up to battalion level, although you probably wouldn't see the company commander or battalion commander running point in an assault. They would be co-located with one of the elements (probably not an assault or breaching element in most cases) and that would be specified in the operations order. Unless you are going to include battalion or brigade command post elements & staffs in a scenario, you probably won't see a lot of Majors leading units unless the XO is in charge of a battalion or a new battalion commander Major hasn't been promoted to LTC yet. Most of your staff guys at the battalion level are Captains with a Major or senior Captain as an operations officer, and at the brigade level staff you have a lot more Majors and now some Lieutenant Colonels on the staff. It's not that staff guys are cowards any more than anyone else can be a coward, it's just not their job to be out "in a foxhole". If I'm a battalion or brigade commander, I want my logistics officer back in the TOC getting me more ammo, not out in a foxhole with a rifle. Most armies today have similar structure, although it varies by army to the level of initiative encouraged at each level. Most western all-volunteer armies encourage leadership initiative at the lowest level and their training and doctrine embrace that concept. Some former Warsaw Pact armies are working towards that goal. I spent a year with the Hungarian Defense Forces in Afghanistan, and I can tell you I was very surprised at the fact that their NCO's weren't used to having a voice when it came to operations. They were used to doing what they were told by their officers and were not used to taking charge of tactical situations. They were very good soldiers, it just wasn't in their doctrine or training for young NCO's to take charge if the lieutenant was there.

Ditto, I've used HQ teams to request fire or CAS when my JTAC is busy, at least while playing the US. Their lag time is slower than the JTAC, but it's still faster than waiting for the JTAC to finish what he's doing and then do another mission when I can have a leader start the same mission several minutes before the JTAC will be able to get to it.

I'm sure there is some abstraction in the LOS algorithms for obstructions as opposed to what we actually see in the graphics engine to make the game look pretty. It would be nice to know a little more about what makes it tick though because I'm wondering why I can't identify the enemy when they seem to be able to identify me.

This is part of what I was looking for. So it is possible for Stingers to score a kill. Is there any other results possible, like forcing an abort on the aircraft, or maybe evasive action which delays weapons release until another go-around? I understand the real-life capability of a Stinger missile. The idea isn't to kill an enemy aircraft, although bonus if you get that result. You want the aircraft to take evasive action or abort the attack, or at least buy you enough time to find cover or get the heck out of the area.

I had that happen earlier today myself. I had a US squad that I detached a scout team from and both were armed with M4's. One of the scouts got hit, and I recombined the squad. Later I detached another scout team from the same squad but this time one of the scouts was carrying a SAW. I thought that was odd at the time but I really didn't give it another thought. I wonder if it has something to do with the rank of the soldiers being kicked out as scouts more so than what weapon they have?

I have to admit I really haven't used Evade but maybe a couple times in real time and never in turn based play. Does it work for vehicles too?

I had a Stinger team dismounted behind some friendly units. I heard the sound of enemy CAS in the area, then I see the Stinger team fire a missile. A few seconds later a bomb or air-to-ground missile took out two Strykers that were parked way to close to each other. A minute or so later, the Stinger team fires its 2nd missile and again shortly after that a bomb or missile takes out another Stryker. I just happened to save the game right before this sequence of events and I replayed it a few times with the same results each time. Maybe it was already beyond the point of any other possible result by the time I saved the game. What effect do the various air defense weapons have on enemy CAS? I'm curious to hear some other stories. I'd like to think a Stinger in the air might cause an aircraft to take some evasive action or maybe even get hit.

I'm totally in agreement that you wouldn't want thermals in game to reveal everything and there has to be some abstraction. Fog of war is what makes games like this interesting and it would really throw off playability and balance if a unit with thermals could see everything all the time. Right now though it seems the spotting bonus works a heck of a lot better for the computer enemy than it does for the player. Four BM Oplot, three BTR-4E, a dismounted Corsar and a dismounted Skif all looking at a treeline 1000m away and nobody saw anything until the Skif got raked by 30mm fire and BTR's started blowing up.

I've noticed that a lot of vehicles and infantry seem to have a hard time spotting the enemy. I'm mainly talking about units equipped with thermal imaging devices. Thermal imaging devices should greatly enhance target acquisition night or day. I've only had CMBS a few days so I haven't dug too deep into it yet, but it only took me a few minutes to notice the difficulty acquiring targets with modern fire control systems and thermal imaging. I'll use the BM Oplot for example, which I've just started experimenting with. The PTT-2 TIS allegedly has a detection range of 8000m. I'm having trouble seeing enemy vehicles 1000m away in sparse trees until they move or after they've fired. If they can see me and engage me, I should be able to see something hot in the trees with an advanced TIS such as the PTT-2. Thankfully the Varta and Zaslon systems seem to work very well or I'd be dead before target acquisition. US infantry equipped with AN/PAS-13 should at least be able to see *some* enemy infantry at ranges <1000m, especially if they are themselves being engaged by that same enemy. Night and day. I'm just looking for enough information to know that something hot is hiding in that treeline, not a full identification of a unit. If you scan an area where a squad is hiding long enough with a thermal imaging device, you'll eventually see a hot spot when somebody pokes their head around a tree or moves their arm to scratch their forehead. Anyone else noticed the same thing?

Totally agree. Having a blast with CMBS (literally). I have never played SF so this is my first CM title not in WWII. I dropped in some of the generic mods from CMRT such as sound and grass textures and they look & sound great. I also recently purchased a 30-day license for Steel Beasts Pro PE and I have to say CMBS is much more enjoyable. Of course you can't get in the turret in CMBS but outside the tank CMBS looks better and feels better and definitely plays better. Great job guys!

I'd have to say it's pretty good for a DShK. Too fast for an M2. I just got CMRT the other day and it's the first CM game I've played since Barbarossa to Berlin. Is the DShK even in CMRT? I haven't run across one yet.

The 758th, 761st, and 784th Tank Battalions were African American units and saw combat. The 24th and 25th Infantry Regiments both were African American and saw combat in the pacific. Most of the segregated units had white senior officers and black junior officers and NCO's. There are plenty of African American combat units that served in WWII. Not all saw action, some units were assigned rear area duties or other non-combat operations. Most of the African American units that participated in combat operations served with honor and distinction even though the Army at the time considered them "inferior" to white soldiers. The term "Buffalo Soldiers", originally the moniker of the 10th Cavalry Regiment, eventually grew to be used to refer to any all-black segregated unit. Cheers EDIT: Wow! Gunnergoz posted the list above after I started to type my reply. That's quite a list.

I concur with Lemonade; I have no interest in anything other than WWII. Look at the Advanced Squad Leader series - 25 years of WWII material and it just keeps on coming. I will buy Korea though just to see if any improvements have been made to the things we want to see fixed with the current ToW system. Considering the posted release date of 1st quarter 2011, which is upon us now, I'm wondering what will be different other than helicopters and the strategic mode. I fear that by the time they get everything right, the game will be "ToW 11: Rhodesia 1976", or it won't be anything at all. 1C is so close to getting it all right to the point that they could have a real winner, but I'm wondering if anyone out there is listening.

If you look closely, you can see a "command radius" from the leader in any infantry formation, not just the command squads. What I have not seen yet, is an example of a soldier/team/squad "breaking" from morale effects, and I've had my soldiers do some pretty brazen acts. Yes I do have the morale box checked.

Great analysis, Lemonade. I think we all agree that the entrenchment system and infantry are both in need of fixing, especially for a game about Kursk in which trenches and prepared positions were a major part of the Russian defense. If a soldier goes prone in a trench (currently he can't), it should take pretty much a direct hit inside the trench to take him out with anything but very heavy payload warheads. The downside of that is he also has no situational awareness, which is why you supress the hell out of a trenchline if you want to attack it. A soldier should be able to stand in a trench and still be under significant cover from fire, with the only thing exposed being the shoulders and higher, but he is still exposed. A soldier crouches to duck from fire but stands right back up to continue firing again, so the idea is to keep them supressed. The Russians had also mastered the art of camouflaging fighting positions by this period in the war. You should have a difficult time spotting fighting positions, but then again they are not invisible, especially when whatever occupies them starts shooting. I absolutely agree with what you say about the visuals & sounds, I don't think 1C needs to do a whole lot more in that area. The one German campaign mission, Syrtsev-Dubrova Line, where you are attacking the Russian strongpoints, was probably my favorite so far. At the very beginning where the artillery pounds the strongpoints, the visuals and sounds of the artillery impact were about the most realistic I've seen to date (yes I've seen the real thing, many times). Also, the unique sounds for each weapon are incredible. The difference between the sound of an MG34 and an MG42 for instance, or the difference in the sound of a low-velocity 75mm L/24 and a higher velocity 75mm L/48 show that a lot of effort was put into making this part of the game right. I think 1C can leave this part alone. On the subject of infantry, I was playing the Kursk campaign mission where the two scout teams and one sniper are sent in to take out the Russian AA positions. I was pleasantly surprised to even see this scenario because it was quite a departure from all the larger combined arms scenearios before that. I had an absolute blast maneuvering the infantry around the village, clearing houses and using grenades & rifle grenades to take out the AA guns and MG positions. There are no trenches in play in this scenario, but there are sandbagged positions and bunkers. It appeared to me that the sandbagged positions offered no actual cover to the troops behind them, because if a grenade went off outside the sandbags, it still took out the soldiers behind the sandbags. Another thing I noticed was that the hand grenades and rifle grenades had a pretty lethal blast radius. Also, there are 8 DshK positions in this scenario. The DshK is a pretty powerful weapon, and should be able to lay down some good supressive firepower and also be able to penetrate the walls of the small village houses. Not sure yet how penetration of building walls is modeled in ToW2. They should offer some cover but they are not impenetrable. I expected a lot more fire to come from the DshK's, but the gunners almost seemed dumb. Seems to me if a soldier has any zero's on their marksman and/or scout skills, they are pretty blind. That's a great graphic on the Tiger tank, I seem to remember a book somehwere about how a tiger tank took dozens of hits to the frontal armor with no penetrations.

And, it is pretty darn difficult to try to spot enemy inside those emplacements, even with scouts forward. Maybe a little too difficult - sometimes those guns are able to get off dozens of rounds before they are revealed on map. That is also a good point about known emplacements - a lot (not all) of the trench lines were known due to aerial recon beforehand. Many were pretty well camouflaged though and didn't get discovered right away.

I agree, those emplacements should be more difficult to detect. I force myself to spot units occupying them before I just pound them with on-map artillery/guns, mainly to conserve ammunition. Besides, some of the emplacements in certain scenarios have dug-in tanks occupying them, and you don't get much bang for the buck pounding T-34's with 81mm mortar fire. Cheers

You mention above that you only have TOW 1. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure how you can give a good account of TOW 2 if you don't even own it. Big difference between TOW 1 and TOW 2 from what I've experienced. Lethality is nowhere near TOW 1. I played TOW 1 for about 2 days before I deleted it, for all of the reasons you mention above. Figured I'd give TOW 2 a try because it was cheap, and I was pleasantly surprised at the difference between the two. I also agree it would be nice to have completely finished games without having to pay for DLC or add-ons, but I'm an Advanced Squad Leader player as well and we waited 20+ years to get the full livery with that... Cheers

Neither have I, although I have not yet created a scenario like the one he described. So far all I have played is the campaign. My problems usually revolve around my German tanks getting mobility killed before they get close enough to the defending Russian guns and/or tanks to get visual ID on them so they can engage. If all your tank commanders & gunners have scout skill of 0, it is highly likely they will get mobility killed far enough away from the Russian gun/tank engaging them that they will never see it to be able to engage it themselves. I've seen several Tigers and Panthers get hit dozens of times without catastrophic kills, but eventually they get mobility killed and after that many hits, enough internal spalling to incapacitate the crew. Trying to take 4 Panther tanks and 4 StuG's online (usually the average of what you get to pick for armor in the campaign scenarios) and assault across 1000m of open ground against a dug in Russian enemy with flanking & interlocking firing positions is suicide - gee, kind of like historical results. I'm getting much better mileage by slowing things down a bit, using my post-battle promotion points to increase the scout skill on my vehicle commanders and gunners as well as using scout teams and snipers to allow me to spot the enemy from farther away. I take the individual soldiers from my scout teams, all with scout skill of 90+, and sneak them one at a time through the weeds and ravines as close to the Russian lines as possible to recon the enemy positions. Again, similar to real life - RECON, RECON, RECON. The scouts spot the dug-in Russians and allow me to maneuver my armor close enough behind the contour lines so they can eventually spot the Russians themselves and engage. The individual scouts can sneak through the weeds & trees and get very close to the Russian positions. Once the scouts spot the enemy positions, use mortars and the 75mm infantry guns on area fire against the dug in Russian anti-tank guns. You don't need a direct hit on a gun to take out the crew. The SdKfz 251-2 with the 81mm mortar carries 120 rounds of HE, so I always pick them if I have the points. I can't emphasize enough the need to be able to spot the enemy positions before they spot you. If you just roll across the open ground like you are playing a standard RTS game, with tanks in front leading the way, the Russian guns will be able to get a lot of shots off before you can even see them and you will fail miserably. Since you can only pick a small number of tanks/SPG's per scenario, you have to resist the temptation to just drive across the open ground with your armor, and instead use the terrain, your scouts, and your guns to your advantage. I've played a lot of games like this and I must say I'm having quite a blast with ToW2:Kursk. Cheers, happy hunting.