Lethaface

Yeah that's the one, I mixed up the name :-).

AFAIK it's a stock CMFB scenario, so it should already be residing on your hard drive. While I haven't played it against AI, it being a stock scenario I'd expect it to have AI plans for both sides. It's indeed a good scenario imo!

Some poker skills also come in handy. If a player, after a while, suddenly begins an 'information war' it is probably an indication that his forces are weakened or he is worried about something you might do for which he doesn't have an appropriate answer on the field. So he (or she) will try to achieve it using other means. Another thing which is imo, helpful, is to not focus too much on the objectives. Of course they decide the winner in the end, but if you focus on destroying the enemies force the objectives often come included. Not attacking strength is also a good reminder; if something doesn't work, don't just throw more resources at the problem but check if you can apply those resources with more effect somewhere else (ideally on a flank, etc). That's a mistake I've made more than once in the past and I guess I have learned from it a bit. At the same time strength is a relative thing. I'm currently playing the huge 'No mercy in war' CMFB scenario (in heavy fog) against @BletchleyGeek. It's still ongoing but I can share some insights. Having almost a full Combat Command under my command on such a big map, I decided on a enveloping approach with a breakthrough allowing me to approach an important town from several sides at the same time. I massed a company+ of tanks with infantry support for the breakthrough. Recon showed I faced a number of Hetzers defending a railroad intersecting the map and offering a natural line of defense. Thinking I had the numbers to defeat his Hetzers frontally, I tried dueling a bit. However the Hetzers showed to be quite able to bounce frontal shots fired from ~250m (even 76mm to my surprise). So the trading wasn't going in a way I thought favorable for my forces (I lost around 10 tanks (light/medium) for ~3 Hetzers, although other Hetzers were supposedly damaged from bouncing shots). So, there I was faced with the decision how to continue the attack. The right flank of the Hetzer line is covered by at least one AT gun, probably more (the briefing says something about it too). The left flank is a large town. I'm already engaged there with mainly infantry and while progress is good, I guess I've yet to come into contact the main defenses. Also, pushing so much tanks through a town is not necessarily a good idea in my book. Still, it is where my advance was meeting the least resistance. Doubling down on the Hetzer line felt like 'attacking strength' or 'reinforcing failure', however what to do with my small Tank Battalion if not breaking through? The 'weak' point of the Hetzer is that it lacks a turret. So the idea formed to rush some light tanks across his Hetzer line, forcing them to turn their attention while pressing the attack along most of his Hetzer line, using the bulk of the tanks and supporting infantry (basically going from cautious stance to very aggressive). And probably why I'm writing this ;-), it worked! One light tank was lost racing across the line but another made it and forced the Hetzers to take evasive action upon which they were taken out. I lost a couple of more tanks due to the Hetzers and PanzerSchreck teams laying in ambush, but overall the trading was this time successful and breakthrough achieved. This allows me to roll up his Hetzer line (although that's sort of still ongoing). All in all I thought it was a nice example of how 'strength' can be a relative thing and that there are more ways of attacking the weakness. Without the fog, the huge map and the vast amount of tanks under my command this would probably not have worked. However, using the mobility of Stuarts allows negating certain strengths / exploting the Hetzers weakness. Also I was thinking that the gun stabilizer on the Sherman might also give me the advantage in a mobile tank duel. And, when does one get the chance to press the attack with what amounts to a small Tank Battalion . Great map and can sure recommend playing a huge battle in PBEM. While it does require quite the effort and time per turn, the payoff is certainly there.

With good observation and a 'quick' FO, 155 battery is very lethal using point or linear strikes against buildings. It can deny and destroy good enemy cover that is difficult to get to with direct fire units (and kill plenty of the occupants). Of course an Abrams/Bradley with LOS and LOF to the target is a much faster and more accurate way of delivering HE to the enemy compared to indirect howitzer fires. Even the Precision Munition isn't as precise However, those pesky buildings dotted through the landscape that can provide good observation posts or ATGM / sniper positions? 155 point heavy quick armor lends a helping hand, without chances of the Howitzer getting hit by an AT-14. Hammer of Thor on a ~3min call time, they're accurate enough as they'll usually hit the building targeted. You can even target floors with some accuracy. Of course there are differences between buildings and the very large heavy structures can take quite a beating and offer more protection, so need more rounds. Facing enemy troops dug in a city block which gives you troubles? A Linear strike on the face of the building as a prep for a city assault can do wonders. Especially when firing angles prevent effective and safe laying of direct firing HE by your units. Against buildings 'armor' supposed to do best as it has some delay in the fuze IIRC. Not to forget the smoke rounds are very, very, useful. But like you say they are very expensive and thus high opportunity costs.

I just tested and confirmed that with only an air controller (and a hq team next to it, out of LOS of enemies) you can call in helo / fixed wing strikes and they can detect and take out targets for themselves. You can even target helicopter strikes without LOS to the area, for fixed wing you need LOS to the area where you want to call in the strike but you don't need any contacts in LOS whatsoever. What is, imo, true is that contacts in C2 which are spotted by others and, through c2 info sharing, shared with the air controller calling the airstrike 'helps'. So it's not 'the PDA's' directly talking to the airframes, however PDA's (although it's an abstracted icon for various sort of devices) help the info sharing and during the chat with the aircrew the air controller can use that info to direct the airstrikes onto the contacts he knows about. The more accurate the info, the better. Infantry targets etc are harder to detect purely by the aircrews (although helicopters are better at this than fixed wing), so having your troops in c2 (so green lights with their HQ and same thing for the air controller) looking out for the enemy does certainly improve effectiveness of airstrikes.

I think that you can also call in Helicopters which will successfully engage targets out of LOS, by using just an FO / air controller and no other troops on the map, so agree with @Combatintman that your observation doesn't substantiate your claims 100%.

Obviously; it's a realistic game after all. He knew that watch was coveted.

The Hellcat also has a turret and high velocity gun, instead of the stubnose 75 on the 233 which can fire some HEAT shells but it's not really fit for anti armour use. So more reasons that there should be more difference or why it is a valid question.

A while back in a PBEM I used M-10 TDs (76mm) against a concrete pillbox (I think with MG-42). At first I shot out the occupants after just a couple of shots, bunker survived though. Not much later it was recrewed, after which I took it under fire again, but this time the 76mm didn't seem to give much effect. As the M10s only have a limited supply of HE, after a while I had a flamethrower take care of business. So I don't know if it was just chance or if there was something else going on.

The laser designators surely work, but IMO are only used for the Air strike if the unit that called in the airstrike has the laser designator. IIRC the type of ordnance and things like weather conditions decide the influence / effectiveness of using the laser designator vs not having one. Many of the weapons that are carried by aircraft don't need a laser designator in order to be deadly accurate, because they have other types of guidance (radar/optical/etc etc). One instance where the laser designator is required by the spotter ordering the strike is for UKR/RUS precision munitions in CMBS (both for the artillery/mortar precision rounds), as those rounds are guided using laser designation. USA precision rounds are GPS based so don't require the laser, although having a laser designator may improve accuracy of the strike as the spotter will be able to gauge the range more precisely (not fully sure about this last bit).

Only a short reply while taking a quick work break: I'm quite sure there is NO direct communication between the aircraft/helo and troops with PDA's. However if troops are in C2 they will relay their spotting information through the C2 chain. If the Spotter calling in the airstrike is also in the C2 chain, he will use that information in his communication with the aricraft (and PDA's help relaying info through the chain). IIRC having a spotter with LOS to the targets also helps making sure they don't hit the same target (which is already KO'ed) with plenty of more bombs/missiles: if the spotter directing the aircraft sees the target is KO, they usually don't go for it again. If the target is out of LOS of the spotter, I've seen them hit the same target again and again. On another note, helicopers and fixed wing aircraft can also spot for themselves. IIRC helicopters are better in this regard compared to aircraft. But both will seek out targets for themselves in the 'target area' (and just outside, so be careful). The manual should have some more information about the subject.

Indeed. First problem: getting the range accurately with the Mk1 eyeball (perhaps upgraded to a MK1A1 eyeball with lenses), without accurate laser range finding capabilities included. Second problem: actually aiming the weapon at the guesstimated range, while there are probably only indications for 100/200/300/400m. Also, to compare the accuracy of handheld 'rocket launchers' with 'vehicle' weapons as the OP does, isn't really fair I'd say. Most vehicles have stabilized weapon platforms, langer range finders, automated / computerized targeting which allows to actually aim a weapon at 121m while adjusting for wind speed and barrel life etc. Also, IIRC all vehicle 'rocket launchers' actually fire guided missiles so there isn't even any viable comparison possible imo.

I think the whole campaign is like that. Perhaps it's designed for 'advanced players' who wish to be challenged by the AI. I remember some threads about it years ago. Edit: Or is it a different campaign than 'Courage & Fortitude? I can imagine the frustration seeing the loss after you did quite well, especially if it's not clear from the briefing.

Having never fired any of m, that's what I'd think. The Pz Faust 3-IT has some laser range finder system IIRC, but I doubt it will be much more complex than pressing a button to gauge the range first and press the trigger to fire after that sequence has been completed.

Not in QBs unfortunately no. Not sure about Canada/UK, but Dutch did employ employ Stingers in 2007/8. IIRC the UK and perhaps Canada too had them in a previous patch of CMSF2.

Refresh rate IIRC, so 60 for a 60hz monitor.

Not sure how much extra skill the SMAW, Panzerfaust, Carl Gustaf etc require over RPGs. At the same time most of the NATO armies actually have professional armies, so even if it required some extra skill that wouldn't have to be a problem. Plus all these weapons have different rounds available, quite similar in concept to the RPG I'd say.

It might indeed not be very balanced for H2H, but against the AI it's definitely doable. The Turms-T is a great tank but 1v1 not exactly equal to the Challenger 2 imo.

Perhaps it just the textfile mentioned by GeorgeMc? If it's there, and if that holds the strange resolution, the game will play at that resolution. If you can't delete it try to edit it or login with administrator. C:\Users\YOUR PC\Documents\Battlefront\Combat Mission\Shock Force 2\display size.txt

It's patched up. And, imo, it's very fun. There is probably a learning curve, as I had one coming from modern (CMSF) to WW2 (CMBN), I guess around 2012 or so. Modern is much more lethal. Better optics, shorter call in times, more accurate weapons with more penetration and bigger booms. I guess if you manage to do the learning curve of CMBS, dementia will be fought of for another 10 years.

Perhaps you can try editing the display preferences and put in the correct resolution? Not sure how to check the graphics card, perhaps in Nvidia control panel, manage 3d settings? And or in a profile you can set for the game, which is also possible through 'manage 3d settings'.

Thanks! that's quick In the meantime I had quickly added some immobilized BMP-3, as they come with plenty of those rounds. I gave all the PKM squads 500rnds and just back into it. This time however my troops fired some extra thermobaric rounds at the Mosque, one wallpanel of one of the minarets has been blown out. Although I'm not that worried about the negative propaganda, all true believers will cheer the cleansing of this place of worship from this filth ;-). Edit: don't worry about that .50 ammo, it's a favorite cartridge of my pixeltruppen.

I checked and my teams in contact all blew through (most of) their PKM ammo. Tested loading the 7.62, but the PKM can indeed not fire it. Since I only started that firefight there, I'll think I'll try to edit in some ammo and start again.

That sounds familiar

Well it's an easy thing to put in at least I guess