Lethaface

I always try to go for zero 'unnecessary' casualties. Apart from that I don't really think of a % of acceptable losses. Like others said, there is just to much variation to have a fixed % of acceptable casualties. In a campaign there is often something in the briefing which tells about acceptable casualties for being able to continue the campaign. Usually I realized during and after the battle if I'm doing good or if I'm not doing good. I might feel that I did much worse in campaign battle where I incurred 5% casualties, compared to one where I took 20%. Shooting up some militia hiding in the desert isn't comparable to assaulting a city district crawling with elite enemy troops, mines, IEDs, etc. With regards to TF Thunder campaign I think that most of the earlier missions are achievable with minimal casualties, however further in the campaign the quality of enemy forces improve and it will logically mean more casualties on average.

Lol At the same time I'm all for independent thinking and in general I always depart from my own 'reference framework', but with regards to functions designed by others I try to understand their thinking behind it instead of my own I'm with @Bulletpoint and others that I preferred how the hunt command worked previously, in that I have memories of it being a bit more snappy compared to now. I still use it for 'move to contact, on steroids'. For recon teams it works great combined with hide as they won't fire when a spot comes up, without the downsides of a cover arc with hunt. With pauses, preferably in cover, and ~50m bounded waypoints.

well I'd say it's wiser to look up how a command works instead of imagining how one would expect it to work.

Sometimes things can indeed be unlucky or look unreal, but in general I'd say troops will fire on such a target on the move. I do agree something like a 'breach & clear' command for buildings would indeed be a welcome thing for less micro. Although engineers can already do something like that, which is my preferred way of entering a building:

Pause works quite good with that. Perhaps I've learned to work with the commands as they are after all this time, but I think you need to give longer pauses and or hunt orders if you want to be safer from such things happening. Even if you had a command which would have your units stop upon spotting, they would still be ambushed as they didn't spot that men with the PKM? With enough pauses to allow for hearing and observation, chances that you will be ambushed are miminized. Suppressive fires make sure to keep their heads down. Having a short pause right next to a building with a suppressed squad inside often allows to shoot them up through the windows. But yes, MOUT can still be deadly. Remember that cover and concealment are partly abstracted so that man with the PKM may have been lying under some rubble in shock/KO, only to wake up with mouth full of dust and an enemy squad in front of his PKM ;-). Obviously I would prefer the simulation to be more visually precise but at the same time I'm happy that microterrain etc are (abstractly) modeled. Sometimes you are going to take casualties, especially if there is no time to scout everything out on your leisure. Not against a command like you say but I don't think it will change much for me. I would prefer if hunt would become more snappy with regards to incoming fire, although I usually get ok results if I use hunt without a covered arc but combined with hide. Setup the covered arc after you have gone to ground.

Move works, but I don't like move that much. For a movement command which prioritizes shooting try short bound quick with 5-10 sec pauses per waypoint.

Nice video! I've started the campaign as well a few weeks ago, now in the 3rd mission but due to holiday and other things I haven't played it for a few weeks. Didn't have time to watch the whole video, so it is a bit difficult to give you much advise. If you make a drawing / text of your plan, it would be easier for others to comment on that. One thing I noticed is that I usually don't use artillery to destroy bunkers (although a precision munition is fine for it), but in this mission I did shell the objectives with some 155 preparatory fires. I used the mortars for shelling of the trenches on the berms after I discovered them. Also keep in mind that the recon Fennek has excellent optics. So while it is always prudent to dismount recon especially when there is an ATGM threat and in open terrain, they can spot very well mounted when there is some cover available.

Yeah some problem was fixed (the 'bottom attack' proflie), and it is now usable. But in my Dutch campaign I still got around 50% overshoots with it and I saw some other reports of high miss rate too. Haven't really tested it though.

While I understand your pain, don't think that the way you are handling the issue is, in general, a way that will help you get your stuff sorted the quickest. The fraud thing isn't helpful either (!). Just my 2cts, do whit it what you like.

You can/could already do that, although requires opening up ports in your router (not that difficult). The remote playtoghether allows coop but afaik not head 2 head play.

it works for cmsf2 campaigns.

Interesting. It seems the T-72B3(?) hit all their ATGMs. T80BVM sights not calibrated correctly with the laser beam driving the missiles? IIRC they fire the same missile. Da!

Dutch version is a Mark III indeed: https://www.baesystems.com/en/multimedia/cv90-evolution-full-version

If you need that airgap you shouldn't be thinking of ways to install games on that machine.

Afaik the forum has always been non-ssl. The only issue about that is the forum password (HTTP traffic isn't encrypted). It would indeed be good to enable HTTPS for the forum. It may require battlefront to get a specific certificate for community.battlefront.com and install it in the forum/webserver software.

Will they send little green men through the pipelines? Jokes aside, it's not like Russia is the only gas supplier in the world. Of course the USA would like Europe to buy their gas, preferably. I'm happy Merkel stays strong so far on this subject.

Save game in command phase (when giving order). Patch game. Load save, voila it is patched.

Could be an explanation too! Agreed that I wouldn't be happy if the pixeltruppen would go about firing Pz Fausts at any spotting contacts ;-). But I'm not grog on that point either. I'll double check if I can repeat the clear target / target light behavior. Those were the only panzerfausts my truppen fired of by themselves, while they have been in a number of firefights. It happened twice in a row and both times after I cleared a target light order. The previous occasion was a turn before this one, but that missile struck the house and killed of the surrendering Syrians in there. I guessed my troops didn't like taking prisoners and I was weary of reporting their warcrime here, but it was a bit too coincidentally after it happened again.

Just noticed an issue with troops ordered to 'clear fire', after having been on 'target light' for one turn. Instead of holding fire, they fire of an Pz Faust 3. This has happened twice in a row for me now, but haven't seen it before. It's with Dutch troops, CMSF2 Dutch campaign 3rd battle. Save attached, the squad firing off the faust had a target light order the previous turn on the building the faust falls just short off. Back on Tracks 3 - Clear target light issue_PZ FAUST.bts

The Kontakt-5 ERA on the T-90 did stop quite a couple of Challenger-2 APFSDS rounds in a PBEM I played last weeks. Even at close range, so that's a pre for the T-90 compared to the Kontakt-1 the T-72AV Turms-T has.

That's great info, thanks. I usually make sure I don't need same turn infantry dismount, and was given 30sec pauses for same turn mounts. So, this can make a bit of a difference!

Ok, so you should know. While I agree that in theory it's not a very complex feature, without knowing their actual architecture etc I'd say it's not possible to accurately guesstimate it's that easy to do and maintain. Anyway, I think we both agree that the workload for this feature is not the main reason it won't happen. I just thought that your 5 minutes is a gross overstatement of how easy it is to do and, besides, an assumption ;-).

Well I'm not against people having fun in their own bubble. If it would be no effort for BFC to let people change all simulation parameters by themselves, without the risk of many bugreports coming forth from these and a way to easily verify and reset to default settings: by all means, knock yourself out. But IMO that will require quite some effort, which I would rather see spend elsewhere. I think it is mostly your imagination that people are frothing around the mouth and getting KGB anxieties because you want to have some fun changing the simulation parameters. People just don't agree it is a wise idea, nothing more, nothing less. Minutes of effort is obviously a gross understatement, perhaps tongue in cheeck? One would need to make a hashing algorithm of all the data involved and implement an interface plus a routine to check whether people are using the same stats. This would need to be regression tested every new release. And who knows if the code architecture actually allows this in a manner which doesn't require redesign/refactoring; also you wouldn't want to have to implement a different interface or routine for TCP/IP, PBEM, etc. In a few minutes people get a coffee, not design, write, compile, test and deploy software. What is your work?

Some shots of the second mission in the reworded Dutch CMSF2 campaign: Looking great and having a blast!

Are you all right? No need to go full sergeant Hartman on Domfluff because he has a different view on mods. To the point I agree with him, because while in theory it could be great I think that in practice it wouldn't work out good for this game and the community. This is a simulation of 'realistic' tactical warfare, not a sandbox create your own simulation.