Fizou

First of all, you didn't say "CMBN runs worse than the other titles" you said

Which is objectively not true. Not only that, but just because YOUR CMBN runs worse doesn't make that a universal fact
 
Second of all, that is one of the things you said that was a lie

You also said this, which is also not true. All of the scenarios, at least in MY CMBN, including Operation Linett(all four versions) work fine.
 
We keep plenty of logs for exactly this kind of thing, so don't waste peoples time any more than this.

In an ongoing pbem I have a long artillery mission (22 minutes left at full ROF) where the FO has been KIA. So there is no way for me to cancel or alter this mission. Could this be something to change for the next engine update or in a bigger patch? Surely there would be a way for a CO to override an ongoing mission? 
Now this is something that will rarely happen, and knowing of the possibility one can be careful with missions using the full complement of shells. But if its not to complex to add I think it would be a nice addition.   

Thanks for the replies @DougPhresh, @Ultradave and others. Often amazed by the knowledge in these forums - this time as well. 
The scenario Im playing is in CMCW as the Americans and I have several FO that are able to use the artillery asset in question but with the FO calling the current mission KO the others are no able to call for these guns - and its much easier to understand that to be a plausible outcome now. Would the situation be any different If there was a team with an FO and a radio operator with only the former being out of action? As it stands now I believe the situation would be the same and the mission could not be interrupted.
If Im not mistaken in earlier builds missions could get stuck in the spotting phase forever if the FO was KO. Now I see that after a few - several minutes the mission would end. Which I think is nice at least from a game play perspective.       

This one makes me laugh.
First a little history. The CM1 series started with Beyond Overlord followed by Barbarossa to Berlin and finally Afrika Korps. Each follow on game added features to both the engine and the UI. But the older games were not updated with the new features. Which meant that Afrika Korps played better and had a better UI than the other two. People were sad that the new work was not available in the still very playable Beyond Overlord.
In the CM2 series BFC decided to not do that again and so when Fortress Italy came out Beyond Normandy got an update to add in the engine and UI improvements too.
So, what are you asking for? Did you really want Beyond Normandy to languish behind as new titles came and made improvements? I don't. You shouldn't either.
 
Everyone feels that some graphics improvements would be welcome. I do have on bone to pick with the above - the sky? The sky in CM seems pretty damn good to me. I don't think I have ever heard someone complain about the sky.
 
Indeed. This is another area that would be great to add.
So, as a point of interest if they added some of these things would you want that feature to only be in the new release and leave all the others behind? That's how adding new features and differentiating a new game from the older ones would work. Rhetorical question.
 
TFB Honestly I don't want to be mean or angry but this is such a bull **** complaint. BFC will price it where they think they can make good money. Bitching about it is so boring.
 
Sure it would be cool but as you said a lot of those assets really would be out of view. Not all of them, so yeah cool. Planes actually do sometimes crash on map. There is no wreckage model though just an explosion.
So cool would be nice.
 
LOL see two points above. If you don't like the price no one is pulling money out of your pocket. Vote with your dollars.
 
In your opinion. Enough people disagree and think the games are worth the money. That's kind of the end of the discussion.
The argument I expect to hear: but if you lower the price you will sell so much more. Facts not in evidence (BFC know their audience and what price differences do and how many copies they think they will sell. There is no way that you know better than them).
 

To update the conflict and allows us new 'new' tech toys to play with ...
More drones, T-14s, better Ukrainians ...

You're talking about Usually Hapless. I was asking about Jose Wales. Tin Cans was an awesome video though

Here's another YT video AAR from CMFI by @OnePingOnly.  As he's a member on the forum I'm sure most already have seen these but I just found his channel today so for those who've not checked his stuff out I'd say go do so!  It looks like he's fairly new to the video AAR's but is also currently active and from the ones I've watched is producing a very high standard of AAR.
Check this scenario out here: 
 

I'm still new to CM but already own CMSF2, CMBN and CMFB and having a great time playing all of them.
I have really enjoyed the various Youtube channels and these were a real inspiration for me to purchase the games.  Amazing what the YT algorithm will offer up and I particularly want to give a huge shout out to the work done by Josey Wales and Usually Hapless.  Fantastic content.  I can't begin to imagine the time that goes in to making that content but I just want to say thanks.  Too bad Josey Wales seems not to have posted any videos for over a year now.  Anyway, I'm just about to add CMFI to my collection purely on the basis of his AAR videos.

Alright, 50 days until X-mas. The gauntlet is down for you guys, especially you "cherries", to make a scenario, your first scenario...?, before Christmas. Let us swamp the community with some scenarios. Use or modify an existing map if you need to (and give polite credit in your briefing or designers notes to prevent accusations of being a dreaded parasite!). Make your own simple map! No Rembrandts are required! Dial it down to 208 x 208, the teeniest tiniest map you can make. Playable from only one side is AOK. Just make sure to say that guidance in the main cover description. Use just a tiny force. Put the AI on defence and the AI plan is very rudy..rudo..ruddimuntary..it is EASIER! Use just a small timeframe of 10 minutes!  I (and a butt ton of others) am here to lend a hand to answer questions or go and have Turkey in a few weeks and read the famous JonS scenario guide pdf in your main install folder. All these different titles can use some new juices.
 
 

Hello again, with the release of Fire and Rubble I have been working a lot on adapting existing mods to the new module. That includes the great GUI mod by Juju who has sadly ended support for it.
I have added or adapted weapon icons from other iterations of Juju's mods, as well as branches, ranks, etc. However I will tell you that I have made some changes to it that suit my preference more, so you may have to dig into the files to revert to default.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/crldjajbpj56z3n/Juju%27s_Red_Thunder_UI_F%26R_fix.rar/file

So the steam reviews so far are "Mixed".
I have been playing on standalone but have switched to Steam so was able to leave a positive review. I would ask anybody else who is enjoying standalone to consider at least playing the steam copy for an hour or so in order to leave a positive review and support the devs over in that area as much of the negativity seems to be pretty petty and unfair.
Thank ya 😎

The AN/TAS 5 that is the Dragon night targeting system is a thermal sight.

Interesting, I thought the M-47 dragon that we have in game only has the daysight and night sight (no thermals). How would the gunner see through smoke?

I answer my self, to tell what I missed 🙂
 
The S-Tank and T-72M1 fired at normal combat ranges at eachother, not point blank! The S-Tanks gun is 62 calibres, vs the normal L7´s 52 calibres. That compares roughly to the same penetration at 2000m for the L/62, as at 1500m for the standard L7 L/52!
 
Buy the way, the S-tank still has the world record for a tank in RPM for its 105mm gun, 24rds/min (THATS FAST)
 
The S-Tank only had 40mm upper frontplate armor, but it also had "Rib armor" 40mm high, 30mm deep, that added more protection together with the extreme slope of the ufp. That, together with the worlds first Slat/Cage/Bar armor. Made it basicly imune frontally, to any AT weapons in the 70´ts. But the introduction of APFSDS, made all that useless! Earlier projecitiles Would just bounce of, but APFSDS just went trough!
 
1. A picture, when fired uppon, with non APFSDS ammo
2. A picture of the bar armor, Which to some degree was effective against AP projektiles aswell! And that was mounted on the tank, the T-72M1 fired on!
 

Of course it was a purposely designed QB on a pool-table like map pitting T-72As vs M48A5. The Pattons opened fire at 4000 m and scored a lot of hits with their obsolete APDS rounds, managing also to penetrate their targets on gun mantlets and lower hulls.

Okay, you're right and I'm wrong. I duplicated your test and was getting catastrophic APDS kills from 2800m. I'll report this to the higher-ups.

I was in the Swedish military from the first half of the 90´s, to the beginning of the 20´s century. And when the Berlin wall fell. We got 5 T-72M1´s from Germany, allmost for free. To test amunition on, and to test the East German amunition, and to share the results to Germany (and other NATO contries). 
The T-72 M1 fired the BM22 and the arrows went straight through the S-Tank. When the S-Tank fired at the T-72 M1, it could not penetrate other than on weakspots! And remember, Sweden as a neutral country. Always bought the best (non DU ammo), if we could not developed it ourselfes (For political reasons, we could not buy DU ammo, nor develpe it ourselfs). And the S-Tank, had a longer barrel than any other 105mm L7 tanks out there at the time. So it compensated with higher muzzle velocity, for not using DU rounds (<10% higer penetration for DU rounds, and much more pyrophoric effects after penetration. Values are for 120mm rounds though). 
The same after we bought the Strv 122 for our armoured brigades, and rented 160 Strv 121 (Leopard 2 A4) for our mechanized brigades from Germany in 1994-95. We wanted the best non DU ammo, and it was not in Germany at the time. So we bought Israeli APFSDS ammunition after comprehensive testing. 
So I think that CM:CW is quite spot on, from my own experience!

Yes it does indeed but I always make my own assessment even when playing the AI, and I usually end up doing something different to what the briefing suggests. I just don't like the idea of charging over that hill straight off as it will probably mean heavy casualties to capture it. I've not ruled it out but I'm going to investigate other options first and hopefully give him something to think about too.
Thanks for letting me know they have 85mm guns by the way, nice spoiler 😠.
MMM

Thanks Cpt, I appreciate the encouragement. I definitely underestimated how much work it is but once I found my editing legs again (used to do a lot of photo and video editing a few years ago) it's getting easier.
MMM

Great job! Always love seeing another high quality AAR. It is a lot of work but I always find it to be worth it. Those arrows can be much more of a pain than some may think. 
I'll be following along. Ignore the peanut gallery and carry on. Looking forward to seeing this play out!

In play testing this one made me feel cold. Before release people were saying "we want snow".  I was thinking while testing this one. "Oh, you'll get snow all right!"
 

3. Troops
I have a battalion(-) of mechanized panzergrenadiers with the support of a ragtag platoon of armour. I created a sheet with my OOB (yes, I am that anal):

Curiously, and this is something I only noticed on turn 18 or something, two of the platoons do not have a leader, I'll highlight which of them when I get to the turns. They have the HQ team but none of the soldiers are marked as "Commander" so they have no C2 contact with the Coy HQ even though there's a radio man and all the squads are marked as out of contact too. I'm not sure if this was intentional or if the reduction is strength is randomized and the Plt HQs were randomly chopped but it's something I'm going to have to manage.

The Panzer Coy HQ being off the map means that the tanks are cut off from the Bn HQ too via radio so I'm going to plonk the Bn HQ Support team next to the Panzer Plt HQ with everyone up so they can share info about the place.

The troops are about 20% reduced but in good condition, nothing there worries me but I expect the reds to have more men. This force is highly mobile and I have good long range firepower with the number of MGs my guys are toting but in this weather it may not help that much. I have no fire support and am expecting no reinforcements, I have to work with what I've got so it's imperative that I keep my armour alive as they will be my prime supporting fire assets. No charging off into the snow for you Hauptmann!
They are equipped with radios at the platoon level and upwards, all the Hanomags are equipped with radios as is the armour.

Next...terrain analysis!
MMM

This seems like a fundamentally flawed argument to me. Surely the question should be "does Battlefronts points formula accurately reflect how useful certain vehicles are" rather than arbitrarily making three different vehicles the same price.

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

Slowly making progress in conjunction with other modders like "Layer Master" @mjkerner
He got me pockets on the Soviet M35 tunic. Thanks again Mark
This is the nco tunic bmp with subdued collar badges.