Childress

They make a beeline to the nearest pawn shop?

Your findings reflect mine. The difference is that I had German squads in mod bldgs facing (not at an oblique angle) US squads in the open at 200m, and the Germans weren't hiding. The Germs consistently shredded the Americans. So the assertion that buildings offer little or no cover in CMBN is a libel. But the kind of building, as well as the facing, matters and the level of cover may be inferior to that of the CM1 series. And I do think BFC should rethink the 'barn' parameters. The don't work conceptually for me.

In my experience this comes up very rarely.

By area fire do you mean arty or direct fire weapons like AFVs?

The mechanics of Hide appears to have evolved from CM1. In that series you could set an ambush with hiding troops because they 'peeked'. Now they really, really hide. They do seem to respond to audio clues, however. Best tactic now is, apparently, to have an unhiding team performing spotting duties nearby. as far as realism is concerning one could make a case for either implementation.

Next time try Hiding the bulk of your men and leave the spotting to a handful of teams. O/T Question on cover arcs: if a unit is Hiding with a cover arc will it spring to life if the arc is broached by the enemy and there's another unit adjacent to it doing the spotting?

Engine related question: should MG and Mortar teams really be able to 'Deploy' in hip deep water?

MEs, or the AI on attack, are not going to portray the Artificial Intelligence in the best light. Both these scenarios require the AI to be pro-active. Very few computer games can achieve this feat. In my view, if the computer cannot but up a decent, albeit static defense, I've gotten my money's worth. And the AI in CMBN can usually pull this off although I agree that force selection can get a bit wonky.

Well, no, you get concealment....

Because it's a Barn. They are totally porous to incoming and outgoing fire from every side. Fire up 'Chance Encounter' and you'll see what I mean; you get some concealment but no cover. One assumes this represents a hastily slapped together building housing farm beasts, tools and tractors. BFC was very naughty in not documenting the attributes of this structure in the manual.

Because it's a 'barn'.

Common sense, maybe, but that's not the point some of us are advancing namely the tiles are OK it's their implementation on some maps that can be defective. Bocage, especially the Low variant, needs more gaps than are commonly offered.

One annoying aspect, common to many of the qb maps that shipped with the game, is the phenomenon of the solid wall of impassable Low Bocage. These hedges should be broken up by many gaps, imo, as a matter of course. That would also alleviate the complaints about LB being unrealistically sealed off to infantry penetration.

"Private Gumb grimaced with pain as he stood over the open latrine. The burning sensation had only intensified since his fortnight's leave in Paris. It seemed like another lifetime ago. Finishing his duty, he lay on the hillside and watched as the wrench monkeys refueled the M10s below and reflected on love and the vagaries of war."

A scenario with Meeting Engagement elements is an entirely different animal than a ME QB battle where both players know that their forces are precisely equal from the outset. The former actually occurred in RL. The latter resembles whack-a-mole.

Here's the bright side: CMBN, if I understand correctly, has more or less the identical UI as does CMSF + modules. I don't recall a similar s**t storm on those forums on the subject. Therefore, CMBN must be vastly more popular than its immediate ancestor! .

One wonders if the nucleus of the management issues lies in the setting. You have a claustrophobic environment (Normandy) with finicky placement demands and short, sudden engagement ranges. In the Commonwealth module there should be somewhat less bocage and more tank on tank encounters, often at stand off dsitance. Given equivalent force size control may prove less onerous.

Comments on splitting: I split squads into base and assault elements when attacking with a single squad but more commonly one or two squads constitute the fire base and an intact squad assaults. I spin off a scout team- an excellent addition to the game- when moving into the unknown. But I wish there was a way to detach a single man, a commander with binocs, from vehicles. No problem in splitting squads, even German squads, on defense. If nothing else this simulates the dispersion on a wide front. One problem with splitting squads is that there's no shorthand way to distinguish the separate elements via icons. To rejoin them one needs to use the +,- keys or jump from one team to another with the mouse. Splitting in anticipation of barrage makes sense but, depending on the size of one's force, I find this a nuisance.

I wouldn't. But if the correct road to winning demands that a player divide every single squad on the map from minute one on down the game becomes unit management Hell with a force of significant size, especially when attacking. I don't want to play that game. In CMx1 there was, iirc, a morale penalty paid for doing so. Also, as I understand it, the infantry team as an independent body was an Allied, not a German, concept.

Yeah, all the options for squad splitting are great and add a lot of flexibility. But as a player, I prefer not to be compelled to split in order to maximize my chances of victory. The micro managing gets overwhelming particularly when on offense. A bit more of a penalty for slicing up squads perhaps?

Agree, Wodin. I'd award CMBN 85%+ now, before the inevitable march of patches (people forget that CMBO had,what, twelve?) and the upcoming modules which will expand the scope. And I think it's damn good looking compared to other sims within the genre and especially given what goes on 'under the hood'. Dorosh hasn't been helpful damning the game with faint praise on any reviewing site he can find.

In the first screenshot you appear to show an arched stone bridge. This particular bridge is currently bugged in 1.01- it swallows units whole.

Yes, you can.

More advice: shrink the screenshots to 800x600 or some size that formats better on the forum.

How about a site that rates scenarios according to H2H or HvsAI potential? Of course grading them might prove ego bruising to our intrepid designers.