Brille

Im not that long into the modern war titles as other folk but air power should be a threat If not opposed. As it is now the effectiveness of choppers and planes is decided mainly on the purchase screen and not so much (If at all) by skill of the user. Mainly the decisive factors are if the oponent cares to take (enough) anti air assets with him and if he has meaningful units worth shooting at. The rest is timing and luck. But what would you change if you could ? In my book air assets should be powerful if not opposed by anyone or anything. And they come with a good price if you want them in a heavy AT configuration, considering that they maybe even get shot down before they could launch a thing. Would be nice however if the tanks could actually use their AA MG at least for helicopters closing in. Shooting them down should be rare but maybe at least throw them of target or let them think twice to come back...at least as a possibility. @T62 bad eyesight: In my experience all tanks without any thermal imagers are bad at spotting things (closed up), though soviet style stuff are just a tick more bad. WW2 stuff in that case is the same to me only that the gap between each faction isnt that wide in terms of optics. So are these bugs/wrong coding or just false expectations ?

Well I havent noticed that big of a difference in visuals between the games. Could it be that you havent checked the graphics options after you installed the game ? Those are usually preset at low(er) quality if I remember correctly. So you would need to rise them to you liking. I remember that I had it with CMCW and wondered how bad it looked on my wifes laptop until I checked the graphics. It ran like garbage then (that laptop isnt meantime for gaming) but it looked prettier after the alteration.

I played a scenario a few months back in CMRT where a Partisan group had to attack an isolated AA position while it was air raided by IL2s. This was the first time I noticed that units can misidentify friendly soldiers for enemies. I even got a direct casualty in this instance which was clearly struck by a comrade of his. Most of the time though it seems that they get rather pinned than shot down. I guess that is intentional by BFC to be this way. Wouldnt be fun if a whole squad gets whiped out by a single "friendly" madman...though maybe realistic in some cases. Most likely it has to do with the chain of command,daylight, weather and other visual obscurances. Most partisans had only contact to the guys next to them since it was a pitch black night in that scenario. So often a platoon didnt know where the others were. Since regular military formations of that time had at least one radio in a platoon, company or at least close by, everyone knew roughly where the rest of the formation were. So it would be more rare in those to misidentify enemy and friendly troops I think.

Why not change the story of CMBS to a completely fictional one ? Well the game IS already a fictional story but what I mean is a far more fictional one. All BFC would need to do is to change the backstory, rename locations and factions. If they want they could change/redraw the maps to some imaginary country or leave them out all together. Lets say the evil red federation of Torumekia is attacking the democratic state of Pejite. On the side of Pejite stands the(well yeah even in fiction you could leave it to the)USA. Bohemian Interactive is doing it with their ArmA series from the get go. Probably for the exact same fear as to why BFC has pulled out now. Yes, this way BFC would deviate from their path in stilll connecting their games to the real world somehow but I don´t mind that at all. You could leave the TOE, the units, the formations all in. The factions would be still recognisable to their real world counterpart but hey it´s fictional now... I don´t like such preemtive measures in games, we have that sort enough here in germany in terms of censorship (gore, symbols, "stuff that may or may not be offensive to others") but if that´s the way to go then I´m all aboard ! BFC would not have "wasted" their resources and could put out DLC after DLC for this totally fictional game, getting their income and we....well we would get them.

Totally agree to this !

You have to capture the Chateau and the manor house as simple as that. (as stated in the briefing in the objectives list) Those two objectives should be named right on the map. If not just press "ALT+J" to switch objectives on. You´ll notice that the color on these points is different than the other ground tiles. In this specific scenario it really is just the manorhouse and all the chateau buildings. Only units that are in these objective zones will be considered, even mentally unstable ones (shaken, panicked, pinned). If you have the area completely surrounded but no unit IN the depicted area, you won´t get any points for that. Though you must clear them out completely of enemy troops. Otherwise they will be counted as "contested" and no one gets any points for them. Edit: You don´t have to occupy or take any other points of the villages. Though probably you will clear one or the other as a byproduct of your journey to the "real" objectives...

It depends on the situation. If I expect enemy units only from the front, I leave the hatches closed and the commander inside IF the tank has thermals. But if the possibility arises that he also could come from the side or from the back, I would consider taking a look outside. If I move my tanks as a solid platoon I usually let at least one commander take a look to rise situational awareness. Just be sure the proximity to enemy infantry is not lower than 300m (preferably even more). Otherwise the commander is gone really fast. With soviet/russian tanks/ tanks without thermals I usually let them take a peek but button up as soon as I feel danger around (artillery, snipers ...). Keeping a look out outside shortens the spotting time immensly but you run with the risk to also shorten the ammount of crew members, which is already rather low. A side note: If you have electronic warfare switched on it is even essential to let your commanders outside, as the radio connections break down regularly. This way you can keep somewhat of a working command structure.

Well nothing more to say than AMEN ! I was caught in this probably 2 to 3 times where I wanted to lay a smoke barrage after I fired all the HE, only to find out again that this is not possible still. To me it is probably the most annoying when speaking about artillery features. Maybe it will get patched someday...

A thing you need to understand is that the learning curve on these games is very steep. You will get beaten up often on your path of learning. Having some military knowledge about units,doctrines and tactics help a lot but are no guarantees to win. If you keep it up you will become better But for that you have to move on. What helped me in CMx1 back then was a sparring partner who told me what I did right and what not. And I got constantly beaten by them, not gonna lie. But at some point I was able to finally hurt them and even later took a victory or two from them. So maybe that can help you too ? Maybe it is an option for you too to go more into the past: CMSF2 with all its modern stuff doesnt leave much room for errors. However CM ColdWar or even the WW2 titles are much more forgiving. The spotting and gunnery of each unit mostly revolves around primitive optics and eyballs. I myself started very late with the modern era just because I knew so little about it and WW2 was much more my style. But with the understanding of the game mechanics and reading about modern stuff I got my feet into it too. It is still difficult at times. And especially in CMBS there is so much that can go wrong in 1minute... However it is a Simulation after all and as we can see in Ukraine: If you stand in the open for to long someone or something will hit you.

True BUT you will discover a difference here between AP and AT mines. While engineers need several minutes to mark a AP minefield, an AT one is marked in an Instant as soon as the engineers reach that waypoint. Maybe it was considered at a point in development to be able to remove them but finally decided that it is out of scope for a CM Battle. And while it makes sense to a certain degree it would be nice to at least have some kind of mechanic like the AP mines. The AT field is still dangerous but the tanks can march on at slow speed. Maybe they could traverse on the spot to simulate that they move along a cleared/marked path . Maybe engineers can shove 3 to 4 mines slightly aside to make a tiny passage but the time to mark/move them takes considerably longer than AP mines...whatever.

Are you sure about this ? I would need to test this again but I was always under the impression that the AT13, while having night fighting capability, isnt equipped with thermals in CMSF2. This would be the selling point for the AT14, which have it. Besides better performance overall.

Well I would be lying if I wasnt ever upset or angry about some random or unexpected loses and rage quitted as a reason for that (only in Singleplayer games of course). Maybe thats the reason I play PVP most of the time. There you have to deal with your stupid decisions, No saves or resets...Just the hopes that your oponent is doing something stupid of equal worth. But yeah playing stuff like Combat mission and XCom, taking loses is part of the idea. I guess to much saving and rewinding takes a lot of fun. I would know because I played my Singleplayer games this way for far to long and sometimes still do. The most fun I had however when I managed to pull out a victory with the battered and bloddied forces I still had.

Calling for artillery in hedgerow areas is often tricky and time consuming. Planing a fire mission just behind a hedge isnt the problem but spotting the rounds is. Had it multiple times too that a spotter failed to adjust a mission or takes much more time to actually call it in, sometimes even very far from the intended area. So If you see that multiple spotting rounds are far of the grit you should probably abort it and/or move the spotter to a more favorable position (If possible).

I usually use the "eyeball"-technique: Set a waypoint you want your tank in position. Get the camera on the height of the vehicle there (gunner/commanders view) so that you can barely see over the edge, while seeing the target area. That works pretty good for me. I used the hull down command for a time and this one works fine too for finding positions...mostly. But what I dislike about it is that it sometimes don´t work properly and that you cannot combine it with a shoot&scoot action. So if the vehicle found a proper hull down position it will negate the move order, just like with "hunt" when the tank found a target and just stops. You cannot move it there, wait for several seconds and move it back again in the same turn. Just for the info: The hull down command can work in two ways, the 1st one is the more recommended: 1. method) Plot the command in a rough direction on where you want to have your tank. Then set a "Target" order from this waypoint to a point you want to be hull down to. The vehicle then moves along the line until it finds a hull down position to this specific target. If it doesn´t find a suitable position it will drive till the end of the waypoint. 2. method) Set the "hull down" waypoint directly on a position you want to be hull down to(without the target order). The tank will follow the path and checks if it finds a hull down position to this waypoint. The catch here is though that if it can´t see the end of the waypoint or don´t find a suitable position it will drive all the way through - most likely into enemy territory. That can lead to devastating consequences as one can expect.

Unfortunately this is a known thing with all the off map artillery through all the games. I don´t know if this is intentional but it is one of the reasons why I use rather on map mortars than off map ones. On map assets can spend all their HE and still can fire their smoke rounds.

I mean I understand that they probably include the Pershing since the CMFB module will conclude the end of the war but where did you get the idea for the other tanks ? Never heard that BFC wanted to include those but Im all ears. I mean I dont really need a "Combat Mission 1946" but I would certainly buy it. Just dont forget the Tortoise and Maus.

Two JS2 get ripped apart as they switch their position in the scenario "Cat and Mouse". One even received a catastrophic hit in the ammo racks. Anything else is really frightening: My Panthers roll forward and get shot up by hidden JS 2.

I noticed this too back a few months as I had a match with canadian forces. I didnt gave it much of a thought though. It may be an oversight or just mislabeled, I dont know. Could be as well stated as like "with mortar" or "Standard mech infantry". The "anti tank"description makes no sense,indeed.

There is a work around though. Give your tank a "target light" command in the position you want suppressed. Then set a pause time you see fit (lets say 30 seconds) and set another waypoint slightly near or under your unit with a "face" command. The face command will negate any target or cover arc order, so you simply just have a "target briefly" with only it's MG. Also a slight workaround but sometimes a bit unreliable: Instead of placing the breach order through the wall or the hedge,place it alongside. This way the soldiers will blast a tile in front of them and then retreat alongside the hedge where they are in Cover/concealment again. If there are more wall or hedge lines or other obstacles (e.g.houses) in between one tile, it can happen that something else will be blown up instead of the desired Wall/hedge. So it is a bit tricky Sometimes.

Thats not right that what he aims at I guess. In the way you stated, the unit would retreat after x seconds regardless of it spotted or shot something. What @Centurian52 supposedly means is that a unit stands in a ready position, spots an enemy and shoots and only then would proceed to another position. So the action of a unit would determine the start of another waypoint, not a timed countdown. This would come in handy especially for vulnerable tank hunters,either vehicle or infantry based. So they would lay in hiding, shoot a round or two at spotted oponents and then automatically retreat into the next firing position before they get obliterated by following enemy units. Some ATGM vehicles already have at least an automatic function of some sort: Once they fired a shot and would need to reload AND there is still a threat visible to them they would reverse into the nearest cover or concealment.

Tell me your preferences and Im sure we can make something happen. By the way my last usage of the Tigers was also fruitless. They were one elite pair. Not only did they spot next to nothing but even If they did spot a tank, they missed it by an inch. Though surely the bad spotting came from the commanders not opening their hatch,looking outside. The soviets made good use of their HE rounds so that would have been risky. In the end they got pummeled by the soviets pretty bad.

The silliest thing about POWs in CMx2 is that they still give away enemy positions while they raise their hands. So they still work as some sort of scout unit that cannot be targeted directly. Because of this I dont have hard feelings when some stray bullet hits one of the surrendering troops as they still take part in the engagement and can still be seen as combatants. Hans: "Hey Fritz, there are lots of Thommies here !" Thommy: "You do realise that I put a gun to your head, you kraut bastard?" Hans *whispers*: "And they have tanks too."

Well I have a bad take on those heavy kitties but thats about my own luck I suppose. Usually when my opponents field them they are those invincible and frightening killing machines, hard to knock down. When I field them they are like "whoopsie seems like I lost my tracks on that 10m journey." or "You know usually I would totally bounce that shot...but not this time,sorry." I still remember my first experience with the Tiger in CMAK. First enemy contact with a Vallentine( 57mm gun). Two shots of his, one partial penetration aaaand the gun of the Tiger was gone. Thats why I usually go with Panthers, Panzer IV and other stuff.

We have a saying in our family: "Wünsch dir zu viel und du bekommst garnichts." (Wish for to much and you get nothing) Secretly I also want the old "hunt" order back but I dont want to test my luck.

Adds to the wishlist: - adjustable/alternative firing times for pre planned artillery. 5/10/15min are not that flexible. In fact as the oponent I know exactly when I need my forces to hunker down and when not. Plus some maps are very big or you want to move more cautiously. 15min maximum here is just to short sometimes. So either you should be able to adjust the minutes yourself or have at least a wider variety. Maybe it could even be possible to synchronize with the ingame clock. So for example that you can Type in the exact daytime as it is. "I want that artillery firing at 12:35 on that hill !") - different/ more tac ai behavior especially concerning tanks. I often witness that tanks duell things out even when they are heavily outclassed or in a bad situation.(Side to the enemy) So user input is often required to make them retreat. So for example If a Sherman (short 75mm Canon) encounters a (King)Tiger up front at medium to long range, He should more often than not have the tendency to drive the hell out of there and /or smoke. Especially when Said Tank is already aiming and firing at him. As it is now usually the tac ai often evades other Tanks when damage is already done (partial Penetration, wounded crewmember). A better Crew morale would add to this. Often times crews seem to be unimpressed from non penetrating hits. And Im Not saying that they should always abandon their vehicle. But it should at least have more of an impact in their ability to fight back. I remember in CMBB you could knock on a T34 with multiple Panzer III at a time. You rarely would penetrate him but the constant plinging of shells often drove the Crew inside crazy,forcing them to retreat or even abandon their tank. Another thing would be the other way around: In the old games crews would get more nervous when they repeatedly hit a tank without penetrating him. Untrained crews even could get shaken uppon that to a degree that they would steer their tank out of the way. Also to this: Cover arcs should be Not as absolute as they are now. In the older games it was dependant on the experience and current morale of the unit if they hold on to it. So it could be possible that Units would negate the arc entirely if they feel threatened. So in general what I am trying to say is that units should be more acting in self preservation than they do now.