Brille

You cannot mix the gameversions with each other (BFC and Steam)...at least not directly. You need to get your free Steamkey for the main game first, before it can merge with the module there
How to you get the Steamkey for the main game you can read in the first posting of this thread from BFC Elvis.

Perfect. thx👍

Better open up a ticket at the Battlefront helpdesk
 https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/
The chances of the right person to see this here in the forum would be rather lucky than anything else.

Little off topic here:
Praise to BFC for the attention to detail:
The Panzerfaust 60 looks pretty much identical to the Panzerfaust 100.
Yet BFC correctly put the different labels on the warheads with their names on it instead of just copy and paste.
This way you can see what soldier is carrying which faust if you look closely (when they are mixed in a squad)
 

Panzerfausts are nothing like the RPG7 or other modern rocket launchers. They are still pretty inaccurate. So even when the Panzerfaust 60 says that it´s effective range is 60m (though they were also ranged for 80m), one probably should use them at even lower ranges, especially with troops under veteran experience.
 
You must be pretty unlucky there I guess. Usually a Panzerfaust hit means either a destroyed/decrewed tank or a severely damaged one.
 

Panzerfausts are nothing like the RPG7 or other modern rocket launchers. They are still pretty inaccurate. So even when the Panzerfaust 60 says that it´s effective range is 60m (though they were also ranged for 80m), one probably should use them at even lower ranges, especially with troops under veteran experience.
 
You must be pretty unlucky there I guess. Usually a Panzerfaust hit means either a destroyed/decrewed tank or a severely damaged one.
 

When the "target armor" arc is applied the infantry should only use weapons that can hurt tanks, if they are in range that is.
Could it be that your soldiers have some riflegrenades and the respective launcher unit attached ? Though very inacurate and probably not very effective they will happily use these grenades to engage tanks. It might look like the soldiers would fire their rifles while actually lobbing a riflegrenade at the tanks.
The Panzerfausts are not usable at this range. The effective range of each faust is implied in their name: Panzerfaust 30= 30m, Panzerfaust 60= 60m, Panzerfaust 100=100m.

That wasn´t my meaning. I was comparing hunt with the move order to spot/react to mines. The problem with the move order is that everyone that has it applied will start running once bullets or explosions occur, what will most likely happen when a mine is triggered.
Running through a minefield has just that much more potential to trigger another (maybe unseen) minefield too. The hunt order prevents this because everyone will just hold at the spot, preventing them from triggering another mine.
Moving slow is an option but will tire out the searching parties way to fast. And especially when you don´t know if there is a minefield or not, it can be difficult getting them to another location afterwards at high speeds.

A clash between mechanized forces:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@SDGRegardless of your claims and if this oddity is right or not: You have been asked multiple times now for a save file for further inspection. You clearly have the file as you made multiple screenshots after another request.
You are certainly not obliged in any way to post one but it would certainly help to prove or disprove this behavior and probably to get to the reason why that is.
This would actually be nice when tanks could shoot somekind of blind directed fire into a certain location. For example when a tank is clearly visible but just so happens to vanish in a dust/smoke cloud they could fire 1-2 rounds in the last known location. It clearly was done in reality. Problem is just how to program this so that this may not occur to much or in the wrong situations...
 
However if there is any chance of it it probably will be in CMx3 rather than with an update to the actual games.

@SDGRegardless of your claims and if this oddity is right or not: You have been asked multiple times now for a save file for further inspection. You clearly have the file as you made multiple screenshots after another request.
You are certainly not obliged in any way to post one but it would certainly help to prove or disprove this behavior and probably to get to the reason why that is.
This would actually be nice when tanks could shoot somekind of blind directed fire into a certain location. For example when a tank is clearly visible but just so happens to vanish in a dust/smoke cloud they could fire 1-2 rounds in the last known location. It clearly was done in reality. Problem is just how to program this so that this may not occur to much or in the wrong situations...
 
However if there is any chance of it it probably will be in CMx3 rather than with an update to the actual games.

Maybe you mistake it for the M113 ?
Sure the Bradley was very thinnly armored in comparison to today but one might expect that an infantry FIGHTING vehicle would at least take hits from the most common "small" arms placed on enemy vehicles. This would be 12,7mm MG and the 14,5mm MG on BTR, BRDM and AA MG on tanks.
 
Later the Bradleys armor was upgraded to even withstand up to 30mm canon rounds, most likely because of the appearence of the BMP2 and wider usage of autocanons instead of heavy mg.
That was the point where the Brad also lost his amphibious ability.

Yeah those soviets tanks can be very frightening and even those bmp too.
In schock force they often are laughable easy to spot and taken out but in cold war without thermals and proper US ifv you get to understand why it was such a leap forward.
 
I almost lost an entire M60 platoon to them once in a battle while they stayed completely hidden.
In the same battle I got to know the capabilities of the T80s and only reached a stalemate with lots of luck and some good hits from the 2 M901 you got.

I feel you there.
And it is sad because the old CMx1 games Had this one covered.
First you saw visually when it was foggy and not just read it in the "conditions" tab and second the target line had much more facets in colors.
Now you have either a grey line (Not all troopers can see that target), a blue line (all can see it) or a pink/violett line (No LOS/LOF). So roughly it only tells you If you can fire there or not, not how good they could actually see.
In the old games you started from bright blue to very dark blue till almost violett which would change rapidly the worse the LOS got.
So If you had foggy weather the Line would start with bright blue for the first few meters and would get less and less bright the further you would go from the troopers position.
And it was not just determined by weather or sunlight. Vegetation would worsen the LOS tool too.
This way you somewhat could estimate on how bad the visuals to a point were roughly. Sure in these games you definetely had a max LOS/LOF in fog and night battles opposed to the new system where you could see even further when your troops see muzzleflashes. But I would wish that this features would return to the CMx2 games.
 
I play night battles/battles with low visibility very rarely and I have to get accustomed to it everytime again. This was a lot easier to just hop in in the older Games in my opinion.

I feel you there.
And it is sad because the old CMx1 games Had this one covered.
First you saw visually when it was foggy and not just read it in the "conditions" tab and second the target line had much more facets in colors.
Now you have either a grey line (Not all troopers can see that target), a blue line (all can see it) or a pink/violett line (No LOS/LOF). So roughly it only tells you If you can fire there or not, not how good they could actually see.
In the old games you started from bright blue to very dark blue till almost violett which would change rapidly the worse the LOS got.
So If you had foggy weather the Line would start with bright blue for the first few meters and would get less and less bright the further you would go from the troopers position.
And it was not just determined by weather or sunlight. Vegetation would worsen the LOS tool too.
This way you somewhat could estimate on how bad the visuals to a point were roughly. Sure in these games you definetely had a max LOS/LOF in fog and night battles opposed to the new system where you could see even further when your troops see muzzleflashes. But I would wish that this features would return to the CMx2 games.
 
I play night battles/battles with low visibility very rarely and I have to get accustomed to it everytime again. This was a lot easier to just hop in in the older Games in my opinion.

Hi,
Am I the only one to be frustrated by low visibility scenarios?
The associated game mechanics is not the issue, even though it can lead to some weird situation (in the last Scottish Corridor night mission, I had a squad unable to see a moving Sturmgeschütz in an adjacent tile, that's less than 12 meters away, while it could area target that tree line 100 meters away?!!.... It looks like the game makes it easier for vehicles to sneak into enemy lines in the dark than for foot soldiers, which is really not realistic).
My main concern is the visual rendering of the lower visibility, which IMHO really hampers playability.
If I'm not mistaken, the game engine always shows ALL TERRAIN FEATURES attached to the map itself, whatever the actual visibility. Wherever you put the camera, you'll always see that house 500 m away, even when visibility is reduced to 200 meters. At least for me, it makes playing very difficult, because I always struggle to estimate what terrain pixeltrüppen actually can cover or not. Agreed, you still have the LOS tool; but in close terrain you always have a doubt wether blocked LOS is caused by some obstacle or by reduced visibility. Ans situation gets worse when it comes to visibility changes: dawn, dusk, etc. Nothing changes visually in the game !!! You have to test and guess every turn to check wether visibility has changes or not...
Presently, when you click on an unit, you can see exactly what is sees in terms of enemy units and fortifications. I'd really, really enjoy the extension of that to terrain features: anything beyond visibility range would disappear when you click on an unit. THAT really would make up for great low visibility scenarios, don't you think?

While I experience same results, often higher experience of the crew helps.
Once one of my T62 (buttoned up) almost got the jump on a M60 TTS in relatively close range (rounds about 300m).
They spotted each other almost at the same time but the TTS was just a little faster and killed my Tank.
The T62 crews experience was on crack though.
This might not sound like much but usually my encounters ending with the T62s getting shot bright up while they couldnt figure out what actually shot them.
BMPs can be manned with an additional commander. This probably helps the BMP2 more than the Bmp1 because of the location of his seat.
They wont get anything near eagle like sight for sure but it rises their combat effectiveness quite a bit in my experience.
If I have some spare infantrymen or HQ units I often let some stay in these BMP.

With only one pair of NV goggles spotting should take much longer as only one guy is actually seeing anything. Same is with binoculars just not as crucial maybe because in daylight every soldiers can see at least to a certain distance.
 
This one is easy to compare: Just take british/Common wealth infantry in the ww2 era for example. Normal infantry squads dont come with any binoculars at all. The next one to have a pair would be the platoon leader.
Spotting at farther distances or revealing enemy troops in prepared positions or concealment is very decreased in comparison to a german or US squad for example.
Target acquisition for the rest of the squad members however should be at an instant more or less. So as soon as the squad leader has a solid spot, all the soldiers that have a line of fire, should open up closely after. Though I dont know how much impact on the accuracy it has when there are no additional nvg.
If the Commander then dies the goggles/binculars are gone and so the spotting decreases further, thats right.
But if you buddy aid said commander you have the possibility to regain the equipment and so regain some spotting capabilities.
 

Just a quick note:
In this battle most of the german Panzers are veteran with +2 leadership, while the soviets are mostly regular with +1 leadership. And while this sounds not like much it can give the germans an clear edge in spotting, especially if they keep their heads outside the hatch while the soviets may not.
Truth be told the soviets should have the advantage since they are defending so they are usually static, while the germans have to move. But it is too complicated to get more into detail with the provided information.
 
I played this map not so long ago as the germans and was totally hammered by the soviet player, who also fielded SU100 (besides other). They were totally frightening as my poor Panzer IVs  didn´t seem to be able to penetrate them up front.

I used the hull down command for some time once but I turned back to "eyeballing".
With the target method it worked quite good actually, and If you dont want to micromanage that sort it could be an option especially with many units.
 However I have 2 problems with it:
1.) You cannot always draw a target line on a desired position.
In Syria with sparse vegetation there is not much obscurance but in France with high hedges, wheatfields, high grass and bushes it can become a problem.
 
2.) The hull down command can't be used within a command chain. 
As soon as the requirements of that order is in place (reaching a hull down position) it cancels everything else out.
So you can't use it in a shoot & scoot kind of way. Yes you could try it so that the tank reaches his position at the end of a turn so you could plot the scoot part at the start of the next one.
That would be to much guesswork for me so I better stay on manual.
And as started: Once you get the hang of it it doesnt require that much more time to do so.
 
 

A clash between Panzer IV and Churchills got very bloody for both sides:
 




 
Advancing through the hedgerows...


 
Which is pretty dangerous.

 

 
But there will always be a light at the end of the tunnel.
 
 
Even if it meant that the light is actually a muzzle flash of a 88mm tank canon.
 

This Tiger got stuck in the wet ground...but unfortunately it was right at my avenue of approach...
 
 

 

When desperate enough even a ****ty outhouse can be a hiding spot from those damn tanks.
 

 

 

 
The die hard german squadleader.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Mounted assault



 


 


 
(Close) Encounter in the dark


 
Just as he was about to throw a frag grenade, the rifleman got hit. This were some bad news for his leader cowering next to him.

 
 
A halftrack formation gets blown to bits by one well positioned US 57mm AT gun.

 
Remember: Enemy artillery can be your worst enemy but can provide good cover too.
Without the previously created crater of the enemy artillery, this fire team would have been blown to bits.

 
"Herr Leutnant...wouldn´t it be wiser to spread the weapons of our fallen comrades around the squads ? They all just have those old bolt action rifles and...."
"God damn it, Feldwebel Heinrich ! When I say that you give the sniper rifle to the machine gunner, I mean it.
Don´t you dare question my leadership !"


 
 
Advance through the smoke.


 
A bit of posing for the Wochenschau.

 
"Hans, you said we should go the right path but I haven´t seen no friend nor foe for hours. Where is the front ?"
"Shut up Klaus and let me think !"

 

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.
 

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...

I get the difference, but I can also separate fantasy from reality.  Playing Call of Duty doesn't make you a violent person.  Playing CM doesn't mean you support the war in Ukraine or condone how the war is being fought.
Steppwulf, I'm not trying to needle you and I apologize if I have been too argumentative or have not been as precise as I intend.  My ultimate point this: Battlefront developed a game before the world events changed.  As far as I am concerned, they have nothing to apologize for or be ashamed. If they want to slow or stop development of CMBS as a means of being sensitive to current events, I can respect that.  But I am also a customer and I want more of this particular product. They have already invested time, finances, and resources into development. Why thow out the baby with the bath water?  Is it possible to change the setting and create a win-win situation?