Wengart

Thanks a lot for putting this up.

Someone in the file factory thread is/was in the process of doing that, although a link to the .torrent file hasn't materialized yet.

In that case i like to assault by squads. I really don't like the assault command and have used only a handful of occasions.

However splitting teams, imo is more effective since it creates 2 distinct units. The assault commands allows the squad to move in fire teams, but they share suppression iirc so if the forward team is hit hard and quickly suppressed then the covering team will also be suppressed. Whereas splitting the squad into two teams insures that the covering team will not be suppressed if the moving team is.

I'm not entirely sure how they've been improved. They are often 20mb or bigger and everything must be done manually.

That is totally dependent on how much money you're willing to put into it. I play with a group and I believe the most expensive gun fielded is maybe 50$. For us airsoft is our unreal tournament while Paintball is our Arma.

Other end of the spectrum over here, I'm 19 and started playing CM when I was 17.

In the tab menus for defenses there could be a list of facings + the armor in mm of that facing and the slope of the armor at that facing. Front: 100mm 30° Side:75mm Rear:50mm Top:20mm Bottom:20mm Turret: 100mm 15° and perhaps under the main gun tab there could be a list of ranges + mm of armor possibly penetrated at that range for the gun. 500 Meters: 100mm 1000 Meters: 50mm 1,500 Meters: 15mm This would allow the player to see at a glance what type of armor they had on a specific vehicle and the penetration power of the main gun. I would like to point out that these numbers are completely made up.

There was an X-fire group around for CM:SF which worked fairly well, and a Steam group could be thrown together pretty easily. Just trade IPS and off you go.

I suspect cheating would come less in the form of adding units/or taking away enemy units pre-game but more in the realm of removing FOW or something.

I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would be willing to let you use their maps for your own scenario. You could even use QB maps for a scenario. I think it less dependent on the engine and more so on the computer that is running the game. So when you design scenarios you should think who do I want to reach with this, because if it is a KM by 4KM map with 2 reinforced Battalions going at it you're going to cut a number of people off.

quoting failure...

I think you can give the engineers an order to blow a hole in the wall,hedge,whatever and then another movement order. This iirc will override the run through the wall part of the order.

I prefer elite mode, Iron just gets annoying. When selecting a unit you can't see your other units unless that unit specifically has los to that friendly unit. I guess it takes some of the all knowingness away from the player but the selecting and deselecting units gets terribly annoying after a while.

I didn't get a chance to see, but is the bolt-action animation finally fixed? In CM:SF the round would eject from the rifle as soon as the weapon was fired and then the soldier would work the bolt.

The crews still remain in the same AI group even after their vehicles are knocked out so they will continue to advance + that one crew just had their tanked knocked out. Normally I don't think it would be too much for the squad to handle, but they had managed to suppress themselves and take out one of their own men while firing AT at the Sherman. Rendering them largely helpless in the face of the crewmen at that range. (I would also venture to guess that the crew were of a higher experience or motivation since they seemed pretty on their feet when their tank was hit) Disclaimer: I'm assuming you're talking about the german rifle squad that was knocked out by the two 5 man crews. Also I think AT grenades are not explicitly simulated so the generic grenade has gotten a boost in AT power.

Are AT grenades explicitly modeled? or are there just generic hand grenades?

I think it was an unusual circumstance where the German squad actually suppressed itself while firing AT grenades (causing 1 casualty in the process) then was unlucky enough to be hit by 2 tank crews at once.

I completely agree. And with any luck we will see some show up, I mean CM:A and CM:SF Nato got the ZSU. You would be surprised by how many things you can simulate by just messing with the units present and their motivation/experience. Just off the top of my head it could be used to simulate some counter-battery fire or a surprise morning assault.

Since there is no light AA in the game it is just left up to the scenario designer to work out its affect, if any in game. For example the designer could cut the number of strikes in half (4 planes becomes 2) or he could reduce the experience and motivation of the pilots (representing the ability of AA to dissuade a pilot from making the run). Hiding and fortifications, or was it smoke? Your advocating feature creep, which in general is bad news. If we hold off on the release 4 weeks AA can get in. But wait! if we push it back another 2 weeks we can get tank riders! and in another 5 weeks we can get fire into the game! Then suddenly your missing the intended release date by 11 weeks. Point is at some point they have to call it quits and shove their game out the door. It just so happened that AA got stuck on the after release side of things.

I will be waiting patiently for the Panzer Mark II Luchs. He's such a plucky little guy with that 20mm cannon.

In purely victory point terms it doesn't but it helps to build immersion and create secondary objectives for the player. I have fond memories of playing Yelnia Stare on the CM:BB demo and spending just as many turns performing a fighting retreat to the board edge as I did actually defending the position.

2). As blue it's less of an issue as you can often return to your vehicle whenever you need something, but as Red I take anything and everything because chances are within the next 5-10 minutes whatever your troops were riding in will be a burning wreck.

I just did a quick test in CM:SF and have confirmed that destroyed vehicles do not block LOF when the target is a vehicle, however they will if the target is infantry. I took two companies of red armor (T-72s) and used all but 2 platoons to create a wall between the 2 "test" platoons of T-72s and the company of Abrams. The two test platoons were deployed so the first platoon would provide protection for the second. This was the deployment, + are Abrams, = are T-72s the range varied from 200 to 350 meters. +++ +++ +++ ==== ==== ====== === ===

The thing is vehicles, destroyed or otherwise, do not provide concealment, and as far as the tacai is concerned a destroyed vehicle actually doesn't exist. So you would have situations where your vehicle would happily fire AP round after AP round into a destroyed tank trying to get to the un-damaged tank behind it because the destroyed vehicle doesn't block LOS. So when anything is firing on a vehicle any destroyed vehicles in-between the firer and target are ignored. This is not the case for infantry however. I've been playing CM:SF for a little more than a year and have confirmed this on multiple occasions.