nuzrak

In the editor I'm only seeing really long bridges and the very smallest (Size 16 I think) road bridges; is that correct or is it my install? The rail bridges seem to be there in all their various lengths, it's just the road bridges that are missing! If they did get left out is there any plan to add them back in at some point?

OK, that was weird, I closed the game opened it up again and there they are! I'll just put it down to PC gremlins I think... Thanks again for the quick replies

I'm not seeing any at all form tank shells to MG fire on soft targets! It's not a big deal, just wanted to confirm it was my end, I'll re-install the files, thanks for the quick reply

Absolutely amazing job, the game is fantastic!!! But... I'm not seeing any hit decals! Did they not make it into this build or is it my install?

I’m thinking is that if the Russians were able to produce Nakidka or some variant of it by 2017 in any kind of usable quantities that it would primarily be used to hide armour from USAAF strikes rather than in battle itself, which would of course take it out of the equation in regards to the scope of CMBS. That’s not to say that I disagree with the OP on how important a factor this type of element would undeniably be on a modern battlefield, it just seems unlikely, to me, that the Russians would be able to make it a workable reality by the 2017 time frame that the game is set in. Yet, having said that, it would be great if BFC decided to add some rare and theoretical future weapons and technologies into a future expansion pack, similar in tone to the last CMBN one? I’d certainly buy it! As for the smoke, it seems to me that a massive chemical based smokescreen could feasibly already be implemented (faked) by scenario designers by setting the electronic warfare setting to high and setting the weather to dense fog which I'm assuming will be available? The decoy thing is really interesting and the use of decoy targets is certainly well documented in both the Balkan and The Iraq wars; but their primary usage in those theaters seems to have been almost exclusively used in regards to fooling NATO air attacks, which again would unfortunately be beyond the scope of CM battlefields. But who doesn't love the idea of inflatable tanks, so maybe they could make it into a pack too???

Like many, I don’t post here often but this thread is really informative and I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to it. I’d really like to thank Steve especially for taking the time to share with us his thoughts and insights regarding the Ukrainian conflict and frankly breaking it down into a clear narrative. Now thinking in terms of possible Scenario or Campaign building for the game itself I’d like to go back to something mentioned only in passing that I’m personally a little curious about, and that’s the Naval situation in the Black Sea… Steve earlier stated the very reasonable assumption that the US Navy would not need to park itself in the Black Sea, but what are the theories on the Russian side of the Naval equation? Is Russia’s Black Sea Fleet considered to be pretty much a non-entity in a 2017 conflict or would it be a viable asset to the Russians in threatening the ports of Odessa and Mykolaiv? And what about the state of Russia’s Marine corps in this theatre? I know Russian Naval forces took part in the 2014 annexation of the Crimea, but are they theoretically capable of broader scope operations and potentially opening up beach heads along the Southern Ukrainian coastline? Finally, just how strategically relevant would the Ukraine’s Southern coastal ports be in this type of conflict to either Russian or NATO as potential supply avenues in 2017?

On the plus side, I'm certain that learning how to use the Russian / Ukrainian forces effectively against the technologically superior US troops will almost assuredly make you a better CM player in both Modern and WW2 titles. Well, that was at least true for me with CMSF, where the learning curve for playing the Syrian forces, especially against human opponents, was absolutely harrowing but well worth it in the end. My two-cents on the key elements for fighting on the modern battlefield 'with inferior forces especially' are (as mostly already stated), Use all possible cover all the time for everything you have. But note also that buildings won't protect your troops very much when they are spotted! Helicopters love troops on rooftops!!! Don't move your troops until you have to and always do it with overwatch. As the US forces, engage the enemy at range with fire superiority whenever possible. Fighting against US forces, try to remain hidden and lure them into keyhole crossfire corridors then retreat quickly and do it again! Use scouts. It's better to lose a couple of guys or a Humvee etc, than a whole platoon, APC or MBT. Use your artillery and CAS assets wisely. Examine your troops thoroughly at setup and try to assign them tasks they are best suited to. Learn how the C3 comms networks in CM functions, including its delays up and down the chain of command. I can't stress enough how important and how often overlooked this element of the game seems to be. Even having a partial contact because of good C3 links seems to make a huge difference in spotting times. And lastly, be patient! The modern battlefield is very unforgiving, don't run to meet death! One thing that will be interesting to see is how ECM affects the US forces and if it is enough to level the field?

From Wiki... M2 as a sniper rifle The M2 machine gun has also been used as a long-range sniper rifle, when equipped with a telescopic sight. Soldiers during the Korean War used scoped M2s in the role of a sniper rifle, but the practice was most notably used by US Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock during the Vietnam War. Using an Unertl telescopic sight and a mounting bracket of his own design, Hathcock could quickly convert the M2 into a sniper rifle, using the traversing-and-elevating (T&E) mechanism attached to the tripod. When firing semi-automatically, Hathcock hit man-size targets beyond 1,800 metres (2,000 yd)—twice the range of a standard-caliber sniper rifle of the time (a .30-06Winchester Model 70). In fact, Hathcock set the record for the longest confirmed kill at 2,250 metres (2,460 yd), a record which stood until 2002, when it was broken in Afghanistan by Canadian Forces sniper Arron Perry. Perry used the 50.Cal McMillan Brothers TAC15 (designated as the C15 Long Range Sniper Weapon by the Canadian Forces),

Just noticed that the "Force V Force" tab label under the Data section in the editor now reads "Axis Electronic Warfare Strength" after the 1.02 patch. That's quite the technological jump, but given the state of Soviet electronics in this period unlikely to effect the outcome of the war I suspect!

I don't know why Chrome doesn't like this file but you don't need to download the pack again if you get the 'Malicious message from chrome', just rename the file back to a .zip and then open it up and run the .exe That worked for me anyway

There is also a book about the 4th SS PG regiment called, 'Comrades to the end' by Otto Weidinger a Das Fuhrer unit commander, published by Schiffer Military History that covers his and the units entire war history from 1938 - 1945 in a kind of diary fashion. It's a little biased at times, but that is understandable as the man is obviously very proud of his regiment, but it's still a very good read.

Can someone please state what the exact changes to FOW are in regards to relative spotting and how the FOW CLAMP works now in GL specific to each difficulty setting in the game. As always, apologies of this has been covered elsewhere, but I can’t find it if it has… and yes I did look  Thanks in advance.

Thanks Vanir, that's really useful information to have. OK, What follows is my personal opinion, I’m not bashing the game, I love it! Unless I'm misunderstanding the basic formula for QB scoring, I'm left scratching my head about the logic of using it as the base for both the attacker and the defender, because although it seems rational at first glance that the point values / underlying percentages should increase for locations for each battle type as you move up from ME through to Assault, I wonder if it would not actually be fairer for some sort of inverse formula to be true for the defender in regards to causing casualties on the attacker? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this formula overly favours the Attacker/Assault player as the defender can never hope to recoup the points of lost objectives through casualties alone and yet faces increasingly larger forces as you move up the tree. Now I’m aware that that may well be the intent of the system too, and that’s cool if it is, but somehow that just doesn’t seem to fit with the spirit of this game series. It simply feels a little off to me that something nearer to a draw can’t be achieved for a defender who racks up a huge butchers bill on the attacker. On ‘Buddy Aid’ Given their huge workload this probably isn’t even on the radar but I think it is a real omission that this element of the game is only relevant in campaigns. Even in its abstracted form, dealing with casualties on the battlefield is a very real and immersive element and adds a unique factor to this series that should mean something tangible in all battles. I sincerely hope that a future patch or in CMx3 that BFC add a core point reflection for this as standard.

I have a couple of questions and apologize if these have been covered elsewhere; I did do a search and couldn’t find any suitable answers and hope someone here might be able to help me understand the game a little better. First up, scoring in Quick Battles. I have recently finished a H2H QB Attack game and was surprised to see how high the points given for each objective were in relation to what KIA points was worth, which in this case was 216 points for each location. Curious, I pulled up the map in the editor (Map 90) and saw that the points given per location in the data section were listed as 50 points per location! I did a quick couple of tests on a couple of other maps and found that the points awarded for locations are always way higher than set in the editor! So, does anyone know what the basic formula being used here is? The reason I ask this is that because I occasionally create maps and battles myself it would be good know what the points set in the editor actually mean for end results. Secondly, Buddy Aid! I also noted at the end of the above battle that Buddy aid had no effect on the score at all. Again, curious, My opponent and me re-played the last turns again and saw that apart from saving a few guys from being KIA there was indeed no point value to it at all! So, if that is the case, other than scrounging ammo and weapons from fallen pixel truppen is there any other reason to ever risk troops to give it? I should note again that this was a QB and all further tests were under the QB system too so no points were ever given specifically assigned for casulties percentages. Thanks in advance...

Mord's mod is a nice piece of work and definitely improves the visual fog of war in CMSF. But, it still doesn't address the underlying issue of how easy it is to ID enemy units by their name labels in the tray. Personally, I think for IRON level at least, that I would rather not be able to select an enemy unit at all during the battle, rather than have the current information available as it is.

Steve, I know you guys a have a billion things on your to-do-list, but... And, I'm assuming this will be the same in CM:BN. Would it be possible, sometime in the future, that at least for 'IRON' level, the individual unit titles that are displayed from enemy contacts and enemy corpses in the tray are removed? At present, the way it works gives too much information away. It's not unrealistic to ID an AT weapon, but Seeing 'Squad#3' or 'Group B HQ' etc, makes estimating enemy strength and losses far easier than it should be. I realize that this is not that big a deal when playing solo against the AI, but when playing H2H in WEGO it could be abused.

I'm not so worried about the target command, although I would be disappointed if the 'Target light' command disappears, but more the limited function the cover arc command has in its present CMSF state. The lack of ability to assign specific types of target within a covered arc severely limits the arcs ambush and keyhole function. It just seems illogical to me that we have two types of target command and only a vanilla covered arc state. It's fantastic that we can now split infantry squads and have specific AT assets etc, but not having the ability to cover armor specifically, limits their effectiveness in their assigned roles. This will be especially true of course for AT guns that will undoubtedly have a mix of HE/AT shells in CM:BN. Having carefully set up/key-holed an AT asset, I really don't want it popping off shots at infantry scouts!

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but I couldn't find any reference to this specific question through the search. Will the ability to set covered arcs to armored targets only be returning to CM:BN?

One thing I have noticed is that CF:A loads up a lot faster then CM:SF and seems to run a little smoother with graphics at higher specs. On further investigation I found that CM:A always uses the last CPU in my multi-core and not the primary core as CM:SF does. Now obviously CM:A is not using multi-core threading, but the fact that it is running off a different core than the primary core in the stack means it doesn't seem to be competing for processor time with every other process on the PC. I wonder if this is possible for CM:SF too, or too big a change in the core program to implement by patch?

Awesome, thanks to everyone involved for getting this fixed so quickly.

OK I've just discovered something else that will hopefully narrow the issue down. The version conflict only occurs with the CMAK patch. I've just tried setting up PBEM games with CMBB 1.04 client and can access them with the CMBB 1.03 client with no issues. So this seems to be a CMAK only issue!

OK regarding the original issue... Steve, just a thought. Is it possible that the e-license process is re-writing the internal version number?

Yep, I tried it both ways, first setting up a PBEM game with the 1.04 client and then trying to open it up on a different PC with the 1.03 client and got the incompatible version splash screen. Then to make sure it wasn't one way, I reversed the process, setting up a PBEM with the 1.03 client and got the same result! Thanks BTW for responding so fast...

Hi Guys, First let me say how grateful I am to finally see this patch for Vista. Excellent work. The immediate issue I have discovered however is that, as cool as it is to be able to use the game on my Vista box, I can now no longer play against users via email who have the older 1.03 version of the game. This is going to be a real issue for those of us involved in club play! So the obvious question is, can this be fixed?