noxnoctum

Yes it gives more options in some ways, like with the pauses you can issue at every movement order which is a (huge) addition. But why restrict your options in other ways just because it's harder to implement. I'm sure it'll take some work to make Bulge and the Bagration game, doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

But I don't understand why you don't want more control over your units, especially the degree that was offered in a previous game (i.e. older, worse tech). We could ditch the "slow" order effectively too and just use quick with massively long pauses to make units advance at a slower pace but it's silly if you can just use slow instead! Likewise I can get around hidden AT guns firing at infantry too by issuing tiny cover arcs and only specifying targets myself, but an armor cover arc is clearly more ideal. Again I don't see how it's asking the world here, when it was in a previous game. Yes it would have to be modified a bit like I suggested since there's no longer borg spotting (thankfully), but I see it as an important addition. You don't, and that's cool, agree to disagree .

Two different games one of which is a sequel and supposed to be an improvement on the other (which is is in most ways). I don't buy that it isn't possible in the engine given "Quick" 's behavior where units will stop to engage sometimes. (which is a very nice feature btw) You guys aren't helping the game any by being opposed to any possible improvements to it. Pretty sure we all want the same thing. Sure we could just cut the game down just to Quick orders and nix everything else and use various pauses to approximate behavior but no one wants that I think. Or just use facing instead of cover arcs but again it's not the same thing. It doesn't have anything to do with wanting the AI to "do all your work for you" or being tactically lazy. The only thing to do right now is to issue multiple slow orders with pauses which is still not the same because your tank might fire on the move in between pauses or continue following slow orders even if they ran into an entire enemy armor company.

No he isn't man, you're misunderstanding him. There is no way to have a unit stop to engage, then resume its movement in the game atm if the contact goes to "?" (other than artificially doing it with pauses or getting lucky on a "Quick" command)

Yep, obviously you'll still have less than ideal situations. But throwing it all out just because those situations will still pop up seems weird to me. It just depends on your priorities in a given situation and what you're willing to risk. 1) Do you want to stop the second an enemy is spotted even if your gunner does not see them? If yes, use move to contact. 2) Do you want to stop the second an enemy *that is a threat* is spotted and you are able to ENGAGE them with the main gun? If yes use hunt. 3) Do you want to continue to advance regardless engaging targets along the way? Use Slow. Like I said, if BFC added a third "Scout" option differentiating between a "Soft" move to contact which requires only the TC (or any other crew member) to spot something before stopping, and a "Hard" version where the gunner must see it as well, that would be truly ideal, but if they implemented only two orders slaved to different spotting variables that would already be a huge step up. Right now it's hard to maintain a cohesive advance even with the workarounds. Move to hunt would only stop when the gunner saw it as well. Move to contact would stop regardless of whether the gunner saw it or not. I can envision situations where I would want one over the other and vice versa. So Hunt would be an order issued more for aggressive combat movement, whereas Move to contact would be pure scouting (along with all the risks associated with becoming stationary when enemy are spotted).

It would make sense for a Hunt order to have it tied to what the gunner sees. For move to contact it would make sense to have it tied to what the TC sees even if the gunner does not. Or if BFC felt like it they could have "move to contact" tied to what the gunner sees and a 3rd order tied to what the TC sees though that would not really be necessary. Just differentiating who's "eyes" are important between Hunt and Move to contact would be good enough. It's not really much more complex, just a small difference.

Well I have now and I disagree with the people who think this is "too much" or asking the AI to "read your mind". This guy isn't asking for the world, it's pretty simple he just wants a command that resumes movement when a contact turns into a "?". I don't see why the engine couldn't handle that, that's just silly. If the engine can handle the "Quick" order which causes units to sometimes stop and fire when enemies are spotted and then resume movement I don't see why it couldn't handle a more strict version of this. Strict in that it causes units to ALWAYS stop and fire when enemies are spotted (in the case of armor it would ignore infantry contacts unless they are identified as being AT) and then resume movement. The current hunt is necessary and important, but it's mostly just for scouting and being super cautious with armor when you need to. But a different order is also necessary. Removing that functionality is going backwards plain and simple just like not having an armor cover arc. You can work around it with "Slow" or with pauses along a movement path but that is still not ideal because your accuracy will suffer with Slow and it is still not the same as coming to a deadstop if the tank suddenly spots a whole enemy armor platoon. Now where'd I agree with you about it being silly to ask for something just "because it was that way in CMx1" would be with spotting through forests which was easier to calculate in CMx1 but necessarily changed for a 1-1 engine.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I definitely wish a CMx1 style hunt command could be brought back. Right now "Hunt" = "Move to Contact" which is needed as well, but a Hunt command that makes units keep moving if they lose sight of an enemy contact would be really helpful. I'm surprised this is so controversial and people are bickering over this so much. It's pretty simple, sometimes you want units to continue advancing after they lose sight of an enemy (i.e. during an assault), sometimes you want them to be extra cautious and stop the second they make contact. CMx1 offered both these functionalities (for armor at least) and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for it to be put back in the sequel. Ideally both infantry and armor could have a hunt command, which would be a step up from CMx1. Ideally, maybe a third command could be added, "Scout" which only require any crewman to spot the enemy for the vehicle to stop, but "move to contact" (aka the current "Hunt") as well as a new "Hunt" would require that the main gunner see the enemy before stopping. This could avoid that nasty problem of a vehicle stopping when seeing an enemy but being unable to fire. If it turns into a "?" it's transitory if it doesn't it's not. The unit with "Hunt" would resume movement once the contact turned into a "?".

Watch out, I've had surrendered enemy units "unsurrender" if they're not surrounded by my guys, and rejoin the fight. You're better off area firing and committing some war crimes if it comes down to it :cool:.

Really? IME a lot of times a tank will continue to fire over and over at a tree trunk. Occasionally one will hit the mark but I've had times where an AFV just sits there and pummels a tree while if it adjusted its aim just a bit its shells would go past it.

Yep this does indeed work. Useful for getting a unit on one side of an action spot while having them facing the opposite direction.

Splitting teams is a must. Like others said, first few turns and setup especially takes a lot of time, after that it's much easier going. Being able to put all your support weapons (BAR, zooka) in one team and your guys with thompsons in another is very useful. Though sometimes it's better to have an LMG in each team (if you're playing D for example and need to cover a large area with few troops) Also splitting lowers damage done by mortars, HE shells, etc obviously and gives you more options and flexibility. Assault command just is not very useful IMO.

Is there a chance a tank shell will go through a tree? Is it different with the trunk than with the "branches"? (i.e. the part you can turn off with alt-t) What about for small arms?

Don't be afraid to take casualties either. Just be sure you're pouring more fire on them than they are on you. When on the attack my main goals are to: 1) Find the weak spot, from there I'll roll up the entire defense from behind. 2) Concentrate the vast majority of my strength and firepower on the weak spot You're going to take casualties, that's inevitable, just be sure that once you make contact you can bring massive firepower to bear and gain fire superiority. Doesn't matter if the first squad to engage the enemy get chopped up badly if you've got a whole platoon firing on an enemy defensive position. A good example of this is one mission where I KNEW that the enemy probably had an AT gun covering that avenue of approach (the only viable avenue of approach on that particular map). However I was unable to scout it out with infantry (due to loads of MGs hidden all over), and the area was too big for blind area fire to be useful. So I just moved up ALL of my armor at the same time into the same small area. I ended losing two tanks, but the remaining ones finished off the detected enemy AT strongpoint in short order and I crushed the remaining infantry forces with ease. Firepower superiority . Of course if the situation permits, I try to only expose a scout unit, blast the enemy with artillery, and THEN move up. This is not always possible though, as with the previous example.

I think it's a mental thing tbh. You appear to be taking more casualties in CMBN because of the 1-1, whereas in CMx1 a unit down to 3 guys from 9 still looked the same as a full squad.

Alright so what determines whether a company HQ unit is in contact with Battalion HQ? At the end of my present turn in a wego game all units lost contact to Battalion, but Battalion isn't represented on the map... what's going on? None of my HQ units, either platoon or Company HQ have any been shot at the entire game.

Would be nice if BFC added different types of foxhole groupings into the editor, like a straight row of foxholes that could be put up right next to a treeline or wall, for these types of situations.

And to close assault enemy armor do I need to put a move command on the enemy AFV like CMx1 or just position them within 10 meters or so and they do it automatically? (what's the range?)

+1 to this. Definitely agree. It works in wego well I think, even if it's an unintended abstraction. RT I never play so no comment on that.

Or is it purely for blowing holes in buildings and bocage?

Ya I usually just give my ambushing AT elements a tiny cover arc... of course this is risky because an enemy tank might plow through an ambush, but usually it works OK. Then next turn I just clear its arc and have it fire at any armor that moved into the kill zone. An armor cover arc is def sorely needed though, IIRC we'll have to wait for Bulge for it. Hopefully Bulge will come with tcp-ip wego as well . Those are the two most needed features IMO.

I wander though are these casualty %s people looking at battalion level or smaller? Cause I'm sure that sometimes in a battle a platoon/company or two would be utterly decimated while others might go relatively unscathed. Anyways people are gonna freak when we get to the Ostfront .

Ya it's not the hunt from CMx1. And like mentioned above use an arc(s) if you don't want them to fire even if they see something.

I've never seen a unit fire at a unit that was not represented on me screen by at least a "?". Discounting of course times when a unit continues firing at a unit that's disappeared, but that's different.