QuiGon

Thanks, that's quite an improvement, although a maximum of 18,020 points for a meeting engagement is still not enough IMHO. I'm currently playing a ~30,000 point PBEM meeting engagement on a 4 x 4.5 km map, using the Scenario Editor to put the troops together, which is rather cumbersome as it doesn't show a budget. A flexible solution, where we can define our own budget would be really helpful

~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.

Indeed, I've noticed that as well when I did a QB after the game got released and mentioned it here:

That's actually what I ended up doing. The search function lead me to it. It's much more cumbersome though than just setting a bigger QB budget. And the problem doesn't end there. I'm playing a MP match of CM:CW this way, so I put together my force in the quick battle purchase screen with a budget of 30,000 points that we agreed on. Then I went to the scenario editor to put the same force together there, that I created in the QB setup, but... I couldn't! The formations available in the scenario editor are quite a lot different than the ones available in a QB (even if same month and year is set)!!! For example: In a QB the US has infantry, mech and armored categories, while in the scenario editor there are only infantry and mech categories available to the US. Armor is missing there, instead armored formations are mixed in with the mech infantry. That leads to the next problem: I chose a mech infantry bataillon (task force) in the QB setup, where each company consisted of 3 mech rifle platoons and a 4th weapons platoon. Now in the scenario editor unit setup, the mech infantry bataillon (task force) is a totally differnt formation, where the 3rd platoon in each company is a tank platoon... This inconsistency makes it really difficult to play it as you proposed 😔

The small size of QBs is one of my major gripes with the CM series. I would love to fight battailon(+) quick battles, but even if the battle size is set to "huge" it often doesn't provide enough budget points to do so. In CM:CW for example, a huge meeting engagement gives you ~13,000pts, but even a single M113 equipped US Mech Infantry battailon costs ~20,000 pts. I really wish there would be a bigger option than "huge" or even better: an option to set custom budgets. @Battlefront.com please add this. I would really really appreciate it! 🙏 It's been requested over and over:

This! Both!

In the quick battle unit editor the M60A1 Patton (RISE) is more expansive than the upgraded M60A1 Patton (RISE +) and M60A1 Patton (RISE Passive). Observed with veteran experience, high motivation, fit fitness, 0 leadership.

Fight's on! 🥳

Maybe, but that was definitely not what happened in my case, where my troops where actively and purposefully engaging their comrades on their own.

YES! I've seen this happening just a few days ago in CMFI as I described above. I saw 3-4 FF incidents in that battle, all of them small arms (rifles and even pistols) and all of them without area fire. Only one of those FF incidents resultet in a casuality though and this one was caused by a Carcano bolt action rifle (8mm).

v2.11 non-steam It wasn't the first time I've seen friendly fire with small arms (and without area fire), but never before did I see it happen that often in a single battle.

I've witnessed several small arms friendly fire incidents in a night battle playing the Italian forces in CMFI just yesterday. It was the first mission of the "Fleeting Moment" campaign and there it happened several times that some troops opened fire with their rifles on their comrades. I guess this can happen if they are out of comms, which can happen quite easily with the Italians and their lack of radios. Just to be clear: No area fire commands where used when the friendly fire incidents happened. One of the incidents was at pretty close range even, when my company commander opened fire on one of his subordinates using his pistol! After one of my troops got killed by one of his comrades I tried to reduce friendly fire by assigning fire arcs to all my troops, to prevent them to shoot in the direction of friendly forces. It certainly makes night battles "more interesting".

Uhm, real time multiplayer over the internet is already available in all the current CM games?!

It's definitely not Germany. I think it's Sweden. Edit: It is indeed Sweden in 2001:

I just heard the news and I'm absolutely stunned that this is actually happening now!! Thank you @Battlefront.com for making this dream of me a reality! I preordered right away

This is actually my preferred choice for MP battles, but it is really missing the ability to rewind the action, as you can in SP. I would be so glad if that ability would be added!!

Same problem here. Game crashes after about an hour of gameplay or so. I have this problem since I swapped my Radeon for a Nvidia RTX 2080...

The german Gebirgsjäger only use it for operations in very difficult terrain (usally snow). I doubt it would be used in Syria. They would rather use the Fuchs (or the GTK Boxer nowadays) in that environment. Afaik it has not been used in any combat operation by the Bundeswehr, but the British Royal Marines have used it quite a lot in Afghanistan, even in combat.

Yes, either August or September.

This match was really fun to follow (on both sides) and taught me one or two things as well. Well done! 👍 Any chance for a rematch between you two?

I wonder why? The comms link is up, so information should get passed along?

Poor Bill. No Mercy for him

Same here. Paradox-version with all 3 modules.

As well as the MAN gl series, ranging from 5t to 15t: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAN_KAT1

Thanks, I have indeed never really noticed that! I really enjoy your AARs btw, they are well made and great fun to follow!