A Canadian Cat

Nice sequence. So, it does not look like the area is clear of GIs but there are a fair fewer there not. Good show for Cpl Willie - good thing that GI grenade hit a tree.

First contact went well - always a good sign.

Yeah I have been burned by this before. If you play in scenario author test mode during your setup you will see the OPFOR setup as you deployed them not as the AI plan suggest. If you advance one turn like magic they will shift. When I discovered this I kept stopping and staring the scenario because I kept thinking I had some how turned off the wrong AI plan or not copied the file where I intended. Finally I was just annoyed and pressed the BRB and everything suddenly was right with the world. Felt like a dolt.

I was pretty suspicious and said so in post #3. I recently pointed out to someone on a different forum, for example, that the "forest" he used was not really a forest at all - it was just trees on grass. In other words, he was testing in a suburban park and thinking he was testing in a forest. Quite frankly that was what I figured was going on here too. Which would have been very easy to determine if the OP had shown even screen shots or better yet attached the test scenario. Mind you I did not spend time trying to reproduce it myself - not much motivation to help out someone who is not willing to be up front with what they used for their testing. You are a better man than I am.

Yeah, in terms of game commands and UI CMRT is a better indicator. I believe the OP was concerned about UI rather than content.

That is quite the diagram. I agree simple fox holes would not fit in that - although more prepared positions like what @womble are talking about could. I don't think that every bocage line is quite that dramatic. Perhaps only allowing fox holes to be added to low bocage would work better. At any rate I think we are going to have to play the game the way it is for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, as @Sgthetred said. Is there a way to ignore a thread completely? Seriously if I have missed a way to do that please enlighten me.

Yes, let's see the scenario file used for testing. I think we can tell the answer to @Jargotn's question by the title and the unwillingness to share the test scenario and the totally over the top Mario brothers comment. If your lack of sharing is due to ignorance of how to share: press the more reply options and then you can attach things to your post. You will need for zip up your test file first.

Oh that is a great idea. I'll try to remember that next time.

Steve has stated many times - very difficult. The biggest problem is side effects and unintended consequences. There is considerable effort in testing to make sure nothing that was working broke and that is after the big effort to make the change. Having said that I too would like to see this looked at because it can be frustrating. In the spirit of playing the game as it is I have started attempting to not position soldiers in terrain like that - if I want them to be engaging the enemy. I try to get them to a place where they are on the boundary of terrain so they don't do this. I cannot speak for Steve but I think I'll say "be prepared to be disappointed" not because I am trying to make a comment about the content of any patch but because those that demand stuff don't get it! And no, I don't mean that people demanding stuff that has merit will never get it. Suggestions and reported defects that have merit *will* get fixed. But they get fixed when the time is right for the devs. It can take a really long time. Really long. So by the very nature of demanding people it is never fast enough. Therefore I say that demanding people don't get what the want

Yeah it can feel daunting. I do the make my own map thing - although I recommend using @MOS:96B2P's method of using screen capture I have done that before too - just don't for get to remove them or some of your assets will drive off in strange directions.

"All" we would need is this!!!

Yeah this game is much more subtle than +1 to 4 on a six sided die. Ah, create your own reverse slope defence is actually a good strategy. Putting trench works on the down side of a hill so that it has a good field of fire to the crest of the hill works well yes. As does using the ground along with fortifications to create hull down fighting positions.

That I agree with 100% fox holes in bocage are not very helpful. I guess I kind of forgot about that. I too would really like to see foxholes be allowed to be part of the bocage line - that would have real value. I have no numbers to offer but I have had really good success with using sandbag walls with AA and AT guns. Having a sandbag wall in front of your gun is no substitute for good placement. What I mean by that is don't get a sand bag wall and say cool now I can put my gun in the open in over-watch and it will suddenly be an uber gun. No I mean if you add a sandbag wall to a well placed AT gun it will make it even harder to KO. So get that gun in that great key hole location with a hill protecting one side and trees the other and put a sandbag wall in front of it and watch the fun. Yes, foxholes are really excellent in the woods. Place primary and secondary foxholes just out of visibility of each other and your defenders can fight from cover repeatedly. I just don't think in numbers like 40% or +1. I just gave up on that long ago. One thing foxholes and trenches are really, really good for is surviving artillery. If you get your men to hide while in a trench or foxhole you can survive even a big artillery barrage nearly unscathed. In CMFI's A Temple to Mars they served me extremely well. The US has a lot of artillery and they accounted for very few casualties when they landed on the trench works.

Well done with the graphics - nice.

And when it is working you will still see the red X for the broken command to the platoon HQ but instead of blank boxes next to that you will see the voice or other appropriate command icon. That is how you can tell that your squad is under command of a higher level HQ.

OH yeah that would be a problem. In my simple test the threat was nearly straight ahead so I did not see any over the side reversing. Humm that could be an inconvenient problem.

Actually I think you will find that they are. There is a defect with the count of grenades. The count is deducted before the turn play back begins. So, if your team has six grenades last turn and they end up using four in their tank assault they will start the turn with 2 grenades and you will likely see them use four during the assault. This happens for regular use of grenades too.

Yes, Bren carries that get too close usually end up with a grenade exploding inside. But yeah that's CMFI and CMBN. I see no reason to believe the CMRT has different code - in fact there is plenty to believe that the basic game code is the same.

The new forum automatically scales larger images to fit people's browser window. Then if you click on the image you get to see the full size. So just use the img tag to link the full size image and let the system scale it.

I don't know of a thread that answers your questions. I am not sure if I can really either but I'll take a shot. The plus side for trenches is more guys can fit into them and get a benefit from being in them. If you only have a four man team I do not know how much more of a benefit one has over another. On the other hand if the enemy gets into a trench then teams next to them in the trench don't have any protection from them any more. Both offer good protection from artillery if you hide your men inside the fortification - unless a direct hit is scored. I do not think that there is much of a concealment benefit (unless you men are hiding). I think the fact that soldiers in the trench are harder to spot is overshadowed by the fact that the trenches and foxholes themselves can be spotted. So men in a trench in the open will be harder to spot then just men in the open but the trenches themselves will be seen - which kinda gives the enemy and idea of where your guys are. I don't know what you mean here. Oh man I don't think anyone has done any testing to say anything about that.

Yeah it could. Sadly I have to many projects on the go. Are you thinking of giving it a go? Could be a nice deep map where if could engage at long range while other forces hold a skirmish line.

I guess in the end under the hood there is something like a die roll going on but it is much more complex than that. I believe that the state of each soldier is tracks and what we see is a summary for the squad. When things rough you can see individual soldiers deciding to fight, flee or surrender. I have stopped thinking in terms of rolling the dice and just think of them as people.

So, +2 is best in CM. A good leader does make a difference and will help rally their men better but I certainly do not leave the -1 and -2 squads off in the cord. It is supposed to be possible to go from nervous to cautious to OK. I don't know what the limits are though. I keep meaning to test it out but never seem to.

I don't think that the positions are in relation to each other as much as they would be in relation to the terrain and the circumstances.