A Canadian Cat

Care to share? I am at a loss since Ken did just what I would have done.

Here is the link: http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/

There are currently two common places to find mods, the BFC Repository and GreenAsJade's Mod Wear House: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods Two different things.

Here are the kill scores for the MG42s I did this quick and dirty so no pretty call out circles for the magnified bits. And the end screen

Well I took you up on your offer - I should have been working and at least my PBEM partners would have preferred I play their turns but I wanted to see just what the MG42 performance was like in CMRT. I used the map you suggested. I setup a trench work across the road about 160m from the bridge and put a squad (two MG42s) in the trench to harass the advance etc. Then I put two HMGs off to the sides one to the right 300m+ back in some woods and another one 250m back in a house. The HMG kill zone is on the German side of the bridge. Frankly with the way the terrain works here I think I would have tried created the kill zone on the Soviet side of the bridge but you said it was too easy to cross the bridge, so... I was setting things up quick and it turns out the HMGs did not have good visibility to the bridge but OK on the German side of it. And the blocking squad in the trench had a good field of fire way up the road past the bridge. I also had the other two squads from the platoon in reserve and they ended up having LOF to the bridge too. Once I realized that I pulled them back. The Soviets had a battalion attacking (I used a couple mortars but not the AT guns etc). Yep a battalion vs a squad and two HMGs. After the first company was shredded and useless I ordered a mortar barage of the blocking squad's trenches otherwise I wondered if any of the Soviets would get across the bridge. It turns out that a few of the second company did make it across before the mortars took out the blocking squad. First attackers reach the bridge. This was after quite a few minutes and I had to force them to do it over and over. They were taking casualties. They got turned back. And suffered even more. I tried to move up the extra German squads but they just got caught in the open and never made it into position. As the second and third companies crossed the bridge it was all down to the HMG teams. The German defenders took out a huge number of attackers. Once the blocking squad was removed though attackers were able to trickle over the bridge and once they were in the town the were able to get close and eventually take out the HMG teams. The mortar attack did cause a bunch of friendly fire casualties though because I timed the run on the trench system and the cease fire of the mortars poorly - oops. You can dl the QB saves (two player hot seat with no passwords): http://www.lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/2014/TwoHMGSetup.zipx Here is what I found. The squad level MG42s put out a nice 100 rounds per minute at the peak of the first company of Soviets trying to cross. The HGMs put out between 60 and 70 rounds per minute. before you got getting all excited about that those HMGs had pretty marginal LOF to the bridge so I actually think they did pretty well given the very small kill zone I gave them. The results after about 19 minutes of fighting: Left HGM team 26 kills Right HGM team 19 kills Left Blocking team 24 kills (but they were dead at the 10-12 minute mark) Right Blocking team 36 kills (again taken out early just ahead of the other team) These German teams 105 almost all down to the four MG42s. If I had tried this with one Soviet company I would have failed. Of course I also would not have tried to run guys straight into this meat grinder either. I would have used scouts to find the enemy position and then suppressed them as best I could before calling in the mortars then I would have smoked my way into the town. But hey I think this shows that the MG42 is pretty damn deadly and any one facing it should be careful and not go running around in the open.

I remember that thread - thanks for the reminder. Testing that is on my list of stuff to try out. It would be really useful to know how this behaves.

LOL that is a common *facepalm* moment for me too. It is one of those quirks of the game that if a unit is driving a vehicle it does not get its own passenger icon any more. I get why, makes implementation sense, it is just confusing at times.

He is correct. Target arcs are you ordering your unit "you must only fire inside this arc". There is no spotting consideration other than contributing to which way a units men are facing but you can get that with the face command. I am not sure what you mean about advantages of arcs being gone mind you. I just don't use them - other than for restricting fire. They lead too often to missing enemy units that are just out side them. For MGs don't set arcs just let them go. Not sure if I agree with you there - more below. Some of this is our perception of how game limitations are handled some of this is just our expectations don't mesh with reality. I have been playing CMBN since the beginning and I have seen lots of things fixed. BFC are very good a fixing things. However they are not good at making changes that one person says they should Which is a good thing IMHO. If you think the fire power of MGs are too low you will need to do some work to convince more people. Not trying to disrespect you but you need to know that they already made significant changes to make MGs much more deadly. To make that change lots of people did tests, pointed to documentation and field reports. To put this in perspective I did a test with the 1.x version of CMBN where I rushed an MG42 team with a platoon of infantry across 600m of open terrain. In every case my platoon of infantry were able to cross the ground and kill or capture the MG team. That seemed odd to me. Other people did more and better testing and research and BFC made a change. I repeated my test in 2.x version of CMBN and my running infantry platoons were cut to pieces. A very few times they did manage to take out the MG team but even on those rare occasions they did it with broken squads and lots less soldiers. In all cases my infantry platoons were totally combat ineffective and most were totally broken and unable to even close the distance to the MGs. Seemed pretty reasonable to me. Most people seem happy with MG performance now. Now you have the back story you can dedicate some time to convincing us all that more needs to be done. Not sure what you mean by obsolete but perhaps you mean that trenches do not go deep into the terrain mesh. This is a game limitation. In order to create FOW with the current engine they cannot distort the terrain mesh. Therefore the trenches need to be above ground. BFC have stated in the past that they have abstracted protection for those in trenches to compensate. Perhaps you are not pleased with those compromises but given past conversations I really would not expect to see changes around trenches any time soon. Tank spotting is another thing that has been tuned down and down again since the beginning. I know that tanks spotting and spotting in general is always going to be a bone of contention but I think it is soooo much better now than it was. At least you can sneak infantry up on a tank in the current game. There was a time when you could not sneak infantry up on a tank from behind. Now you can. Again BFC have said that shooting while moving (which is not historically possible in WWII) is an engine compromise. As you no doubt know normally tanks would move, stop, aim, shoot then move again to "shoot on the move". BFC have said on a number of occasions that the Tac AI is not going to get this skill any time soon so to compensate moving tanks are less accurate than stationary tanks. Bugs have been fixed and the capabilities tweaked. I suspect that the way it is now is pretty much as good as it is going to get unless someone finds some corner case defect that needs fixing. I do not have any strong opinions about what reality was so I, mostly, accept the game as it is and enjoy it. I have found a few things that seemed odd to me and occasionally I was right. I have found that BFC is very responsive to making changes that are well founded. But they only do this with good evidence and within the limitations of the game. If you want to move BFC towards making additional changes create some tests, compare them to documented historical results. Rinse and repeat. I am sure the game will be all the better for your efforts. Just like it is better now than it was at the beginning due to the efforts of many others.

Yes, that would help. I actually would be OK building my own, it does sound fun. The issue is time. I'll be spending a lot of time just getting it set up. Adding building time would be politically difficult

Indeed. I meant I did not check CMRT carefully. When you quoted the manual my first thought was "wow that's awsome, I spent only a brief time in the CMRT scenario editor I could have easily missed it". So I checked with a little hope in my heart that it would be there waiting for me.

I never noticed that in the editor. I just checked CMRT and found no points in the scenario editor's unit picking screen. I would really like that actually. I think I have something for my empty wish list slot...

Yes, but only at the edges. This is not a huge difference but I find on my old machine the camera movement is smother and you can run larger maps or more units before things get sluggish. I would guess that much of the time you will not see a difference. That depends on what you mean. The basic graphics capabilities are the same but CMRT has the added feature of hit decals - which is really really cool. So that is better. Nope - quality is good with no show stoppers. Playable right now. I see you already have the answer but I want to point out that last time they ported a update the added a few bonus features that later appeared in the newer game. I wonder if they will do that again. Funny I was going to say I was not experiencing a problem until I saw @LiveNoMore's post. I see that. Frankly I never thought it was a problem. Looking at back lit things often look like silhouettes so I did not give it much thought. Upon reflection, you are right it does seem a bit too much. Frankly I spec'ed out a NVIDIA card for my new machine because of stuff like this. I know it will not be a panacea but the number of niggling issues seems higher with the AMD cards. <sad_story> As an aside: my new machine was ready Friday but they forgot to tell me until late Saturday so I could only pick it up Monday and got it home to discover that they for got the 770 video card and had the wrong mother board it the case. The just forgot the video card but accidentally ordered the wrong mother board :mad: Grrr. Back to them yesterday where they hoped it would be ready later today. </sad_story>

Yeah, I see lots of info on what happened so I will not repeat that. My experience - which includes stuff like what you saw - is not to use cover arcs with a few exceptions. I use 360 arcs lots to limit firing by scout teams or make sure that AT assets only fire on armour. I rarely use 180 arcs, pretty much only if I need a tank to face a direction they are not traveling. This helps a great deal but is not perfect because the enemy can still get past the edge of the arc. My preference is to move the tanks so that they end up naturally facing the way I want them. What I mean by that is I don't typically use the face command either. I make sure the last move segment is pointing in the direction I want them to be facing. So, given that here is an over view of the orders I would have given in your situation: No cover arcs at all First tank would move just to clear the edge of the buildings on the right so it could see the road. The move order would have been first leg perpendicular-ish to the road and then a short hockey stick segment to the right so the tank is clear of the buildings and facing the road at an angle that seems good for spotting the T34 Second tank would travel a similar perpendicular-ish direction but further, about half way between the right hand buildings and the road. Then it too would be given a short hockey stick move segment so it too was facing where I thought the T34 was going to be. Third tank would be given move orders pretty much right up to the road - like you did with all three - and then given a short move order towards the road. Adding 180 degree arcs for each from their initial starting positions so their turrets were facing towards the road for that first movement segment would have been OK too. I probably would not have have done that but you could. Just make damn sure you remember to cancel the arc for that last segment. To do this use the face command at the end of the first move segment and face the same way as the last move order.

Nice post. It is a good feeling when you start to get it and make progress - I remember it well. Don't forget that feeling because even when you do the right thing you can still find your self holding your ass in your hands

Wow I was away for a few days - you guys had tonnes of fun on this thread I have to say I don't see an issue with @sburke's rant earlier - other than it might have been a bit much from @Lt Bull's post it certainly was not out of line based on the few other people chiming in and getting really upset and worked up at mine and @womble's explanations. Having said that@Lt Bull I have a question have you given saves to @sburke or another bets tester? It sure looks like you are making new videos. It might actually help them figure out of there is actually a problem here. If you already have done so off list then please just disregard me. I will relay a situation that just happened to me: My Cromwell was parked in a bocage lane when a Tiger came into view. I though oh now not another tank loss (already lost three tanks in recent turns) but nothing happened. The two tanks just sat there staring at each other. Lucky for me. During the orders phase I tried to target the Tiger but no luck. Closer inspection showed that the TC can just barely see the roof and TC of the Tiger. Of course in game they either draw the whole tank or none of the tank. So it looks like the tanks can see each other but I think the two TCs are the only things each other can see. So, it looks a little odd, in one way, but is working fine. Time to get that Cromwell to get away fast...

It has been a while since I read the briefing - I'll read it again.

Yep, must be special code for when the unit's name is Wittman. But seriously, is there a Tiger tank running around which actually has his name on the tank commander?

All tentative contacts start out fully opaque. They will stay opaque if something continues to remain un spotted but attracting your soldiers' eye / ears. They fad over time. So the darker the contact icons are the more recently your guys have seen or heard something in that area.

I feel your frustration and this is definitely a tough day on the front for your troops. I did not reread this whole thread but I remember at the end of it being left with the impression that the situation was entirely with in believable limits and felt nothing was wrong. Perhaps you never agreed with that thought. Just don't forget things not going your way does not equal broken. No offense meant - just a reminder. Clearly you have a series of bummer moments here but sometimes you loose out. So, this looks like your tank never saw the enemy PzIV. Tank commanders do not hear well and I have often found they do not hear nearby enemy tanks moving around. I might be more surprised about not having a sound contact once the enemy tank stated shooting. Still, not totally out of bounds for your TC in a running tank in the woods. Being in the woods, I can totally see how your tank would have trouble spotting the enemy tank through those trees. Your tank gets hit right at the end of the turn and the enemy tank materializes right at the moment. I actually speculate that what really happened is that your tank never saw the enemy but at that final moment of the turn your tank is actually destroyed and the visibility of the enemy is because when you select a destroyed vehicle you see the aggregate spotting information not the spotting info from that destroyed vehicle. What makes me think that is the other, further, tank also shows up at that moment. I suspect that the turn ended as the status change of your tank was still being processed. When you watched the next turn did you tank show as destroyed right at the beginning of the turn? I suspect that this situation is one where your tank just never saw the enemy. Sure it might be bit of luck, for the other side, that they saw your tank because that looks like a lot of foliage to see though. I suspect this could have gone another way on another day but at the same time that is not a great place for your tanks to see the enemy approaching your woods. This looks kinda bad. I don't like the look of this one. Especially given your tank does not try to shoot at the Panther at all. I am not sure what could explain that one as reasonable - any one else have thoughts? On the bright side your Firefly survived a hit from a Panther! None of mine have ever survived a first hit from a Panther at those ranges. Sorry they did not move away before the second round came.

LOL I understand it is a fun battle. Even though I have lost of tanks floating around I cannot just go head to head against the tigers so this is a challenging scenario for me as well. Loads of fun.

LOL you have had a tough slog in the last two games. I am not finding this much of a cake walk though. I have already lost lots of tanks to those Tigers. If the ratio keeps up even close to that rate you will come out a head. There are certainly lots of challenges with this scenario I'm having fun - even though you took out three tanks in one turn just now... Yuck that is no good at all.

My interpretation of @MikeyD's message was that because of the number of trees in view, the card is under a higher load and it automatically reduces the texture quality on you. So in effect the number of things it is rendering (in this case trees) means the game or card is automatically down grading the quality of textures for part of the display. By which logic, changing to a lower quality setting overall might make things look more even. I'm not expert but that is how I interpreted his post. I certainly notice that performance varies based on the map and number of units but also on the number of units / trees in view. I recently played Frosty Welcome. The map is not very big but there are a lot of buildings and once the battle is joined the number of units is pretty big. When I was panning the view I could feel the performance change as the camera moved. As more an more units appeared in my view the frame rate dropped and the panning was sluggish at times. And then as units left the view things would speed up and smooth out again. I had to lower the quality settings to mitigate that feeling. Same with Monty's Butchers - that map is pretty big and it has a lot of trees. Side note: I am really looking forward to my new machine (due to arrive sometime next week) when I hopefully will not have to make as many compromises - my current machine is 5 years old and was no star when I bought it. On my notebook it never automatically switches - grrr. I always have to tell it to run abc.exe using the NVida card.

@slysniper's problem is that he has a large sample size (where are all those Tigers coming from) and an opposition with lots of pop guns (small army of Crowel tanks). I could fix that problem if you would let my Cromwell tanks sneak up behind more of your Tigers. I would be more than willing to shoot at the other end of those tanks. I managed to flank a Tiger with two Cromwell tanks. Between them they shot nine rounds into the rear and side. As the Tiger slowly turned to face them and its gun started coming around. It finally started burning just as its gun got to with in 5deg of the first Cromwell. I really was thinking that I was going to watch that Tiger take them both out and survive as I was watching the turn. Damn scary.

Actually I found the answer to the first one there too. From the Engine Manual v3.00 on pp92 (the section on Units Editor / Soft Factors): So basically you take a transport vehicle and set it to dismounted in the unit editor and place it in the 3D editor and when some one plays the scenario at Elite or Iron they will see an ammo dump instead of a truck.

I am away from my machine so I cannot experiment with item one. It means they are broken or otherwise freaking out. From the Engine Manual v3.00 on pp32 top paragraph - actually starts on pp31: my bold