A Canadian Cat

LOL sure I guess I am not sure how rules regarding cover arc would really help. As many people know, my views on cover arcs are that they are for preventing your men from firing and that's pretty much it. I only use them to keep teams from revealing their position or for forcing teams or vehicles to only target enemy armour. So, a system that creates a bunch of restrictions on when I can set cover arcs would be - yawn - uninteresting. We didn't really talk much about that. Another thing to consider is that the company HQ unit can direct a platoon. This could also be a good candidate for some national differences. Perhaps some nations really should be unable to direct area fire if their platoon leader and his assistant are a casualties.

Oh right - I mixed up my Panzer killers. Yeah no panzer Fausts at 150 that's for sure.

No, as a test this was as sophisticated as we wanted to go... however I do like the idea of limiting control based on national doctrine. You would have to be careful though to make sure it didn't start to bog down game-play. I would however like to add one more layer of complexity for the next time: Only a command element (Platoon Leader or higher) can designate fire controls (Cover Arc) .. so a unit would have to be within C2 in order to assign cover arcs... or even that a Squad Leader can set only a basic cover arc and only a Platoon Leader (or higher) can assign anything more sophisticated, i.e. timed CA, armor CA, Light CA, etc. You could get even more sophisticated and control that by doctrine (i.e. WW2 German can assign these at the squad level, however only a WW2 Soviet Platoon Leader can assign Cover Arcs) Bil Now you guys are starting to get complex. What I liked about @Bil Hardenberger's proposal and the way this works in practice is that is it simple. You don't have a lot to remember and you don't have stuff to write down. As much as some of the more complex schemes people have come up with are interesting I don't think they would be any fun to play. PS. I am behind - sigh - hope to catch up soon

I went to report it and found it already was...

Glad to see you getting back to this... I usually am OK with my Germans taking Shrek shots out to 150m.

And I think @slysniper has hit on a testing method - hide. If you have troops that are spilling out of the fox holes as in @weapon2010's OP and you give the a hide order and see how much cover they get. If the guys outside the fox hole are not getting the extra protection they will be the first casulties nearly all the time. I too use @domfluff's suggestion of the face command to "fix" things. You, now I think this is one of those things that we have just been living. Perhaps we shouldn't.

I still maintain the biggest differentiation between RL casualty rates and in game rates is now *we* play. We keep going when real force commanders would pull back and break contact. We move much to fast a lot of the time short cutting on scouting, forgoing the 5min wait for supporting fire etc. Defenders stick it out when they would really elect to preserve there force and withdraw. Attackers keep trying even as they have lost so much. A great counter example is the recent AAR for Shock Foce by @Bil Hardenberger and me: Bil's force broke contact after my force inflicted a significant number of casualties. But Bil is special most of us would have pressed the attack and racked up massive casualties and I would have tried to hang on to the last man. How would that have been realistic? If the majority of battles were conducted like this one, we would not be having a conversation about realism and casulties. Period.

Yeah, it is a confirmed bug No word on a fix time frame but it is known and in the works.

It is always good to be over prepared. That is how it should be done.

Given you didn't press the super duper alert button I guess BFC is blissfully unaware of this thread

That is very glass half full of you You could argue that they should ditch the 60 and it's ammo and instead increase the load of 120mm ammo.

That was the twist I could not remember. Thanks.

No, it is as in real life. The 120 is used in be vehicle, if they dismount they take a handy 60mm mortar they have with them and leave the 120 in the vehicle. I am pretty sure this has come up before. I have a vague recollection that there is more twists to this as well. Something is different between two formations or two levels in the formation. I forgot the details but it also feels wrong and is also just like real life.

Would it help though? That would require reading Not trying for snark just facing the reality that people don't check through forums before posting. We just don't. Regarding snipers: I do remember a problem with sniper ammo - wrong label for the caliber but I so not recall an earlier report of rifle choice being a problem. And I have read every thing on the forum. I still cannot be sure what was posted before and what was not.

Great to hear. Walking to work is pretty damn nice too.

Now that was a mad minute.

Sorry I'm not much help with CMH but things don't work out you can try Whose Turn Is It? : http://lesliesoftware.com/products/WhoseTurnIsIt/index.html

Actually the old site also created a user name based on part of your email too. Either way you cannot go wrong contacting support.

Reported.

Username is not your email. By default when you sign up with an email address your user name gets set to the portion of your email before the @ symbol. I think there is also a string length limit if you email is a long one. Try logging in with the name part of your email address and the pw you think it is.

That does sound unexpected...

The most likely root case is that your game was not at version 2.00 when you installed the 2.01 patch. To avoid missing steps I agree with @Majick's recommendation to download the full game installer.

Sadly it has been reported in CMFI and CMRT as well. See this thread: It is being looked at.

@MikeyD alluded to the answer. You can make the building texture look like anything you want. How would the game engine know what the texture looks like? Their design solution was to base the building's protection roughly on its size. Small bars / sheds are the weakest and and big modular buildings are the best with churches being pretty tough too. The game was designed that way. If BFC wants to change that they would have to create a system to tell how tough the skin was or alternatively have multiple sets of skins and additional building types in the editor so you could specify different strengths of buildings and only certain skins would be applied to certain strength of building. Either way that is a significant enhancement to the game and not a small change. There is no way something like that would be in a patch. I have not idea how low such a thing would be on their priority list for any future enhancements.

Open a support ticket they will sort you out. And yes, no one answers that sales email.