JSj

Agreed, it's clear on the splash screen, it clearly states game version and engine version. I was more thinking of other situations. There's been many threads here on the forum with people being confused about the difference between the engine version and the game version of a specific module.

It gets confusing when there are two different versions given, one for the game, and one for the game engine. I wish this could be simplified somehow, maybe using the format of the first number being the game engine, and then the game version? So, if you'd update your game version 3.01, for instance, to game engine 4, it would be changed to 4.01.

Sure, I get your point. :-) But still, is really, for instance, the effect of being in Command and Control or not a "little detail"? This seems like a major game feature, and still there is no information on what this effect is. If I have troops in the front line engaging the enemy, and my HQ is out of contact, how important is it really to reestablish C&C? Should I risk moving my HQ unit over that open ground to regain contact with the troops? If the not-being in C&C combat penalty is, let's say 2% (and, also 2% for what? Accuracy when firing? Morale? Both? Or something else?), then of course not. But, if it is 500%, then hell yes! The real number is probably somewhere in between these extremes, but without knowing, how do you make the decision?

Why am I not surprised? As always, if you want correct information about CM game mechanics, you have to spend the time testing to find out yourself. Forget about getting it from the manual or the developers.

Agreed, finding the enemy is one of the greatest challenges of combat. But if you don't even know where the enemy is, spraying down a random area with a belt fed MG is unlikely to supress anyone. You're just making noise and wasting ammo.

It's a very short article, of course there was not space for all the details. But there are notes of the references used, and I am sure all the details can be found there. Also, I think the main point of the article is that sustained full auto fire is not necessary to achieve supression. Would you stick your head up to shoot back if a very accurate bullet passed just by your head every 3 seconds?

This is actually incorrect. You do not need fully automatic fire for supression. Did you read the PDF I attached in my previous message? (It's only 3 pages.) Here is the relvant quote for what the studies have found: "We can consider three cases: the need to suppress an enemy; the need to keep him suppressed; and the need to re-establish suppression once lost. In general, small arms fire has to pass within roughly a metre from the outline of the target to be effective. A small number of rounds passing through that area in a few seconds (perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in as many seconds) will suppress the target, or re-suppress him if required; whilst just one round every three seconds will keep him suppressed." The article also mentions that full auto suppression, for instance from a Minimi LMG, is often ineffective because of the poor accuracy: "Machine Guns in Suppression Perhaps the most damning findings, however, relate to differences between weapons. The British L86 magazinefed SA 80 Light Support Weapon (LSW), with its bipod, is extremely good at suppressing targets out to 500m or more and, in conjunction with L85 rifles, keeping them suppressed. That is principally because it is accurate enough for almost every shot fired to contribute to suppression. The L110 (Minimi) Light Machine Gun (LMG) performs far worse in such trials. At best, only the first shot of a short burst passes close enough to suppress. However, subsequent shots in that burst go anything up to 6m wide of the mark at battlefield ranges. Since perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in 3 to 5 seconds are required to suppress, a typical LMG gunner will rarely achieve suppression." Anyway, I am absolutely not against that the problem with Brens and the other weapons are fixed, as they were historically not often used with single shots, as far as I know. I just want to point out what the latest studies are showing. There is a good reason why the USMC is replacing the Minimi/SAW in their squads with the M27 IAR. Also, I would really recommend that you read the short PDF article, it is very interresting, and it lists all the relevant references, it's not an opinion piece. The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

(Admin note! - an offhanded comment about a fix coming in 2018 generated quite an off-topic discussion in the 2018 thread. I moved it here as its own new thread) Actually, accuracy is what matters when it comes to suppression, not rate of fire. There is a study done on this, I have not managed to find a link to the article online, so I have attached the PDF here. The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

Yes, I totally agree. This is the one argument in the video that I disagree with. The success of the allies of course had nothing to do with the MGs that were used, but was because of numerical superiority, air superiority, better logistics, and most of all, vastly superior industrial production capability.

And, maybe going a slight bit off topic (sorry about that!), I would really recommend that those of you that don't know about Lindybeige check out his videos. He is mostly focused on older historical topics, but he has put up several really, really good WWII videos. For instance this one, comparing the Bren Gun and the German Mg34/42:

About that, I used to think that the right side of the road is, well... the RIGHT side to drive on, too, as I'm not a Brit. Until I watched this video from Lindybeige. Very annoying video, as it is too logical, and makes too much sense. I want to come up with a counter argument, but I can't.

Thanks for the tip. I'll definitely check that one out!!

And, if you're German, you had a real beer too, not the American "making love in a canoe" kind of beer... :-)

To be fair, they had been fighting pretty much on their own since 1940, so it was only appropriate that the Americans took on a greater responsibility during the later part of the war. :-)

I'd like to know too. The manuals seems to mention nothing about this at all. I have found some useful info in old posts here on the forum, but an official explanation of how exactly minefields, detection and marking works would be nice. There is some info in these old posts:

That sounds very good, John! I ordered the book back when you first suggested it. I haven't received it yet, but I look forward to reading it. Thanks for the suggestion!

I would recommend that you look at this situation differently. Whenever one of your units moves, other units should be on overwatch, ready to engage any enemy that shoots at your moving unit. In this case, after you take a casualty, your overwatching units will open fire and kill or suppress the enemy, and therefore the soldier going up to the casualty will be able to give first aid without also being shot. Now, we all make mistakes, of course, so this ideal situation will not always happen. There are always going to be times when we take casualties, and there is no overwatching unit with line of sight and line of fire that can shoot back at the enemy. But instead of letting this drive you crazy, analyze the situation, and figure out what you did wrong. How could you have avoided the extra casualties, where should you have placed overwatching units that could have avoided this situation? Look at this as a learning experience, instead of a frustrating problem with the game mechanics.

Ok, I see. I didn't use an empty folder, but there were no other .brz files in the folder that I used.

Why would you need to extraxt the files into an empty folder? I did not, and I had no problems installing the patch anyway.

Yes, I have done some more testing, and I think that what I was seeing is the same thing as mjkerner. The reason why the WP was not placed where I clicked, but instead some distance away, is that some AS seems impossible to place a WP on. I tried dragging and moving the WP to the AS that I originally clicked on, and it could not be moved there, instead the WP jumped past it as I moved it. For me, this happens in the woods in the fire support area in the second training mission. So I am wondering if this is just normal behaviour for wooded terrain? Maybe some AS are just unavailable because they are blocked by the trees? Or maybe this problem only happens when there are fox holes or other structures around? There are quite a lot of foxholes in the fire support area in that training mission.

Maybe this is it. One place that I had this problem was in the training mission in the demo, sending the fire support guys through the woods to the foxholes in the fire support area. Maybe it was the crowded terrain there, with a lot of trees, and then the fox holes too. I don't remember seeing this problem out in open terrain.

Ok, just as a test, I loaded up a scenario in the full game, and I did not see this problem when placing waypoints. They all ended up where they were supposed to. Maybe this was just a problem in the demo, or have you also had this happen in the full game, Michael?

Yeah, I noticed the same thing back when I was playing the demo (I haven't had time to get into the full game yet). I agree it's not game breaking, since you can always move the waypoint afterwards, but it's a bit annoying that the waypoint doesn't end up where the indication says it should end up.

He said that it is very, very close, but he didn't want to be more specific, in case something unexpeted happens that will cause a delay. I think it's very likely that it will be released this week, unless there is an unexpected delay.

Awesome!