JSj

When did that happen? I must have missed that. We're of course talking about the tactical level here (as that is what the Combat Mission series is all about), where these opponents were all beaten decisively and suffered vastly more casualties. That the politicians couldn't use this tactical superiority to win the overall conflicts on the strategic level does not change this fact.

Yeah, but taking control of a base doesn't mean you can automatically start using the things you find there, especially not a complex AA system. I would not be surprised if it turns out the missile came from across the Russian border. If not, then the Russians have clearly sent people over the border who are trained to use the SA-11 system.

The plane is said to have been shot down by a SA-11 Buk, a system that requires about a company of highly trained personnel to use. It's amazing what the "separatists" are finding at the local hardware store.

Ok, that sounds very good!

Most likely Western experts, who, unlike their Russian counterparts, are free to share the information that they have, regardless of political concerns.

That was funny. When did "Russian experts" ever have an opportunity to say what they really think? Everything that comes out of Moscow is of course thorougly checked by Putins PR people, to make sure it's consistent with the official propaganda. I really hope that Black Sea will not have any fantasy super weapons based on Russian information, but rather more realistic assesments of the Russian equipment.

On the topic of combat vehicles, I found these blog posts extremely interesting. Looks at the past and future of the IFV/APC, and argues for using APCs with MBT level protection rather than IFVs. http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.se/2009/06/challenging-ifv-concept-part-1.html http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.se/2009/06/challenging-ifv-concept-part-2.html

Well, if that's true then it's really sad. Awful customer service.

I'm reading through the new manual for version 2.0, and see a seemingly inaccurate explanation of the chain of command. I know this is a subject covered extensively here in the forum, but if this problem has been discussed before, why has the 2.0 manual text not been fixed? Here's the text from the manual: "A green icon indicates that the HQ unit/formation is currently in contact with the next higher HQ unit/formation, while a red icon indicates lack of contact. In the previous example, if the icon beside the “1st Platoon” entry is red, then the 1st Plt is out of contact with A Company HQ, while - if the icon next to “A Company” is green - then Company A HQ is in contact with Battalion HQ." This is not what I actually see in the game. In this example, the unit is a squad in 1st Platoon. If the icon for 1st Platoon is red, the manual says this is because 1st Platoon HQ is not in contact with A Company HQ. This seems wrong. If the icon for 1st Platoon is red, this is because the unit itself (the squad) is out of contact with 1st Platoon HQ. I've confirmed this by testing. So, why has the manual not been updated? Am I misunderstanding the explanation in the manual? Has no one ever picked up on this before? UPDATE: Also from the manual: "Note: this part of the interface does not tell you anything about the selected unit being in command or out of command with its parent HQ. That is indicated in the C2 Link (point 9 below)." True, the C2 link does tell you that, but when I move the squad away from the Platoon HQ, the icon for 1st Platoon goes red as the C2 icon disappears. The Platoon HQ has a radio, and remains in contact with the Company. So it seems the manual is wrong, the red/green icons to the left DOES tell you if the selected unit is in contact with its HQ or not. Again, no one has spotted this error in the manual before? Has this already been covered in another thread?

Ok, thanks for the reply! I just saw the big arrow pointing to the right (3 o' clock position) when the foxhole is selected, so it looked like it was facing in a certain direction. But I guess that's not the case then.

Well, since there's apparently no thread for quick, easy questions, I guess I'll have to start a new thread for this... couldn't find an answer when searching old threads either, or in the manual. I'm settting up some foxholes, and I wonder if there is a way to set their facing during the setup phase, before the battle? I just noticed that they seem to have an arrow pointing in the direction they are facing, so can you rotate that somehow, to put it towards the expected enemy line of advance? Also, does foxholes give better cover in some directions? Does the facing of the team in the foxhole, and the facing of the foxhole itself matter? Should they be in the same direction to get the best cover from them?

Agreed! Instead of abandoning the older title and forcing those who want the new features to buy CMFI, we now have the opportunity to upgrade CMBN. Awesome! Haven't had much time to check out 2.0 yet, but the little I've seen looks very nice. I'll enjoy playing all the missions and campaigns I haven't tried yet with the new features.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's the official BFC Facebook page.

Yes, on Facebook: "The v2.0 Upgrade for Normandy (not a patch, it's not gong to fix any issues, rather add new features, namely those from the v2.0 engine that is already included in CM:Fortress Italy) is not far out. Fingers crossed for a release next week!" It's at http://www.facebook.com/battlefront, if you want to like it and get the updates...

So, instead of fixing the problem, you want to introduce another unrealistic feature to "offset it"? No, thanks.

Not wasting time, a "hold fire" command is something that very much needs to be added. Yes, you can work around it by using small covered arcs, but thats very unintuitive and not quite the same thing.

Well, the M60 was a pretty crappy gun (and therefore got replaced with the M240/FN Mag). So don't judge all machine guns by that standard.

Very good and insightful post, thanks! I guess it's a great advice to start thinking more about tactics instead of rules and odds, I'll definitely try to do that, but there are still things like the one you described above about the ammo bearers that you absoluetly DO need to know. Without knowing anything about the effect of leadership and C2, maybe we are all doing equally wasteful things with our leaders, without even knowing it. We need to know what the HQ units CAN influence, in order to use them effectively.

C2/leadership/any of the many other unexplained things. It doesn't matter, without knowing how they work, you can't make informed decisions. Distance doesn't matter, you have two choices for where to position your HQ, A with C2 (+leadership modifer for your subordinate units), B without, but A is more exposed to potential enemy fire. Is it worth running the risk of establishing C2/leadership at A, or should you choose to send your HQ to B and get by without C2/leadership modifier? That depends on how big the benefits are compared to the risks. If moving your HQ to position A will mean the difference between your units breaking and running or staying in the fight, it is worth taking a much greater risk with your HQ than if the benefits are relatively minor, and you think that the units can get by without them.

In many situations this may be enough. If you have two equally secure positions, A and B, that you can choose to move your platoon HQ to, and A means he is close enough to establish C2 to his subordinate squads, and B is too far away, of course you should order him to go to position A. In this case, it is enough to know that it's a good thing to have C2 established. But what if position A is more exposed to the enemy? There is a greater risk that the Platoon leader gets killed if you move him there. Should you still move him to A to establish C2, or keep him safe at B, and lose C2 to the squads? This will depend on weighing the risk against the benefits. And you can't do that if you don't know what the leadership/C2 benefits are. If they have a big positive influence, it will be worth a greater risk to get them. But there is no way to make such decisions today, you just have to choose without knowing the extent of the risks and benefits of choosing position A or B.

This topic again? As shown by the thread linked to above, it has been an issue for a long time. And still just silence from the BF people, who could resolve this extremely annoying lack of information with just a short post explaining how this works. One of the most annoying things about this otherwise great game/simulation is the total lack of information on many of the important mechanics. It makes you feel like you are more often guessing than making informed decisions when playing. And the forum gets filled with post of people spending hours testing various features, to try to figure these things out. Time that could have been spent playing and enjoying the game instead. You have all this information displayed, like leadership and experience, but there is no way to make use of this information, as there is no explanation of what these things really mean.

I agree with YankeeDog, and I don't understand what could be unclear about this? You will be able to play with all content (campaigns, battles, maps, units etc.) of those modules you buy, and if you don't buy it, that content will not be available. Very simple.

You certainly are not alone in that wish. Here is one of the many threads dealing with this topic: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103967

Then I am seriously questioning your searching skills. Having a cover arc for armor added is probably the most requested feature ever. Every other thread seems to be about this.

Ok, thanks for the info! Since I just discovered this function (which, for some reason, was not mentioned in the manual?), I haven't come across that special situation yet. Seems strange that it works that way, what would be the point? Why not use this as a way to show what HQ is responsible for a particular "in command" icon, regardless of wether it is the immediately higher HQ or not? Also, it would be nice if you could click on all the "links" in the chain of command to the far left and then jump to that particular HQ. That might help with trying to reestablish the chain of command when there is a break somewhere.