Sailor Malan2

Combining squads isnt really within the timescales of a typical CM scenario - especially if you expect morale to improve... would only be realistic in a 'no reinforcement' campaign to avoid very weak squads.

We might have a variation on the tank commander issue then... high quality units obeying you a little too long! I haven't seen this, but I will look out for it.

I am all for Hunt being insensitive. It used to be almost useless once combat started somewhere on the map. One of the key things they teach troops is to tell the difference between dangerous and non-dangerous fire, as going to ground at the first distant 'bang' is a key issue with loss of momentum/delay.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are these extra vehicles that mean CM is only a minor fraction of the total? I have been studying military history and WW2 particularly for about 40 years as a hobby, and I am not aware of this vast hoard of vehicles (from WF 1944-early 45) that I have missed. Do I need to go an find a new hobby that I can be some good at, or is there a teeny weeny bit of exaggeration here? Bearing in mind that CM is about vehicles that actually made it into combat of course (and had an effect on same), so we don't need to discuss the Tetrarch tanks' few days in combat with max 20 vehicles, or the German stupid monster prototypes...

I'm sorry, dreams are in CMx7

But new gameplay features, and sometimes new modules, need animations. Hence new animations do compete with content, even if there are different people doing hard coding (rules) as distinct from soft (visuals etc). Scenarios and campaigns are already done by the community so I have no real issue with those.

And I find it best to find them a good position and let them get on with it. Moving them tends to get them killed, whilst often, as the others say, you check afterwards and see how busy they have been.

Actually, that reminds me - I would love mortars and guns to have a different sound (I think it is because heavy mortars and field guns (75mm ish) use the same file? It seems like you can have whistling mortars or no whistle small guns?

The designers will find this useful input (i hope), as there is a spectrum of features that need to be in place to continue to sell CMx2, and CMx3 when it is out. There is obviously realism/breadth of gameplay. However there is also the look of it. Sales of the most realistic game ever in 640x480 VGA will be roughly zero. So there is a level of graphics necessary to get you into the competition. Then there is graphics beyond this that enhances sales, and I think the community is indicating that the current level is below the ideal (although I guess above the minimum). As I said, CMx3 needs to be better, but I am only looking for FPS type graphics if this is with significantly enhanced gameplay (individuals, better trenches/foxholes,better game features (like Iron+ mode or things that further mitigate the god's eye view), in a reasonable timescale.

But the real question is either or:do you want new gameplay or modules and vehicles or better animation? There are only so many many hours being applied to this. Me I want CMX3. Wouldn't say no if it had better animation

And the pixeltruppen do throw grenades. If you start down this road, there is no logical stopping place until you control every man. If you know you are going to die, don't go over the wall/ridge.Find another way. It's only the same as tank combat... "don't rotate to shoot that halftrack there's a filthy great Tiger...BANG...oh... over there"

I find a heavy machine gun or two for a couple of minutes is ample for suppressing all but the toughest building. It sounds as if you are doing your own suppression with the assault team - never a good idea. And your use of a throw grenades command appears to mean 'only throw grenades'. So 30 secs later someone wants a 'throw and fire' command. Then a 'fire the rifles and not the SMG. Or vice versa., both with a 'throw grenades variant'... In my experience it isn't the SMG reloading that is your problem. If the defenders unsuppress enough to fire on you during a mag change you are dead anyway at that range. Any automatic weapon, or 3-4 riles will kill you stone dead. The defenders must be completely suppressed if you are assaulting otherwise its just Russian Roulette. As in, takes 10's of seconds to pop back up, not a 5 second timing error or a mag change.

Majorly against this. This is not appropriate to the CM scale. I wouldn't like this, or anything like it to be coded. 1) I would want the effort elsewhere, 2) it isnt appropriate at this scale, 3) it gives another level of micro-optimisation that would split the community (those that use it would have an unfair advantage over those who don't want the hassle or lack of realism). What is so wrong with the TAC AI use of grenades anyway?

Actually, I often find myself using +/- to step between the teams just to see which ones are the same squad. When you click on a team or squad, uniits in the same command highlight. All we need is that if you click on a team, the whole command highlights as now, but other teams in the same squad highlight differently. ALso, the selected unit highlights in the same way as unslected units just taken a casualty. Sadly this means that there is only one flashing routine I suspect, but something like 'flash orange for selected unit' (as now), flash blue for teams in the same squad (if split)', and 'flash red for casualties' would be great. Units in the same command remain as now (brighter but no flash)

I have had the same thing with a 'schreck in CMRT. Very cool and gratifying. It seems to make these specialist operators much more effective in urban terrain. They dont need to be as visible. HAving said which, they are still very dead if spotted, as it should be.

How's about "Iron +" - to mandate all those "only for the real hardcore player". Like only view 1 and 2 allowed, with all playability changes removed and replaced with realism? Maybe too hard core, but enforcing the views would fit with several posts over the years. Maybe view 8 as well but only from leaders? (And obviously Iron setting spotting)

Stele, for 2 hour dig in, just allow foxholes, enough for all elements doing the digging...

I miss posted a question into CMFB concerning the difference in off board artillery response times in CMBN. Anyone discussed how fast the US is (or more accurately how slow others are) relative to the other nations? The call to arrival time is very slow compared to everything I read about British and Commonwealth countries.

I think you will want to be talking about muzzle brakes. As in a brake (for the recoil) at the muzzle. The risk to infantry of a muzzle break would be shrapnel! And: just one of the necessary simplifications. You know that friendly fire goes through tanks? HE effect is reduced to allow for game engine driven restrictions of. Troops spreading out? There are more. I think self damage would be a whole can of worms. Want your area fire commands cancelled because the firing unit is worried about friendlies in LOF?

I am concerned that this has probably been raised and discussed before, but the artillery response times seem very screwy. I have not been able to find where they are discussed (searched and looked manually for a year back). I am aware they may have been adjusted for playability, but if so they have not been done consistently, If they haven't been adjusted, they are way way off. For example (in game from a few quick refresher tests): British FO calling in 25pdr battery: 11 minutes for an unregistered (no TRP target). British Non-FO (Btn HQ) same unit: 14 mins for no TRP. 9 mins for TRP German FO, 75mm howitzer: 10 mins (no TRP) US FO 105mm: 9 mins no TRP, 4 mins (TRP) Now, I have been reading up artillery doctrine and practices. US was fast and responsive (fair enough). but British RA had one mantra above all else: speed. It is generally accepted they could get shells landing in an opportunity target in 2 minutes or less (although there is a mistaken view that this was always at the expense of accuracy). Now, we could count this as spotting round times, but this would still give a fire for effect in 4 mins at worst I would say (for specialist FOs), with no TRP. With a TRP it should be 2 mins. As a test of their altered systems (based on desert experience) in 1942, they got 144 guns firing on an opportunity target in 5 mins! Germans were definitely slower on unregistered fires, but probably no slower on TRP (or only a little) In addition, the effect of multiple units (batteries or sections) of different sized (and hence place in the command chain) is not modelled at all. British could add artillery very very fast. (hence the test above, but this was not a one off - outside of the scope of CM, but they could get AGRA level - ARMY LEVEL artillery concentrations going in c30min on a new target). Thus FOs should be able to combine batteries with almost no penatly... maybe +1 min per extra. Search for British Artillery Mike, Uncle, Victor and Yoke concentrations (or see http://nigelef.tripod.com/maindoc.htm) US could also do the same, but the FDC decided what to fire not the FO (as the British) so there should be a slightly longer addition to the response time. The Germans effectively couldn't add artillery (beyond the organic or direct support unit) to an opportunity fire, and so should have huge delays even if allowed to do it. If the artillery responses have been nerfed for playabilty, someone forgot the US. If they haven't been, how's about an overhaul (or at least a tweak) of the delays please. (sources can be supplied on request). I will be looking in CMFI, and CMRT sometime too. Edit: sorry, meant to put this in CMBN but would still be valid here I think.

Like your clarification there... completely agree. Tracking entrenchment state in a board wargame would be a nightmare, but in Vassal where markers can be infinite it should be possible. Just index the 'digging in duration' marker by 1 per turn. Oh, and I know you meant this as well, but units shouldn't acquire foxholes if they move or attack! I am still looking into artillery refinements based on national practice. To misquote http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytutorial/artytut.shtml (hope that's OK, BFC, as it is miniatures not a computer competitor!), German: “It's mine-you can't use it.", Russia: “Sorry, we can't do that...”, British: ” To them that have much will be given”. US: ” Anything you want, you've got it…if the FDC likes you”!

If I may offer some thoughts: your "digging in"/"create defenses" is far too fast/generous. In 1 hour you allow far too many foxholes and trenches. Also wire, mines and tank obstacles should be made even slower again. Some classes of defence (mines, vehicle obstacles) should need engineers. It needs some increase in complexity, but I would argue that defenses should be 2 hours to get 1 foxhole per team or 10 per platoon maybe (and nothing else). Additional activity longer than 2 hours can give further foxholes, or other defenses.. You could include numeric counters to count the hours of prep.I would aim at say 5 hours (with engineer support) to get your level of fortifications. Also I would make each unit be separately tracked - one company fortifying gives one company defenses, not enough for all units in the stack.. The other big issue I would like to see would be some form of command system and artillery control differences. US/UK artillery command was much more flexible than German (although German systems gave more 'intimate' support by smaller guns). CM uneven battles means this is relevant. A German company can have battalion mortars or a 75 mm bty quite often if pre-declared, but Allied forces should have maybe a diced system having all guns in range as options (although progressively less likely the more they have already allocated). Actually using a battery then makes it be marked as fired after the battle. But that is all a much bigger change, and may be too much. I am researching wargame rules that would give a good brigade command type game, with CM execution very much as you have it... i would think that something with order delays on the strategic map would be nice too! Without having played it

You think the reload time should be longer than the 15 secs or so it took? Remember he was already loaded for the first, so only 2 reload/fire sequences in just over 30s, and the tanks came to him (no movement or even facing change necessary). All very close range too, longest was under 70m IIRC and the other 2 much closer (down to 20m I think - haven't got the save on this m/c). What is the reload time (RL) of a 'scheck? I haven't been able to find it, but it doesn't look like it needs to be too long? He had to go and medic the teammate, some time before to collect the rockets (he had only 2 - one in the tube and one spare, he picked up 3 more). He wasn't moving very fast after that!

I want to claim a new record - a lone guy with a 'schreck (his teammate dead some while ago) took out 3 T34s in just over 30 seconds! He already had one or two kills before that too! Serious hero material. Unfortunately I don't give much for his chances now as that was his last 3 rockets, and his position is a little overrun (hence the number of targets!)

This is somewhat similar to the "why arent my infantrymen changing mag/reloading when it is quiet rather than waiting until they run out?" debate elsewhere. Unless you are on a huge map, with the front line well forward and your tank on the back edge, you are never 'pit of combat in RL terms on a CM map. Tanks would need to be a mile or more behind the line, largered, and confident about their security against infiltration before they start lugging shells around outside the tank... A more likely CM type response to this situation would be to exit the map to the rear, and reappear an hour or two later. It all seems logical when looked at as a game, but not as a RL simulation.