Comandante

I did my military training in the mid-1970s (non-NATO) and the minefield crossing tactics taught then included a table that showed the expected % losses based on minefield density, depth and the distance between soldiers. IIRC, the recommended troop spacing resulted in 5%-10% losses when crossing a standard minefield.

I had a Panzer drive straight through a large single tree (not in a forest) till the tree was sticking up through the center of the turret. then the tank advanced till the tree was in the engine compartment and finally reversed so that the tree passed all the way down the center of the vehicle. My screen cap didn't take.

I didn't use the road much at all in the first phase - I went through the hedgerows by using my combat engineers and came up on the first farm house complex through the fields. A squad of infantry moved along the road short of the first junction and took the first line of defenders in the flank. After that, moving onto the three story building on the right that dominates the church and most of the town was easy. I put my artillery observer on the third level and bombarded the objective with everything I had. When my infantry moved into the town they engaged the AT gun and killed the crew. I lost 1 tank and was on the verge of a total victory when the game crashed! I was too pissed off to play the same battle again and moved to the Pz Lehr campaign instead.

I have been playing Iron from day one and the main difference I see is that the enemy icons are generic - it's harder to establish what kind of enemy unit you are facing. C2 works fine for me. You just have to keep your sub-units in contact and use WW2 formations and battle drills.

Well, combat is disturbing and games that reinforce this message actually help to discourage us from war fighting, IMO. Let's keep it virtual! Historically, surrendering in the heat of battle was very dicey and your chances of being shot out of hand were very high, on both sides. Representing this in the game isn't gratuitous, it's a sobering reminder of reality. EDIT - I just saw above that it's crossfire...

I absolutely agree. And Hollywood hasn't helped!

I am on my 8th scenario and I am finding the armour model very convincing, apart from the speed of target acquisition - Sherman drives up to a hedgerow and starts blazing away at enemy infantry in the next hedge within 2-3 seconds. I have had numerous instances of my Shermans taking PAK hits and pulling back without being knocked out. I played the Command Post scenario in the Demo (name?) and took out both Panthers from maximum map range with my platoon of Shermans by using hull down on the low rise at their map entry point. I got a Total Victory result on the first try, playing as Iron, and only lost two tanks. I'm not boasting, I'm just saying that it's quite possible to do this, so the game doesn't seem to be particularly flawed in this area IMHO. The one thing I would like to see changed is the tendency of MG crews to engage armour. If I was manning the gun I can assure you the crew would be hiding!

I was surprised by the tone of the BF Admin response, but I do agree with the content. I have played through 8 scenarios so far (3 as Axis) and I have had no real path finding or control issues. There are occasions where you need to get down to ground level to recon the gaps in the hedgerows, but most of those gaps probably weren't on the maps issued to the troops, so that's exactly what their officers had to do as well, I expect. A 'Follow me' command would be extremely useful, however.

CMBN comes closer than any other game I have seen to providing a convincing and satisfying representation of WW2 combat (or any other era, for that matter). I have a few minor issues I'd like to see changed, such as some of the CMx1 and CMSF sounds, but I just watched the enemy AI crawl its infantry through trees and grass onto my flank, take fire and then run back toward cover and it was the most immersive 30 seconds of game time I have had in a long time. Great job Battlefront!

I have been playing this demo and also "the other new East Front demo" that shall remain nameless. My sense is that the Axis armour in CMBN is much deadlier than the armour modeled in the other game, which also features wooded terrain. The question is, which game has it closest to reality and can we take a lesson from it? (I like both games, by the way).

It can't be much more than changing a setting somewhere in the code - so many hits and the building collapse animation kicks in, etc. BF should either up the hit points needed to trigger this or provide an option in the settings called 'Tougher Normandy buildings'. I'm sure modders will get onto the demolished building graphic pretty quickly.

In the absence of a 'scoot' feature, maybe the 'shoot' action makes less sense?

Great game - many thanks. My only negative so far is the amazingly accurate 'anti-tank mortars' LOL Graphics run smoothly at the highest resolution and it's really good to see CM come back to WW2, where it belongs. On to Moscow!

I am using Windows...

Trees are working fine for me. Alt+T toggles between the three visual states and in the 'trunks only' state I can see 150-200m while zoomed out about halfway with just tree trunks sticking up. Very useful.