BletchleyGeek

My grandfather, who was a Stalingrad vet, helped me simulate a "tactical nuke attack" on a plaster diorama. I still remember the fireball rising three meters in the air ...
He was not very fond of US artillery, though.
Best regards,
Thomm

THAT'S nothing.
Spending time rewinding a tape to find a correct gap - then loading games and software for 4 minutes only to get a random tape read error and start all over again.

"The kind of reaction times we see in those simulated Abrams would be correct under the assumption that the US Army has developed a system that tracks potential threats in real time and then takes control of the vehicles from their human operators to ensure that the Abrams offers its strongest aspect to the incoming missile. "
My understanding is that LWS on tanks already does this.  If a laser targeting is detected, the turret is automatically oriented to the threat and smoke is discharged.  It can be overridden through a quick switch, but I saw a demonstration of it and its how the T-90 works in CMSF.  But that is only for laser.  There is no threat detection for IR or wire guided ATGM missiles, except radar-based AMP.

"power grid is offline"
Useless fear mongering and drivel.  In the US, there are thousands of power plants and tens of thousand of substations, etc.  The majority of these run on SCADA and control systems isolated from the web and outside connections.  Any cyber attack might be able to take a couple power plants down for a short period or isolate regions from the interconnections, but it is darned close to impossible to bring the entire national grid down.  The worst that can happen is hitting the right node at the right time might bring a city grid down for a short time.  Even in the worst storms in the US, the majority of people and businesses have their power back on in hours, with a few taking days.  And those storms are significantly more powerful than any cyberattack can possibly be.  The only way to bring a grid down is through massive physical damage.
This is one of those things the press has gotten a hold of and keeps perpetuating the issue.  Should utilities protect themselves and prepare?  Yes, they should.  Should people understand a little more about an issue before perpetuating the fear mongering?  Yes, they should.  I work in the industry and do a lot of work to understand the security issues.  It has been hijacked by security consultants and the intelligence services to scare people and increase budgets...and its worked.
And before someone screams "what about the Ukraine", it was an isolated part of Kiev only and lasted for less than hour.  And that was a nation-state putting significant resources into doing it.  It actually proves my point.  That malware would have to be modified for every SCADA configuration, and that numbers in the tens of thousands.  It would require someone who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the specific devices and configuration of a transmission grid, distribution grid, or power gen source.  Not impossible, incredibly difficult.  I knocking out significant power for a long time an important goal for a large part of a country, physical attack is probably more cost effective.

I noted the M1 fast deploying smoke.  What I thought was interesting is the M1's LWS immediately deploys smoke, just like the T-90.  But I also  noted that the LWS automatically points the turret front to the facing of the threat,  At that point, the M1 starts maneuvering its hull about to get its hull aligned with the turret.  It takes 10-15 seconds for the hull to get aligned.
One thing I also noted is that the M1 only has a chance of detecting the ATGM team if its pointed somewhat towards the threat.  The short of it is, I don't think ATGM detection is that unrealistic.  The most unrealistic part is the M1 having an LWS tightly linked into automated threat response.
Also, while newer rocket motors don't leave much of a smoke trail, ignition and launch still leave a very significant smoke and dust signature.

I just ran a bunch of quick tests because I am not seeing what others appear to be seeing.  
An M1A2 without APS against AT-4Cs and AT-14s.  900m distance from each other.  In one test, the M1 is facing away from the ATGM.  In the other, it is facing 90 deg from the ATGM.
AT-14 fires and the LWS on the M1 immediately cause the M1 to rotate towards the threat and within about 15 seconds spots the ATGM.  This happens in both facings.
AT-4 fires multiple times in both scenarios and the M1 never spots the ATGM before being destroyed.
As mentioned above, the LWS is the difference.  In the older SACLOS missiles, the M1 has a very hard time seeing the firing unit, unless the M1 is looking in that direction.  With a laser guided missile, the LWS automatically orients the turret to the threat and allows rapid detection.
I haven't done a full test on the top of line T-90, but I think it will be similar.   I remember in CMSF, the automated LWS on the T-90 allowed the T-90 to spot laser guided ATGM teams.
I only ran the tests 5-6 times each, but its consistent enough to create the supposition.  This at leasts appears to be a reasonably realistic outcome.  Its more realistic than Steel Beasts, which gives AI tanks uncanny spotting abilities with ATGM.
 

Because one person thinks the whole game is junk because of abrams ability in the game, that is how this thread was derailed.
As to how realistic this game is or any of CM games.
They all suffer from some basic flaws that are intentionally there to make it a good game. not a realistic simulator.
But still, they are the best thing you are going to get you hands on as to a battle simulator, but they have many unrealistic aspects to them that are not close to being realistic .
On the other hand, there is many things modeled well enough, that you do get a great feel for the advantages and strengths of the different weapons on the battlefield just as they would in real life.
 
The fighting in the game is always more bloody and deadly and the time frame very much reduced compared to how it would play out in real life generally. Plus the battles and situations players create would not normally be the situation in real conflicts.
players also direct their troops in unrealistic manors compared to real troop leaders. (Or at least ones that have not been shot by their own troops that is).
Plus, there is plenty of people as you can see from these post that will try and point out every flaw they can as to what they think is incorrect about the game - in general it is best to not encourage them.
 
 

I Know, I know
How in the world could I have the game this long and I just finally sat down and played this scenario vs the AI
Well in my world, that is just how it is, I cannot sit around and play these games like it is a job or truthfully would I want to, I would get bored of them if I did that.
Anyway, over the Holidays I have sat down and played a half dozen or so Scenarios I had not done yet and this is my latest one.
 
I just want to compliment the work that went into this one. Excellent design and effort and it shows.
 
Map - excellent
situation - excellent
units selected - excellent
programming the AI - excellent
Scoring the scenario- excellent
So in other words, A perfect score if I was posting it somewhere.
 
I felt this battle gave me a excellent feel for some of the challenges faced by commanders that I have read many times from different stories from this war.
I played as the German's and found myself being very cautious as to keeping my armor on the roads because  of ground conditions.
Scouting the flanks had just enough importance to make it a need but not a want to have to do.
pushing the attack was not a easy task because of the restrictions and the Ai was programmed well to throw a few surprises into the battle.
Time of battle and scoring was well done, I won the battle, but for the heck of it I went back in and stopped the battle just short of the last objective I captured and found I would have lost with that result. So it was a close result, which I love. (Normally at my skill level. Playing the AI is not a challenge ) So love it when its not a cake walk.
 
I think my favorite moment happened when I had a panther sent to support my flank scouting efforts and it was attacked by some forces along the main objective.
As the panther started to engage a Sherman at very long range and to not have success.  I had that moment of , oh my. I might be in trouble, is that a Jumbo or something. Sure enough later on. I found that to be true. I lost that panther in the duel and when I did finally clear the enemy out and had clear information on each unit. That jumbo had about 10 hits on it and had fought a valiant battle. (just a great moment to get that feel of what a jumbo might have felt like as to a unwanted challenge having to face against on the battlefield.
 

Evolution is good but Battlefront would've dug themselves a bad hole in that regard. The main reason for that would be them dropping at least three CMx2 series to make a CMx3 game that would, without a doubt, feel unfinished at first. Like CMSF was when it was first released.
After all CMx2 was a complete rework of an engine core to a point of it being completely different and way more detailed than not only CMx1 but a lot of competition. That said - there's nothing being requested in this thread that can't be done with the current engine. Either by a mission designer or by adding/changing a code so you can continue playing after mission 'ends' as you would.
I personally like it as is. CMBS is especially brutal in its difficulty (or, to be precise, not forgiving your mistakes) due to modern tech being especially killy - so to me anticlimactic endings only add to that brutality. Kinda like a good HBO show.

I wish we had something like this for CM games!!
If we could just make roads etc that are NOT dependent on the current map tile system.
In other words things currently roads, buildings etc. have to use 45 degree rotations.
And drawing hills and forest areas like in the movie...

This is quite awesome.
I am not sure what is the resolution of the underlying grid - being a Bn level late horse and musket game probably like 100 meters - but this is pretty great and I find it quite inspiring. Just being able to trace roads and water courses like that would be a pretty awesome step forward in facilitating the creation of scenarios for CM.
General Staff is a new war game which is being developed by an old timer of computer wargames (maybe somebody remembers their Universal Wargame Systems), which back in the day had a very different vibe from the games created by designers like Norm Koger, John Tiller or Gary Grigsby.
http://general-staff.com/how-to-import-scanned-maps-into-the-general-staff-wargaming-system-video-tutorial
 

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

Mixed feelings about that. Technically not the worst I´ve seen from some reenactor wannabe film producers, yet suffering from the usual lack of realism and detail. I have my doubts about their true motivations making such films, but oh well...

I can only speak to Afghanistan, but much more time was spent hunkered down because of mortar fire or pot shots disrupting a patrol than pitched battles with the Taliban. In my own experience it was less pinned-down hugging the earth for dear life (most of the time!) and more that, okay we now have to deploy, find cover, form into a section attack and so on. That kind of suppression is modeled pretty well in CM, as you can't carry out a routine move under fire.

e: Quick question since a dev has responded - in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work?  Did units move differently under fire before?

The jungle combat angle really is overdone by those who aren't interested in the theater.  As pointed out the terrain was varied and not at all restricted to jungle fighting.  There was also urban combat and there was some tank combat as well - especially in the retaking of Manila although tanks were used extensively in Burma too (mostly by the Japanese early on because the British didn't think tanks would be useful in that terrain.  I am particularly interested in the fighting leading up to the capture of Singapore.  There was plenty of fighting in China and of course there were the pre war battles with the Soviets.  However, there are a lot of limitations with the fortifications as they currently exist in CM that makes the theater less appealing.  No cave complexes for certain so that makes something like Iwo Jima difficult.  There are also a lot of limitations with night fighting and that was the preferred time the Japanese liked to attack.  Without a completely revamped game for night fighting (flares?  Non reciprocal LOS, muzzle flashes, HMGs firing on fixed lines, etc.)  a lot of the appeal is lost.
I was reading about Khalkin Gol and the Japanese conducted a night tank attack against the Soviet defenses during a lightning storm in heavy rain in what was virtually a desert.  Imagine driving your tanks around at night in a driving rain waiting for the next big lightning strike to light up the battlefield for a split second to spot the enemy.

CMRT module? ...I started typing then remembered 'non-disclosure agreement'. So I can't actually tell you much. Let's just say its in the queue and all of the up-front work was completed months ago. The number of in-progress projects competing for attention is larger than you may think.

A bone within a bone, alluding to a bone. It's like Dune minus the floating fat guy...
 
Mord.
 
P.S. Did you see my PM about the pic?

I can across this whilst doing some youtube surfing.
I was impressed by the production. The clip (taken from a German series called 'Dusty faces')shows a German unit in action in a small wooded area against some dug in Soviet infantry. 
A warning - it does contain some graphic scenes.
 

I have that same issue.

Twas the night before CM-mas and all through the bunker
not a 'truppen was stirring they were all down and hunkered
The frags were all hung by the rifles with care
In hopes that Santa Steve soon would be there
The 'truppen a snoring and dreaming away
of the hookers they'd met, on leave last May
When out in the minefield there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bunk, my skivvies all tattered.
Away to the gun sites I flew like a plane,
pulled back the bolt and steadied my aim.
When from mod weary eyes I spied from afar,
Some northern Maine dude with a brain in a jar,
Santa Steve! I shouted with excitement and glee
but in response, just some bitching about TO&E
On Stragglers, on Sicherungs, Luftwaffe and Herr
on Jagers and Gebirs, and others more rare
He droned on and on as the brain kept a coding
and I knew deep inside this was no normal foreboding
For once in a while a reference to Syria
and with that little gem I was sent to hysteria
For amidst all that heavy WWII talking
Toward Shock Force 2 I knew he was walking
Patiently on the desert I'd waited
and soon it'd be real and my lust would be sated
Back to the sand! Nato, Uncons and pals
but with 4.0 flare and friggin' hit decals!
My head filled with war and the toys that it brings
I was hoping I'd see it before G**D*** spring!
Then brain in arm, he turned toward the west
to continue ever onward the Combat Mission quest
Teeth clenched and jaw set against the snowy wind
he trudge into the night, a phantom again
And as he passed by the bunker and out of our zone
I chewed on the annual Christmas bone.
 
Merry Christmas, fellas!

Mord.
 
 

... again.
An old one but still alive a kicking by the looks of it.
Unfortunately a smokescreen lifted a little too early and one of my tanks was pinged on the bridge. Not destroyed but crew dismounted. The traffic jam behind them decided to try and go around the dismounted vehicle and proceeded to drop down into the river below.

Anyone need a save file I've got one.

Issuing a Hull Down command is a two-step process. The first step is plotting the movement. Using the Hull Down Command you plot a movement path usually a short distance past where you want to be hull down because you have to be able to trace direct line of sight from the end of the movement line to wherever you want to be hull down to. That lets you do the second step which is clicking on the waypoint at the end of the movement line and Targeting (or Target Briefly, doesn't matter) the spot you want to be hull down to, same as if you were plotting area fire but in this context the tank won't shoot, it's just how you tell the game where you want to be hull down relative to. The tank will then stop moving when it is hull down to that spot or it reaches the end of the movement line, whichever comes first, but if you do it correctly it should almost always stop prior to the end. But if you don't Target from the endpoint the tank will treat the Hull Down movement command like a normal movement order and drive the full distance every time. 
 

It's probably a little overstated One specific element I believe was first introduced by the Maori was overhead cover.  Artillery had come a long way since the Napoleonic wars, and bomb-proof dug outs rapidly became a feature of the Maori way of war.

You might enjoy this
http://www.radionz.co.nz/programmes/nz-wars
I'm looking forward to digging in to it

Just one of my favourite pictures... that gunner was good at his trade as f*ck, and with early 1940s gear