Ultradave

A couple of comments. I think for CM the realism is in several things: 1) You are required to make a lot of the same plans and decisions as a real life commander would. 2) Employing real life tactics of the time will created similar results to real life. 3) There is a lot of realism in armor and ballistics. "Unrealisms" 1) Time compression, as discussed 2) No real "breakpoint" of friendly forces were after say, 30% casualties, they just stop in place and won't attack any more. (individual units will, but the company/battalion as a whole won't - you can run them into the ground. The cancel/adjust a fire mission that the FO didn't see an adjusting round for: in real life there is a procedure for that (you had doubts? ). A lost round a) could have been a dud, b) hit wet ground so the explosion was hard to spot, or c) truly been lost, hitting way off location, either through the fault of the FDCs firing data (less likely), or the FO giving bad coordinates (more likely). In that case, it's usual to fire an adjusting round to the center of the sector of fire or "safety box" and adjust from that. The FDC knows roughly where the FO is, and can fire a round on their own data that the FO should see, preferably a time round so it's up in the air and easier to spot. Then continue adjusting. That is really canceling the first mission and beginning a new mission from scratch because it's calculating new firing data. This doesn't really happen in CM because you click on a location on the map (essentially your map reading skills are top notch without error). For the AI, you would think the same thing would hold - that their map reading skills are good and they won't fire way off. But sometimes adjusting rounds go weird places. Happens in real life too. Dave

Sure, pretty much what I was saying, isn't it? You know roughly what's out there, and by looking at the map, can make some pretty good guesses as to where his assets will be or will be coming from, by putting yourself in his shoes. You have to develop the situation. Which, yes, is part of the fun. IRL you'd do the same - map recon plus whatever ground recon you can do without exposing yourself before you are ready. And you'd plan TRPs on some likely spots for quick fire support response. In these respects, other than the time constraints, I think it's pretty realistic. Although under any circumstances you've got better intel than the real guy on the ground would, save say CMBS where you could say that your overhead views could be a broadcast from a drone. In WW2 though, possibly imperfect maps, lack of ability to get right up front to scan without getting shot in the process, maybe enemy fire support, all hinder the real life ability. Dave

The majority of the scenarios start at the point where the major recon has already been done. Your recon as the on-scene commander is more sniffing out exactly where along the treeline behind the river each individual enemy position is located. You've already been told the enemy is defending the river from the treeline beyond it (not exactly rocket science to figure that out, but just an example). So in game recon usually consists of sending forward a few scouts or a lead platoon to better spotting positions or to draw some fire to smoke out enemy positions. You already know they are there in front of you, and a decent commander will figure out the most likely locations too. You've been told what to do and pretty much what to expect. In effect, you've been given your OPORDER and off you go (some are even written like that). Dave

Sounds pretty realistic, considering the map scale of most CM scenarios. How many defective (stray) rockets might you expect from a barrage? A few would be my guess. Danger close for a Katyusha battery is going to be a bigger number than for tube artillery or mortars.

As they like to say in the Army, "it depends on the situation" Most of the time spent is calculating firing data, once they receive a call for fire. You're just saving the time for the RTO to write down the call for fire data. HOWEVER, if the mortar section has LOS to the target, and the mortar hq is directing them, like many light mortars (60mm for example), then it's different than plotting and calculating. They'll know what to put in to achieve the estimated range so response is really quick. If they have to plot, like almost always an 81mm section or larger does, then it's going to take a couple or more minutes. IRL you'd pretty much never have your Co mortar section set up in LOS of the enemy. Just a bad idea. Dave

I should have added that the same explanation goes with TRPs too. TRPs are pre-plotted, the firing data for the guns is already calculated and checked. It's a pre-planned mission that just hasn't been fired yet. So all that same logic of adjusting off a TRP works the same. They are plotted on likely enemy locations, or places you want to deny the enemy. Usually these are readily identifiable on the map. If you know the coordinates accurately, the fire should be accurate, because the calculated data is highly accurate. It's very common for an FO to call a fire mission that is a FFE, shift from TRP X, say, and provide the shift distances. The battery just needs the FOs direction to the target so they know what L400, D200 means to the FO, as seldom is the FO on the same axis as battery to target. Dave

This is because except in an emergency (which can by a fleeting high value target), they will go through the adjust fire sequence to zero in on a target before FFE. Preplanned fires are accurate because the firing battery has time to carefully calculate the firing data, and the preplanned fire is usually on a readily identifiable terrain features, such as a treeline, or say the edge of a town, or the far side of a stream - all things where grid coordinates are able to be pretty accurately determined. So adjusting a preplanned fire is also pretty accurate, because you've already got good accurate firing data for a preplanned FFE, and then assuming your FO is competent (and they tend to be), when he provides a shift, as long as it isn't a huge one, your new firing data should also be pretty accurate. For an on call fire mission, using maps and slide rules for firing data, there are usually two map plotters and they check each other, and the "computer" (the guy with the firing stick slide rules), is alone but checked by the NCOIC. The Fire Direction Officer checks everyone, but usually not to more detail than that the data sounds ballpark correct and the most important function, that it is safe in regards to friendly troops. The issue with a huge shift is the FOs ability to estimate that distance, unless he shifts to an easily mapped location. But that may not always be true, depending on where the target is, or where he expects it to be in a couple or few minutes. Targets of opportunity don't always cooperate and line themselves up with map features Taking all this, an accurate shift from a preplanned FFE is pretty reasonable, assuming you have an FO in position to send the data. Dave Dave

Mine is a 2018 and still seems new - runs everything just fine, so I'm not in a hurry to replace it. This one replaced a 2015 that my dog sent across the room from my lap. Landed upside down and bent back the screen farther that it was supposed to = wonky screen which is too expensive to replace on a 3 year old computer. Hence, the 2018. Dave

I have. 2018 MacBook Pro, updated about a week ago. No issues at all with CM. So far, everything I've tried works just fine. Dave

Oh, sure. I realize there is much you can do with your own. I meant there isn't anything you can really do for a Army unit's issue weapon. What you got is what you got. We didn't even have enough of them to swap parts around to see if we could make one weapon with better fitting pieces. Dave

I'm not so sure it was as much that, as it was leveling the competition. No one was allowed to go to work on an M-16 or a M1919 and make it competition match quality, where one armorers ability might far exceed the other. Our armorers were generally E-4s or E-5s with no special gunsmith training beyond one level above the soldier's training in maintaining and minor weapons repair. Anything major got sent out or traded for a replacement. Using our own issue weapons and standard supply ammo ensured that, to the best extent practical, it was primarily a test of marksmanship. And since it was completely a team competition, without individual awards, any variations in weapons quality and accuracy would wash out over the teams. We did of course, very carefully zero our weapons (at least the M-16s - not much you can do with a .45). I remember at one point I couldn't zero my issue M-16. It just wouldn't come left enough and I ran out of adjustment. Broke it down and looked down the barrel from breach to muzzle and saw a gibbous moon shape of light at the end! No wonder. Nice warp. Swapped the barrel for one of our spare weapons and the armorer sent off the warped one for replacement. So those kinds of things are about as far as we could go in any modifications to our weapons. We did one really fun competition with the Cdn Parachute Regt, where we did a combined score. Everyone first shot M-16s and M1919s, and then we switched and everyone shot FNs and Browning Hi-Powers. That was a lot of fun (also the Cdn Paras are a lot of fun - were, actually, since sadly, they are no more). Far off the track of sniper ammo I was just curious whether in an active WW2 environment, a sniper could get better ammo than stock issue, but maybe the "stock" sniper ammo went through a better process. Easy to be separate manufacturing since different weapons (at least for US). Dave

Was it the practice or norm in WW2 for snipers (or someone in the unit) to hand load ammo, or was there special, high quality sniper ammo delivered? Asking because I don't know and never really thought about it before. My competition target shooting was as a US Army officer, and for those the rules were stock issue unmodified weapons and ammo drawn randomly from the case. Different kind of target shooting - it was to see what you could due with issue weapons, beyond qualification, with unit to unit competition. Dave

It's modern combat in the sense it's not WW2, however, US infantry in '79-82 did not carry their weapons the same as what you see in BS or SF2 or any real life pictures of Iraq and Afghanistan. They should look more like this (particularly the right most guy, who isn't sprinting out.

Exactly right. I made this comment during CW testing as it was not the way we carried our weapons then - it's a more modern change. But it wasn't practical in the time frame until release to make that change. Maybe in a patch? That would be nice. Dave

Also, make sure you save a copy of it somewhere safe, like a working folder in your Documents, so that if you ever have to reinstall FI for any reason, you won't lose it in an overwrite. Then after the reinstall you can *copy* your map back into the game (copy not move, so you retain the saved one). Dave

In play testing this one made me feel cold. Before release people were saying "we want snow". I was thinking while testing this one. "Oh, you'll get snow all right!"

It's most useful in scenarios where your force starts in road march formation and has to navigate some twisty route to get out somewhere to deploy. As I mentioned, the second Peiper scenario is one that comes to mind right away. They end up being clickfests, compounded by the fact you have to click outside the setup zone, once, twice, maybe 3 times, and drag those waypoints back to where you want them to follow roads (or wait until turn 2 to do anything to avoid the waypoint dragging). It's not as useful or needed once the action starts, although in some wide open scenarios (Russia, for example), it would be nice to have a formation keeping follow as you roll across the steppes. Dave

It's been a while, but if I remember right, there were times when following units wouldn't follow the waypoints. Other times they would pause at waypoints, causing a huge traffic snarl (I'm thinking of a column moving onto the map, say, like scenario 2 in Kampfgruppe Peiper (a really handy place to have it work ) There were a variety of problems and they didn't happen all the time. It wasn't like you could chase down a bug because, for example, units *always* got confused at road intersections. It worked sometimes like a charm. Other times it was just a mess. I think Steve/Charles decided at the time they couldn't afford to spend more time and resources on it and postpone it to "later." I'll try to go back and search but that was the general gist. Dave

As a number of us had said before, when it was tested it only sorta, kinda worked. And the times it didn't or behaved weirdly were very annoying. And if it was annoying to beta testers who are pretty used to things going wonky along the way, then the users would have not liked it at all. We pretty much universally declared it not ready for prime time because of that. I have NO knowledge of anything to do with the pro edition, nor do almost any of us (beta testers) I think. Haven't seen it, don't know what's in it, not even a list of features. If it works now, that would be awesome. I'd really like that as a feature.

Like I said before, whatever works for you or anyone else.

And that's what we do all the time by looking at sight lines from our locations. You normally don't have the luxury of using a straight edge in 3D from the enemy's location to check that. But like I said. There aren't any rules, so whatever works Dave

Ah, now I get it. This seems kind of gamey to me (not that having a bird's eye view of what's going on isn't gamey, but still...) But, hey, to each their own. Dave

Noise, noise. What's a little noise from a loud engine? (says the Artilleryman).

You could edit the name of your save file/challenge name to include that. Easy Dave

A system within the CM2 game to automate PBEM. Many Slitherine/Matrix games have a PBEM++ system built in. For CM2 when you start a game and pick Single player Real time, Hot seat, etc, there will be a new option for PBEM. You can post a challenge (basically start a scenario and post it for anyone to pick up, or you can password protect it and send the password to a specific opponent - only they will be able to accept). Basically, you then you play your turns, and receive an email when the next turn is ready for you. Your PBEM++ games are separate from your own single player saved games. In each game it looks a bit different visually. I've used it without problems for WitW, WitE, Flashpoint:Red Storm. Currently being tested for CM2 Also, to play PMEM today, Dropbox is not necessary. It's a convenience, and is used with H2H Helper and Who's Turn Is It, to pass the files back and forth. You can still just send emails like we used to in CM1. Dave