Pelican Pal

I ran a test again with an ungodly amount of artillery point targeting 3 T-72s. Again the vehicles have no damage beyond their tracks going to yellow after this amount of fire. I would expect, at minimum, that the top mount DSHK would be disabled by this weight of fire. I've not been able to test this in Black Sea but my guess is that you cannot use artillery to disable APS systems and that they are proof to shell fire. edit: And again I am testing airburst because I want to specifically test artillery efficacy against exposed portions of the tank. AA guns, ERA blocks, vision, etc... There seems to be something up where artillery can really only kill/immobilize a tank but is unable to do any damage to exposed equipment on the vehicle.

I've been running multiple tests with airburst 130mm against armor and what I am looking for any sub-system damage and I've yet to find a single instance of it. Further ERA blocks all also seem proof. The BMPs being included in the test I think helps point to the fact that airburst artillery is penetrating and able to cause damage to thinly armored vehicles. Yet somehow every turret mounted DSHK is unharmed while a Coy of BMPs are destroyed? Something fishy is going on. I was originally going to a more classic test but figured this absurd weight of fire showcased the issue rather dramatically in a video. The test is quite easy to replicate and in my 5 attempts so far I've yet to see airburst cause any subsystem damage (outside of tracks). In the video I also did some normal mortar fire on 1 BMP and 2 T-72s and if you notice a T-72 and BMP are destroyed and 1 T-72 is immobilized. Yet for both T-72s their entire ERA compliment is unharmed?

I ran some tests of airburst artillery against armored vehicles. In particular T-72 AVs and BMP-1s. O:10 for artillery call in 2:25 artillery strikes 3:00 review of damaged/destroyed BMPs 8:10 review of vehicles What I found using a massive amount of artillery is that while it was possible for artillery to destroy the BMP-1s it was unable to do any damage to any subsystem except tracks furthermore no amount of artillery would detonate or disable an ERA block. This seems incorrect to me and likely to be a bug of some variety. Even BMPs that took penetrating hits and crew/passenger losses would not have any subsystem damage. Please watch the linked video and you will see enough artillery to destroy every BMP and level every building on the block. Yet this massive weight of fire does not damage or disable any external system. Not a single DSHK, smoke launcher, AT-4, vision system, ERA block, etc... takes any ounce of damage while multi-story buildings are leveled. PS: I recently made another post but wanted to create a new one that more accurately identified the issue.

To be clear I don't expect airbursting artillery to be knocking armor out but it seems odd that very exposed items like the pintle mounted DHSK and smoke launchers are in perfect working order. This sort of leads me to question how well artillery is modeled against armor more broadly

Requested that post is removed

Its too bad that point values aren't player editable. obviously Battlefront doesn't want to get into doing "balance passes" but it seems like something the community could do. Especially given that CM multiplayer is a niche of a niche and is already very community based.

If you have enough forces maybe combine a long distance .30 cal with other suppressing fires that allow you to bring a .30 cal MMG in closer? I'm playing a QB currently and my men aren't leaving buildings but they are surrendering. I suspect often players use motivation/experience that is higher than it usually was creating these sort of "fight to the end" situations.

I primarily play Red so I dodge that bullet but I picked into a pretty heavy Syrian Air lineup on the basis of the British Army having some sort of AA capability. Now I'm strafing the **** out of his things and it 1. feels weird that the Syrians can do that with no counter-play and 2. is annoying because it removes some of the play/counter-play that makes QBs so fun. Just throwing a U.S. Army Stinger team into the "specialist teams" option would resolve the issue and maintain any sort of TO&E "rules" that are wanted.

I was mostly wondering about QBs. I'm playing a match currently where I'm doing some good damage with Syrian air power and it struck me as sort of bizarre that the game would allow the Syrians to use an imaginary force but not the Brits. Given that Syrian airpower is sort of an oxymoron in context of a NATO invasion of their country.

When looking at my display size.txt the default is: 0 0 0 What should the third 0 be? if for example I am doing: 3840 2160 0

So I am currently playing a QB match and have found out that none of these 3 forces have any AAA that they can purchase during a QB match. Leaving them defenseless against Syrian air. Given that Syrian air itself is sorta aspirational within the setting shouldn't these 3 forces be given Stinger teams in the standalone purchase section?

I've yet to find a good reason for standard infantry to not use quick almost constantly. They can cover quite a lot of ground without tiring and move will give your opponent some advantage if they manage to spot them. Which given the vagaries of the CM spotting system isn't totally unlikely. Although the only area where moving fast is a requirement is meeting-engagements. Which, unless sufficiently large, are largely determined on who becomes the "attacker".

Next time please read the thread before joining the conversation.

CM generally makes it worse than it should be just due to the limits of the animation system. Because the model represents the hit box the limited positions a model can take also creates a higher change of being hit. While in a HT troops heads are sticking out above the top of the track. Allowing fire to rack up free kills when it would be possible for the soldiers to keep their entire bodies within the track. Additionally when firing the shooter fully stands up rather than hugging the top of the track. Fully exposing a large portion of their body to return fire when they shouldn't have to. This exposure can be decisive in close run engagements. Especially against low morale/experience troops where getting a few early kills can quickly stack the firepower advantage in your favor (or disfavor).

In the original OP Kaunitz specifically identified player driven borg spotting. Not all entrenchments, but the overall lack of good fortification representation severely degrades infantry survivabillity. Allowing armor heavy formations to push entrenched infantry around. This reduces the complexity for the attacker and reduces the defenders capability to take advantage of the complexity. Moot point. Overcoming tactical challenges with the tools at hand is the bread and butter of the CM series. Play and counter-play. - I place infantry in entrenchments * You suppress with armor * You advance with infantry to root them out - I engage your infantry from a supporting position etc... Your "moot point" argument is antithetical to the existence of CM.

CM's fortification weakness is tied in quite closely to the effectiveness of any sort of high firepower asset. Be that artillery, machinegunes, or tanks. The inherent weakness of fortifications remove some of the key counters infantry have. There has been a lengthy discussion on player borg spotting and borg control earlier in the thread. With relatively high-velocity guns and relatively large targets (e.g. the tracks of an armored vehicle) it would be reasonably possible to land hits on exposed parts of a vehicle. It would be infinitely smarter than firing center mass with a underpowered weapon. Panzerfausts, Schrecks, Piats, all are relatively low velocity weapons firing at an arc. These will obviously be much worse at hitting targets.

And no vehicles ever move during a match?

I suspect its almost entirely do to with AI problems. TacAI is only reactive and there is no strategic AI whatsoever so it would certainly cause a ton of problems in any scenario that wasn't a flat plain. Not just for the "AI player" but for the player themselves as 60 second turns would lead to some hilariously bad situation where it would take ~3+ minutes to slightly angle a tank. Personally I would like an exaggerated limit on elevation rather than none. Essentially allow tanks to fudge elevation dramatically, but maybe not fire directly below themselves or nearly vertically into a 5 story building.

Given CM's niche nature I'm always a bit surprised that development of some features needs to be a closed loop. Sure an import/export feature isn't going to get you super far, but it gives people access to the information. From that they can develop their own methods of interacting with it. Much like the PBEM Helper programs that made playing MP much more pleasant. Users can do a lot when a hook is available. With the added advantage that what the user comes up with doesn't need to be commercial quality but can still give significant value-add.

To an extant this is already doable. Unit limitation is only an issue within the Quick-Battle selector. Outside of that there isn't anything stopping you from fighting '43 Italians and French forces against Brazilian troops riding Panther's and Hanomags or even going as far as siming the '47 - '49 Palestine War (if you are okay missing some British tanks). Anything within a Family can be used against anything else within that Family.

I don't think anyone here is saying that paying for Engine Patches is inherently bad. CM: Battle For Normandy is essentially a dead game (no new development) and there is work going into keeping it up to date. Fortress Italy though is (well was) alive. It was an unfinished Family that had active development going over a course of 7 years. Now if someone purchased CM:FI in 2012 and wants to get R2V they are going to pay an additional 45%. As an aside: The store pages for Battle for Normandy handle the requirements section in a better fashion. https://www.battlefront.com/battle-for-normandy/cmbn-commonwealth-forces-module/ At the top it says While R2V https://www.battlefront.com/fortress-italy/cmfi-rome-to-victory-module/ says: and Gustave Line https://www.battlefront.com/fortress-italy/cmfi-gustav-line-module/ Even though Gustav will operate with both Engine 3 and 4.

It just seems weird to have returning users being required to pay anywhere between 30% to 45% more for a game than the sticker price. Not to mention that the requirement is actually posted below the fold on my 1080p monitor under Requirements rather than Product Info. Its a non-standard system, and I'd bet there are people who make the purchase without realizing the requirement. In these cases its required to have the newest engine for the new content. IIRC some of the older modules were backwards compatible. This is likely done to make support and patching more streamlined.

To stay current I get. But, to use Red Thunder as an example, I've no need to stay current. I haven't played a PBEM in yonks and exhausted my interest in the scenario list quite some time ago. I'm essentially a lapsed customer - the last new purchase I made was in 2015. Lapsed customers seem like the people you would want to entice back. Yet lapsed customers would end up paying the most. Someone who purchased CM:FI over half a decade ago and just hears about Rome To Victory is going to get some sticker shock at the $50 price tag. To organize my thoughts better the most active BF customers would seem likely to keep their games updated. They want to engage in MP and with newly created scenario content. While the least active (lapsed as it were) are less likely to do so. Requiring the least active (and by inference) the least committed to jump through additional hoops seems counter-intuitive. Since these folks are probably the most likely to walk away from the game. You are certainly free to send them money in the mail. Personally the engine upgrade requirements are not going to make/break my decision to make new purchases. Much like 76mm, I'm very much an Eastern Front player. But I can't shake the feeling that requiring them is a unusual move when your least committed customers are likely the ones without them.

Re: free upgrades Its becoming significantly more prevalent. Paradox is a prime example, but there are many others. There are series that don't, but with the prevalence of Steam, youtubers, etc... Its increasingly beneficial to sales to have long running updates done to a game. But much of it is driven by systems that BFC doesn't take advantage of so the benefit might not really be there for BFC. Re: CM:FI Is it true that you have to buy-in to the Engine Upgrades to get the new module? I was under the impression that each new purchase would bundle in the newest engine. I'm fine paying for engine upgrades if I'm going to use them, but requiring them for module purchases seems rather strict for early adopters. For example, I played through CM:RT before any of the more recent engine upgrades were released and have had no need for them. Yet if I were to purchase the new module I would need to buy an engine upgrade? Ooof yea. If you were an early CM:FI adopter (7 years ago?) you'd shell out $50 for CM:RTV. Re: QBs QBs would be much improved if maps (well AI plans) were connected with the force purchases. There are a number of good scenario scripts that would still be effective as long as the purchases were within a certain % of the expected force type. Essentially what seems to be one of the big problems with QB design is that the designer can't know what forces are available, but that information is present and could be applied to the map choice.

I've had a few experiences with squads not shifting after given a facing order within a building in the past. With only a handful of men moving to give fire until the enemy begins to return fire. In retrospect it was likely just a one off, but since then I've tended to keep better track of my facing orders and haven't really had a chance to see men do it on their own.