Pelican Pal

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

I also support this petition.

I support the idea.
75mm Sherman (with no W's) is a great tank for infantry support with decent antitank capability and protection. I tend to buy them a lot. Pz IV has a good gun for AT work but is too vulnerable. At the typical ranges in CM it is not better vs Sherman in tank vs tank. I avoid them in QBs. StuG III is a capable tank destroyer with good frontal protection, but its limited HE loadout and lack of a useful MG (until the late versions get a coaxial) make it less useful for support. I like to use StuGs in QBs but I do it knowing that I am getting a bad deal on the points. Getting roughly the same value from the three, I would like to see them at roughly the same cost.

Thanks Ian, the Black Sea manual says precious little about APS so i've been running tests to figure out exactly how they operated.


So far I've identified that:

Trophy
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degrees)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon
- Maximum 4 intercepts (270 degrees from front)
- Maximum 2 intercepts(90 degrees from rear)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon's intercept is unique in that it does have segments


Arena
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degree)
- Will not intercept Javelins
- Also seems poor at engaging TOW-2



I doubt we're going to see any patches for Black Sea again, but if we do, it would be nice to increase the Arena cartridge count from 4 to at least 6. Since that would better represent its strengths (more intercepts) compared to Zaslon/Trophy while still maintaining its weakness to Javelins. As an aside I suspect Zaslon/Trophy should not be intercepting Javelins as readily as they do but there isn't a ton of info on it.

 
So the vehicle will correctly intercept projectiles in a 360 degree circle. It just operates closer to Zaslon/Trophy than Arena. Actually its fairly close to the new Arena-M which has 8 charges (4 per side) rather than the old Arena.

Thanks Ian, the Black Sea manual says precious little about APS so i've been running tests to figure out exactly how they operated.


So far I've identified that:

Trophy
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degrees)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon
- Maximum 4 intercepts (270 degrees from front)
- Maximum 2 intercepts(90 degrees from rear)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon's intercept is unique in that it does have segments


Arena
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degree)
- Will not intercept Javelins
- Also seems poor at engaging TOW-2



I doubt we're going to see any patches for Black Sea again, but if we do, it would be nice to increase the Arena cartridge count from 4 to at least 6. Since that would better represent its strengths (more intercepts) compared to Zaslon/Trophy while still maintaining its weakness to Javelins. As an aside I suspect Zaslon/Trophy should not be intercepting Javelins as readily as they do but there isn't a ton of info on it.

 
So the vehicle will correctly intercept projectiles in a 360 degree circle. It just operates closer to Zaslon/Trophy than Arena. Actually its fairly close to the new Arena-M which has 8 charges (4 per side) rather than the old Arena.

Thanks Ian, the Black Sea manual says precious little about APS so i've been running tests to figure out exactly how they operated.


So far I've identified that:

Trophy
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degrees)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon
- Maximum 4 intercepts (270 degrees from front)
- Maximum 2 intercepts(90 degrees from rear)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon's intercept is unique in that it does have segments


Arena
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degree)
- Will not intercept Javelins
- Also seems poor at engaging TOW-2



I doubt we're going to see any patches for Black Sea again, but if we do, it would be nice to increase the Arena cartridge count from 4 to at least 6. Since that would better represent its strengths (more intercepts) compared to Zaslon/Trophy while still maintaining its weakness to Javelins. As an aside I suspect Zaslon/Trophy should not be intercepting Javelins as readily as they do but there isn't a ton of info on it.

 
So the vehicle will correctly intercept projectiles in a 360 degree circle. It just operates closer to Zaslon/Trophy than Arena. Actually its fairly close to the new Arena-M which has 8 charges (4 per side) rather than the old Arena.

Thanks Ian, the Black Sea manual says precious little about APS so i've been running tests to figure out exactly how they operated.


So far I've identified that:

Trophy
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degrees)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon
- Maximum 4 intercepts (270 degrees from front)
- Maximum 2 intercepts(90 degrees from rear)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon's intercept is unique in that it does have segments


Arena
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degree)
- Will not intercept Javelins
- Also seems poor at engaging TOW-2



I doubt we're going to see any patches for Black Sea again, but if we do, it would be nice to increase the Arena cartridge count from 4 to at least 6. Since that would better represent its strengths (more intercepts) compared to Zaslon/Trophy while still maintaining its weakness to Javelins. As an aside I suspect Zaslon/Trophy should not be intercepting Javelins as readily as they do but there isn't a ton of info on it.

 
So the vehicle will correctly intercept projectiles in a 360 degree circle. It just operates closer to Zaslon/Trophy than Arena. Actually its fairly close to the new Arena-M which has 8 charges (4 per side) rather than the old Arena.

Thanks Ian, the Black Sea manual says precious little about APS so i've been running tests to figure out exactly how they operated.


So far I've identified that:

Trophy
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degrees)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon
- Maximum 4 intercepts (270 degrees from front)
- Maximum 2 intercepts(90 degrees from rear)
- Intercepts Javelin
- Intercepts TOW-2

Zaslon's intercept is unique in that it does have segments


Arena
- Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degree)
- Will not intercept Javelins
- Also seems poor at engaging TOW-2



I doubt we're going to see any patches for Black Sea again, but if we do, it would be nice to increase the Arena cartridge count from 4 to at least 6. Since that would better represent its strengths (more intercepts) compared to Zaslon/Trophy while still maintaining its weakness to Javelins. As an aside I suspect Zaslon/Trophy should not be intercepting Javelins as readily as they do but there isn't a ton of info on it.

 
So the vehicle will correctly intercept projectiles in a 360 degree circle. It just operates closer to Zaslon/Trophy than Arena. Actually its fairly close to the new Arena-M which has 8 charges (4 per side) rather than the old Arena.

Testing C2 with a BMP formation and I found that dismounted infantry very quickly lost contact with their platoon leader and with their personal BMPs (Iron difficulty). I felt that this was odd and was doing some searching and found that (apparently) each squad leader would be equipped with a personal radio (R-126, R-352) for dismounted use. This handheld radio acted as a link between the dismounted squad leader and his personal BMP. The BMPs internal radio then connected with the rest of the formation.

So in this instance Coy Commander at top, PL at bottom right:




The entire platoon and Coy Commander should be connected. But in-game a large portion of the formation is shown as out of C2. They would be in communication via a long game of telephone but they would be in connection regardless and the individual squads would seem to be decently connected to their individual vehicle.  For instance, if the Plt. Leader wished to communicate to his personal BMP he would be able to while dismounted. Further if he wanted to communicate to Squad 2 he could.

Plt. Leader -> PL BMP -> Squad 2 BMP -> Squad 2 and then back Squad 2 -> Squad 2 BMP -> PL BMP -> PL

----

Is there any reason that this is not being modeled or am I missing something?






 
 

Testing C2 with a BMP formation and I found that dismounted infantry very quickly lost contact with their platoon leader and with their personal BMPs (Iron difficulty). I felt that this was odd and was doing some searching and found that (apparently) each squad leader would be equipped with a personal radio (R-126, R-352) for dismounted use. This handheld radio acted as a link between the dismounted squad leader and his personal BMP. The BMPs internal radio then connected with the rest of the formation.

So in this instance Coy Commander at top, PL at bottom right:




The entire platoon and Coy Commander should be connected. But in-game a large portion of the formation is shown as out of C2. They would be in communication via a long game of telephone but they would be in connection regardless and the individual squads would seem to be decently connected to their individual vehicle.  For instance, if the Plt. Leader wished to communicate to his personal BMP he would be able to while dismounted. Further if he wanted to communicate to Squad 2 he could.

Plt. Leader -> PL BMP -> Squad 2 BMP -> Squad 2 and then back Squad 2 -> Squad 2 BMP -> PL BMP -> PL

----

Is there any reason that this is not being modeled or am I missing something?






 
 

Testing C2 with a BMP formation and I found that dismounted infantry very quickly lost contact with their platoon leader and with their personal BMPs (Iron difficulty). I felt that this was odd and was doing some searching and found that (apparently) each squad leader would be equipped with a personal radio (R-126, R-352) for dismounted use. This handheld radio acted as a link between the dismounted squad leader and his personal BMP. The BMPs internal radio then connected with the rest of the formation.

So in this instance Coy Commander at top, PL at bottom right:




The entire platoon and Coy Commander should be connected. But in-game a large portion of the formation is shown as out of C2. They would be in communication via a long game of telephone but they would be in connection regardless and the individual squads would seem to be decently connected to their individual vehicle.  For instance, if the Plt. Leader wished to communicate to his personal BMP he would be able to while dismounted. Further if he wanted to communicate to Squad 2 he could.

Plt. Leader -> PL BMP -> Squad 2 BMP -> Squad 2 and then back Squad 2 -> Squad 2 BMP -> PL BMP -> PL

----

Is there any reason that this is not being modeled or am I missing something?






 
 

Testing C2 with a BMP formation and I found that dismounted infantry very quickly lost contact with their platoon leader and with their personal BMPs (Iron difficulty). I felt that this was odd and was doing some searching and found that (apparently) each squad leader would be equipped with a personal radio (R-126, R-352) for dismounted use. This handheld radio acted as a link between the dismounted squad leader and his personal BMP. The BMPs internal radio then connected with the rest of the formation.

So in this instance Coy Commander at top, PL at bottom right:




The entire platoon and Coy Commander should be connected. But in-game a large portion of the formation is shown as out of C2. They would be in communication via a long game of telephone but they would be in connection regardless and the individual squads would seem to be decently connected to their individual vehicle.  For instance, if the Plt. Leader wished to communicate to his personal BMP he would be able to while dismounted. Further if he wanted to communicate to Squad 2 he could.

Plt. Leader -> PL BMP -> Squad 2 BMP -> Squad 2 and then back Squad 2 -> Squad 2 BMP -> PL BMP -> PL

----

Is there any reason that this is not being modeled or am I missing something?






 
 

@Pelican Pal  What game is this.....CM:SF2 by any chance?
Open Up doesn't work with AI units in CM:SF2.....Just made a test scenario to check, opened everything up in the editor, but all the AI vehicles were buttoned when I started the game.

One of the things we are missing from CM is the ability to blast "doors" rather than removing entire walls.

https://imgur.com/a/L6J9Zi7

The image speaks for itself. But essentially when ordered into a structure one man will move to just outside the door. Quite often getting himself killed since he loses both the concealment and cover bonus from the building.

I've seen this happen a few times in SF2 Canadian Campaign. Has anyone seen it crop up anywhere else/has there been any comment on it? I have a vague memory of it occurring in Black Sea but need to test

You have to open the map in a hex editor and change what game the map is associated with.
 
I haven't tried it, but I suspect you could pull CM:SF maps. Although they would probably just be topographic maps since there are so few shared elements.
 
 
For a while now I figured there was some sort of internal BFC method of porting maps since many of the QB maps and a few of the CM:RT and CM:BS maps are shared between games.
 
Scipio is the one who did the orignal legwork of figuring out how exactly it was done and Rokko brought it to my attention/ made a nice post detailing how to do it.
 
 
I'll continue working on getting map porting to be more reliable and maybe setup a sort of port rulebook once I figure out what causes issues and if there is enough interest. Right now I do know that the game will crash if you try to port a map with a non-modular building that the current game doesn't have an association for.
 
 
Edit:
 
Right now the process is just a lot of manual work, but is relatively easily done once you know what you are doing. The larger issue is knowing what the game can/cannot handle. I suspect this is why BFC hasn't released any sort of tool to do this. As it would require a certain amount of parsing of each terrain tile and then converting it into something else. not impossible by any means, but I suspect more work than it would be worth as it would be a programmer heavy job. So it becomes a map translator or airbursting munitions sorta problem.
 
I also want to mention that if anyone is interested in porting one of their older maps let me know and I can work on it. Right now I'm just trying different maps for no other reason than to see what works/doesn't so I can put that time into someone's map if they are interested.

Hi, 

On the CM Discord I've seen a few people mention that they cannot view the maps and mods subforum when not logged in.  I'm fairly sure that isn't intended so just wanted to bring it up.

The image the person is seeing:

Broadly I agree with Kaunitz but would take a slightly different tack. Tanks themselves are not overpowered, but Combat Mission does a poor job at simulating their weaknesses for a variety of reasons.
CM does a honestly very poor job with fortifications.
Infantry lack a good ability to safely move from point-to-point in a trenchline Firing steps or even basic keyholing isn't done Buildings cannot be fortified or made part of an overall plan No overhead cover etc.... This just means that defensive positions are much weaker to fire and destruction that they generally were. It becomes an increasingly large problem as your opponent gains more firepower (e.g. tanks),
 
 
The other primary reason is player related, players have too much control. Largely nullifying the negatives of armored vehicles.
Armor always has infantry support I can't really recall the last time I had my armor advance without an infantry screen or recon element. Yet when you read histories you find tons of situations where armor advances without infantry. Its almost a trope. Armor advances with infantry, infantry is pinned down, armor continues to advance into enemy lines, realize the infantry isn't with them, turn around and drive back.
Essentially though communication and combat friction armor should be alone far more often than a player will let it be. Which leads into the next point
Player can borg spot for their armor The player always has a full intel picture and can inform everyone's moves based off of that. Wherein reality your tanks might not know where the forward defenses are because they aren't being shot at by them. They might drive straight through a strong position that is solely engaging infantry, for example.
 
 
 
An example from a large scale 100 player shooter I play called Hell Let Loose. I was the gunner of a Sherman and we advanced forward towards the objective and found a large amount of German infantry to our front. We stopped and began to engage them (range of maybe 125 meters) and after sometime engaged and destroyed a Panther. This whole time we were wondering why our infantry wasn't also advancing up to us?
Finally we noticed that next to our tank (maybe 20 meters away in some fortifications) was a number of heavily armed German infantry. They had no weaponry to destroy our tank, and being focused on the enemy to our front we did not notice them. They were able to keep our infantry pinned far behind us for several minutes until we finally pivoted and engaged them.
 
Essentially a key weakness of armor is its ability to incorrectly interpret what is happening and where it is at.  In CM the player largely nullifies that weakness.

As an aside this is one of the reasons I believe its beneficial for players to also try out relatively "arcade" first person shooter titles. All games do a lot to remove friction, but there is still more of it in a multiplayer game than a single-player game like CM. In my above example, from Hell Let Loose, we actually had an infantry leader on the "radio" telling us that they couldn't come up because there were Germans to their front. We misinterpreted that to mean that the Germans to OUR front were somehow still engaging the infantry.

Bit the bullet on making a forum account to bring this up, because it's something I've been running up against more and more as I play more and start to poke around at making and modifying scenarios. Basically I've been finding some bugs, oversights and oddities in TO&Es and thought a place to collate and discuss them would be valuable, as I doubt I'm the only one who has found some, and documenting them all in one place might help players and scenario makers work around what is and isn't there, help the devs identify and rectify technical issues or consider alterations to certain formations/vehicles/teams and also just let some of us politely vent a little bit of frustration. Many of these issues are likely to be extremely simple, a matter of changing a number value in a unit's cargo load or adding something to a force selection list, but given the breadth and depth of content in CM, it's still worth reporting them because otherwise it is very likely that they'll continue to slip through the cracks, as indeed they have done until now. Of course, in an ideal world we could crowdsource solutions from the community rather than just feedback but sadly I don't think TO&E editing is going to be on the cards anytime soon.  
I'll try to break down what I've found so far into Bugs, Oversights and Quibbles: Bugs are things that don't work, formations that should be present in a given period not appearing for selection in Quick Battles and the like, where I anticipate something is supposed to be functioning a certain way but just isn't, Oversights are things that aren't there or haven't been appropriately modified for task or errors in correctly portrayig a unit's historical organisation, ala vehicles not being accessible in the single vehicles tab or having inappropriate cargo/ammunition loads, or the wrong vehicle being the command vehicle of a mixed platform platoon, etc. These are issues that likely were simply missed in the larger scale work of getting the game developed, and Quibbles are things that I just don't like, be it for reasons of history, gameplay/balance or a combination thereof, like the points costing or composition of certain units/vehicles, they will be a lot more long-winded as they require justification. The reason I'm putting these three, potentially very divergent categories all in the same thread is that I don't know BF's intent on each instance and thus can't say with absolute confidence what was a conscious choice that I just happen to disagree with and what was missed or didn't function as intended, so I'd rather none of them be wholly discounted as 'irrelevant to the topic' because their exact origin was not correctly divined, and I also particularly think there is still merit to debate on whether certain TO&E choices are the 'correct' ones (especially in relation to specialist teams, where things are considerably less cut and dry than the documentation backed and relatively rigid organisation of a formation). I'd encourage others who want to add to the list to use the same terminology as consistency will make the information easier to parse, and help avoid muddying the water. 
So, all that waffling out of the way, I'll get to the meat of things, though note that as I've spent most of my time with FI, and mostly the Commonwealth forces therein that's where the majority of things I've turned up are, but I'd like for this thread to eventually be title agnostic. 
--
Bugs
- Fortress Italy German Army Gebirgsjager Battalion is not able to be selected in Quick Battles even when it should be present, though it is available in the scenario editor.
- Fortress Italy and Battle for Normandy British Reconnaissance Regiments are only available in the Infantry tab and thus cannot be taken with their vehicle component in QBs, only scenarios, and vice versa, with a dismounted Recce Regt (a not uncommon occurence especially in Italy) unavailable in the Scenario Editor.
- Fortress Italy Brazilian and Indian forces cannot take any vehicles in QBs due to only having Infantry tabs.
- Battle for Normandy Commonwealth Armoured formations have a Recce Platoon option menu that has only a single entry, 'Stuart Tank', presumably this was intended to work similarly to the one in Fortress Italy British Armoured units where you can select between gun tanks or Stuart Recces with a dismount element, but I'm not sure if its current state is truly a bug or simply a vestigial feature that was cut due to the Stuart Recce being a vehicle pack entry for BfN.
 
Oversights
- Fortress Italy Canadians have no anti-tank gun Specialist Teams.
- Fortress Italy New Zealanders and Indians have no 6-pounder anti-tank gun Specialist Teams (they do however, have 17 pounder ones, unlike the Canadians).
- Fortress Italy British Airborne vehicles (jeeps and the Airborne Infantry tab Supply Platoon) have not had their ammunition loads changed to reflect the paras' use of 9mm at all, let alone their higher concentration of SMGs in general, with twice as much .45 as 9mm despite the only Thompsons in the airborne orgs being in the hands of mortar gunners.
- Fortress Italy and Battle for Normandy British Medium Mortar and 6-pounder ATG Specialist Teams do not come with ammo bearers, while their US and German counterparts do, and when taken in formations British Mortars and ATGs have ammo bearers (This one might be a conscious choice I suppose but that seems like a cruel one if so given the British reliance on supporting fires).
- The Bedford QLT TT truck is not available in the Single Vehicles tab for any Fortress Italy Commonwealth force, and as such can only be brought in lorried infantry battalions. It is available in the Single Vehicles tab in Battle for Normandy.
- The Lloyd mortar carrier is not available in the Single Vehicles tab for FI and BfN Commonwealth forces (Honestly the vehicle itself might be an oversight, as it's only present in anti-tank gun platoons/troops [2x Lloyds + 2x 'mortar' Lloyds per section], and contains ammo for 2 inch mortars, which the anti-tank gun platoons do not have and as far as I know the only use of the Lloyd in a mortar related role was as a transport for the 4.2" Heavy Mortar).
- Battle for Normandy British Armoured Car Squadron Car Troops have one of the scout cars designated as the troop HQ vehicle, which is contrary to the Nov 1943 War Establishments and what accounts I've seen of British AC units in action where the subaltern generally commanded from one of the two Daimler armoured cars.
- Fortress Italy Stuart Recces and BfN Stuart Kangaroos carry no additional ammunition for infantry arms. Particularly rough on the former on account of their organic scout teams.
- Fortress Italy New Zealanders have two different Morris CS8 trucks available in the Single Vehicles tab, one of which has 2" mortar ammo and one of which does not. The former is the only Morris CS8 available to any Commonwealth force in FI that has 2" ammo. 
- Fortress Italy and BfN dismounted carrier formations (Infantry Only Recce Regts and Inf Bat Carrier Platoons) lose access to their section PIAT and 2" airborne mortar entirely as they are stored in their vehicles and the game does not take into account those vehicles not being there in the way it does if one were to select the 'dismounted' option available for many mechanised/motorised platoons. It would be nice if these formations could retain those weapons when dismounted, and/or for the sections to be amalgamated into 9 man sections with a 3x3 structure, as dismounted they must act more conventionally as infantry.
 
Quibbles 
- 2 inch mortar ammo is bizarrely rare in both FI and BfN, despite the 2" being one of the integral platoon weapons of British infantry. The only places it can be found are Lloyd mortar carriers, Bedford QLD GSs (in very small quantities), QLD TTs, the aforementioned Kiwi CS8, and one universal carrier in each carrier section from a carrier platoon (though this ammunition is intended for the section's own airborne 2" rather than the resupply of platoon weapons). Not a single round for can be found in a supply platoon's trucks. This seems very odd to me especially when the 2" already comes with such a small complement of initial ammunition, often only enough for a single engagement. Admittedly, making the QLD TT available as a Single Vehicle in FI will mostly address this one.
- A specific quibble as an example for a greater, broader quibble. Daimler Dingo crews should have a rifle and a Bren gun instead of just revolvers, as the given stowage for the vehicle included a rifle, and the sum total procedure for dismounting the Bren gun on a Dingo was to lift it up out of the slot in the front plate. I often wish to use the Dingo crew to conduct stealthier, foot recce once they've reached the limits of where they can safely take their light vehicle, or used its mobility to get to an advantageous vantage point, but with only a pair of revolvers if they run into literally anything they can't generate enough fire to win or to disengage. This kind of dismounted work is both interesting from a gameplay perspective and historical, so giving the crew the necessary tools to look after themselves is I think fine. The broader quibble is that all recce/armoured recce vehicle crews from all nations should receive their proper allotment of stowed weapons for dismounted work, the Daimler Dingo's just a good example as if required I can post the stowage sketches and a historical example of crews dismounting to infiltrate and then hold a position.
- British Scout and Breach teams just kind of suck, and that's a shame because Specialist teams should be a way to flavour units and represent task organisations. Scout teams for everyone else are a combination of foot recce and assault team that can bolster the point squad in an attack with extra close range firepower. A German Scout team is three men, with three SMGs and a pair of binoculars for 28 pts (assuming Reg/Normal/+0, baseline ratings). A US Scout team costs 35 pts, but gets not just binos and a pair of SMGs, but a pair of demo charges, making it a more assault friendly Breach team, albeit with half as many charges. The British team costs 26 pts, gets one SMG, with a 20% chance of a second one and no binoculars. You might as well just grab a scout or assault team from a rifle section for recon or assault, it doesn't offer a tangential utility like the US team does, and at just 2pts cheaper than the vastly more effective German team it's not even good value in a QB setting. My proposition for improving it is simple: Scout teams represent a task organised or attached down three man foot reconnaissance element for an infantry formation. The British already have just such a unit that the Scout team could be modeled off: The carrier section dismount team, exactly the unit a battalion commander might assign to help scout for a probing platoon or to bolster their automatic firepower in an assault. Pump the points up (given an extra 2 SMGs and a pair of binos apparently clock in at 2pts and the cost of Bren detachment is 26pts, I can't imagine more than 30pts being necessary), give them an SMG, a Bren and a rifle with a 1 in 3 chance of getting a pair of binoculars (representing getting the section leader's team). 

For the Breach team, with no SMG they cannot be relied upon for one of their primary tasks, breaching into structures because they'll often bust in and promptly lose the firefight with people in the room or the next one down where your covering troops who can't follow them in for another turn cannot assist. Also, they get binoculars for some reason, unlike the Scout team. Now, I get why they have no SMG, the British were relatively light on automatic weapons for the most part and it's important not to overcorrect that in the name of gameplay and risk damaging the historical representation of these forces, but, I'm fairly certain there were instances where CW units' SMGs were task organised into concentrations in the frontline units, particularly for urban fighting, and I think a Breach team is a good opportunity to represent that. I don't want to make a concrete statement that it was done because I can't remember what sources I heard it from and in which battles (I want to say Ortona but I just cannot remember) but giving them a weapon distribution the same as the current Scout team (1 SMG with 1 in 5 chance of a second) or just a pair of SMGs would go a long way to making them a bit more fun to use.
- FI and BfN British Motor Platoons should probably have a chance at a second SMG in their first section and the platoon commander should have a higher chance of a rifle or SMG than a revolver. Motor platoons had 7 SMGs in their war establishment per platoon and 20 rifles. 15 Rifles in the sections, another 3 for the mortarmen and HQ, that leaves two 'spare' for 2 of the drivers, and similarly, 5 SMGs are drawn by the HQ, Mortar team and similarly, 2 are left for the drivers, nominally. However, given the job of a driver, I've some pretty hefty doubts that the Platoon commander was happy to leave a functional rifle or SMG in the trunk to saunter about with his revolver, but this is conjectural because I've yet to find much of anything detailed written about the motor battalions.
--
Well, if you made it through that godawful meandering novella of a post, thank you, feel free to chime in with your own TO&E discrepancies if you've run into any, gripes if you've got them, or just to tell me I'm wrong, again my hope here is that this can be a bit of a ongoing thread for CM TO&E discussion and analysis. 

I ran a quick test and wasn't able to get this to trigger with small-arms.

IIRC friendly fire is based on weapon type and given that this is an HMG it might be able to cause friendly fire.

Edit:

Because the example is a tank firing its coaxial it probably counts as a different weapon-type for FF calculations.

Did some tests in the latest build to validate the glaring discrepancy reveal by airbursts over BMPs vs. airbursts over tanks, and filed a report on this.  Also noted the lack of damage to anything but mobility on tanks by near misses and included the previously provided article in Field Artillery that had field test results, as well as the link to the discussion where @HerrTom provided some modeling results for validation.
However, I would note that artillery in CM is almost always far more accurate, frequently more precise and sometimes more responsive than in reality, so a perfect match of HE damage / lethality based on distance of burst will not necessarily result in realistic outcomes due to these other factors.

Another quick test and 60s of PKM fire did more system damage than an artillery barrage. In fact the two PKMs did more damage in 20 seconds.

@BFCElvis

Is there any internal discussion of this? Is it an expected limitation of the engine, design decision, a bug, oversight etc..?

------

To clarify the issue: Artillery has no effect on vehicle systems unless a direct hit occurs (tracks/wheels being the only exception). This has nothing to do with the KO rate.

 

The problem is that unlike Patton's Recon guys, our pixeltruppen don't know what to do if they get shot at.  If they are on HUNT, they immediately stop and make lovely targets.  Speed is their only weapon and safety.  In the open desert of CMSF it's good to run em FAST across the enemy front.  It's hard to hit a fast-moving vehicle.
In WW2, as mentioned above, run em FAST down a road to a waypoint and have em REVERSE immediately.  After i dunno how many hurs of playing and experimenting it's the best way to locate an enemy and have the recon vehicle stay alive.  Nonetheless, they are always in significant danger of getting hit or KIA.

Ceasefires are secret within the game.

As far as whether you tell your opponent it depends on who you are playing. Usually what will happen is that either myself or my opponent will throw in the towel and message the other. At that point we both submit a ceasefire since a surrender sets all surviving units of the surrendering player to "missing". Although I don't play for the end-game win-condition since it ought to be obvious how well you performed and the Major/minor/tactical victory/loss doesn't actually matter. I imagine some players actually do hold to that in which case you might want to keep it secret.