Freyberg

Well, in my opinion that is exactly why snarky comments should be avoided: Because they tend to overshadow everything else you might have said. If you want a reasonable discussion you are generally better off making sure that your discussion partner isnt ticked off.

Back to the topic:
I have had a lot of these running around the house issues with teams when playing the Welcome to Sicily campaign in CMFI (updated to game engine 4) recently. I have used the same methods as you described above - with no luck. But as this campaign is several years old it might be due to building issues "baked into" the campaign - as MikeyD mentioned.

No hard feelings here, but sometimes i think you read past what i try to say intentionally. For ~10 years squads did not act like a bunch of morons running around buildings to far side doors that are often observed by the enemy. That is what worked perfectly for about 10 years.
Yes, the AI generally does attack like a big blob moving forwards(CMx1) or like scripted(CMx2) without brains, i do not talk about that, i talk about the specific behavior of them spliting up where they should not, by them self. IF i want them split, i do it myself. The AI is usually too stupid to decide things but now they got the autonomy to decide anyways.
 
You are re-interpreting things here, the "workaround" is to get a group of AI morons to use 1 damn door, and not the other one too. The "workaround" is to take away autonomy that has been given in engine 4 to mindless bots that have no sense of awareness of their surrounding. THAT is the workaround.
If i as the player want to use split squad command, when where and how or not at all, should be my decision not the decision of a mindless robot tacAI that has no clue about things happening in the scenario. As i say before, it worked fine for ~10 years, that change in v4 was not needed at all.
I disagree! The extra input should be optional, when and where i want it. Not a forced mandatory move to "work around" the stupidity of the new AI behavior in v4 to get it to do what it did for ~ 10 years, as i keep saying.
.
.
Now, in order to say something positive, i think you make nice videos, there is good footage in there and the presentation is coherent, i like that. Good job on that!

I like Red Thunder: Reckoning
Because the atrocities the German people suffered in the final Soviet assault on the Reich (and afterwards) weren't as terrible as those the Russian people were subjected to, and were the result of the majority of Germans supporting or failing to stand up to a racist, genocidal and dictatorial government that committed those horrors in their name. So it was a reckoning - the horrors they'd unleashed bouncing back on them!

"If" right ... and IF not they suddenly loose all brains and act extremely stupid? The game should work no matter what, if i split teams or not should not make a difference in this case. It did work perfectly for like ~10 years or so. As i said, only the player can split teams, the AI can not, so on top of introducing quiet some extra input for the player that has no gameplay value or justification,  you break the behavior of the AI squads that can not use a "workaround" as it is so aptly called. They should just fix the game to where the workaround is no longer needed and the game just functions like it did for ~10 years instead of justifying some broken tacAI with some goofy arguments that are beside the point.

I remember reading in one of the changelogs that the damage from WP had been reduced a little. So it's apparently meant to cause some casualties. I've never seen it actually happen though, but then again I haven't tried much. Most of the smoke rounds I see are not WP.

It was a "feature" that did not needed to be fixed, what you call a fix is way more annoying and unrealistic than the traffic jam ever was. I know it was introduced with engine 4, i never had that problem in CMSF, CMBN and CMRT it works flawless there, i do not have them updated to engine 4. I dont want this game to be a game of workarounds, where i have to permanently use workarounds in order to have my infantry do what they did before engine 4 without any workarounds.
Maybe you only play tiny scenarios in realtime where you have 3 squads and that is it, god forbid i play scenarios where i push 2 or 3 companys through urban space. And using the workaround every turn on several squads, no, just no that is plain stupid. You can play your tiny scenarios as you like but leave me in peace with your smart suggestions.
Something else, is this what you do in this forums? Jumping people that have perfectly reasonable suggestions or feedback and act like they are retards that can not play the game?

What an obnoxious reply. Pompous oafs like you are what I hate about this forum.

You can't fire WP into a building! Somebody might get hurt!

In CMBS I've seen a vehicle tag a prone infantryman hiding back in the treeline among bushes. Welcome to the world of IR optics. The guy probably would have survived in a WWII title. In modern titles the plan 'Maybe he won't spot me here' has a pretty low success rate. Half the gameplay involves utilizing terrain features.
As for hiding, your ability to hide in the game is dependent on experience level. Green troops lack proper discipline, fidget about and make noise. Elite troops, by contrast, will hide like the Predator alien.

I recall years and years ago Steve once quipping, in response to floods of Beta team botanical requests, that he wasn't building a horticultural simulator

Looks like someone left the gate open.

A rolling barrage is a pre-planned thing, so the more realistic way to do it would be with TRPs.

If you are looking for opponents to play against or just wanna have a chat about combat mission. hex! is a great place to hang out in Discord.

Hex! – A dedicated hub for computer wargames On behalf of Hex! We would like to invite you to join our family of computer wargamers. If you enjoy playing computer wargames and are interested to find others just like you then you’re at the right place! Hex! has more than 500 active members and growing! We support almost every kind of computer wargame out there. Hex! is your one stop hub for everything computer wargames! Here are some of the benefits by being a member on Hex! Find opponents across every type of computer wargame – we support over 50 different kind of wargames! Join or organize large MP games consisting of dozens of players! Share your AAR and discuss with other wargamers freak just like you! Dedicated staff working 24/7/365 for your needs! Influence the community – we are open to your suggestions! Wargame Monday - A day dedicated to playing wargames and sharing your experience Hex! has dedicated channels for 18 different languages! Freebies from promotional events! You may join us through Discord ====> https://discord.gg/yW2rfb  

Yeah, I just want the expansions.  ASAP.  FI will be fun I am confident.  But RT will be amazing.  Those epic armored battles in hungary & germany/poland.  Then they can go back to 1941-42 I hope.  

Interesting discussion. During my time in the German Bundeswehr, I had the pleasure to use the MG3 often which is very similar to the MG42 (ROF was reduced to less than 1200 rds/min; too much heat and too much ammo to carry forward I heard. The only machine I ever heard of where the performance was reduced). Phantastic piece of engineering, we fired single shots on a bunker target at 600 m - no problem to hit an opening 1 ft x 1/2 ft with the first shot.

Barrel exchange is really made in seconds. The container for the substitute barrel is a cylinder which opens lengthwise to two half cylinders with the barrel lying on one half. Take the asbestos glove, open the barrel arrestor, pull out the hot barrel, lay that into the empty half of the open container, take the cold one , put it in, close the arrestor, recock and fire. We had drills to train that, I would estimate some 10 sec. When I remember correctly, this was required after some 250 rds fired. The same quick exchange was made with the breech block, approximately the same time needed when trained (after 500 rds?).

Against ground targets always short bursts were recommended. Aerial targets were to be fought in long bursts.

Carry and use: In CM, the MG is fired standing and kneeling, something we never did or were trained and it was not part of the field manual for the MG; at least I cannot remember to having seen that. I am convinced, no matter how strong or heavy you are, most of the burst will go upwards into the sky. This piece pushes really hard and steady.

Mostly it is fired prone, the trick is to find some arrest at your feet, push into the two leg support at the front with your shoulder somewhat high, and then lower your body so, that there is a strong pushing tension between your feet and the front support. Then, the MG lies perfectly fixed and does not deviate when fired. Left hand is always at this small hook at the underside of the shoulder piece and pushes that rearwards.

During extended training we had an exercise to advance with five soldiers, one with MG3, and half size targets (head to hip) flipping up suddenly at relatively short distances. There I found at the field manual how to fire the MG from the hip and immediately implemented that. The leather carry belt is actually composed of two parallel belts, as you can see at the photo on the previous page with the soldier carrying it with one hand. This belt is fixed forward at an eye at the centre of gravity, rear end of belt unfixed at pistol grip, split in two and hung around the neck. The right hand takes the pistol grip and the left both legs of the frontal support. The legs are pulled to the left side of the barrel. Now you have a configuration like Vasquez at Alien2. Nice to carry, quick, stable, and precise. I used that at this execise, one short burst at each emerging target, aimed low and pulled up, all targets hit, some ammo left, no other comerade was able even to fire one shot with their G3 assault rifle - quick shooting was never trained.

Besides the old but decent shotgun of my father, this was always my favourite weapon.

A rolling barrage is a pre-planned thing, so the more realistic way to do it would be with TRPs.

Instead of a 'follow' command, why not just have a 'drive on road' command...?

Instead of a 'follow' command, why not just have a 'drive on road' command...?

On one of the big night scenarios - the one featuring the 84th US Division IIRC - infantry movement was noticeably slower, and troops were getting winded up quicker, than what I am used to. Similar conditions can be found on the first Chaumont scenario.
On CMFI I fought a couple years back a big QB with similar settings - that got AAR'ed by my opponent on these forums - and I don't remember the same difficulties.

I think Mikey D has a point!

Complaining that a historical sim is too historical is a non-starter, its like complaining that the chicken sandwich you bought contains chicken.
An often-repeated joke of mine is someday BFC will give all this up and move to where the real money is - making My Little Pony roleplay iphone games for Japanese schoolgirls. Historical tactical sims is BFC's passion. If their games aren't that why would they be doing this at all?
I think its a bit ironic that first there's the suggestion to compile a single mega game, and at the same time wondering why the TO&E is so complex. A 50 gig $700 title spanning 3/4 of a century wouldn't require a complex TO&E?

I didn't think it was possible to ever be "finished" with a Battlefront game

Most of the time my complaints are reserved for other people's complaints.  

I initially wasn't going to purchase RTV because I didn't think the time period was that interesting, but from the amount of work that's apparently gone into this I think ill play it anyway. A lot of that stuff probably isn't necessary, but it does show passion and care on BFC's part for units that don't get mentioned at all in history (unfortunately) and that granularity is why I bought CM in the first place. Hopefully BFC has learned some lessons from it and we can go back to a more "normal" schedule after this release!