Bulletpoint

Hi Josey, thanks for participating and making the video. It does look exactly like the situations I have been seeing. I've witnessed it with both infantry, light AFVs and tanks. But it's not only the Soviets doing it. My cases have been with German units in CMFB. My personal hunch is that it's some TacAI change that's been introduced in v. 4.1, because I've played for years with previous versions and cannot recall seeing it before 4.1. Just 20 mins ago I sent some savegames for @MOS:96B2P to take a look at.

It also happens with tanks and other AFVs. I have several saves that show armoured cars just looking at targets they are actively spotting, that are close (2-300m range) and that are not in much cover (a bit of forest). They don't open fire. But I can order them to fire, and then they have no problems engaging.

Your issue sounds a lot like the one I posted about recently here:

To the best of my knowledge, the wait command only delays affects movement commands. It doesn't delay firing commands, facing commands, or smoke commands. So 'face + smoke + 30sec wait' will change facing first, then pop smoke, as soon as the squad is finished changing facing. Meanwhile, the timer ticks down. In total, they will wait 30 seconds, then move to next waypoint, if they have one, no matter if they managed to throw the smoke grenade or not.

That's what I wrote, too. So we agree

Good points there. +1

Yeah everything is impossible, we've been over this before

I would never underestimate anyone short and scrawny. But I wonder if this account has ever been independently verified, or if we just have to trust the US army. All sides pumped out lots of propaganda during the war, and i don't think they ever stopped since..

The CM engine can do this too, as we see each time a shell makes a crater. I don't know why they don't use this feature to make trenches. You could have the landscape looking normal until the trench is spotted, then it could dig down the trench instantly. Realistic trench, plus Fog of War problems solved.

Let's not over-complicate this. A lot of things are hard to do, but get done anyway. Also by small independent game developers. Of course nobody expect a magic campaign generator that can produce quality campaigns like KG Peiper at the push of a button, but a basic map generator would not be that hard to code, and a simple system to assign types of missions, plonk down some deployment zones and objectives could definitely be done. It's all about scoping the project right. In the end, it depends more on priorities than on whether it's too hard to do. The reason we don't have a campaign generator right now is that Steve clearly thinks other stuff would be a better use of the time. Which is fine with me. But the idea of a random campaign generator is good. It's one of the things I would get excited about in a new release. Having pixeltroops speaking with Australian accent isn't - no offense to the Aussies

Wow, just wow. You are a patient and tolerant guy. Is that the guy who wrote those long rants on Gamesquad?

It's an interesting idea. I think it would basically mean a much more difficult game for the attacker. He would either advance too slowly, or he would have to be really clever about pre-programming long sets of elaborate move paths with pauses etc. A variable turn length setting would be nice. Manually having to start up the game, load the savegame, click the red button, then wait till dropbox uploads it, then wait for the opponent to do the same, etc five times in a row sounds pretty darn boring though

I always wondered if the whole story was either made up or hugely inflated for propaganda purposes.

That's because there is no AI I'm talking scenarios and PBEMs. Those are a challenge.

It's a really hard game, but don't be intimidated, and don't be afraid to fail. When you lose or do poorly, think critically about why and how you can fix your mistakes next time. Also, the biggest single advice I can give you is to never save and reload to correct your mistakes. If your most important tank gets blown up or gets stuck in the mud because you made a mistake, continue playing till the end and see how well you can do without it.

Yes, many times. It mostly seems to happen in forest. Around 20m I think. I think the game engine does not allow grenades/satchels to be thrown into buildings (even when adjacent), only out of them. They are not elite close combat troops, but they are very useful. Especially since if you breach into a floor, the demo charge stuns and even sometimes kills the enemies inside, often letting your engineers storm in and finish the job without taking casualties. You need to find a building with a side without windows though. They are also pretty good tank hunters in a pinch.

Yes, satchel charges are sometimes thrown against tanks and infantry. No, German grenade bundles are not specifically modelled. But they are implied, since infantry can close assault tanks. Justs regular hand grenades are seen thrown, but they are assumed to represent grenade bundles, molotov cocktails, etc.

One thing that helps me estimate LOS is using the zoom key (x) to zoom in a bit, around 5x. I find that makes it easier to "walk through" the landscape and judge LOS to/from various places.

That's because you can't actually get the camera down to eye level. I think it goes down to eye level of a standing man, but troops are usually kneeling or prone.

They escaped death by... dying?

Thanks for this level-headed comment.

I don't think so. In a recent game. I had 3 LMG42 teams firing at an enemy team completely exposed on golf-lawn grass at 200-300m. My LMG teams were prone, so should get good bipod stabilisation. They really struggled to hit anything. Bursts massively to the right and left of the target. By the way: I think it might be a good idea to do tests in the most recent version; 4.02. I have a slight hunch that things might have changed recently.

It was me who brought up tank MG accuracy, and I just want to say I actually don't know if they are too accurate. All I can say is that I notice them being more accurate than infantry MGs, so when debating relative power between tanks/infantry, that should be part of the discussion. I read somewhere on these boards that tanks only have one "accuracy value", which they use for both the cannon and for the MGs. I don't know if it's true. All I can say is that if I flank a hedgerow with a tank, it zaps infantry quite fast with its MG at 200m range, whereas LMGs take a long time to hit anything. Maybe that is realistic, I honestly don't know.

Well, it's Normandy But from what I gather from your posts, go with CMFB or CMFI. Or CMRT. There's very little difference between those games, apart from theater and available forces.

Try Otto Carius: Tigers in the Mud. I believe there's a part where he leaves his Tiger to recon on foot, then the Russians attack overrun his position, and it's only blind luck that he doesn't get shot. Haven't read the whole book, but I remember somebody posting that part of it on this forum years ago.