Bulletpoint

I understand it cab make sense to use HE against targets in the open, but they should also fire HE against buildings. And currently it seems tanks don't like to do that on their own initiative for some reason.

I was playing around with different tactics that involved lots of shooting against this AFV. I noticed no hit decals appear from hits on the upper, angled part of the front armour. They appear correctly on the small vertical part and on the weapon mount.

Interesting, I never considered it might be to prevent friendly casualties. I'm talking about my own tanks, yes. They will sometimes fire a HE shot but only after, say, 30 seconds or longer of MG fire. And often the target ducks down out of view or runs out the back door before the tank will fire. Meanwhile, any infantry spotted in the open immediately gets HE attention.

I've been wondering about this for a long time. Tanks will nearly always fire HE at troops in the open, but when enemies are spotted in buildings, the tank seems more stingy with its HE ammo and prefers firing the MG. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I know there are stories about tankers firing HE at any enemies spotted, but shouldn't that then include targets inside buildings?

I share your frustrations with casualties, and always try to minimise them. However, I think your thinking might be influenced by modern conflicts where friedly casualties are extremely low compared to WW2. If a NATO nation had to fight a prolonged war against a real peer instead of scattered militants, losses would be enormous and would likely traumatise a generation - and that's even assuming nuclear weapons were not used.

The author added air support to some missions (pretty useless because you can't really get LOS to call it in and it is very ineffective anyway), boosted enemy morale a bit and added a few enemy guns in key places. I don't know if it's suitable for 4.0, not more or less than any other CM game I guess.

What if you do both, like I do? It was a joke with Stielialpha I appreciate you have an eye for details and I hope your bug reports get due attention.

There's a glitch that allows you to skip the extra setup time though... PM me if interested in fixing it.

@StieliAlpha

I already reported this in 2017:

Did you do any testing to find out if changing the animations actually has a gameplay effect? And what happens if you play against someone who has not modded his game? Do you gain an (unfair) advantage? Not saying you did the mods to cheat or anything. Just wondering how this works.

Thank you very much. Changing the texture setting to "high quality" also seems to have finally fixed my crash problems in CMFB! Haven't had a single crash since I changed the setting, despite some very long sessions. I spoke too soon. It just crashed on me again, wiping 3 hours of progress with a huge scenario. It does seem to crash less though, as previously, it would crash maybe once ever 3-4 turns, and I saved constantly. Now it's after many hours.

I think part of this is that barns are textured to look like strong stone buildings. So new players coming into the game find they offer almost no cover, but that's because under the texture, it's actually a wooden barn. Old timers have learnt to recognise barns and avoid putting troops in them, but I can see how it would frustrate newcomers. My suggestion would be to give each building a texture that reflects the cover it actually offers.

Not to turn the thread political, but it seems that in the US at least, people had more faith in their leaders back in the day. Trust in government in the US. Source: Pew Research Center http://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-77

They also take out the.. Exactly

IMHO it's not that artillery is too strong. It's that the modeling is a bit off. It works in strange ways. Arty causes too many casualties far from the impact, and arguably too few for close hits. 150mm shell bursting in small trees directly above the heads of two scouts: 1 lightly wounded? A guy running out of a building just as an 88mm shell hits the wall next to the door: apparently no damage? At other times, a rifle grenade will cause a casualty inside a building 60 metres away, and that's while the guy is looking out the window on the other side of the building I don't know how explosions are modeled in this game, but it seems to be very abstracted.

Looks lovely, and I think it would be possible to improve it even more with a bit more work. I hope your idea will make it into the official game.

Set out on the 'Road to Montebourg' campaign. The version that comes with the game, not the revised version you can download. The revised version is much harder in some missions. Stay away from the 'Courage and Fortitude' campaign for the time being..

There are some issues with how the game handles artillery damage to buildings. Damage from direct hits seems quite small, whereas the combined effect of many distant impacts will cause the building to collapse. My uneducated guess would be that in a real situation, it would be the other way around.

-

The irony is that horses were very common in WW2

After reading your post, I suddenly realise why I'm seeing the game often studder to re-draw the graphics. It's caused by fluctuating frame rates, making the game turn the detail level up and down continually to compensate. Unfortunately, this causes a lag/stutter every time the detail level changes !

I don't think there's any effect on units from being out of contact with each other - apart from with their immediate HQ. But iron mode is useful for getting a better understanding of the limits to unit spotting in general.

Nope, the Panther turret can be shot straight through frontally by a Sherman at close range - about 300m if I remember correctly. You might have won if you had not surrendered. In the end, win or lose is decided by victory points, and if you got the convoys off the map, it could be all that's needed.