Bulletpoint

If you are able to get a bit of an angle, I think it's possible to either area MG fire on the square behind the building or on another square that lets bullets travel on and hit that spot. In any case, flanking is king against that kind of defence. Units are sitting ducks if you flank them while they're sitting behind buildings.

I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that in addition to the ordinary spotting cycles, when units take certain actions like firing, or move into view of each other, there's an automatic spotting check outside the 7-second cycle. I know I've often seen units spotted the moment they open fire, rather than a few seconds afterward. I don't know for sure how it works, but in my experience, it seems quite variable how long it takes to spot. The 7 seconds is the maximum "worst case", so on average a spotting chance comes around after 3.5 seconds. Cycles are faster at closer distances, and there's definitely a spotting bonus when units are moving or firing. Especially when moving. But I doubt there's an extra spotting cycle inserted.

More so than when using the regular facing command?

I believe the target arcs do not affect spotting/unit focus, but only restrict what they will fire upon...

I assume you're being sarcastic here, but at least I'm happy we agree about some of the points I brought up. The purpose of my post was not to steal the spotlight to make a grumble thread, but to reflect a bit on the topic of using this game to "roleplay" and recreate the infantry tactics of various nations in WW2. I also sometimes try to recreate real tactics, with mixed results. My point was that there are some reasons why certain tactics work in real life, but not always in the game. The subleties of human psychology and physical reaction times VS uniform spotting probability and spotting cycles for example. Spotting cycles: Depending on distance, it can take up to seven seconds for the overwatch element to even get a chance to 'roll the dice' to get a chance to spot the enemy. If they fail their check, they can wait for up to another seven seconds. Then when they do spot, they often need to reposition a little, then aim, then fire several bursts for the enemy suppression meter to fill, and then for the enemies to start to get affected by their suppression and stop firing on your exposed team. In total, this process can take a very long time compared to real-life human reaction times. In contrast, imagine you're in the desert with full view for miles around. There's one building about 100m away. As a human being, you know if there's an enemy nearby, he absolutely has to be in that house, because there's no other place to hide. So you send forward your maneuver element while the overwatch element obviously watches the house. The moment an enemy pops up in a window, it takes a fraction of a second to fire accurately on him. However, in the game, the spotting chance against the desert building in that situation is exactly the same as for a house in the woods where there could also be an enemy behind every tree. Of course, the desert example is extreme, because you rarely have that kind of overview of the landscape. But it also goes in less clear situations. Often, there will be a limited number of potential firing positions that are more likely to hide enemies than other locations. Human beings will instinctively identify and focus on trouble areas. But in the game, it's always the same chance to spot enemies at any given point (affected by distance, experience etc but not by how complex the situation is). That's probably a longer reply than you were looking for, but I think it's an interesting topic. Not saying real tactics never work in the game - just that there are some limits.

Also, it's one of the two scenarios I can remember where smoke is useful (and actually essential). In this case for crossing the railroad tracks. The other scenario is a CMBN map called Buying the Farm, where smoke can be used to get out of the trees and make a base of fire along the hedges on the southern part of the map.

That's the little scenario with the railroad and the bunkers? I thought it was quite ok, but I agree it's a bit "on rails". Also, having lots of forest to clear out and little time on the clock is always frustrating.

True, but other companies also patch their games after launch to fix bugs and adjust balance. Maybe not for 8 years though, but the important stuff (bug fixing, machinegun patch) came in the first years Stuff like tank riders, aircraft, mine-clearing tanks and flamethrowers came in later games/expansions.

I'm not quite sure that's true. It depends on the size and type of building, and also very much on the distance fired, but I think I've seen .50 cal go straight through some buildings at closer ranges. The automobile repairshop building in CMBN comes to mind. I don't think small arms can go through the modular buildings though. Solid tank AP shot definitely can, but it seems to have no effect. Never saw it kill anyone in or behind a building.

And would probably cost you many times its original price if you tried to buy it. Price is always relative to how bad you want it. Michael Yep, and to some people, it will be well worth it.

But it works for 20 years now. This 1925 Ford T also still works, and I'm sure it's fun to drive:

CMBN was released in 2011, so that's getting closer to eight years now. And I don't think it's only a matter of pride. It's a business strategy where they prefer to sell fewer games at a higher price. I'm not competent to say if that's the right strategy or not.

True in theory, but we rarely see these tactics work out in the game, for several reasons. Not to argue against you, but reading your post inspired me to write a couple of reflections about the limits of infantry tactics in Combat Mission: First of all, the subleties of infantry tactics tend to fade to the background once there's armour on the field, and generally there's always plenty of tanks and AFVs in CM scenarios. Once you have armour support, I think it mostly becomes a game of using infantry to probe, then blast pockets of resistance with the tanks, then advance and repeat it. The second reason is that overwatch is arguably less effective in the game as compared to real life. The maneuver element takes a lot of incoming fire before dropping down, and the overwatch element takes a quite long time to spot and engage the enemy. Once it opens up, the overwatch element then stops firing again as soon as it loses sight of the enemy. In real life, (trained) troops would be intelligent enough to keep suppressing the enemy position while the maneuver element either continued on or broke contact. Thirdly, one MG can only reliably suppress one floor of one building. If the enemy squad is split into two sections and they are in two adjacent small modular buildings, you need two machineguns to target and suppress both, even though from the outside, it just looks like one building. Also, it takes a lot of fire to suppress anyone, and the effect disappears quite quickly.

Obviously officers wanted (and want) to push soldiers to fight as hard as they possibly can. But there's a point where they can't push the troops any more. The broken state arrives quite late in CM, and you're still allowed/able to push broken troops to keep fighting. They can advance, and hold positions, and fire back to some extent. Sure, they tend to panic, but then you can rally them and send them back, again and again. That's where it starts to become unrealistic, I think.

Sure hope so. A lot of wargamers overhere, but strangely enough not that many of them know CM. I keep telling them it's the only wargame that really matters, but to no avail. And young people only want shooters. If only they knew about the dutch campaign for CMSF. That would attract quite a few of them. Can anyone remember why the Dutch were chosen for inclusion? Not saying they shouldn't be, it just seems a random small faction to suddenly include.

HE modelling seems a weak point in the game, which is a shame because it does such a good job of modelling ballistics etc. Basically it seems HE just subtracts an amount of hitpoints from all buildings in range, no matter what might be in between, and when HP drop to zero, structures collapse.

Definitely. Making a hard scenario is the easiest thing in the world. I'm tempted to say the reverse is also true.

It's "Contact Front!" It started as a singleplayer mission, but then later I reworked it to be played by PBEM. Despite testers saying it was well balanced, many people thought the Germans had the upper hand when I released it. So I made a second version where the late-game German reinforcements were removed. Links to both scenarios are in my signature.

That's a very good point. Actually I thought I had done that, but I can see I only updated the version name on the headline on the webpage, not on the zip pr the .btt. As for Pierrefitte, I think the only thing that was changed in version 2 was that it fixed an issue that happened when playing scenarios with armoured infantry on upgrading to V3.12. I started making a new and very reworked/expanded version, but it's on indefinite hold. Can't find the time for it any more these days.

That's probably because you have many years of experience. Something that's a tough slog for you would seem like a malicious and unreasonable mission for people with a low-medium proficiency. And that's a fundamental problem with CM scenario design. Scenarios are made by and for people who know the game like the back of their hand. That means there's a brutal learning curve for beginners and people with intermediate skill. Also, replay value can be added by including several different AI setups. In "Pierrefitte", there are 5 different overall AI plans, and there are many variants of each plan, where various units choose from several pre-determined potential setup locations. I wish more scenarios used this option, because when I find a scenario I enjoy, I would like to replay it a couple of times.

It's an old design, not very efficient, outdated in many ways, lots of rough edges. It has a small group of dedicated fans that love it for historical and nostalgic reasons, but most people don't care enough to make it a big business. A bit like a certain game series...

Now THAT is funny!! Yeah, it is! And it made me think. It was intended to be a medium-difficulty scenario, but it turned out as tough as old boots. Why? Because when you're in the editor building the scenario, all the weak points of the defence seem so glaringly obvious, and of course you don't want the player to just steamroll the map. So you start to add little bits and pieces, little extra teams to cover flanks, etc.. All that builds up. To be fair, it was my first scenario, and I think the second one was better. Probably still too difficult though...

Who would have thought there were so many wargamers in Alaska

Thanks for clarifying, but it wasn't actually aimed at you - I was responding to SimpleSimon saying it was laziness on behalf of designers to push players too hard and then wave it away saying those are just the orders you were dealt. I wanted to add that difficulty is extremely difficult to get right. Not only is the skill level of various testers extremely varied, but their individual fortitude and appetite for punishment is also very variable. I had one tester who soldiered through about five unsuccesful attempts at beating one of my scenarios, and he never complained. Then after the scenario was published, some other guy made a youtube video where he ranted bitterly at length about how impossible it was. At the time, I was tempted to just tell him he should go play something else if he wasn't up for it. Then later, I tried playing my own scenario... and I couldn't beat it.

As a budding scenario designer, I actually appreciate the critical posts by @SimpleSimon and @Mattis. I'm reading your posts with interest. Maybe I don't agree with everything, but you make some fair points. However, I feel you forget one very important part of why many scenarios are not all they could be: Lack of proper testing - and not because designers are lazy. Just as scenario designers are quite few, volunteer testers are even fewer. And testing a CM scenario is a massive task, especially if there's AI scripts involved - or if it's a PBEM scenario. Actually, this is one of the biggest reason why I have stopped making new scenarios for the time being. The testing process is just exhausting and takes months, because every time you tweak something, you then need to wait for several pairs of people to play through the battle. Even then, there's no guarantee the final result will be balanced anyway, because it all depends on the skill levels of the random people who donate their free time to help do the tests.