Bulletpoint

Higher elevation as in being on a hill or in a church tower - definitely. Being in a tank turret half a metre higher up, not much. That's why even tanks need to get extremely close before they can area fire in a field of crops. Now put away your calculator and play the game. It's your turn

I think we are speaking past each other. You're talking about how things were in the war. I'm talking about the game interface. The artillery category already contains artillery from to various levels, from battleship bombardment down to organic 60mm off board mortars. The cannon company belongs there too, I think. If it had shorter call times in the real war, then that can be reflected in the asset matchup level.

Even if they were sometimes fighting as infantrymen in the real war, in the game, they are still just an artillery support module. They don't appear on the map as troops, as far as I know. I must say I still don't really understand why they are not placed in the artillery tab...

Not sure if you're right about this. Both proper tanks and self propelled guns have difficulties (spotting and) hitting a target behind a ridge - that's why the hull down tactic was invented. You're saying a real tank has less trouble with this, because it's taller and the gun is higher off the ground. But most often, the tank would also try to go hull down, so its gun would also close to the ground with respect to the target, making it equal to the SPG. Also, even if it fires from its full height, the angle of shot is nearly the same. After all, it gains only about a half metre in height, but the target might be 500m away. So you're drawing a triangle ABC where: StuG A=1.55 metres (gun height), while B (distance to target) is 500 metres. Angle to ground: 0.18 degrees PZ IV A= 1.95m, Distance 500m. Angle to ground 0.22 degrees. So, the difference in angles would be 0.04 degrees, just four percent of one single degree. Sources: Data on tanks: http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-Vehicles/Axis/1-Germany/02-mPanzers/PzKpfw4/Data/PzKpfw-4H.htm http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-Vehicles/Axis/1-Germany/05-Sturmpanzers/StuG3/Data/StuG-3G.htm Online triangle calculator for those of us who forgot everything about maths after highschool: http://cossincalc.com/#angle_a=&side_a=1.95&angle_b=&side_b=500&angle_c=90&side_c=&angle_unit=degree

I think that in general, the game allows us to cherry-pick a bit too much, stripping formations of jeeps, trucks, halftracks that we don't need, but that were there historically. Also, some unit prices are a bit off, which means it's usually the same few vehicles that are purchased in most matches. Some AFVs just seem much better bargains than others. For example, I see few people ever purchasing StuGs, because they cost 300 points - most people prefer to either spend 65 extra points and upgrade to a Panther (costing zero rarity points!), or save 54 points and get a Panzer IV instead, sacrificing a bit of armour but getting two (usable) machine guns, a turret (and better spotting, I believe) in return. Or go for a Hetzer, which is actually cheaper than a StuG but way better armoured in the front.

Here's a whole new idea, I think: If only one unit sees incoming enemy fire, and that unit gets destroyed during the turn, then those enemy bullets/shells should not be visible to the player during turn playback. Example: As the game works now, you can send off a vehicle ahead of everyone else, drive it up on a hill, and then if it gets destroyed by an enemy AT gun, you as the player can often see the incoming shot (if the vehicle spotted it) and then you realise approximately where the enemy gun is. But in real life, even if the crew saw the incoming shot, they only had this info for a fraction of a second before they got destroyed. That intel would never get anywhere. Back at HQ, there'd just be sudden radio silence and a last known location on a map. Another example: you send off a 2-man scout team running far ahead of the rest of the units, and it's out of all kinds of C2 contact. They take fire and go down. In the replay, you can see what they saw in their last moments: tracers coming from a particular building or patch of trees. As a player, you can act on that. But again, that info would never get anywhere in real life. If the unit is not destroyed, then it would be assumed they managed to get at least a few words out, and the incoming fire would be shown. If two units saw the incoming fire, then it would be abstractly assumed that info got shared too, even if that other unit also got hit. Gameplay effects: The game would reward units supporting each other better. Another way of doing it would be to say that if a unit gets hit and it's not spotted by any friendly unit, then that intel is lost and not shown. The difference is that in the first version of the idea, it's about spotting the actual incoming rounds, and in the second version, it's about spotting the unit taking fire.

They are actually. Look at 00:05 as you move forward, and also at 00:15, the tree shadows on the right upper part of the screen disappear once they get close to the border of the screen. If you go closer to the ground, it becomes more apparent.

It just seems like a problem that's very hard not to notice in CMFB. While in CMBN, the sun is often high in the sky, so the shadows are small.

Thanks. Yes I have to play with the shadows toggled off, especially in CMFB when the sun is low, casting very long black shadows on the white snow. Any idea what causes it? Nvidia drivers? Settings? Hardware?

Hmm, interesting. I wonder what it is that creates the problem.

Do you see shadows flickering on and off when moving the camera? That's the biggest graphical problem I have, and I know I'm not the only one, as I also see it in CM videos from others. However, I haven't found out if it's all players who get that problem or just some of us...

Did you notice the AA screws up the ground textures? It's visible in your video. I got the same problem once when playing around with the Nvidia settings.

No, but it is an Asus - one of their gamer laptops with a GTX 980M. Also a lot of cash... got it at half price second hand though.

When purchasing US forces for a quick battle, there's an artillery module called "Cannon Company" that's placed in the "Infantry" category. I believe it should be under "Artillery" like all the other support modules? If this is a mistake, it could be more than just a cosmetic problem. The game's auto-buy function could think it's buying infantry, but ends up buying artillery support.

I also have an IPS Gsync monitor, so not sure what it is that causes the flicker. I've read online that it's when the framerate tanks for some reason, but I'm no expert. I just know CM is the only game where I see it. About the mouse camera control, I get a feeling I'm sometimes "dragging the camera through molasses", for lack of a better explanation.

The flicker only appears when the game frame rate fluctuates a lot. It doesn't appear all the time. Sometimes, it's not there at all. Sometimes, it's just barely perceptible. But in other situations, when the camera is pointing in a certain direction, it will flicker like crazy. I think you rotate the view mainly using the keyboard? I find the most sluggish performance comes from holding down right mouse button and looking around that way.

I have a Gsync monitor and it only makes other games smooth, not Combat Mission. It does, however, sometimes make the screen flicker like mad, so I generally turn off Gsync for CM.

Maybe it's very dependent on the type of formation and the exact year/month. I tried to purchase a couple of formations and comparing the best/worst settings. Couldn't really see any difference in experience levels. But it was just some very quick testing.

You mean turning foliage off? Because you can also turn the trunks themselves on/off. Guessing here, but it could be that the tree models in CMSF2 use more polygons, either because they are more detailed or less optimised.

This. Rocket artillery is extremely dangerous to use tactically since it covers so much of a battlefield, often what defines the average CM scenario. That's not to say it shouldn't be used by the scenario designers or featured, just that they have good reason not to feature it in many cases. Of course then it behooves the scenario designer to adjust the defending force appropriately. Some of the biggest Nebelwerfers actually had a very limited maximum range of some 2200 metres, so I guess a typical combat range would be 1000-1500m. That's well within the scope of a CM scenario. And there were many smaller rockets available with a longer range. I see 15cm artillery used all the time, but rarely ever 15cm rockets. They were not a rare weapon either - according to the wiki, 6000 launchers were produced, and millions of pieces of ammunition.

Maybe the game still tracks the morale state of individual teams, even when they are combined into a squad? If so, you only see the average morale states of the various teams comprising the squad. But do the soldiers react to the morale state of the whole squad or are they still under the influence of their own team? Maybe morale is actually even calculated for each individual soldier? If so, it wouldn't really matter to split or not.

Wasn't the barrel designed to handle much greater pressure than from a grenade? (disclaimer: I don't know the answer to this question)

Well done little AAR, thanks @ncc1701e. I liked the way you explained your thinking and approach and how you illustrated it with a lot of screenshots and arrows etc. Some of what you did made good sense, but if I can offer one bit of advice, it would be to think less in terms of flanking and more in terms of key terrain.

Having to make important decisions based on incomplete information.

I definitely prefer to have many different possible semi-random enemy positions in a scenario. Good scenarios deserve to have a lot of replayability. This option is unfortunately not always used by scenario designers. If your tactical approach is sound, it shouldn't hinge on being lucky that an enemy team is/isn't present at a particular location.