Bulletpoint

Isn't this what all users experience? I don't know. Maybe. And I don't know why the game engine would be loading/unloading textures all the time, if there's enough RAM to keep them in memory? I play with a few texture mods, but I got the same behaviour before I installed those.

I think this might be part of the reason why I also get sluggish/fluctuating performance. I play the game flying over the map with the WASD-keys and turning the camera using the right mouse button. I change altitude rapidly all the time too, using the scroll wheel . I get the feeling the game constantly shuffles things back and forth between main memory, video memory and (maybe) the SSD, even though in theory, I supppose it should all fit into the 8Gb of memory and 4Gb of video memory. Apart from fluctuating frame rates, one of the symptoms is that textures sometimes seem to drop down to their most undetailed level for a split second, then get loaded again.

Is this how it worked in CM1? Never got to play it unfortunately.

Just had a PIAT team crawl into position in a hedgerow to fire at a tank 110m away. It missed, but immediately it was spotted and engaged by the two enemy tanks, as well as a team in a building (all about 140m distance). Since the PIAT has no exhaust smoke when firing (at least that I know of), should it be easy to spot when firing? Both enemy tanks were buttoned up.

That's right! More information on Denmark can be found in this old documentary about our little kingdom

One could say there's no real point in having different realism levels at all. If you want artillery call times to be longer, you can just make yourself wait two minutes in position before calling it in. If you want buddy aid to take longer, keep your guys in position for some minutes after they finish doing the aid. But personally I like having the computer being the referee of what I can and cannot do, and how long it takes.

Yes, I imagine it would start to have major effects in real-time play. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

No, that's basically it. As I stated, Iron mode makes it more difficult to get a big picture view of the battlefield, which interferes/retards strategic planning and tactical micromanagement. Thanks for the answer. But I'm still not sure how Iron Mode makes it more difficult to get a big picture view of the battlefield? On Iron, information on enemy contacts is still gathered as normal by my units and exchanged through the chain of command. When I click on one of my units, I see only what that unit sees. But when I click once again, I'm back to seeing the big picture? Is that picture in any way clouded compared to Elite mode?

Steve, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on what the intended purpose of the Iron Mode is, and if you feel it accomplishes that purpose as it works now? I'm not being snarky at all here, I'm genuinely interested. I wondered about this since I started playing several years ago. Because as I understand it, the only real difference between Elite and Iron is that I have to click an extra time with my mouse to return from the selected unit's limited view to get full overview of all my forces. Yes, I understand that my troops have to spot each other, but as far as I know, that means nothing for how the troops actually perform. As such, it seems like a superfluous mode, and the reason more people don't play Iron is maybe not that they don't like more realism, but that the mode doesn't really offer any more realism. Am I missing something?

Also persistent map damage would be great for all the dedicated people playing those huge hex-based campaigns. (I'm not one of them, but the campaigns look very fascinating)

No, I think we're going in circles here. Play the game as you like and have fun.

Depends how long ago you were playing. Wooden Bunkers were adjusted at least once in patches. On my test map, a 75mm Pack Howitzer KO's a wooden bunker with an average of 3 hits, firing over open sights at 900 meters. I was talking about indirect fire. Definitely direct fire is effective, that's the point I was trying to make. Direct fire good, indirect fire bad - against wooden bunkers. Not true. I didn't have a single case where troops abandoned their trenches while under on-map mortar and howitzer fire. I think the keyword here is "on map" indirect fire. CptMiller did a good video presentation of the issue. Because you don't need to suppress them and get close. If you can get a good base of fire at about 200m range you can just shoot the guys in their trenches when they pop up to shoot. (assuming you have fire superiority and that it's a game against the computer - a human opponent might make his guys hide in the trench).

Hmm.. maybe I'm just plain wrong (definitely possible) or maybe they adjusted the game since I began playing some years ago, but I remember those wooden bunkers to be invulnerable to small/medium sized mortars and 75mm howitzers. I remember one of the scenarios from the Road to Montebourg (Hell in the Hedgerows) where there's a hedgerow with several wooden bunkers. Back then I could not hurt them with my howitzers, even though I counted several direct hits. Or unless they cover, which they will do automatically. The point is that trenches and foxholes protect quite well against indirect fire (in version 3.12 at least). That doesn't mean troops are invulnerable in trenches, it just means they will survive longer. But in the game, troops automatically pop up again after hiding, so rifle fire is effective in a "whack-a-mole" fashion. You need to get your own guys into some kind of cover as well though, and depending on what exact game you're playing it might be hard to come by. I play only CMBN, and there's usually some bocage to hide behind while shooting the inhabitants of the trenches. It depends also on the version of the game. In 4.0, troops will leave their trenches when under mortar fire, and get cut down in the open. And of course if you have lots of artillery, it will definitely do its job, also against trenches and foxholes. But in that case you're spending a lot of shells, and even if you have it, it takes a long time to call in the fire mission and deliver enough ammunition as well.

Wrong. Also wrong. Deaf ears and all that, so I'll leave it to SLIM. Since you're a captain and I have no military background, I'm actually all ears to how I'm wrong here. Seriously.

??? Literally the entire point of foxholes and trenches is that it protects infantry from direct fire, and fires in general, to include shrapnel from falling artillery. The best way to defeat these types of fortifications (aside from clearing them with your own infantry) is by using high angle of attack weapons, such as mortars. The whole reason modern armies such as Russia and the US are investing so much in airburst ammunition is for this reason. It gives direct fire weapons the same effect on target as high angle of attack weapons. The point of foxholes and trenches is primarily to protect against artillery and mortars. In the game, the best way to clear foxholes and trenches is by tank fire, followed by small arms and machineguns from less than 300 metres. (if you have 4.0 installed, a few mortar rounds will make the troops leave their foxholes, but that's another discussion).

@SLIM I think I caught a small error in your infantry squad video. At around 13:10, you say mortars are effective against entrenched enemies and wooden bunkers. I believe only the very biggest mortars can knock out wooden bunkers, and generally against entrenched infantry in foxholes and trenches, mortars are much less effective than direct fire.

I think the 'hide' command for vehicles doesn't mean actually hiding the vehicle but rather that they just turn off the engine - making it more difficult to hear it.

I think generally the game is a bit too generous with letting tanks remain crewed after penetrating hits when one or more crew members are killed. Of course it should be possible, but I think it should be reserved for very highly motivated crew.

Thank you for the update. My childish and unreasonably spoiled sense of entitlement to receive news about the development of this game has been satisfied for now, and I feel the tantrums subside

This one will change how you read the title of this thread

Did you try uninstalling the newest drivers and then installing the older version again? Not sure if this is possible, but if your problem is caused by the new drivers, it's worth a shot..

And I say, hey yeah yeah, hey yeah yeah I said hey, what's going on?

It's a common theme for all missions that involve having the computer attack you. The solution is to only play missions where you are on the attack, or play against a human opponent.

Thanks, interesting. Unfortunately I never saw mentioned what the effect of the bombardment actually was - were any of the concrete bunkers actually destroyed, or did the bombs and shells just make lots of holes in the ground? Current photos show various bunkers that seem to have survived (or the tidy intact foundations - I assume they were neatly dismantled later) but maybe there were a couple more that were blown to bits and therefore are no longer visible?

Yes.