Bulletpoint

I don't think so. The gun itself just sits on the top of the ground and most of the crew don't enter the foxholes. To dig in AT guns, you need trenches. And yes, trenches are spotted at long distances, which is a whole different discussion, but did you test if the actual gun is also spotted, or just the trench tiles ?

I can only guess, but I suppose it might be to match the very slow rotation speed of tanks in this game. So basically a gameplay balance consideration, rather than a realism one.

Yes, it's indeed cumbersome, but there's a little program that makes it somewhat easier. Look up 'CMhelper' and 'Dropbox'. Still, I think this should be basic functionality in the game, making it easier to just focus on playing Yes, fortunately you still get the repeated replay option with PBEM.

The graphics detail setting affects both the range for loading detailed textures and the range for loading detailed models. I believe it's the models that cause performance to drop. It's a bit strange that the textures are not completely controlled by the texture detail setting. As for taking screenshots, I also use "fraps", and it works flawlessly.

Ingenious idea for sure, but a bit too obviously pointing out it's a game for my taste. Maybe if the observation point were behind dense bocage? Could be pulled off if it is mentioned in the briefing I guess - but I never really liked bocage without a way for infantry to cross. Seems a bit too much like playing pac-man

Great, let me know how it goes. From the feedback I got already, it's a somewhat challenging scenario, but far from impossible. I did all the terrain first, trying to get it as close to the reference image as possible, and without thinking about the defensive options. Then I did the various defensive setups, and there are some AI plans that are tougher to crack than others. Tried to keep it variable and somewhat "humanly un-perfect" - as a scenario designer, it's a bit too easy to get carried away by making perfect defenses, I feel. If I had to set up my own personal defense against a human opponent on this map, there are some things the AI plans do that I would never do. But still, I think all the plans are coherent. It's just that some defensive tactics are better than others.

Right here: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/crossroads-at-pierrefitte-en-cinglais/ It only needs the base CMBN game.

Roger that, I don't like scripted missions either. I prefer playing on realistic lanscapes. The challenge should come from finding and dealing with the enemy and reach your objectives. And that's plenty of challenge in these games, I think. Especially when under a strict time limit. By the way, if you like replayability, try out my scenario Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais. It has 5 different, sensible AI plans with movement orders, and even some variability inside each plan as well.

Is there any way to make a touch objective that can only be triggered by a specific unit (AI group?) Because in that case, I could have one observer unit that was worth a lot of points, and he has to touch the objective. But you'd have to be sure the place is clear before you send him in, or you would risk losing the mission. then it wouldn't matter if you ran out of there the moment you flipped the objective, because the main gameplay would already have been achieved - clearing the area fast and getting the observer in position. The whole counterattack thing would then be a bit redundant, because I could just set a time limit on the mission and say you need to get there before XX minutes. But it might be more immersive having the enemy show up in force instead of just a stale timer..

Yes it would have to be "gamey bastidge" proof A touch objective is probably best, maybe with an associated trigger for the enemy counterattack, and I would need to make it impossible to just do a fast rush by a couple of guys, but still maintaining the narrative of breaking through a thin screening force or surprising enemy recon. So they can't be too powerful enemies either. Hmmm... As for the idea of making scoring dependent on spotting the counterattack, I like the idea, but it might be difficult without getting too stuck in combat with the reinforcements. Another idea would be to include an arty observer and have him call in a strike on a cluster of buildings, with a destroy objective on a little barn building to represent a trigger to say the objective of calling in the strike is done. The entire thing being a placeholder for scouting. But I'd prefer just having the mission be about recon.

Just had this idea for a scenario, but I don't have all the games, so I don't know if it's been done before? You are in charge of a recon element, basically infantry and some armoured cars. On a large map, you have to surprise and overrun enemy light screening forces in order to reach an observation point (for example, a hill). Some enemy forces will be caught by surprise (AT guns not deployed or pointing in the wrong direction, vehicles dismounted, etc). You then have to sit on the objective for a short amount of time before retreating. Enemy heavy reinforcements will arrive at an approximate time and move aggressively towards you. You then have to escape back to an exit zone at your starting location. Points would be given for reaching the objective, scouting enemy forces, and withdrawing friendly forces. Points withdrawn for casualties.

I think all the tank commanders should be at that height, eyes just above the rim of the cupola.

No, I meant FB..

If you were replying to me, well, that's not what I meant. What I did mean was that in any war, production and logistics mean more than the performance of the individual tank. I didn't post the link to the video because I necessarily agree with it, it was just to ask Bill if that's the one he was talking about.

I just finished this mission, and I think the confusion comes from the briefing which states you have 4x3 Churchills, but you actually "only" have 10 There's one Churchill missing from both 8 Troop and 10 Troop, respectively.

I was talking about CMBN. Obviously I haven't played CMFB for 3+ years

Fair enough, I just thought that's what players meant when they ask for Kursk - Lots of armour, very long ranges.

I can't see Kursk happening with the current engine. The whole point of Kursk is a huge tank battle and the current engine struggles to even put small formations on a couple of square kilometres. Yes we could pretend our tiny engagement is just part of a larger whole, but you just wouldn't get a feel for the scale, the maneuver, or the distances involved.

Well the uncomfortable truth is that often, what ultimately wins the war is not always the same as caring about the life of the individual soldier. As long as they could churn out the Shermans fast enough and find people to crew them, they were winning, because the Germans couldn't keep up with that forever.

I think this would be really nice to have. Also, when a tank is hit by a powerful shot that doesn't penetrate, there could be some shock/momentary panic effect to the crew, depending on experience and motivation levels. Especially for sudden unexpected hits from unspotted threats without even a contact marker. Right now, it seems if you roll your tank into a field and it then gets hit by an AT gun (round bounces off) then your tank will just sit there and receive further hits until it maybe eventually spots the gun and starts to engage the target. I assume that in real life, if you suddenly take AT-fire, first step is to reverse back into cover, because you know you're now a sitting duck to the enemy; he has you square in his sights and can continue to fire away as fast as he can reload his gun, and you haven't even spotted him yet. Even if the enemy gun is too small to pose a real threat to your tank, for all you know in the moment, it could just be luck that the first round didn't penetrate.

Was it this one?

Thanks for doing the tests, but I really think you shouldn't use conscripts. I've never even sen conscript level troops in my 3+ years of playing the game. They don't appear in any scenario or campaign I've played, and I wouldn't buy them myself in a quick battle. I recommend using regular level troops, they give a good indication of an "average" performance. But maybe you chose conscripts to make them as clumsy as possible, in order to see if there was a tiny difference between normal, slow, and hunt orders? Based on your test, it seems there might be, but you'd have to run the same test a couple of times to make sure it's not just a statistical fluke

What type and distance are the contacts? Vehicles can be heard quite a long way.

I thought about it the other way - red hordes on their way and you need those heavy boxes by the gun ASAP.. maybe time to bend the rules a bit and slide them on the snow. I think lots of improvising took place and definitely a lot of rules were broken.

I'm personally not that interested in having tank riders, as I would usually dismount them at the start of the battle anyway. In Normandy at least. But the rest of the fixes and changes they did in the newest CMFB patch are very interesting, and I hope they quickly make their way to CMBN.