Bulletpoint

That's what I did, and several others too. I'd say it seems like the most important thing for CM is high single-core performance, so likely the best performance would come from buying a stationary computer with a CPU that can be overclocked a lot, then installing a hige beefy cooler and turning up the clock speed as far as it will go.

I think the major problem here is that the game treats the trees as semi-transparent, but to the player's eyes, they completely block LOS. This makes it nearly impossible to anticipate lines of sight across a landscape. Of couse in real life, you also get surprised sometimes, but generally you have a good intuitive impression of what will be visible at any one point, because if you can't see through it, chances are your opponent won't either. Many trees in real life block vision 100 pct. It's not like you sit and watch a huge oak tree for some minutes and suddenly it becomes more transparent and you spot a panzer behind it, then suddenly it reverts back to being nontransparent. Even in strong winds, you won't be able to see through the foliage.

Yes, I learnt something new also. And I did some tests with this today too, confirming your results. Interesting and a bit stupid that aiming in front of the building causes more supression than aiming at the actual facade...

Wouldn't the optimum configuration be just 1 window, at least for German squads that rely mostly on their MG for firepower? Of course the flip side would be that the most important guy would attract all the enemy fire, but once he goes down, another could pick up the weapon, and you'd potentially be able to man the position for a lot longer than if you had 2, 3, or more windows.

Right, that was one of the first scenarios I played actually. A while ago now. I remembered it as something I had downloaded. But anyway, that's one scenario. I can't remember any others.

Probably because they are used in so few scenarios, not even in any of the ones that come with the game, if I rememeber right.

Interesting, because you're shooting an MG42 from 127 metres distance.. I assumed many bullets would pass through the walls at that distance. So basically, your testing shows that buildings with fewer windows are better to defend from, since they have fewer openings through which bullets can enter and cause suppression?

Thanks for testing, but I seem to get different results. When firing directly into the first floor of a building, enemy units on the floor above seem to be not affected, or affected very little. And in another test, even firing 75 HE from a PAK into the first floor did not affect the (friendly) troops on the ground floor. I think HE should cause suppression for friendlies as well. My tests were not done with a diagonal building though, maybe there's some difference, or I made an error in my test? It was just casual testing.

I fully agree with you. In fact, I just faced the exact same problem in a game against an opponent yesterday. It can be very frustrating. Knowing the game's internal "logic" can help predict where the situation will appear. While it's not a fix, it can help to plan in advance where you can expect LOS problems - with buildings at least.

Damn, I'm out of ideas then. You could open a support ticket for it.

Maybe it's a matter of graphics detail level. Try turning it up to max and see if they come back.

The problem here is an engine limitation - when you don't have a contact marker in an action square, LOS checks between squares are done from centre to centre. The line from your square to the middle of the house passes through another house. However, when you have a contact marker, the game will begin to track LOS/LOF between individual soldiers, so it's very likely that you would get LOF to any enemy troops appearing in the windows of that house. You would still be unable to do area fire though.

The problem with wooden bunkers in this game is not that they are too resistant to artillery, because after all that's what they are made for. Problem is that they are 100% immune to 75-105mm artillery, no matter how many shells actually hit them square on. As I see it, it's part of the bigger problem with artillery, where direct hits are too weak, but distant hits are too powerful. Artillery is probably well balanced right now when taken as an average of damage dealt by a barrage, but the distribution of lethality for each shell at various ranges seems off.

It likely won't work, because once troops get so shocked they start to panic and rout, it's likely that most of their friends would be dead and/or under so much fire that they would be pinned and therefore not following their orders to fall back...

I found a similar problem with Panther tanks. Sometimes, the front cover for the tracks disappears, it doesn't look to me like it's to represent a historical variant, more like a bit of the graphics is missing.

Yes, it's an issue that's been raised a couple of times. Opinions differ, but I agree with you that repeated direct hits from 75-105mm artillery should be able to destroy wooden bunkers. By the way, I suppose you are currently at the mission "Hell in the Hedgerows"?

Yes maybe there's something about the bocage that causes more than just tactical problems...

I only have CMBN, but I have updated to the latest version of the engine. Maybe there's an issue with the game's models and assets - and in later game they have started to optimise their stuff more?

Not to be a naysayer, but amphibious vehicles would be way far down on my personal list. There are so many other things I would hope to see them add to the game instead. Also, if you want to have river crossings, wouldn't it be possible to just tile the whole river with "ford" tiles? Then it would be crossable to both vehicles and infantry. Same goes for D-day scenarios, though strangely I never saw any scenarios that did this, so maybe there's a technical problem with it?

I got a very powerful laptop, an Asus G751 with the 980M GPU. Bought it second hand, so actually got it for around half price - if not it would have been too expensive for me, those things are even more pricey over here than in the US. It plays modern games perfectly with all details enabled, but it doesn't do too well with CM unfortunately. It's playable but a bit laggy, framerates fluctuate a lot and the game generally feel a bit sluggish. I've been posting about it here on the forum, and lots of people with powerful computers have the same problem. I think there's some code problem that holds back the performance, so probably you would get basically the same performance as me with your 960M. This is just my guess though.

I find that depends on how exhausted they actually are. The text just says 'exhausted' after you tire the guys enough, but if you then continue to make them crawl about, the underlying number seems to keep going down. Eventually it will take ages to recover, but if they just reached the point where the text flipped from 'fatigued' to 'exhausted', they will quite quickly go back to 'fatigued' if you let them sit for a minute or two.

Good luck with it. I researched a lot about gaming laptops before finally buying mine - so if you go for the 960m + UHD, I'd appreciate if you would write a bit about how it runs CM

I think this should be somewhat dependent on experience level and motivation. It must be hard to not try to help your wounded buddy, even if you're ordered to hide. Reminds me of that old Viet Nam movie where they go one by one into the sniper's field of fire to help those that already got hit there. Also, wounded buddies should be harder to resist helping than dead ones.

It's well able to support UHD for regular windows use, but in games it's a different story. UHD needs to calculate 4 times the pixels. All reviews I've read of the 960m says that it's not able to do it, and that you will need to game in 1920x1080 anyway. Then you might get scaling problems. Theoretically, it should scale without any blurring (because UHD is exactly twice the resolution), but I've read people on forums saying it's a different story in reality than in theory...