Bulletpoint

But Skwabie said he found a way to disable mantlet armour so only the turret armour would be a factor. Do I understand you right Steve if you're saying he was wrong about being able to remove that armour from the equation? Actually his test didn't work like he thought it did? Because it didn't seem from his test that there was a hole behind the mantlet.

I think it's a pity that this thread has gone from finding and reporting a potential bug in the game to discussing cheating in multiplayer games. I'm just playing single player, and if I ever go up against a human opponent I will find someone I can trust to not cheat. So please let us just discuss the issue Skwabie brought up with the armour. I still feel I haven't seen his arguments properly responded to.

It really depends on a lot of factors. Especially the map. A screenshot would help. But from your description, my basic idea is: Try to find an approach where you can get close (100-200 metres) from the position wihtout being seen, then pop up three teams at the same time and have them area fire on the position. The enemy MG can't fire on all of your guys at the same time, so before long they should be suppressed and from then it's basic fire and movement.

Yes, you're right. I apologise to anyone who felt insulted.

Thanks for the screenshots, @IanL. Looks good, nice screenshots always make me want to go for a walk Hoping for more additions like this in the future. With a bit of landscape contouring like you did, it really makes a map come alive as a real place. Even though the stream might be small, it would have had a lot of time to cut down through the landscape. On the other hand, drainage canals would be quite shallow and run in straight lines.

Wow, what a story about the Barracuda tank and its crew. I wonder why their dog tags had information about their religion, to make sure they were buried with the right religious mumbo jumbo rituals maybe? Also, I had no idea a panzerfaust would make such a big hole (the hole in the rear of the tank is bigger than the 75mm hole in the side)

Isn't that basically just the effect of the underlying tile though? Or does the stream boost the effect of terrain under it?

I think the true value of the panzerfaust was not so much actually killing tanks. It was that when the enemy knows you might have the weapons, he needs to be much more restrained with his tanks. You might in fact have zero panzerfausts in the village, but just the fact you might means he won't be able to roll in guns blazing. It buys you time.

I guess it's just meant to represent very small streams that any soldier and vehicle can cross. Not sure if it even has gameplay effects or if it's just a flavour thing, but I like more choices and options for the editor, to make more and more detailed maps.

I'm always asking for new features, and here's a new feature. Great

The illusion would be broken if the frozen "lake" is hit by shells though.

Agreed, but you can make rural walls look more natural if you modify the underlying terrain just a bit, so it has a little bit of curviness to it. That also makes the landscape look more natural in general, even flat fields are not billard table flat after all

And will panzerfausts finally be fired properly, that is, held under the arm rather than on the shoulder like a bazooka?

Now they need to change the title of the game.. can't take it seriously any more

Happy to be of assistance. Keep up the good work.

Maybe there's a promotion coming for Poppe, and we'll see him as a platoon leader next time?

In your second video, you say that the mortar can use the squad leader as a kind of direct spotter - as long as it's in C2, it can fire at spots the platoon leader can see, but the mortar can't. I think this is a misunderstanding. What seems to be happening in your video is simply that the mortar can fire at targets that are slightly out of LOS. This is normal for all mortars in this game and not dependent on C2 at all. Or are there different rules for the British mortar than the rest of the small mortars?

I know that. But when I started out, I didn't know that. What I slowly found out was that the suppression needed was often way more than I thought it would be. Your video could be better if it showed also your point about "never too much suppression". But maybe that's something that comes up in a later video.

Nice video, but to me, the music was distracting. Also, how come you chose Brits vs Americans? Wanted to make sure a burst of MG42 fire didn't spoil the lesson? I know this is just an instruction video, it just seemed odd to me. Also, maybe you could start out each video with a fast primer on the tactical situation. For example "Here we have made contact with enemy forces on the other side of the river. We have set up a base of fire in the woodline, but need to advance". For half the video, I was wondering where the enemy was. Also, maybe say something about how much fire you actually need to dish out to suppress the enemy. It's way more than what I thought when I started playing. Often, I assumed the enemy would be well suppressed after 30 seconds of fire, but many times you need more than a minute of pretty massive fire to be sure the enemy won't pop up in the middle of your movement.

Spoiler: highlight following text for a hint to this mission Used to have loads of trouble with this mission, but it's not so difficult actually. The trick is to realise that it's really dark when the mission starts. It only looks like it's twilight to the player's eye, but to the troops it's nearly pitch black. If you're fast, you can cross the bridge quickly without too much opposition, and then the rest of the mission is way easier.

I found a picture of Heidi. You might want to look away now Kohlenklau, not to get too excited after the surgery. Sorry for Heidi-acking the thread. Carry on.

It's a red herring to talk about AI, because what this game needs is not true AI, it's better refined response patterns for the units. The current game is NOT working bad, it's just that it could be improved without science fiction robot intelligence. Just as an example, make tank commanders duck down faster instead of waiting a long time while bullets clang against the turret. It's not any new coding that's needed, it's just tweaking the threshold number that determines how long he takes before ducking. Or my pet peeve: halftrack passengers not being able to duck just a bit to not get shot in the head. While I appreciate pretty snow as much as anyone, I would be more inclined to buy further games if basic stuff like that could be improved.

Maybe that's the key. When buttoned, the tank commander's point of view is lower, so he can see under the trees. The unbuttoned commander is too high and just sees branches.

The tiger could be outside the Armour Target Arc - difficult to see from the tank's perspective.

Every week or month, the little apps I run on my phone get updated with various bugfixes, changes or additions. It's just little things most of the time, but it's really nice never the less. Combat Mission seems to get updated in much bigger chunks, that arrive much more rarely. Would it be completely impossible to switch to a small-patch-a-week approach to catch many of the little niggles the community finds? I know some bugs are hard work to find and fix, but other stuff is really basic. An example could be when players find that US rockets cost 1/10 of the German ones, obviously just a database typo, but it still takes maybe a year to get fixed, because it has to wait till the major patch comes out.