Bulletpoint

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.

For all the strong points of the game (pun not intended), it also has its limits.

We could make puns about spring too.. it's a good way to break the ice...

Didn't Himmler offer surrender, but it was refused?

Very valid point. My pc is a weakling too, but I am not sure exactly how much it would be able to handle. Maybe using a bit less trees and flavour objects might help.

I forgot to add that I primarily thought of it as a single-player mission. But it could work as a H2H mission too. I would then make sure that the "small" player would have to set up at least some of his forces very close to the "big" player's starting point, to fight a delaying action, while retreating to avoid getting encircled.

I just had an idea for a new type of scenario, but haven't thought it through yet, and would like to know what you think. Usually, scenarios are either basically small, medium or large. If the scenario is small, you play on a small map, with a small force, and you know the enemy will also be small. If the scenario is big, you play on a huge map, and have a lot of troops, but you also know there will be a lot of enemy resistance. Now, what if the map could be maximum size, and you get a whole battalion of troops, lots of time.. but the enemy is still quite weak and isolated? The idea would then be that you had to make the call about what elements of your batallion to use, when, and how. Instead of the scenario designer telling you "imagine you're part of a big attack, but you only get to play this platoon (because else the game would be too easy), and you have to imagine the rest of the battalion is fighting off the map". So, my scenario would start with your battalion at the bottom of the map, and then you would have to scout out and navigate the road net, with lots of little crossroads and villages along the way, to reach the exits at the top. You would not know which crossroads are defended, but when you do find resistance, you have to clear it out before continuing - or choose another route. Basically, odds would be stacked in your favour, and it would not be a question of you beating the mission or not, but rather how well you do it. You will win the mission, but how difficult will it be? How many reinforcements do you have to throw into battle, at what times, and where? How many casualties does it take to do this advance? In essence, it would play out as a series of small actions, but each one as a part of a larger battle. A one-map-mini-campaign if you will. I hope this would feel more like real warfare and less like a game where you have to solve a puzzle, and where the enemy won't have any AT guns if you have no tanks, etc. Something similar could be set up as a quick battle, but by doing it as a scenario, the enemy force selection and setup locations could be much more intelligent and credible, rather than the very random nature of the quick battles.

I think most people here would love to see infantry behave more intelligently and appropriate to the situation, space out more, use crests and ridges, etc. The problem is that the game developers are unable to program it with the skills and resources they have available. Also, I think on a personal level, they might be more interested in tanks.

I knew people say it's tough being in Ken's army, but never realised how bad it was till now.. Imagine being trapped in Stalingrad and exposed to endless puns about winter and christmas... there's snow way to escape!

Yep, surprised me too...

Looks like a low wall to me? Do I need glasses or was it some kind of subtle joke ?

That's sad. Would be great to have to make such choices - do I put my guys at the top where there's good view but bad cover, or a the bottom where there's good cover but less field of fire?

Discussions about his personality aside, I would actually like very much to try his scenarios, if he made any. Many of the things he says make good sense, I think, when you look at the substance instead of the tone of delivery.

Or maybe the mountanous terrain of the Ardennes prevent windy conditions that would pile up snow against walls

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

Not true. I've seen German smg rounds penetrate the M8 Greyhound sides at close ranges. Plenty of "penetration" and "partial penetration" messages. No real damage though, but the (green) crew panicked. Also, I've seen rifles open fire and kill the crew from the front at around 50 metre range.