Bulletpoint

Jolly good show! I can't help but imagine Major Morningwood and his mates speaking in a Monty Python dialect. But of course, that might be accused of trivialising the war.

Could be cool to have two "layers" for each vehicle. 1: the basic vehicle. 2: the situational vehicle. So, a Panzer IV would basically always be the basic Panzer IV, but then have a situational detail layer that made it have foliage camouflage in Normandy, or mud, rust and half-missing dented armour skirts when fighting on the East Front, etc. Not only a texture change. I know it would be extra work etc. but just freely speculating now.

Yes, I noticed that. It's very disturbing.

I agree. This has been a common complaint for at least two years while I've been playing this game. Sometimes, they do listen to issues like that, and fix them. but it can take such a long time that you don't know if they are even aware of it, if they agree it should be changed, or if they are able to. As always, I just report stuff I find here in the hope that it can help to improve the game...

I could be wrong, but I think it is actually a functional issue. Seems the game is generally quite accurate when it comes to tracing each bullet and checking if it crosses the exact location of each soldier. So, how far a crewmember pokes out from cover actually means a lot. Previously, they said they lowered halftrack gunners to a more protective stance, but I guess they only did that for the Germans. Might say even those are still bit too high.

Very clear footage, hadn't seen most of it before. Some of it sems a bit too clear though, is it mixed with movie clips? But terrible all in all. What a complete disaster for so many young men who just happened to be born in the wrong country at the wrong time. And for many of those who had to go fight them of course.

Probably some people underestimate what "panic" means in a war situation. I don't think it really means "I get a bit scared and run back 30 metres, then wait and look for more enemies to kill".

I think most players of CM actually like realism... in fact, I don't think I ever saw anyone complain that the game was too realistic. Plenty of complaints the other way though. But it could be added to some of the higher difficulty modes, so people had a choice. Choice is good.

Couldn't help but laugh at this But you're right. Enemy troops are often at least as dangerous while "broken" as when they were fresh. In CMBN, it seems it's _always_ the guy with the MG42 who runs off and hides. Maybe it would be better if "panicking" actually meant dropping your weapon and running off, only keeping stuff like pistols in holsters.

Is the battle overcast, or are you playing with shadows and shaders off?

Is there any way to lock in the players' options to buy only a standard formation with a typical mix of experience, equipment and other factors? Basically a 'play the hand you're dealt' game mode? In quick battle I can make the computer buy the forces, but not sure if I can do the same in multiplayer, or if each player can override this setting.

The "false gap" problem is so annoying. I wish they would fix it. It's not like in real life, your troops would run up to a potential gap, not be able to squeeze through, and then decide "oh well, let's all just run out across this deadly open space instead"

Like a realdoll, but for grogs..

So that means you played 5-6 scenarios every single day of the week, including workdays, weekdays, holidays? I'd hesitate before accepting a challenge for a game from you

I know maps take a long time to craft, but I don't think they would take much longer if the detail were to be increased. We already don't need to set the height value of each individual square. But it would be interesting to have the option. Also, I was not complaining about anything.

Just had this little shootout between two halftracks. Zooming in, I noticed both gunners are sitting too high, making them more vulnerable. In real life, their eyes would have been at sight level:

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room. @sonar 's posts make a lot of sense, I think. Also, it's a consequence of the 8-metre square minimum movement distance. Say you want to go up to the crest of a hill to scout. In real life, you can move forward centimetre by centimetre, until you get exactly the field of view you need, while staying well hidden and covered. In the game, it's 8 metres or nothing. I'm dreaming of the day when they divide the maps into 4-metre squares and make each squad act like a group of 2-man teams. So, if you have 10 men in the squad in total, that means 5 teams of 2 guys. However, you might still only be able to split a squad into 2 or 3 teams (for gameplay or historical realism reasons), but those teams would be "internally composed" of subteams of 1 or 2 soldiers, and able to spread out to adapt to terrain.

I think difficult scenarios are nice (maybe I even have a masochistic streak when it comes to denying myself armour support), but I don't like it when I feel the scenario designer has stacked everything against me by sculpting the landscape, leaving no avenues of attack, no way to flank or anything. Real life battlefields were rarely 100% perfect for the defender. Good scenarios should have an interesting mix of opportunities and risks for the attacker, I feel. And the map should look and fel like a real place, not a "board game setup".

They definitely often go straight through, but far from always. Maybe around 50/50 in my experience.

Not talking about the rocks and dirt, I'm talking about the planty stuff above it. I know branches can be thick, but we're dealing with ammunition that goes through thick plates of hardened steel here..

A bit silly though that AP rounds seem to get stuck in bocage.

I think this could be done without any howls of protest. Simply let it be up to the scenario designer to set a casualty limit, and if the player hits that limit, he should automatically get the message that he lost (and here comes the important part: that message should also tell the player that the reason he lost was because he went over the casualty limit given in the briefing). I think most players would accept that kind of defeat as perfectly reasonable, given that it's a game about war... or maybe I have too much faith in other people?

I think the details about this are deliberately kept murky, maybe so that people don't start "gaming the system". (which they do anyway, those who like that sort of thing). From my understanding, the little number is a passive, constant influence. So, if your unit starts out with physical condition +1 Rested, it's just as rested as a unit that has -1 Rested, but if you run them both around for some time, the unit with -1 will get tired faster, and regain its stamina slower than the unit with +1. Same thing with morale. The unit with +1 will take longer to turn brittle, and regain its composure faster when it gets a break from the fighting. The actual morale cycle is a bit complex, as it's not just a scale from OK to Broken. Somebody posted a chart explaining it once, but can't seem to find that post... Anyway, I think it works a bit like this: units get shocked when they take fire, especially when they take casualties, but if you then give them a break, they sort of regain their morale, and you can send them in again. But if you keep pushing a unit too far without rest, it ends up in some morale states that are more difficult to get out of, and eventually leads to getting broken. And then the unit is not much good for the rest of the battle. I think the above info is not just for "gamers", but rather factors that real life commanders also take into account.

Is this just part of your narrative, or is there some effect on air support if you have located enemy contact markers? I have been wondering if aircraft are more likely to spot the enemy close to markers, and if they will avoid areas with AA contacts?

So, did this ever take off? ..was hoping for some pics: