Bulletpoint

Good point. I should read my own notes. In CMFB & CMBN the shape is always a circle. Light green, dark green, yellow, orange & red. CMBS used the shape and triangles as described in the manual. I think it's time to update your notes - CMBN and CMFB have the triangles and other shapes too. Not that it really matters, because the absolutely only thing regarding matchup you need to take into account is the call-in time that is conveniently shown in minutes. It seems the system of little colourful triangles and circles is some feature that they wanted to include in the game but which actually never made it in. I assume the stated call-in time would be modified by a factor depending on the exact matchup level of the guy calling in the fire mission. But as it is, all observers on the field are treated as having the same matchup, apart from the FO's. Another thing to notice is that when you add artillery to your forces, the batteries are not integrated into your OOB like if you add a couple of tanks or specialist teams. The arty always seems independent. So you can't have one FO with a direct line to a battery of 155, and then another FO with 105s on call. They will both share the same assets and have the same matchup level (and call times) to them. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and notes. Often helpful.

I don't think any of these things matter. Whether your 81mm mortars are organic to the formation or if you purchase them in the artillery tab, they cost exactly the same and the delivery time is the same. Leaving the battalion commander off the map makes no difference either as far as I can see. And why should it? He's on the radio net anyway.

Yes, but FO's are quicker because they have a "special ability" that makes wait times shorter. The actual matchup level does nothing.

I really like replayability, so I always encourage scenario designers to make their scenarios with some randomised placements and various scripts. Especially when it's a scenario or campaign that takes place on very detailed and well made maps, it's so much better if I can play it several times, try out different tactics, but not feel that I only win because I have memorised every enemy location.

Just tested this, and using a 120mm mortar (stated call time 9 min), battalion HQ and platoon HQ both got their first spotting round at 7 min. Then it's just about whether they spot the rounds before calling for FFE.

Interesting, but let's not bring FO's into it, because they clearly get faster call times across the board. Are you saying that even though I get shown the same call time for a platoon commander and a battalion commander, in actual use the battalion commander will get shells on target faster, all else being equal (experience, motivation etc)?

Ok I just did some testing just to give some examples of what I'm talking about. Using German artillery: Mortars of 81mm and 120mm have same matchup rating: green dot. But one takes 7 minutes to call in, the other 120mm. Why the diffence? When using a platoon HQ to call in arty, I get shown the same matchup ratings and call times as when using a battalion commander. Why doesn't the battalion commander get a better matchup and faster call times? So, does the matchup rating icon tell me any information that I don't get directly from the displayed call time?

?

Thanks for replying, but the thing I don't understand is how this stuff actually works in the game. I don't see any difference between calling for support from a platoon commander and from a battalion commander or from a FO (apart from some assets needing a FO). The same assets have the same rating and take the same time to arrive, no matter whom I click on before I bring up the support panel. And there seems to be no tangible relation between rating and call times/accuracy in the game. Is the artillery matchup rating some kind of feature they wanted to implement but that was cut? Or am I overlooking something?

The reason people play the attackers against stationary defenders is because there is no AI that could mount a "formidable offensive".

Try Napoleon: Total War

No screenshots for me. I think remembering stuff is just part of the game.

Thanks, but I did read the manual. I still don't understand the underlined parts...

It just seems there are several categories, not just FO or not FO.

@MOS:96B2Pdo you know anything about the "matchup level" and what it actually does in the game? You'll see various little symbols on the artillery assets - a green dot, a yellow triangle.. and I guess this is supposed to mean if the asset is battalion level, regimental, divisional.. but I don't see any difference in actual call times or rank needed to request it. Of course, bigger assets usually need longer time, but there seems to be no relation to the matchup level. Sometimes a green dot level battery and a yellow triangle level will have the same call times, as far as I can see.

I doubt that would be a success, because Japanese schoolgirls would probably not work for free to create content, do customer support, market the game on YouTube, and file lengthy bug reports.

What will we see first - CM3, fusion power, or the first astronaut on Mars? Place your bets now.

It's not about scenario design. It's about the movement order the human player gives. And it's not about going in and out undetected. t's about soldiers reacting to incoming fire or not when given the order to advance carefully.

Problem being that the scouts will think the area is safe even when under fire because the HUNT command doesn't work as it should.

Yes, there's nothing quite as terrifying as the thousand yard stare of a former CM modder.

Which is why it won't happen.

Yes, the game currently has it the wrong way around. It's either a bug or a design flaw. Thinking it's a bug since the manual says they should immediately drop down when shot at even if they don't see who's shooting at them.

Also I think it is because in ancient war, if the guys on your flank start to retreat, you have to do it too, or suffer a horrible death. In WW2, in many cases, if one flank gave way, you would either be surrounded and/or you could surrender. Each individual soldier could often decide to surrender, and have a pretty good chance of surviving.. you usually couldn't do that on the ancient battlefield (unless you were a noble worth a ransom).

I think the main difference is that in ancient battles, each soldier could see directly what happened to most or at least many of his companions, whereas in modern war, each soldier can't see the big picture. As long as it seems he and his mates are winning in their little area, morale is high, and if they are not winning, they die or get captured fast anyway.