Bulletpoint

Battleships were made obsolete, and not because their guns were no longer effective against other ships, but because aircraft could do the same job better and at longer ranges. Also, aircraft made it near impossible to protect the battleships, which are extremely costly investments. So today, we still see many armoured ships on the world's oceans, but they are smaller, lighter armoured, and their guns are much smaller, because they are only there to deal with small threats. All the heavy damage is dealt by missiles and aircraft. I believe we will see the same thing happen with the heavy tanks. The only reason they are still in use is because they are extremely useful in wars against lightly armed insurgents, especially in a political environment where each dead soldier has a lot of impact on public opinion. This political climate also means that the nations powerful enough to develop cutting edge tech focus more on finding ways to protect their own main battle tanks using all kinds of ERA and APS technology than to develop better ATGMs. Because the Taliban, Islamic State, etc. don't really have much armour to deal with anyway. And all the major powers know that a war against another major power will be over in 30 minutes, and not decided by lumbering tank divisions. But if we imagine that another great war broke out, without going nuclear somehow, then I believe we would very soon see ATGM technology catching up and starting to defeat the protection systems developed after the end of the Cold War.

Meanwhile, in reality, 82% of all reviews are currently positive, and Steam rates that as "Very Positive"...

I don't know about the modern war titles, but I believe that at least in the WW2 games, tanks can share info with close-by infantry and other tanks even while the tanks are buttoned..

I think people said the same about battleships before the outbreak of WW2. "There is no plausible defence against the main guns of a battleship - but bombs and torpedoes can be defeated by AA guns and torpedo nets".

I also think good leadership should mean better spotting at long range, since it's the squad leader who has the binoculars.

Unfortunately, you need at least two trench sections to rotate them. You can't rotate just a single trench piece. Which I guess would be too much to ask for.

I'm seeing two teams put in the same action square... and one of the MG guys randomly happens to place himself next to the sniper.

Finally someone who also noticed that this changed in some patch! I was starting to think maybe I was just imagining things.. I'm not a fan of that change either. I wish they would rewind it to how it was. There was a time when the problem with HUNT was to keep them HUNTing. But then when they made it so a circular target arc would prevent them from stopping, I found it worked great. Until that patch.

I guess it was just dusk at the start of the scenario. So darker than in daytime, but not dark enough that the night mode kicks in. Then after some turns, it gets dark enough, and the night mode toggles on, making everything very bright.

...but then again, cowering more means staying alive longer, which is also a good thing for C2

It's because the game only engages the artificial lighting once the sun goes down. Even if you have it toggled on before then.

I can't say I ever noticed any spotting benefit of using MOVE. I think there isn't one, or it's very small. I do notice my 2-man scout team spotting enemies off in the distance while the scouts are running through a wood though. So there's no real spotting penalty for QUICK moves, as far as I can see.

How oldster are you, if I may ask? I don't know about that page you linked to, but - according to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary - the first use of "proofread" as a verb dates back to 1845... and that's from an American dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proofread But I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. I'm just interested in language and how it evolves.

Here is a thing not many people know about Combat Mission: The individual soldiers each have their own soft factors. So when you set a squad to regular quality, you will in fact get a mix of veterans, regulars, and greens. But on average, they will be regular. So as for your question, I'd set this squad to regular.

I think it's a mistake to conflate overall tactical errors with low leadership values. Because the tactical errors were made by higher-ups, while the leadership modifier only affects the leadership of the actual squad - their squad leaders. These might well have been competent (or not), but carrying out bad orders. In fact, you might just as well argue that those troops who made two frontal assaults against dug-in machine guns probably had good (or at least effective) unit leaders, in order to make the men do that.

You mean proofread?

This is a bit of a red herring, since native English speakers also make all sorts of grammatical errors. Even the venerable BBC is not immune. For example, they might write "try and" instead of "try to", or use "was" instead of "were" to speak about hypothetical situations. I've also noticed that many native speakers seem to struggle with the difference between "its" and "it's". Its not quiet write.

Did you finally get it to work? Or did you get a refund?

Hindsight is of course easy, but you should have made sure the Panther turret was neutralised before moving infantry across its field of fire. Use "fast" move to get out of danger. It makes troops move just a bit faster and a bit less likely to stop if taking fire along the way.

I think that what actually happened in this case was that your troops spotted enemy units in the distance. That reliably causes them to stop moving and go prone. You can avoid this by giving them a circular covered arc. They will then ignore if they spot any enemies outside the selected distance. If units take HE fire, they will get max suppressed and stop moving no matter what movement order you gave them.

Actually real fanatics often do go to ground. Being a fanatic doesn't mean you're necessarily an idiot or a robot. It just means you won't surrender unless things get really bad. As for crack troops, they know bullets are dangerous, and that it helps to duck. Especially when being ordered to move forward cautiously (as with the hunt command).

No, I think it's just a bit bugged... Even veterans etc. seem to keep walking along for up to 5 seconds with bullets whistling around them. As far as I remember, they used to duck down much faster. Sometimes in dense forest, I'd find my hunting teams had gone to ground without enemy contact, not even an enemy icon. I'd wonder if it was a bug, but then when I ordered them to continue, there would indeed be enemies close by. It was like they could sense them even before getting the contact marker. That doesn't seem to happen any more, so I assume they changed the code in some way.

The problem with the hunt command is that your hunting troops won't stop when taking fire. Only if they take so much fire that they become quite suppressed - or if they actively spot enemy units. If you use a target arc, hunting units will ignore spotted enemies outside the arc. Useful for hunting in forest where the sight of a distant soldier outside the forest won't cause the to stop hunting.

But you're having bridge problems in this scenario even with this method? In "A Bloody Ride", I backed the tank off the bridge and tried again and again, with various combinations of waypoints and speed settings. Could not make it cross.

I always have good waypoint discipline with bridges by the way. One waypoint immediately before, one immediately after.