Bulletpoint

That was my reaction when I read your post, too.. "We must be playing two different games" I think it's like seeing faces in the clouds. Where I see random enemy placements, where one team is randomly in a good position, and another randomly placed in a bad position, you might see one position controlling the high ground, while the other team is deliberately placed too far forward as bait.. etc. We humans like to find patterns in chaos.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. The AI has no understanding of any of those things. It does not understand how set up AT guns in good positions, make interlocking fields of fire, use bait, or anything else like that. It doesn't even keep squads from the same platoon close to each other or in contact with their HQ. The only thing that the AI does when deciding when to place units in the painted setup zone is that it will look for positions with cover. So if you paint a whole field, including a hedgerow, infantry will always get placed along the hedge, and never out in the open. But of course, if you have a lot of units and paint big setup zones, you'll get a good spread of enemy positions. Some of them will be in great locations, but that is completely down to chance. And especially if you set them to ambush orders, you can get a randomised setup that will pose a challenge and might even surprise you. However, you are likely to still meet AT guns in the middle of forests, etc.

The problem is that the different types of battles are meant to be played out on different types of maps. So that the extra points the attacker gets in an assault are countered by the map being more difficult to attack, and that he will have to reach objectives deeper in the map. That's how it's supposed to be. BUT many scenario designers don't understand that, so they just ship identical versions of the same map, labelled as probe, attack, assault... Even in the QB maps that come with the official game. In effect, this turns the battle type selection into just a kind of difficulty setting, where probes is the most difficult attack missions, and assault are the easiest.

It's a well known bug. Maybe there will be a fix for it in a couple of years.

The info sharing system is buggy in some ways. I tested it before. If an enemy tank moves, its updated contact marker will never get shared through C2. Maybe that's what's happening in your example too. In your example, notice how the HQ has an enemy tank marker kust above it, in front of the white building. That's probably the marker for the same enemy tank as the other Sherman knows now moved ahead. But it's unable to share this new info.

There are many ways in which this game could be fundamentally changed and improved. But it seems their strategy is to produce more content for the existing engine, rather than to update the fundamentals.

That all depends on what quality you set them to. Paratroopers and Fallschirmjäger are not intrinsically any better than any other unit. They get some different equipment of course.

I agree with you, but I don't think it would need a whole new move mode. It would just need them to tweak the existing QUICK move mode to make it more focused on shooting and less on moving (at very short ranges). If you wanted to make them move instead of shooting, you could still use the FAST command for that.

Alright, I see. The way I do it is to simply move them a short distance and then let them sit for the rest of the turn.

Good that you are here to remind me

That's the mark of a great designer. And I'm saying that as someone who has some experience with designing scenarios.

The games are made by one or two guys entrenched in a prepper bunker in some undisclosed location. At least that's what I imagine. So yes, the game is in development, but very slowly. Last patch that came out took them more than two years. Welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure I undestand what you mean here?

Any moment now you'll wake up and this whole worldwide lockdown and the schwimmwagen were just a dream.

I'd like to adjust it a bit and suggest that the grenades be only thrown if the assaulting squad has an enemy contact marker.

Because they don't think we are capable of handling such great power.

Yes, they can also decide to fire off a Faust. But their chances of spotting are lower, because they are crawling around. More stuff blocks their LOS.

Yes, they can. I saw it happen the other day. A crack level trooper walking along using MOVE command spotted an enemy tank and took it out with a Panzerfaust 60 at about 85m range. I was quite surprised.

No, it hasn't unfortunately. Crew still bail out guns ablazing from tanks and bunkers. What has been changed is that crew will stay in panicked state longer, meaning it will take longer for the player to be able to use them as free recon/assault units.

I went back and replaed the same scenario, and this time I was not able to make my guys throw grenades.. I think the maximum distance is 10 metres, and it seems to depend on exactly where the individual pixeltroopers place themselves.

There is a human brain behind it. Called @theforger

Ah ok, I see.

Here are some guys hitting targets way smaller than man sized out to 500 yards. Accuracy at 500 yards= 70 percent. Range accuracy is of course higher than combat accuracy, so let's halve that range and say that a small target can be hit consistently at 250 yards. On the other hand, a man sized target would then extend that range considerably. But let's be modest and say scaling up to man size would only give 50 more yards. That would give us good accuracy at 300 yards. However, in Combat Mission, it's nearly impossible to hit anything with a rifle at that range.

I don't think napalm burns long enough to remove the crew's oxygen...

My guess would be that it's simply a case of the skirt physically stopping the flame from touching the tank hull, and that it's only the actual hull that has been given the property that it can be destroyed by flame.