Bulletpoint

POW raids, night patrols, Airborne Pathfinder, are some off the top of my head. "Venafro Back into Hell" was a very interesting display of the engine's capabilities with small units. You can abstract quite a bit in a briefing. 

I can really encourage doing something in the editor - a ton of fun. Check out "Proambulator" on Youtube, great video tutorials.
 
How about a fictional encounter on D-Day morning, with all the scattered paratroopers making up small groups that ran into German positions. Can be small but interesting and not entirely implausible.

One idea would be to fetch wounded or killed men left behind or capturing prisoners. A lot of small actions were about gathering information or simply keeping the enemy busy by doing harm (destroying equipment or supplies).

I had this idea for a while and thought it worth sharing:
 
Right now, in the editor, we can make different AI-setups and plans. That helps replayabaility a lot. But what if we could instead designate zones and positions, and then let the game deploy its troops in those?
 
Example: Instead of the designer placing a machinegun in position A, B, or C, he places maybe 20 different "potential MG position" markers on the map. Then he places 40 "potential infantry position" markers, etc. When the mission starts, the game randomly places its machineguns and infantry in those positions. So instead of having maybe 3 different AI setups, you get 20x40 combinations, so you never know where the enemy will be.
 
However, there should still be the option for the designer to place certain assets in certain positions, so while the enemy AT-gun might be in either position A, B, or C, the rest would be randomised - or any other combination you could think of.

The five occasions concerned fictional scenarios. The weather was clear in all of them, my troops were mostly in cover - and none of the strikes seemed to take it into account, one way or another. At no time was the enemy closer than 450m - in fact, in four of the scenarios, the enemy was at 600-700m (I like big maps). In the case of the RAF (Normandy) scenario, the enemy had AA, was at 690-720m away - and the first arriving aircraft bombed my FO, in a six-storey building, in the middle of a village. I agree with YankeeDog almost completely - but it is sad that it has to be that way. As for my 'coming off rude', I thought I was restrained. From the follow-up posts, it is clear there IS a problem and rather, as I said, than shooting the messenger it might be better to focus on what can be done about it. Fixing the mess, in short. And it is a mess - under current parameters, the only thing you can do with air power in CMBN/FI/RT is not use it at all, or throw it in if you are feeling masochistic, as YankeeDog says.

Oh my apologies, I worded that poorly. I played as the Americans; the enemy defenders have several AI plans. I'm not sure if the US have more than one AI plan. As a rule of thumb I tend to play as the attackers.

Yes, it has several - at least for the Germans. I had to adjust the scenario for the new armored infantry TOs and took note while editing of that.

I found the right building, it's not exactly the one I picked before, because this one is turned 45°, adding more complexity to the pathfinding.
The building in question is sitting on a 5 squares position. Where the middle square is entirely inside the building, and the other 4 squares are covered by 1 half each.
The game engine works with squares, as we know, but these squares are devided in two parts if the situation occurs, such situation is, for example, a fence running amid the square thus dividing it in two, both logically and for the game's brain.
 
 
Now, this picture shows where you can place your command, it's a half square (or a triangle) due to the presence of the fence, the White marks indicate the grid.
 

As you can see the door is closer to the right outside square than to the left outside square... So that's the reason the AI recognizes the right side square as the closest one, and as per my description in the previous post, the AI will go there in order to re-align with the grid system before reaching the first waypoint.

 
The first waypoint is directly outside the building, that's true, but it's 2 squares away in the game's brain eyes, therefore the closest square to use is the one on the right.
I replicated the movements and no matter where you place the first waypoint outside the building, the units will go to the (in this case) firezone before aligning to the waypoint. So it's a matter of grid.
 
Take a look at this:
from the game's brain point of view, the troops are in square a, and they are ordered to go to half square c, they can't go directly there, so the game picks the closest square between a and c in order to "fill the gap" of the logic command. It picks b, because it's the most logical square to use in order to reach c.. in order to re-align with the grid system the troops will have the tendency to reach square b center before turning towards the waypoint.

 
A gridded terrain mod might help with precise order plotting, although I belive BFC should add a "show grid" option or quick hotkey, enabling or disabling the fictional grid system used by the game.
 
In a far future game development they could either reduce the grid size, thus allowing for even more precise plotting (and terrain detailing) but raising the calculation complexity; or they could somehow disloge the ground grid from the order plotting (waypoint plotting), but I am not sure how the system works so whatever.

That restricts you to very slow rate of fire. If you have plenty of time, that's a great choice, just order a slow barrage with one gun, maximum duration, then shift aim point as needed and finally call off the mission.
 
But if you have less time, you often need to saturate a target quickly to ensure effect, then move on to another target if you have more shells. That means higher rate of fire/more guns in action, which means a lot of shells wasted while you radio in the cancel order.
 
If you play real time, I guess it makes more sense to order maximum barrages and cancel them, but still there's a delay.

Firstly, as a gamer and simulation fan, I want to say that I do love this game. Absolutely. It and everything it does is incredible, and I appreciate how much goes into it by the dedicated souls who work on it. It's the only title like it, and for that I am grateful. However, as a CG artist and someone with knowledge of the pipeline, it both bothers me and arouses questions and concerns as to the inner workings of the development process here. Hell, I would volunteer as an artist if I could/knew how. It's my admiration for this game that brings criticism, and I hope that doesn't get confused. 
 
@IanL: Thanks for the welcome. Coming off as arrogant or antagonistic was not my intent, and I apologize. However, I hope you understand my concern. I don't want to come off as a passive complainer. If I see something that could be improved, I want to take action and help in any way I can. 

Technical details aside, the frank answer to your question is that BattleFront is a small-scale business with a small but very dedicated (motivation: fanatic) user base.
 
This means that BF don't have much money for developing the technical side of things, and also that they have very little reason to do so. Because when it comes to tactical warfare, this is pretty much the only show in town. There are other wargames of course, but nothing that really compares. After playing Combat Mission, all other strategy games just seem hopelessly childish to me.
 
I don't blame BF for running their business the way they do, I just wish they would modernise or rebuild their engine to take more advantage of modern hardware. Or that, failing that, another developer would be inspired by the Combat Mission formula and build a new game to take the concept to the next technical level. I would prefer to continue to support Battle Front though.

DXtory, my chosen recording software, (erroneously, apparently) detected Combat Mission as operating under DirectX 7, so I don't know what the disconnect is. 
 
That having been said, there's even less of an excuse for such poor performance, though I doubt the technical merit of whatever OpenGL engine they are using doesn't much surpass the ability of DX7 to begin with.
 
As for your other inquiries, I could argue the semantics of the meaning of "smooth" all day long, but I would generally agree with your definition. I don't experience your definition of smooth unless, as previously stated, I tweak with my framerate settings. I don't have a problem with doing that, but it's something that shouldn't have to be done. The game just runs poorly, period. The exact poorness was only illustrated to me after I attempted to record the game, which prompted an FPS counter. 
 
Your snideness is not helping you much nor is it appreciated. I apologize for my incorrect assertion and perhaps the blunt nature of my OP, but there's no need to be callous.

The fact of the matter is that videocards and processors today are not manufactured with the intent of running, by now, 15 year old API packages like DirectX 7 (e. Or old OpenGL versions). When will we see modern development for modern hardware? Or are we always destined to run decade-old looking games (on decade old architecture) with sub-30fps gameplay? I understand a lot goes on under the hood, but we live in an age where games like Crysis can now be run by most decent gaming PCs and GM chess matches can be simulated at the click of a button. The fact that I can't maintain a smooth framerate in Combat Mission leaves me in awe. 
 
I read Steve's assertion that rewriting the game for multiple cores is not viable. That's because you're dealing with an old engine running on old APIs - decade and a half old architecture - created six years before the first multi-core processor was even developed. I understand not retroactively updating old games; don't fix what's not (sort of) broken. But why on God's earth wouldn't you, with a new game, start from scratch with newer, better, more dynamic game development tools? With the technology we have today, doing just that would be easier than ever. 
 
Again, I don't mean to be inflammatory. I just discovered the game and I find it to be an incredible piece of simulation software. I just am genuinely oblivious as to how a development process works in a way that results in this kind of performance. I only speak as someone with knowledge of the pipeline and experience in game modelling, and that's why it bothers me. Thanks for reading.
 
Edit: DXtory falsely reported to me that the game ran under DirectX 7. It actually runs under OpenGL. I apologize for that mistake.

I think he was panicked and literally "behind the sofa". Then when his morale recovered... it got ugly.

Lucky for them it went UP like a vocano.

Check their status.

Savegame? Run it a dozen times and see what happens. (Not the replay, the blue-bar turn.)

They got lucky. As far as I can tell, vehicle explosions don't affect things more than an AS or so away. So they were just far enough away. Saved by the armour on the mortar carrier deflecting the blast upwards just enough. For them.

I love maps and I love travel. I love to see scenarios where you really buy the scenery.

I am not the world greatest expert on land use, or the pre-1940's but I thought I would mention that if you desire to make great scenary you have to move your mind to a critical level.

Ali-Baba has done a really nice map - Acropolis- and it has some truly inspired touches - the soccer pitch, the worked out quarry used as an ampitheatre. That is beautiful stuff.

We have exchanged e-mails on a couple of points which are not big but are valid for discussion by my critical eye motto. The rail line has a very nice bridge but being built 100-200 metres inland would have made more sense as no bridge would be required. To the railbuilders the bridge is an expensive option to build and maintain. Its not a biggy and for most people perhaps would go unnoticed. But Ali-Baba wanted a bridge : ) And I say why not - a designer should be free to do what they want.

However if you are going to try for realism as your ultimate goal then looking at each item and say does this make sense is a good practice.

I know you can have multi-storey buildings, up to 8 levels. Think carefully as to how common were tall buildings pre-1940. Pictures of bombed cities do show taller buildings but 8 stories would be extremely rare outside a major city centre. Four stories would be fine for most tall buildings in a biggish town. Why do you get taller buildings in towns? Because land is expensive, where there is lots of land people would build a town outwards at lower level as it is cheaper.

Another thought harking back to CM*1 days is that try to think of scale - I remember an old map where apparently the natives felt substantial bridges a 100 metres apart was a likely thing to happen in the midst of the countryside over a smallish river. It may have been done for play balance but it was also jarringly unlikely.

Anyway that is my little piece on realistic terrain. If you are curious if your finalised map rouses any thoughts in me feel free to contact me through clicking on my name and sending a message for my e-mail address.

Of course you have an absolute right to design what you want, and you may know physical features I do not, so I am not at all dogmatic as to what is right and wrong. I only suggest : )

BP I think it is to do with how wire placement is controlled in the editor. The only way to control the facing of wire is by placing a second element alongside it. It's likely that the single pieces have reverted to a default facing when the second wire element is removed.
 
Monthardrou is one of mine, but boy it seems like a long time ago !
 
P

I think I am going to do some testing myself this weekend.
 
Sherman and (76) M10, Cromwell, and Churchill using the minute clock see how many rounds they can get off in a minute.
Same thing with Pz IV H, J, Panther, Tiger, Tiger II
T-34, T-34/85 JS-2
 
will do each one for 5 minutes to get the best average.. will mix it up with Regular and Veteran troops to see if there is a little difference.

That depends very much on the range, and what you call "standard".
The 105 is a howitzer with a loopy trajectory, and will only very rarely hit on the first round. And if you're close enough to risk the shot, you're probably close enough that the german 75-or-better will ream you out on his first shot. If you're far enough away that there's a glance chance, you'll almost certainly miss. The 105 isn't an anti-armour tank, it's an assault gun with desperation self-defense rounds.

If you define "standard" german armour as PzIV, just take a Sherman 75. The gun's accurate enough and powerful enough to have a slightly better chance per shot of killing the relatively poorly armoured IV than the IV has of killing the M4, at combat ranges you'll see on most BN maps. If you think you'll be facing kitties, take a 76mm (preferably the 17lber Firefly) or be prepared to lose tanks while flanking the panzers.

Just had to recommend this battle. It is small but intricate. You start out with one Para HQ and two small squads and a generous set up area. Go secure that bridge and guard house. The neat thing from a design standpoint is that despite small squads they can be split up in several teams, so you end up with several tactical element comprised of just one or two men. This adds an interesting dimension to it. And a stunning map. I always feel the game looks it best in light fog/cloudy weather.
 
Who designed this gem? Highly recommended, especially if you're into tiny/small battles.

Well I don't think I have anything to add for @Bulletpoint but based on your discussion about trees being annoying in the CMBN threads I would recommend Fortress Italy - and add on Gustov Line.

Lets put it this way CMBN and CMRT I play with trees set to show trunks mode so I can actually see what my guys are up to. With CMFI I have trees fully on and for the most part I do not have to turn them off to see what is what.

Put down the pipe, hippie.. marijuana is not a combat drug

Put down the pipe, hippie.. marijuana is not a combat drug

True. In a very abstract way of lines and circles on a map, I can really admire the German performance in the first couple of months of Barbarossa. Not because I think they were the good guys who should be winning against the evils of Communism, but because at that moment they were skilled practitioners of military art fighting against a foe that was horribly off balance. But I suspect that this is best covered at the strategic or at least operational level. I'm not particularly thrilled to see it played out on the CM battlefield. Granted that some aspects are well covered at that level (such as the matchup of various models of armor), but the whole aspect of logistics—which to a large extent is what won and lost that war—is more or less completely elided in CM.
 
Michael