MOS:96B2P

NICE!!! Thank you for making yet another scenario. I was wondering how you were going to make a river and bridges with no water or bridges in CMSF. Brilliant as usual. The TOC is working on the IPB. SITREPS to follow.

This might be where the miscommunication is. Or maybe I'm confused. There is a change when you select an enemy unit. When you select the enemy unit the friendly unit(s) that see the enemy unit will remain in their normal state but all other friendly units will dim. (Making it seem that the friendly unit(s) with LOS have highlighted) When you deselect the enemy unit the friendly units that had dimmed will return to their normal state. Engine manual 4.0 page 43. This does not explain the original problem in the OP but may help with any miscommunication. A screenshot or three would be useful. EDIT: And I see in a previous post (near the top of the page) that ASL had previously explained the change when you select an enemy unit. So I added nothing to the conversation. Sorry, I will go do some PBEM turns now ....................

This will often happen if there is an elevation mismatch. If the team is on a different elevation than the inside of the building. I'm not sure this is what happened in your case but it would be my first guess. In my Blast TacSOP I first check the wall to see if it looks like the building is sunk into the terrain at all. If it is you can blast it but the team will probably take a different route for getting inside (like using the closest door). When able to select and assign soft factors to my own units I purchase regular engineers because they have a Blast time of 15 seconds. I give them a 45 second Pause before the Blast. So they Blast just as the turn ends in WEGO. Next turn I cancel the move part of the Blast order for the engineers. I then Slow a team (usually different team to preserve the engineers) through the blasted gap. If the assault team starts to crawl around to a door I cancel their Slow order (usually enough time on Slow) and try something else. I know it is a PITA but the best work around I know of.

YES!!! Very good news.

The warrior will be a fun vehicle to take out hunting. Looking forward to that. I couldn't find a Kindle addition of the book. So I would have to buy an old fashion book made with paper, ink etc..... Just like the 1700s ..... Sigh.

In general more waypoints with vehicles is better. The more waypoints the less likely the vehicle will get lost. Infantry will briefly stop at waypoints and slow things down. However vehicles will roll right through waypoints. When crossing an obstacle (fence, hedge, wall) I place one waypoint directly in front of the obstacle and one directly after.

Ouch!!

Probably the most useful information to come out of this is: If a vehicle's LWR activates, it Pops Smoke and goes in Reverse it was targeted by another ground unit. If a vehicle's LWR activates and the vehicle does not Pop Smoke or change position it is probably being hunted with a UAV. The UAVs also seem to activate the LWRs on vehicles at the star of a turn. So that would be an additional indicator it's a UAV.

Cool. Thanks for sharing. Did it knockout the other Sturmpanzer or just kill the crew? Do you remember about how many meters away from the explosion the 2nd sturmpanzer was?

Very cool. I googled this unit and fight. I think the 1st Bn. is armored infantry? The military artist "David Rowlands" made a painting of the bridge crossing. Looking forward to this.

The 4.0 engine manual came with the upgrade. It automatically created a shortcut to the engine manual on my desktop. It can also be found in the Battlefront folder. I have a PC not a Mac but I would expect the downloads to be the same.

Just for clarification, the Raven and Gray Eagle were tested during precision strike missions and did not set off the LWR on the T-90AM. I only tested the ZALA with conventional munition point mission since it can't do a precision munition strike. Not sure if that changes anything but ........... just in case.

Ahhh, that made the light bulb come on. I read the 4.0 engine manual page 51 several times and came away with the wrong idea. Basically Target the action spot the OpFor is in (the friendly tank is probably not going to have eyes on yet or they would already be shooting) from the Hull Down waypoint.

Yes. Just as @Bulletpoint said. Also, during the setup phase, you can target anywhere on the map with HQ units.

The vehicles used in the experiment (M1 Abrams and T-90AM) had LWRs. The ZALA, according to the 4.0 engine manual page 80, states the ZALA is too small for a laser. However in the experiment the ZALA using a conventional munitions Point Target did set off the LWRs. This doesn't seem like it is intended behavior.

The Pchela did not set off the LWR. I'm not sure if the Pchela is suppose to have a laser or not. The CMBS game manual page 138 is kind of vague. It reads that the Pchela can carry a variety of TV and infrared imaging devices.

Sorry for the delayed reply. RL got busy. Yes this is correct and not just for precision rounds. If you request a point target conventional strike (Like you might do with the ZALA) it will also set off LWRs.

Trying to get a better understanding of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Precision Guided Munitions and Laser Warning Receivers. I did some experiments to determine which UAVs triggered LWR on OpFor vehicles when targeting those vehicles (US M1 Tank and Russian T-90AM Tank). This is what I found. Russian UAVs: Pchela-1T No / Orlan-10 Yes / ZALA Yes (No PG just conventional) US UAVs: Raven No / Shadow Yes / Gray Eagle No. The CMBS game manual page 95 states the Raven may have a laser. The 4.0 Engine manual page 80 states the Raven is too small for a laser. But it can spot for precision rounds and does not set off LWRs. The CMBS game manual page 96 states the Gray Eagle has a laser. However in the experiment it did not set off LWRs. The 4.0 engine manual page 80 states the ZALA is too small for a laser. However it does set off LWRs when targeting OpFor vehicles with conventional munitions. The ZALA is the only UAV that can’t spot for precision munitions. Any corrections, clarifications or comments welcome. Did I get it right? Are the manuals a bit off?

IT WORKED!! Thank you!

Thanks!!

Thank you for taking the time to fix the map. I think just one building was missed. A screenshot is below. I pulled out the old Quick Battle maps and replaced them with the fixed maps however I can't get them to show up when I select a QB. I tried both Probe and Assault. I can see them in the scenario editor and that was how I was able to take the screenshot. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong ..........

Thanks for catching this. It made me go back, do some testing and look at my notes. My notes agree with you: Morale is reduced by suppression and casualties. My memory was of a fight where my teams went to nervous when out of C2. I tried to reproduce it in CMBN Engine 4 and could not. Page 68 of Engine Manual 4.0 under C2 documents that: units get jumpy when they don't know what friendly units around them are up to. Without C2, the imagination can run a bit wild. If it has contact with its fellow forces and feels supported, things are less stressful. However I can't make "No C2 + Opfor nearby = Nervous" now that I am intentionally trying to. In my test the teams were always being fired at when they went to nervous. So bottom line: Morale is reduced by suppression and casualties.

I'm not an artillery FFE grog I just note what the game mechanics are and then use them. So I'm not sure how accurate the FFE times are to RL in WWII however there is a fairly noticeable range of times influenced by many variables. Some of these variables are the experience of the spotter and the artillery. The type of artillery. If an FO is used or a HQ. If a TRP is used or not. If the spotter is taking any suppression. The spotter's line of sight for spotting rounds. (In CMBS the use of a dedicated fire support vehicle also matters & UAVs etc.) Just what I can think of, probably missed some. For example a US conscript HQ spotting for a regular 105mm howitzer with no TRP is about 16 minutes. An elite FO spotting for the same regular 105mm howitzer with a TRP is about 3 minutes. With this wide range of time maybe the RL WWII average is somewhere in that range?

This is MOS not SLIM but: On my experiment any infantry movement command that did not place a waypoint in every action spot had problems. The fewer waypoints the more problems with wondering. A crossing can be made on the marked path fairly well with Slow and a waypoint every action spot. A crossing can be made on a cleared path with any move command as long as a waypoint is placed on every action spot.

I just did a short experiment and had similar results. I had engineers mark a minefield 3A/S deep. I then moved infantry teams through the marked path. Then I cleared the marked path with a Sherman Crab and again moved infantry teams through it. The further apart the waypoints the more likely a troop will go off the path and hit a mine. Also after the Crab blasted a path through the mines the teams seemed to avoid the shell craters. I also had the teams run through some shell craters placed on the map with the editor. No problem, the teams ran right through the editor craters. So I think Jo might be onto something. The craters made by the Crab were recent explosions and the AI has been programmed to avoid explosions??? Vehicles followed the path no problem but not infantry. I even waited about 7 minutes thinking the explosions would not be recent any longer but the infantry still avoided the craters.