MOS:96B2P

Very impressive work. The map looks like something made by a professional cartographer. And the DAR is pretty good too . Thanks for taking all the time and effort to put this together. Good job.

Very nice DAR and the pictures are very good. Where did you get the map from you are using? It is similar to the 1:50,000 maps we used when I was in. Just no grid squares and I can't make out elevation marks on the contour lines but it is a nice touch to the DAR. Is it accurate down to the placement of the buildings for the scenario?

Wow, lots of good information. I hope you are able to PDF this. If not I will just copy & print it and put it in my CM three ring binder. Actually I will probably print it out even if you do PDF it. Old school with some things .

The Breach Teams have engineers / sappers in them. If you look in the status block on the bottom left of the screen the team members are listed: Leader, Engineer, Engineer. I also tested them awhile back. Almost always take a breach team or two on offensive quick battle PBEMs. Occasionally on the defense also, very handy.

This is an interesting question. Separatists similar to Unconventionals in CMSF with IEDs etc would be very cool.

Wow, what a great site!! It must have taken a lot of time and effort to put together. I just spent the last 45 minutes looking around in the site and only got a small way through it. I never realized how many scenarios I have not played. I bookmarked it for myself but it should probably be stickied so it is easy for people to find. Thanks for doing this.

Breach units have demo charges to Blast (breach) walls and obstacles. Some can also mark minefields. The demo charges are also good for close assaulting vehicles. Blasting is their most common job.

The dust may make it difficult to get the initial Target line to stick. In this case the Target line was already stuck (made before the shooting started) and the status block was cycling through the load, aim, fire sequence just the gun was not actually firing. So I don't think it was the dust. In the case of units refusing to actually area fire on the bridge I discovered that it happens when the firing unit is firing at or close to a 90o angle at the bridge. If the firing unit is more or less in line with the bridge crossing it was able to area fire onto the bridge no problem. So the bridge part is probably a rare occurrence. It looks like the SPW 251/9 has bigger problems. Area Target it almost anywhere and it will not shoot all the rounds the status box is claiming it shot.

This seems similar to the "sometimes not able to area fire on buildings situation". The difference is with a bridge you will get the Target line to the bridge and the status block will cycle through loading, aiming, firing. But the end result is the same, no actual firing. I tested a Panther tank and it had the same behavior as the SPWs when ordered to area Target the bridge. However when vehicles spotted the ATG on the bridge they engaged it directly like happens when infantry are spotted in a building. The problem with the SPW 251/9 is a little more involved. When given an area Target at 187 meters (No bridge involved this time) across flat, open, no obstruction ground it cycled through firing eight times but only actually fired five times.

About two weeks ago during a CMFB v1.01 PBEM I noticed my SPW 251/17s and SPW 251/9s were not consistently firing when given a Target or Target Briefly order. This was especially noticeable when firing at a ATG on a bridge. I just now tested this in CMFB v1.02 and got the same results. When given a Target order at the center of the bridge (Where a ATG was set up) the status block on the user interface would cycle through the normal loading, aiming, firing but the main gun would not visibly fire, there was no impact down range and the ammo count did not change. I changed the aim points to the end of the bridge (first A/S off bridge). Then the main guns fired every other time the UI read firing (so half the time indicated). When I moved the aim point for the SPW 251/17 into an open action square about 30 meters away from the bridge it seemed to fire normally. When I moved the aim point for the SPW 251/9 into an open action spot about 30 meters away from the bridge it still would not always fire when the status block indicated it was firing. It would skip about one out of three firings. Again no muzzle blast, impact down range or ammo count change for skipped firing. Has anyone else noticed this? Before I jump to a conclusion that I found a bug I thought I should put this on the forum for discussion. Maybe I’m doing something wrong or this is a known issue. With the new patch I think BFC would have fixed it (if it is a bug) if they knew about it. I did not test any other vehicles. Below are some screenshots for the SPW 251/9. The test was done on my test range so no damage or suppression was present.

Thanks for those links @IanL. Some great info and I have only gotten part way through them. To include: There are 5 ground heights in the game in terms of LOS, LOF, and Spotting: Prone, Kneeling, Standing/Small Vehicle, Tall Vehicle, Very Tall Vehicle. Also from BFC, the reason we can't fire through smoke. I always thought it was a programming limitation. I now have my own BFC bookmarks folder .

I remember this discussion in general but can't remember all the specific details now. I know there was a problem with wheat fields that blocked line of site to a ground level action square so that action square (and things in it) could not be targeted. I just did a quick test in CMBS where a three story building had a tall wall around it blocking the ground level action square. A scout team was able to area fire into the second and third level no problem. I see my friend @RepsolCBR also put IIRC in his statement above. If anybody can refresh our memories with the details of this: not being able to target an action square and when and how it applies and if it may be related to what @rooibos is experiencing please refresh away.

How the initial spot check was made might be part of the problem. If the target/LOS tool for an infantry team is initially used in one stance (Upright) but when the unit gets to the location and deploys in a different stance (prone) the LOS may be different.

There is vertical (Chain of Command) information sharing and horizontal information sharing. For vertical the unit needs to be in C2. For horizontal two units need to be within 4 Action Spots (32 meters) of each other dependent on terrain. So teams from different C2 chains can talk and share info. There is a link in my sig. line below that shows the process complete with screenshots. This use of liaisons works well when there is no mutual higher HQ to act as a bridge to pass information.

So your vote seems to be for the AI doing the targeting. I am going to try this more often. I like this house rule when playing against the AI of only moving on even turns. It is like a simple and easy to remember command delay system.

No problem my friend. I do that $hit all the time. LOL

Jammer, I think you may have that backwards. I just double checked to make sure. If we're talking about the same thing. Quick battles show the points that's how you buy your force for the battle. But when you are creating a scenario it just reads common, standard, rare etc....

This would be a great time saver. Along with having the points displayed in the Scenario Editor. I have my core OOB TOE typed out on a word document but it is still time consuming to re-select the OOB on the purchase screen at the beginning of every game.

Ah, okay. I guess that is programmed/intended behavior then. I also expected it to work at the platoon level. You never stop learning with this game.....

I often do the same.

Not sure why this is. Normally if the two units are within ammo sharing distance (2 action spots) and the same platoon they will share ammo. I just saw this behavior again this week in a PBEM in CMFB. However it was German 81mm mortars not US. If you click on one of those mortar teams do both their icons highlight?

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of it this way. When the OpFor pops up to shoot that is an opportunity to shoot them. Now if I can make that work correctly. Probably less micromanagement this way but just like RL you have to trust your subordinates . I think I will try to move in this direction and see how it turns out. So both direct and area fire. The best of both worlds. This is useful. I don't remember if you were part of the discussion at the time but @RockinHarry discovered if you area fire at the action spot just in front of the building you can usually suppress floors 1-3.

Actually I have one in mind. The failed coup in Turkey made me think of it. But I don't think I will have the time to get it done anytime soon. Maybe over the winter when things slow down. Judging from news reports your also rather busy. Stay safe my friend.

This was mentioned in a different thread by @PhilM. I come across this dilemma in almost every mission: Is it best to let the AI pick the targets or should I assign the targets. Both seem to have advantages and disadvantages. Often the AI will identify and engage OpFor troops until those troops duck for cover. Then the AI will stop shooting. The OpFor troops will recover from the suppression pop back up and start shooting again probably causing some friendly casualties or suppression. The AI will reacquire the OpFor unit, engage and the cycle starts over again. If I assign a unit to area fire on an OpFor unit (not target directly) the unit will keep up the area fire on the OpFor as long as I specify (and ammo allows) usually keeping the OpFor suppressed. So no problems from that OpFor unit. The downside is if another target appears the friendly unit will most times ignore the new target which may be a better/more dangerous target than the one originally assigned. Sometimes with bad consequences. As a result, when possible I have used Target Briefly so a unit has part of the WEGO minute to choose targets after it is done area firing. Also try to put some units on area fire and some left to AI target however there is often not the luxury of having enough units to do all the jobs required at the height of a fire fight. I was curious how other players handle this dilemma and the tactics they employ.

This is an interesting dilemma, to assign targets or let the AI pick targets, and one I encounter on most missions. In fact this topic could probably have its own thread ..................