MOS:96B2P

You're welcome. It's a fun game that we make better by discussing and sharing ideas.

+1. IMO much easier to make two versions of the same scenario.

Yep, in CMSF both Combatants & Fighters have hand grenades.

Hand grenade range is three action spots (24 meters) and they can be thrown with or without a Target order. To throw into a building the troop must be next to the building. It is also possible to throw over a tall wall with no LOS to the other side of the wall. The more grenades a team has the more likely they are to use them. And dueling grenades just because.........

I found the below, on GrogsHead, that might be interesting.

+1. I looked up Theatre of War 2: Kursk 1943. Some of the videos were uploaded by Battlefront and had the Battlefront start screen with the tank. I then found the Theatre of War forum under the Battlefront forum archives. I thought it sounded familiar but I never played it. It's also on STEAM. I don't think it is current competition for CM but out of curiosity I'm going to look into it some. If Battlefront was involved with the game it will probably be worth a look.

The LOS / Target line is taken to be from the height of the unit at the present time. If an infantry team is prone your target line from a waypoint next to a wall will show no LOS over the wall. After your troops arrive and kneel next to the wall they can see over it. Reverse slope no aim point - When the LOS / Target tool reads "Reverse slope no aim point" this means that if a tall enough enemy unit (generally a vehicle) enters that location your unit will probably have LOS to that enemy unit (and vice versa). Smoke and other factors may also play a role. Yes, this type of LOS/LOF occasionally surprises me.

Yep, FPS games seem to have good graphics. The compass in the lower right was a nice (probably useful) touch also. Sounds interesting. I never owned that one. Did it have replay and a free moving camera? I think four things are probably needed to usefully compare another games graphics to CM graphics. First it should be in the same general genre. I agree GTA 5 has better graphics but I can't scratch the WW 2, itch etc. by playing it. It needs to be 3D. After playing CM for all these years and assuming / agreeing CM graphics were outdated I was a little surprised by games I thought were similar to CM but only had 2D. It almost certainly needs to have a replay feature. If you are compelled to play the game zoomed out for situational awareness you're not going to see much of the close in, screenshot worthy, graphics (good or bad). You can't rewind to watch the graphics of any cool little sub battles going on etc. It should have a free moving camera so you can get around the map and actually see all the graphics. Even the high end graphic First Person Shooters I think generally lock you into the view of one character at a time or at least the general vicinity of your current character. Do any games have these four things and better (or similar) graphics as Combat Mission? In its genre CM graphics might be more competitive than I had assumed.

For many years I've just excepted and even repeated this premise that Combat Mission graphics are outdated. Recently I bought and played two other games that I thought were similar to Combat Mission. I missed Combat Mission graphics when I realized these games didn't even have 3D graphics. They were basically 2D top down view. They have some cool features CM does not have but CM far surpasses them in the graphics department. In one game you can zoom in on a single tank. But every tank in the platoon looks the same, top down view, nothing special to take a screenshot of. And even this is not really practical since there is no replay, like CM has. Most of the time you are forced to play maxed zoomed out for situational awareness. I don't own Mius but have watched U-tube videos of it. Those graphics seemed okay but not a new graphics standard as far as I could tell. I think it may also suffer from lack of replay? So you mostly have to play zoomed out anyways? Not sure about that. I agree there are games with better graphics. Probably Grand Theft Auto, Cyberpunk etc. But those games are a different genre. I guess it would be cool if CM had those graphics. But when staying within realistic tactical combat simulations (not first person shooters etc.) what do you compare CM to for graphics? Honest question. I'm just giving some thought to this old premise after playing two other games. I'm not sure of any other games where you would be able to get the type of screenshot displayed below. In CM if you use replay and get down at ground level the below is fairly common.

As @Sgt.Squarehead said. Below is some information you might find interesting. I did some experiments with hatches opened and closed on vehicles from different battalions (So no vertical information sharing) to observe how horizontal information sharing was affected. The experiment was done in CMFI v2.0 Engine 4. The following is a summary of the results followed by screenshots: Maximum horizontal information sharing range is 32 meters (4 Action Spots) A vehicle must be unbuttoned to horizontally share (report) information from about 9 to 32 meters. A vehicle can be buttoned & horizontally share (report) information if it is within 8 meters of the other vehicle. This one surprised me: If two vehicles are 9 to 32 meters apart with one buttoned & the other open the open vehicle will share (report) information to the buttoned vehicle. However the buttoned vehicle will not share (report) information to the open vehicle. Infantry may horizontally share (report) information to a buttoned vehicle when within 32 meters. The post with the screenshots is linked below. https://community.battlefront.com/topic/119474-c2-information-sharing/?do=findComment&comment=1719467

If you had one of these ........... If you don't have a breach vehicle (and you are lucky enough to know the mine is present) you could: Mark and advance with infantry, leaving the vehicles. Have infantry move around it through the forest, leaving the vehicles. (heavy forest is not impassable to infantry) Use a different avenue of advance to get the vehicles through. Attempt to hit it with 150mm or greater. (If you have any. Might not be a good use for the arty anyways) Ask for a volunteer to drive over it. (If its only one tile deep and holding up a company of tanks it might be worth it) It does present an interesting tactical problem / dilemma.

I think experience effects the time to mark mines. In some of the WW2 titles vehicles (M4 Sherman Crab etc.) can be used to breach an obstacle belt. But yes, I wish all the titles, especially modern titles, had engineer breaching vehicles. +1 THIS! And include mines with them to make an obstacle belt. Wire also blocks wheeled vehicle movement (many scout cars are wheeled). Also mines and wire can be assigned to an AI group so the location of obstacle belts can change with the Ai plan. In titles that don't have engineer breaching vehicles I like to leave a path open through the obstacle belt. While the engineers can't remove mines they can locate the path through them. This kind of simulates a breaching operation. An entire Avenue of Approach can have one of these obstacle belts (the location of which can change based on the AI plan). Then the player has a choice, do I breach or attempt a different AA that might lead to a fire sack. Lots of interesting possibilities with wire / mines and AI groups. As @Bulletpoint mentioned using obstacle belts in a QB is probably not practical. But they can definitely work in user made scenarios where the ends of the obstacle belts are tied into no-go terrain. I've not published any scenarios with obstacle belts but I have a few that I'm experimenting around with. IMO they have a lot of interesting potential for scenarios.

Engineers can most reliably and safely locate unidentified minefields using the Slow command. Marking a minefield substantially reduces the chance of triggering a mine for infantry traversing the minefield. Antitank minefields can be marked but there is no effect. Infantry can traverse them without risk and vehicles don't benefit from marking. Minefields can be neutralized by heavy artillery (150mm+), if it scores a direct hit. Minefields can be neutralized by a blast from a demo charge if there is a blastable obstacle (wire) in the action spot. Anti-personnel mines have a cumulative effect on vehicle mobility. ie: Number of Action Spots a vehicle can generally cross in an AP Minefield before immobilization: Armor= 2 A/S, light Armor= 1 A/S, Transport= Destroyed. Red sign with a skull and crossbones = Active non-marked minefield. Off white sign (yellow in CMBS) with a skull and crossbones = A marked minefield. Green sign with a white X = Neutralized minefield (all mines detonated) +1 The floor is lava is a good way to think of it. I never tried with hand grenades but my understanding is minefields can be neutralized by heavy artillery (150mm+), if it scores a direct hit.

The scenario this topic is based on demonstrates that Combat Mission has already very closely simulated the ground phase of Operation Neptune Spear. The scenario designer invested many hours of research and design to make this scenario. I've played this interesting scenario and it is excellent and highly recommended. It sounds like you might have had problems breaching the compound. There are a few different ways to execute a breach. The breach can be setup so the breach team does not run through the breach. Sometimes this "running through" is not appropriate. The Tactics, Techniques & Procedures (TTPs) for breaching (and mostly everything else) are learned and improved with experience and reading this forum. Less than optimal TTPs is not necessarily a reflection on the scenario but is often an indicator that the TTPs could be improved. Which is part of the fun of the game. Below is a link to the scenario topic and below that is a link to the scenario download. Highly recommended. Scenario download: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2/cm-shock-force/operation-neptune-spear/

+1. Leave no Pixeltroopen behind.

Yes. With the unit selected (or individual vehicle) in the TOE list on the right side of the screen hit Shift & F8.

And then click on whatever terrain objective number it is in the box on the left. Next on the map click on the highlighted objective and it will disappear one action spot at a time (unless you use the bigger paintbrushes). If you click on an open ground action spot the objective will re-appear. Click on, click off etc.

Not actually on the exit zone just behind it so the exit zone is between them and the main map. Actually no-go terrain would accomplish the same thing.

I think this map is part of @George MC scenario map for CMRT Der Ring Der 5 Panzer. If so it started life as a much bigger map (about 13 square kilometers IIRC). I'm using a modified version (with permission) for my CMRT mini-campaign Alarmeinheiten. You might want to get George's scenario 5 Panzer and check out the huge map. If you like the smaller version you'll probably really like the 13 square kilometer version. Below is a screenshot of a modified version of the original huge map. There are many detailed villages in the huge version........

Hmmm, maybe.... The "extra" units the AI gets would be out of LOS in a back corner of the map. Separated from the remainder of the map by an exit zone. When the AI is controlling these "extra" units they would jump to their setup locations (when the red button is hit) outside of the area blocked by the exit zone. The AI then uses the forces as normal. Now a human plays this same side. The "extra" units are still on the map but blocked by the exit zone (or just impassible terrain) from entering the main map area. And no player painted setup zone in this area. So the human player can see them but can't bring them to the fight. I suppose any mortars include with "extra" units could fire from this cut-off zone. Just off the top of my head............ would this work? I really don't have the time to test it but I always find the editor/scenario making ideas very interesting.

IMO there is often some truth to this.

+1. I love the smell of napalm on my monitor screen.

+1. NICE!!

In theory they should buddy aid some of it as long as they are on the same side and not "spies". Testing would be needed to confirm the theory and also see if it was done consistently and in enough quantity to be useful. Then if they would use the equipment over what they were issued.

Yes. We watched that last night. Good show. Also highly recommend Fauda on Netflix.