MOS:96B2P

Ahh, that's why it is hard to read................ I thought I needed a new prescription for my glasses....... "sigh".

+1

Bad news......... the CO's BTR was immobilized. Good news..........in CMSF you can call a taxi .

Fulda Gap is just a wish. I wish Battlefront would make Combat Mission Fulda Gap (CMFG).

They both have advantages and disadvantages. However a big advantage turn based (WEGO) has is the replay. IMO when you are first starting out the ability to replay the turn from any angle and from any location on the map greatly helps to figure out what, why and how something happened. In real time the bigger the battle the more stuff you completely miss because you can't be everywhere at the same time. I definitely vote for turn based. You'll learn more, faster.

+1 Very cool. Looking forward to these. I also really like the new combatants and spies.

Below is the SOP I use for Hull Down: 1. Give vehicle Open Up order. 2. Give vehicle Armor Target Arc1 entire map 3600. 3. Place Hull Down waypoints on every action spot in direction of OpFor unit. 4. Select first waypoint that allows an Area Target on the desired A/S.2 5. Place a Target Briefly3 order from this waypoint to the desired A/S. 6. Delete all the subsequent Hull Down waypoints. 7. If appropriate give vehicle Hide at final Hull Down waypoint. Notes: 1)Armor Target Arc will not fire on AT guns. 2)LOS can be blocked between hull down position and desired A/S. 3)This will not cause the tank to fire. Nope. There is no standard skill level for a PBEM. You just agree to it before you start. Also it's not a skill level as in most other games. It is more like a realism level. More realistic call times for artillery etc. There is no giving the AI more hit points or health bars etc.... No contour lines. I had contour lines as a wish in my signature line until just a few months ago. @Bil Hardenberger does have a mod that shows grid lines on the map which helps a player see elevations better. I'm not sure if it works with CMBS or not. I just tagged him so maybe he will stop by and let us know. Bil also has a Combat Mission Blog you should visit. I'll let him tell you about it. Welcome to the forum!!!

And they will probably track it back into the TOC during the AAR!!!

Thank you for your service. I bet you have a lot of interesting stories from back in the day. The good news is, the Brad never went to immobilized. It un-bogged and drove off to complete its mission. I think the small stream of feces running down the center is what made it bog. Fulda Gap would be cool. My hope is that the last release for CMFB will be an equipment pack introducing Soviet forces/equipment into CMFB. Call it meeting on the Elbe River or something. Then the US, Commonwealth and Soviets would all be in the same Combat Mission game. No BFC created scenarios would be needed. Just an equipment pack of already designed equipment ported over from CMRT. Scenario designers and mod creators could do all kinds of cold war, neo-colonialism stuff. Patton goes east 1945, Fulda Gap 1948, Korea, Suez Crisis, etc. I hope the effort to profit ratio would be favorable enough for BFC to make this happen.

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!! Bogged!!! Apparently talking about it in the forums does increase the chances of a bogged vehicle .

Also some additional information that is not obvious (counter intuitive actually) but can be useful: An IED can be activated and detonated by any triggerman. Example: A Wire triggerman can activate and/or detonate a cell or radio IED.

This. There are many forum threads on bogging / immobilization. The below are some of the lessons learned. Movement speed has no demonstrated effect on bogging/immobilization rates. Also vehicles will slow down of their own accord for some kinds of bumping: the berm remaining when a bocage hedge is demo'ed, for example, crossing any obstacle they can crush, and rough terrain like light woods. So just give them Fast orders and let them sort themselves out... Even without movement orders bogged vehicles will continue to try to get free (you can see the tracks of tanks moving). So once it's bogged, it will eventually either transition to immobilized or free, regardless of your actions. No correlation between type of movement orders and success/failure of un-sticking a bogged vehicle.

True dat.

Supply dumps were only visible to the other player in hot seat play. I don't know if that will be corrected with the upcoming 4.0 fixes or not....... For now you can use flavor objects (crates etc) for the uncon supply catch along with a touch objective however there is no fog of war for flavor objects. Everything has advantages and disadvantages however for the titles that have supply dumps I hope a patch makes them visible to the OpFor. Then at least you can do a proper search and destroy for Separatist supplies in Black Sea and maybe someday partisan supplies in the WW2 titles.

Seems like you have found a work around by using the old editor. Hmm, I wonder what else we can do with two different editors for the same game?

Yep. I've been spending most of my time in the editor with a new scenario I moved over from CMSF1 into CMSF2. I was a little nervous of how the crews might act after the scenario began. Since they were not crucial to my scenario I started with a fresh TOE from the CMSF2 editor. However if it is truly stable CMSF1 will live for many years on my hard drive as a place to build certain units and then move them over to CMSF2. If Charles knew how we used and abused his editor he would probably like to kick our @sse* .

Very good. Maybe we will be revisiting "The Hornets Nest" then .......................... +1

I was hoping you would see and answer that part of the question . Another informative post for my notes!! +1

This is interesting. Might not un-install CMSF1 after all. Not sure if it can be made to work once the scenario starts ................ but it is worth looking into. This is why I asked you the question in the other thread about switching vehicle crews. I couldn't get it to work the same as in CMSF1 but it was present on maps that I copied from CMSF1 and put into CMSF2.

Switching out vehicle crews?? Or something else? Details, details please!!................

That is easy to believe .................

Yes. All vehicles can set off anti-tank mines. I guess you can think of them as anti-vehicle mines . Infantry do not set off AT mines. Vehicles set off both AT and AP mines. AP mines will damage tracks on a tank and destroy a soft skin vehicle. Of course there are also mixed minefields so it can be dangerous to assume you are dealing with just an AT minefield or just an AP minefield.

A HQ higher up in the same CoC will be able to take over command of an element from lower down the chain if its immediate HQ is out of range or KIA. This can only take place at "Close Visual" or "Voice" range (or both). From the Engine Manual: If a squad or team is out of contact with its immediate superior (usually a platoon HQ) then its company or battalion HQ may provide voice and close visual contact, but not radio or distant-visual contact. This simulates that a higher HQ can step in and provide command-and-control in a limited radius in emergency situations.

In the game the AT team has always taken most of the grenades when split from the squad first in all the CM2 titles. This is why, especially for three team WW2 squads, we split off an assault team (A team) first so they take most of the grenades to use in any close assaulting. Then split off an AT team. If the AT team is split off first they take most of the grenades. I'm not defending the behavior I'm just saying it has always worked this way in CM2 titles. In your CMSF2 scenario you probably only have two teams per squad. If you split an A team off first the A team will take most (maybe all the grenades). The B team will then be the AT team. However it will be a three man AT team............. I know, probably not what you were looking for............

Below is my understanding for buildings. Of course the only building type CMSF 1 or 2 have is modular buildings. I think somebody tested foxholes and trenches and concluded trenches provided better protection. Generally the bigger the building the stronger it is. The skin of the building does not matter. A combination of a buildings height and footprint (total square footage) determines the strength of the building, relative to collapsing, within the four building types listed below. I suspect the type of building has more to do with the protection provided to the troops from suppression & casualties than the size. As in the Church vs barn example. Very Strong: Three biggest church structures. Strong: Modular buildings and independent small church. Average: Independent houses, independent commercial, and independent other. (CMBN & CMFB have an "other" category for buildings.) Weak: Barns