freeman2344

Um, OK then, that's a bit disappointing (I mean, you have to know, I guess ). Where did he get his number?

Thanks, finally a longish campaign again.

Hi, couldn't find this information anywhere. How many missions are contained in the new Amiens Tonight campaign? Also, are there any branching paths? Thanks!

Thank you so much for this! That is incredibly helpful!

RT can be tough, especially considering the increased lethality of this conflict compared to previous CM iterations. It's very quick and it's possible to miss things if you're not super attentive - particularly due to the fact that there still isn't some kind of combat log or other indicator for losses and units taking fire apart from the flashing icons. However, I wouldn't ever consider playing WEGO, in fact, I would never have gotten into CMSF back in the day if it hadn't featured RT. Don't get me wrong, turn-based is fine, I love turn-based games in general, but I feel a game like CM needs the extra micromanagement - WEGO can't offer that. IMO the TacAI makes too many dumb and unrealistic decisions when units are under fire, which can be partially remedied by RT intervention, and, for me, the 1-minute intervals and associated planning requirements in general often lead to situations where troops die needlessly. But that's the beauty of CM - you can have it your own way.

Every kind of CAS, no matter which aircraft is carrying out the operations, requires a high degree of control over both airspace and the SAM environment. If we assume that SEAD operations are not all that effective, especially against Russian long-range SAMs - then one would have to ask what aircraft can seriously be used for such a purpose without the mission being akin to suicide? I would doubt that an F-16 on a ground attack mission flying at medium to high altitudes has a higher degree of survivability than a low-flying A-10 in such an environment. Sure, the A-10 would be subjected to ZSU, MANPADS and all that stuff - but the low-level threat environment is not all that different (though certainly more lethal) to the one pilots would have faced during the cold war and for which the A-10 was designed.

RealTime has been in all of the other new iterations of CM. You can safely assume it will be included in BS as well - I would be very surprised if this was not the case.

I just ran a test under similarly unrealistic circumstances (bunch of russians charging across open field and then through a bottleneck) with both an HMG42 and Maxim HMG with maximum stats in a fortified, elevated position and "Scenario Author Test Mode" to exclude any spotting limitations. The results: 73 Maxim kills, 113 MG42 kills, both tests concluded after 10 minutes. The Maxim does indeed fire more bursts, albeit shorter ones, but the MG42 makes up for this with increased accuracy. This is the result to be expected IMO and the MG42 does seem to be simulated as the "more potent" weapon in this game. I don't see a problem here.

Out of curiosity: is there a source for these numbers or did you calculate that yourself?

Track hits are not as common as one would think as units always aim for the center of mass and never specifically at the tracks. Radio/optics damage is, as far as I know, abstracted to a certain extent as impacts on the vehicle always have some chance of knocking these components out, for example due to the shock of the impact knocking optics out of alignment and so forth.

I remember it being this way from CMBN, but I don't think this is the case in CM:RT. Maybe these were coincidences on my end, but I've seen it happen a number of times now. In fact, in my last game, not even flamethrowers were able to knock out a WOODEN bunker. EDIT: Just did an isolated editor test...and it turns out something else was keeping that bunker from being penetrated, most likely a terrain issue. Flamethrowers are definitely not as effective as one would think, though.

I could be wrong, but I remember reading that infantry throwing grenades on tanks is supposed to represent some kind of "close assault", which would naturally be hard to do from within a building (no matter how abstracted). It does, however, beg the question why this is possible from 30m out (probably a design error, as 30m is also the range at which infantry generally starts chucking nades at the enemy). I did a number of semi-isolated tests with a couple of infantry squads on either side + some rather uncautious T34s for the soviets. Whenever the T34 ventured too far in front - or I managed to sneak up on it with a German squad - it was generally incapacitated after just 2/3 grenades thrown from fairly far away. I think we can all agree that this is not really what the designers had intended and that the ranges at which this phenomenon can occur have to be somewhat decreased.

They're not identical. Hummel batteries are only allowed approx. half the shells that the field artillery of the same caliber may use. They do, however, have 6 vehicles while there are only 4 guns in the field battery.

Sadly 20mm cannot even penetrate wooden bunkers, not sure if that's intended.

The OP stated that he was looking for the Hummel under "Artillery", therefore noone ever suggested that it was available as an on-map unit.