HistoryLover

Despite that you don't hit anything that is not within 100 m. From where do you have this believe? Assault rifles were the next step in the development. There's a reason why the assault rifle concept of the StG44 has become the infantry weapon until today. It combines high close range firepower with the ability to engage targets over 100 m.

Who wants PPShs if he has the StG44? :cool:

I think it's good, if you have dropped the attitude that the camera controls were the wisdom of the universe and are trying to make the entry into the game easier for newcomers. BTW attracting more customers: as cool as the new pictures are for all that know what CM is, but if I wouldn't know it, these pictures would not at all help me to understand it. In fact I probably would compare the graphics to the well known FPS and think "what an ugly looking wargame shooter" and would turn away. The pictures do not transport the message of tactical warfare. They do not show, that the graphics are just the icing on the cake. IMO you should use much more pictures showing the planning phase and try to portray some of the tactical considerations, that give every newcomer an impression, that this is about commanding squads, platoons, companies and their combined arms. Where are the pics that show the movement paths of a platoon, the positioning of their heavy support weapons, the placement of HMGs compared to the attacking infantry? Where are the impressive number of paths of a battalion advancing? Ok, maybe better not, this could frighten potential customers. The pics are perfect for CM players. They show us what is new. But those who don't know CM IMO get not the information they need to understand what the game is about.

Any info how it is implemented? With the good old lines like in CM1 or with unit icons?

I thought I must open a thread for this very promising feature for better usability. Any info how it is implemented? With the good old lines like in CM1 or with unit icons or?

This sounds too good to be true. Do I understand this correctly? The designer could assign a certain reserve platoon of TDs triggerA + planA and triggerB + plan B? Both plans could end with a move back to the original position. So if triggerA is activated the TD platoon moves according to the plan at the end of the plan returns. But if triggerB is activated it moves according to planB and returns afterwards. So the scenario designer could indeed make several different plans for different triggers for each unit?

How is that supposed to work in practice? These kind of scenarios mention in their description, that there exists a mod, which must be downloaded separately?

The German Luftwaffenleitoffizier was paramount to the success of the Blitzkrieg tactics and they were embedded in the leading tank spearheads. German tactical airstrikes with the precise Sturzkampfbombers were very effective. The problem for them was, that they needed air superiority over the battlefield because the JU 87 in the air were lame ducks for enemy fighters and as longer the war went on, the weaker the German airforce became. And the ever increasing air defense also reduced the importance of the diving bombers.

Bil Hardenberger, what gridded grass mod is that?

Interesting. Hopefully this will make the outcome of tank battles more consistent to what the player believes he is doing. Can you, for the technically interested customer, be a bit more specific about the kind of problem?

No, the programmers do not tell Steve from BFC what will be in and have gone on a vacation. Left without any infos he is trying to play the knowledgable animator until they will return.

From the description of the action above I'd say this is already unrealistical gamey behaviour. In reality the suspected enemy position ofcourse would not be checked by walking straight torwards it. Would you do that? Would you order a comrade to do that? Nobody does that - only a player does. If the enemy is suspected at a certain position, then either he would be supressed or approached on a covered route - that would be the realistic way. But what is a lost recon team, two lost comrades, against losing five minutes, right? This unrealistic behaviour of players IMO is the main reason, why losses in CM battles tend to be unnessesarily high. If players would play more realistic, then losses would go down - but the needed time goes up. A lot. For example, when it comes to movement under fire: players often use QUICK. But IMO HUNT is the realistic command. Because in reality you do not move under fire - you avoid it. You also do not run over the open, if five rifles in that house 50 m away are aiming at you. If the movement can't be avoided, then things turn for the worse and become bloody, BUT: players usually do not even try to! They have their slaughter command: QUICK-FAST-MOVE! Just use HUNT for infantry under fire. Especially AFTER the enemy has been spotted (ok, hunt can be problematic on hills, but that's more of a special problem) and you have not gained fire superiority. Thanks to "hunt" then suddenly the infantry movement comes to a standstill. And that's realistic. And using HUNT has another very positive effect: it educates the player. Since infantry does no longer advance with the hunt command if enemies are present, the player will be forced to look at the map. Find an alternative route maybe? Remember reading in books about "heavy resistance"? It doesn't necessarily mean to storm against it, but to find a solution to overcome it. Sounds like a tactical challenge? This game is about it. Normally players just use their infantry slaughter commands of QUICK, MOVE, or even FAST and do not even test where a weak spot, a route that isn't covered, or is not observed, could be. Players usually just march their doomed pixel soldiers where they previously had decided they want to move. And then they call it my "tactics". I'd call it: being a tovarish Commissar!

A bone! It seems the programmers are keeping you on a very short leash and you are forced to keep playing the animator for the eagerly waiting masses.

According to Lexikon der Wehrmacht this seems far fetched: http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/panzerabwehrkanonen.htm ------------------Pak 40---------Pak 36® weight:..............1400 kg.............1700 kg Panzergranate 39 v0:.....................770 m/s.............740 m/s @1000 m @90°:....121 mm...............82 mm Panzergranate 40 (Hartkern) v0:.....................990 m/s..............990 m/s @1000 m @90°.....133 mm..............112 mm

It is indeed frustrating. Why is not a small bone every few days released?

Well, if you're totally serious I'd say that this example shows a fake car. A motor not loosing liquid when the cooler is being removed? With naked hands touching the cooler? Loosening and tightening wheel bolts with the tire in the air? Well, to me it seems, these guys can do this, because they are training too less with their gun! Additionally a Jeep is a bad comparison: it is not constructed to be dismantled in open or rough ground. But guns are constructed to be deployed that way. If you are afraid that setup times under certain conditions would become too short, wouldn't it be possible to make setup times dependent on terrain factors? The increased setup time of HMGs in buildings IMO is a fantastic improvement, it forces the player to weigh the cons against the pros.

I believe, if setup times of guns would be reduced, using guns in a more flexible way, as seen in the videos, could very well become possible. The argument, that in reality on the battlefield setup times would be worse than those from reenactors does not convince me. I believe quite the contrary being true, since reenactors are not drilled as unit for weeks until they can fullfill everything blindly. Additionally I'd argue that reenactors are fatter overall and therefore not as quick, too... IMO trained crews should be distincly faster than reenactors. And why should the setup time on the battlefield take longer than during a drill?

osheamat, is one of the units hidden now?

Colonel D., please describe how you move your units under fire.

John Kettler, thanks, great stuff.

Are you his nanny?

The Germans in 1941, already two years into war, had NOTHING comparable to the T34. At that time the T34 was undoubtedly the best tank in the world.

I just corrected Steve from Battlefront and you repeat it outright again? I did not say hd tanks had no concealment or protection. I said that spotting of at least the PzIV hd tanks is that off, that the hd protection is more than compensated by their lost ability to spot adequately and I said (and prooved that later) how by forcing them to button up, they can be put at an even bigger disadvantage than the opponent in the open. You can keep on repeating it that everything was not that bad, but if the buttoned up PzIV, HD, with his 75/L48 looses around 80% of the duels @1500 m with the same opponent, buttoned down, in the open, the model delivers implausible results. Did I say that it can't be corrected? Or that CM was not fun? Or not a great game? No. But in regard to realism in this situation of hd and at least the PzIV, the model is NOT slightly off. If a model delivers an inverted result to reality, then it is totally off. I don't know what is so hard to accept with that. And secondly, I'm sure you do a decent work as beta tester, but as someone who obviously has not recognized that the performance of (at least the) PzIV tanks in hd is way off, you should not claim that I had no clue.

No. The other thread you closed down mentioned, that the RESULT is wrong, and I also gave the correct explanation: because HD tanks are spotted earlier than they can spot themselves. I explicitly mentioned the importance of spotting first to hit first! Because of this error, the whole tank combat model has not worked for years, because not being HD and therefore being smaller is key to success, but making the enemy tank button down and therefore destroy his spotting ability is the key. At least in the meantime it should be clear to everyone that the size of a target can be compensated with the amount of shots fired at the target to achieve the same or better hit probability in the game. And exactly that is the problem I described from the beginning, that spotting behaviour of HD tanks is so bad, that they are hit more often in duels than tanks in the open. It's enough that you lock up threads with excuses, but at least you should refrain from intentionally misrepresenting what others wrote.