domfluff

Has anyone actually tested this? (If not I will try to get this set up). The firing ports work (as they have since CM:A, but they seem to be better positioned now), and giving a BMP an open up command will result in troops firing small arms from the opened hatches, as they do from Halftracks in the WW2 games. If the manpad logic is similar to the small arms logic, then this should work, no? Clearly, I'm still not entirely sure *why* you'd want to use the firing ports in most situations - you'd presumably have to be certain that there were no anti-tank weapons around (ha!) or be fighting in an NBC environment, which is quite far out of scope of this game. I can certainly see the value in firing Manpads from stationary vehicles - I'm often in situations where I've a Motor Rifle platoon kept out of LOS, waiting for the other elements of the company/whatever to catch up, and prepare an assault - I could definitely see the advantage of popping a chap with an Igla through the hatch, rather than dismounting and remounting him - that way you're ready to leave with minimal notice.

I do wonder if there's a need for a "target heavy" option, similar to the target armour arc and the "target light" command. The behaviour in CMSF was sub-optimal, in the sense that the US forces would waste anti-tank ammunition, but it did make the RPG-7 a terrifying thing to face in MOUT scenarios - one rocket could easily wipe out the team/squad if they were unlucky. Granted, this behaviour may be more suitable for asymmetric conflict, but ATGM's have a long history of being used against things which are not armour - Javelins in Iraq and Milans in the Falklands, for example.

I thought the primary purpose of the BRM-3K was it's laser designator?

Iron + WeGo. What I really like about WeGo is it feels more like a tactical problem. With WeGo it feels like there is (or could be) a set of decisions I could make that could result in minimal casualties, and I just need to see them. Essentially it feels more like a pen and paper wargame. Real Time is great (and in theory no different), but it doesn't have the same feel for me. I'm sure I could hammer the pause button to be exactly the same as WeGo (or even more granular), but it doesn't have the same feel for me.

The buy-in early access model has other problems. Most people genuinely don't know what they like (and it's hard to tell if this applies to you), and so feedback from the masses has a very low signal/noise ratio. Equally, when planned features don't arrive (like multiplayer co-op and campaigns, both mentioned in the CMSF manual in 2007) - the extra investment ("ownership") that players ideally feel for an early access game can very quickly turn sour. I'm not suggesting that the way Battlefront does things is the only way to do it, nor even necessarily the best way, but Early Access on Steam is not a strictly-better option.

You can click and drag to select multiple units, or if you double click on a unit, you'll select all of that unit's immediate structure (i.e., clicking on one squad will select the platoon, or the battalion commander would select probably-everything on the battlefield.)

Even thermal images of it being worn for several hours at a go would be a start, let alone being worn whilst doing physical activity.

To be honest, I think the AI in Combat Mission is pretty great, all things considered. The tactical AI (i.e., getting behind cover, using cover to advance, choosing the right weapon to use, panicking and running away etc.) is generally pretty sensible or at least mostly believable - the soldiers rarely do anything completely stupid, unless you force them to. Given how hard a problem that is to solve, I think that's pretty impressive really. The scripting tools for scenario design are (of course) up to the map maker, and will depend heavily on their abilities. There are definite limitations here (not being able to remount vehicles, not being able to engage suspected targets, etc.) - and even with triggers the AI has little idea of the overall state of the battle. However, for the most part it's a tool to get the troops moving from A to B, and it does that reasonably well. Sure, it would be nice if the strategic layer was more powerful, and if the operational layer had the ability to implement battle drills and the like... and equally if the whole lot could be dynamically generated on the fly (!), but for the most part it gets the job done fine, and difficulty is mostly a function of scenario design. The old CM way of doing things was to base everything on objective flags, yes? This meant that if the scenario design put all the flags at the AI's end they would defend, and the opposite would be an attack. Something in the middle would create a meeting engagement. This clearly is a more dynamic option than the system in CMx2, but what we've had since CMSF is an awful lot more subtle.

This is it - PBEM games take weeks and months to complete, so it's not a problem to wait a few days for a response. I use The Blitz (and A Few Good Men a little) to organise them, and since I've started doing that I've usually had three games on the go. Especially considering the trend towards larger scenario sizes in the recent titles (one of the things that made CMSF an excellent starting point is that there are plenty of company-and-platoon-level scenarios), I don't honestly think that CM works well in real time. I would quite happily sit down and real time WeGo someone, but that would mean setting aside 3-5 hours or so I think - which is an awful lot if you're not face to face. I'd be happy to do it over LAN with a mate and a few beers.

I hope so. I can see it being a touchy subject - Battlefront have tried to make it as clear as possible that Black Sea has nothing to do with the real situation in the Ukraine at every stage, and this might be a little too close to home, but I can also see this as being a much-wanted feature for precisely the same reasons. Irregular forces are very much part of modern warfare, and it would be a shame not to have access to them in some manner. I'm still undecided how I feel about their actual modelling in CMSF (the increased stealth in urban areas, dependant on civilian population), but the different types of IED, ad hoc uniforms and squad types and use of civilian cars and technicals are all great, so something of a similar nature would be useful, especially as the engine can now presumably handle improvised weapons like Molotov cocktails rather better than it did in CMSF. Whether "resistance" fighters fit into the narrative and time scale that CMBS has sketched out is an open question of course.

Stryker battalions are in some ways suspiciously similar to Panzergrenadier units, including repurposing old tank guns as assault guns, embedded in the formation. They function in a very similar fashion on the whole, with the exception of the more sophisticated command and control. Thus sure, they're for getting your guys into battle, but you usually don't want them fighting anyone, at least not without being fairly certain that they're in a safe position.

I mean, there aren't that many things on any given battlefield that are a real threat to an MBT, by proportion - but then MBT's are rarely the largest proportion of things on the battlefield, so there's that. I suspect the main use of ATG's in CMBS (if they have one) will be for dealing with BMP's, and they should be more than capable of that.

Proper ATGM teams (i.e., tripod mounted) are actually pretty comparable to WW2 AT guns in many ways - they are hard to spot, and can be devastating if well sited. ATGM's tend to be more powerful, but give away your position far more, and AT guns have a much higher ammo count and rate of fire. One of the things I'm really looking forward to in CMBS is that we will have the chance to have both at the same time (There were no AT guns in CMSF). Related to the above, artillery times are way down (when comms are degraded, presumably). It's was possible in CMSF to call in mortar salvos in *two minutes*, if you were using a Forward Observer in a vehicle with the appropriate electronics. This does mean that any static position is limited in use, and therefore ATGM's have another advantage, since they're usually easier to pack up and move. The US and British get Javelins, which are extremely effective, long range, and can top-attack to bypass most tank defences. They are hard counters to expensive armour coming from the other direction, but they do need a fair amount of range in between the infantry and the armour. As to how Active Protection Systems are modelled - I think we'll have to wait and see. They seem to be fairly rare at the moment, but how that turns out in quick battles and scenarios is anyone's guess, and the simple answer seems to be "fire more missiles", which in a tactical game is a fine solution (since we don't have to pay for them...)

Well, I was thinking more like this:

It's a question of Thermodynamics. If you have clothing (and it would have to be a full body suit) that blocks out heat, then it either has to be trapping the heat inside, or losing it through another method (i.e. expelling it somewhere where the IR sensor cannot see it). This is leaving aside the issue of whether it would be possible to block 100% of the signature, which it probably isn't - any material you use is going to heat up, at a varying rate. Having to walk around - let alone fight! - in a full body suit that lets none of your heat escape is going to get untenable very quickly. Your best bet for spotters would therefore be something that wasn't human - a UAV, and preferably a small and low-powered one that would emit as small a thermal signature as possible.

Haha, nope - mud won't help with thermal sensors for very long. You're still going to be producing body heat (especially whilst in combat), and this will warm up the mud. It would help for a short period of time, but it's not terribly practical. The same basic problem occurs with any similar system - you have to produce heat, and the heat has to go somewhere.

Well, hide will make them *stay* prone, and the spotting is done by one or two guys at a time, whilst the rest keep their heads down.

The following might be tangential, but shrug. In terms of actual usage hide is useful for a number of things, but it's a little counter intuitive. In open ground, it makes the pixeltruppen hit the dirt immediately, which can be very useful, and similarly it keeps their heads down in foxholes and trenches, which reduces mortar casualties significantly. Hiding troops will pop up to spot a little, but mostly they keep themselves down and therefore out of line of sight, as much as possible. In terms of laying ambushes, you're usually better hiding with the majority of your force, but leaving a scout or sniper team (possibly at range) unhidden, even if these have a restrictive firing arc so they won't give away their position. These scouts can spot the enemy, and then you can unhide your forces to enact aggression upon whomever you wish. I've long thought that a combination of Hide + Target arc might be good for an "ambush" command, if the logic worked that way - they will break hide if they feel they really need to, but if this was how they treated this combination of orders that would seem sensible to me. In any case, small units of stationary infantry in cover are usually pretty hard to see, just relying on target arcs - so Hide is usually not necessary unless you're trying to avoid being shelled.

That's quite an ambitious scope there :cool:

Welp, there goes the chance of doing anything productive for the next few weeks. The scenario sounds pretty interesting too - any chance of a download later?

This kind of discussion crops up all of the time, with any form of wargaming. Arguably it's easier to justify with cardboard wargames, since there is less visceral depiction of the events themselves. Ultimately I think it comes down to a question of aesthetics, rather than morals. You personally (well, presumably not if you're reading this board), could find wargaming distasteful, ugly or suspicious, but that's fine as long as that doesn't stray into "... and therefore they should be banned", since censorship is rarely the right answer to anything. What I personally find more curious is how some differentiate between eras - there are those which are fine with wargaming Ancients or Napoleonics, but will not touch WW2. I've also seen a few on these forums suggest that WW2 is a "safe" subject, whereas modern combat isn't something they're happy to touch. Again, so long as this is someone's personal, aesthetic opinion, then this is fine, but I do find it more difficult to understand than a simple "I find all wargames abhorrent" point of view.

If it works the same way as CMBN (etc.), then no. I don't think this is terribly surprising - a TRP requires at least planning, if not full-on surveying of a given location, which pushes it outside the scope of a 1-2 hour battle. Aside from this, it would also be extremely powerful.

Try this: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisnd/b/590266674

What I imagine we'll end up with (and I suppose what I'm hoping for) is and "odd and ends" expansion - nothing too heavy, but a lot of smaller things which are missing or incomplete - Commandos, flamethrowers, funnies, possibly captured French armour, etc - mostly to go into scenarios and quick battles.

I've even had crashes at this point, so I just don't do it anymore. I've never had a problem alt-tabbing at any other point, so it seems to be worth waiting for the minute-ish it takes to load.