Muzzleflash1990

As far as accuracy, I recall someone tested this, and it did not seem tired soldiers shoot worse than untired ones.

I sort of understood the Forward Observers (and in QB the separate bought and attached FOs) as attached from higher echelons. Looked in the manual and the word used is "matchup". But the manual is ambiguous imo. The section "Matchup rating" suggests it mostly affects time it takes to get in contact and thus delivery. The section "Matchup" under Support Roster suggests it also affects how "... efficient and effective" the results would be and not just how good the access is - which is why I referred to it as compatibility. Just checked on the American side and they awful matchup with the M110 gun. Some non-exhaustive QB setups it seems that matchup rating does not vary in this title. Some units are denied access to a support unit and others are not, but there is not really any difference in matchup rating. I could swear in other titles the matchup varied, say a Tactical Air Controller would usually be worse than a FO at artillery. As for the MT-LBu 1V14 it is just to be understood as somewhat expensive ride for a separate FO unit and not something that helps deliver artillery in anyway (in CM)?

1. Now a year later was it ever determined whether this was a bug or not? I just tried buying a BMP task force and also attached a separate MT-LBU 1V14.. Both vehicles are denied off world artillery including the task force's embedded mortar battery. Is this the intended design? I also tried Redwolf's suggestion to dismount the crew but they were still denied. 2. Related to this is their anyway to actually get decent "compatibility" between Soviet artillery and forward observers. For anything larger than 121mm seems you are limited to forward observers only and even the best can only get "mediocre" compatibility. Is it possible to gain better? The attached image shows a Crack observer team having poor compatibility. I would think that was partly the point of the vehicle discussed here.

Don't think this is new thread worthy, but I discovered something, something deep. Not sure how deep it goes, but anyway: Why are the only 40 tanks in Tank Battalion 41? A separate question is: what is the "Reserve <something>" formations? They do not seem to fit the role of the "Independent (Tank)" battalions and they seem to contain the oldest equipment. Is "reserve" to be understood from a logistical standpoint and not a tactical one? Usually these questions are answered in the Formations chapter in the manual (like CMBS) but CMCW manual does not have such a section.

I am guessing it is Mk20 for air support? For the Mk20, what I could find, one source said the area was around 4800 square metres, another 10,000. That leaves means each submunition covers ~20 square meters in the ideal case and a T-72 occupies around ~25 square meters. From Hapless video, it seems like the distribution is uneven with way more near the center, but the density looked about right. A Norwegian report I found suggested the M483A1 with 88 bomblets covers an area of 18,000 square meters, making each bomblet cover ~200 square meters, and that the pattern from tube based artillery is uneven. Good thing they fire in batteries then.

The M249 ammo amount in Shock Force also seems off though, IMO, though because of "rounds sharing" BLUFOR doesn't "suffer" as much for it.

In-game tankers also brackets for range right? If a gunner shoots high, the next shot will have a tendency to be lower and vice versa until on target, at which point natural shot dispersion decides the rest. So, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume a similar thing is done for RPG shooters.

Spoiler Warning: These images are from August Morning, the smallest scenario in Black Sea. So I wanted to setup a SBF position and this place looks suitable. I can't get my camera low enough. But the waypoint LOS seems to be good. I can even see a bit down further into the valley than where the baddies are. After they get there this is what I see Forget about into partial into the valley, I cannot even see the house. And no they are not actually obeying the targeting command. Because they can't. In CM you have to play the squad leader too. Except you can't hand place your MG gunner in the 8x8m action tile. Can you tell if it that location 75 yards away in real life affords visibility to a certain location? Perhaps not. Can you tell if the location 8m next to you do? Most likely. Could you do it slightly before arriving at your current action tile? Well too late in CM, you now have to shuffle tired around until you find the position or move fast and risk the danger. What about the setup phase? Currently you have *no* reliable way to determine if infantry can see a particular place unless they are above ground floor. I am all for lowing the "precision" of the tools in CM. But the "accuracy" playing field needs to be fair. And right now they favor vehicles; not only that, it lies way more to infantry. I can place my camera at vehicle height and easily determine reliable vision from a location 75 yards or for that matter 1000 yards away without touching the Targeting command. If I had the choice to completely remove the LOS part of the targeting tool in exchange for allowing my camera to go prone I would take it. Anyway. Doubt anything is going to change; if anything until engine version 5. And maybe it is my gripe. And it is fair to throw the "realism" card, my only counter will be that in real world you can be a bit more fluid as SL with positioning. And for my poor whataboutism arguments: looking at AAR and DAR it is quite common that people do infact keep pushing waypoints around for tanks several 100m away until they find that perfect keyhole positioning to target that just appeared threat well after the setup phase. A much greater atrocity IMO than trying to ensure an MG can essentially just see somewhat right from its next position. I don't even use area fire unless I have at least a faded contact marker.

I know that LOS and LOF is not the same. But regardless in my game, you cannot lower the camera below the barrel of a tank gun (maybe 10 inches), but that is still very far from the crouching infantry height let alone prone. It is not an uncommon for me to wonder whether infantry will have prone LOS/LOF from A to B when gentle slopes are present on either side. The waypoint LOS check often assumes standing and the camera does not go low enough. Often the only way is to commit to the order and wait and see. I lived with the limitations for since CMBN, but there is room for improvement. And enabling the camera to go even lower is one of the possible solutions that does not require additional user interface commands or features. At worst, there may be certain terrain tiles where the camera might clip into the ground, but that can already be done with vehicles.

It is a known, but rather rare bug. Not sure what is the cause. Once had a theory, that the act of turning the turret itself - due to parallax - cause LOS/LOF to be lost and it reverts, then gaining LOS/LOF again. But this does not seem to describe the issue on long distances.

For one thing, you would need to specify the height yourself of the observer. One of my annoyances with the waypoint+target is that it does not take into account final stance. You can order infantry squad to move to a place, and the on the final waypoint you check they have visibility. Problem is that visibility is checked from standing stance, but when they get their they go prone. I mostly just move the camera around and gauge visibility using my screen. Unfortunately this is not good enough for infantry since the lowest the camera will go is around the height of a typical tank barrel. But for general use this is my preferred way.

You are talking about danger spaces, most specifically the one closest to the target.

If they integrated with Steams networking utilities (or some other 3rd partner) we could get direct connections instead of having to port forward. This would help with the "live" TCP/IP modes. In my country at least, Carrier-Grade NAT is the norm, so no amount of fiddling will get port forwarding working for you. I have to resort to VPNs for TCP/IP.