Muzzleflash1990

I don't want to join the debate on what constitute the label engine. But I find that a bit problematic, if it is indeed the case that, to get the 'patch' for the missing breach kits in v1.04 you have to buy the 'upgrade'. I understand, for development convenience, that any future changes or fixes post upgrade 4, will most likely only apply to versions running that engine version: but for a bug introduced before the engine change, but fixed after, you would also need to buy the "engine upgrade" to get the bug fixed (unless a upgrade 3 patch to v1.04 is on the way?). While I have money, and can therefore be practical (the upgrade cost is only 10$), I find this highlight some principal problems of this approach.

I just tried repeatedly in the editor, and could not make it work when they were 2,5 tiles, 20m away. But when I placed them adjacent diagonally then engineers used their demo charges. At the same time I placed them diagonally, I also turned down the Abrams crew to bad motivation and green, so cannot for sure whether distance is the only factor, or crew proficiency matter.

Look at that poor space lobster. Ask yourself, who is the real cold-blooded killer?

I believe the greater fidelity means it just approximately shoots at the center of the visible target. If you are completely visible it will shoot at center hull, if only the turret is visible, then it will shoot at that. If the allies forces doing the actual shooting knew about the armor sizes, then I guess it could be exploiting a game limitation by placing your PzIV full hull visible, since the TacAI would always go center mass. Of course the danger of the allies having something that would penetrate regardless would probably cause most to go hull down anyway.

Thanks.

If I have: CMBN Big Bundle Engine at Upgrade 2 CMRT which I believe was at Upgrade 3 CMBS at v1.04 which is also at Upgrade 3 Then I should upgrade CMBN to 3 and then get the upgrade big bundle? Suppose I later was to get CMFB or CMFI would the upgrade bundle work for them in the future?

Actually if they add DPICM USA should also have it. They never signed the agreement not to use cluster. Their stance is not to use it unless it becomes necessary, and it has not so far. "Cluster munitions are available for use by every combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory, they are integral to every Army or Marine maneuver element and in some cases constitute up to 50 percent of tactical indirect fire support. U.S. forces simply cannot fight by design or by doctrine without holding out at least the possibility of using cluster munitions." — Stephen Mull Also: Cluster munitions have been determined as needed for ensuring the country's national security interests, but measures are being taken to address humanitarian concerns of their use, as well as pursuing their original suggested alternative to a total ban of pursuing technological fixes to make the weapons no longer viable after the end of a conflict. In fact, they are researching improved weapons with lower failure rates. You can find the links to original sources on this wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition#United_States_policy_towards_cluster_munitions .

Personally, I hope they never change the fundamentals of how the game plays, feels, and looks. That would make it a fundamentally different game. But the changes do have impact. The addition of AA systems that actually shoots a planes is that not a major change? Previously, aircraft roamed uncontested? Amphibious vehicle redefines where you can go. Can you give examples of what you would categorize as major changes?

Yes, you are right - I had the number on the wrong side of the 'x'. But if so many get the version scheme wrong, then perhaps it is not people that are at fault, but the scheme.

In CM2, the 2 refers to the engine, and then CM2x3 refers to engine 2, game update 3. Then with the newest Black Sea patch you would be running CM2x3 Black Sea v1.04. But it is more complex when you have not just a patch level like most games, but also an engine version, and a game update version.

I do not think flamethrowers are banned. From what I could gather you are just not allowed to use them if civilians could be collateral and the gains do not hugely outweigh the "damage", or against "nature" if it could start a large fire - unless the enemy is there. Believe they are also not that practical compared to the alternatives, for example thermobaric weapons. Maybe, it is true, couldn't find it - but there are lot of rumors around, like that the Geneva convention bans use of ordinary 50. cal against personnel. Next thing, armies will not be allowed to use high-power-many-mega-watts-lasers because they might cause eye damage - or distract cats.

@panzersaurkrautwerfer 1 and 2: I am actually completely fine with the abstraction governing the various aspects of spotting. I was more inquiring about the high output of the spotting abstraction; the effectiveness - or reliability - of spotting. You are right, we mostly only see the tanks that get hit in videos. But I think the video still shows that for a "green/regular" crew with an older tank, spotting a launch is not a guarantee. How that project to more modern tanks, with well trained crews, I do not know, but I would still guess it is possible that you do not spot a launch. Or to say it in other terms: even if in RL a platoon of tanks can reliably 98% spot any ATGM launch on one of the tanks due to assigning sectors, many times I see people do not use them in full platoons (I occasionally do not - especially as US), and I do not think the abstraction should give them any such "platoon"-benefit -- not saying they do. (In a too simplified probabilistic model, giving each tank a ~62% spotting probability would mean a platoon would spot a launch with 98% percent chance). Anyway, I am not saying anything is wrong at all - I am not qualified to do that - I was merely inquiring and disputing whether to notion that ATGM launch detection is a practical certainty as have been argued here, even with well trained crew with full complement of eyes and thermal equipment. I fully agree with you on the "sequencing thing" and follow on shots. @MikeyD About central Europe. That is also what I have read: that the average maximum visual range is ~1.6km. But from my interpretation of "war games" and manuals, you would find the non-typical, non-average engagement distance for you ATGMs and sniper tanks. There might not be many such positions covering an avenue of approach, and they may be tricky to find, specially on a map (although now a days with digital maps and digital LOS tools it is easier), they would still be there. Of course with fewer suitable locations, you decrease the number of artillery targets to hit.

About #1. In CM people sometimes move units forward alone and not as a platoon. Yes tank has a sector to observe, but that does not mean the entire sector is always observed by optics. So if the wide-field observers, e.g. the driver detects brief "flames", can he manage to orient the commander/gunner before the flames are gone? All that is left is smoke and dust probably obscuring the launcher? But all of this is of course abstracted in CM. About #2. Sure infantry cooperation is necessary for effective operations. But, for a surprise launch, can infantrymen inform the tank quickly enough for it to be relevant for the first incoming missile? But my intent with that inquiry was more with respect to reaction on ATGM launch from the only tanks, and very few of the tanks shot in videos on the interwebs seems to react at all. For western and more modern russian tanks, their reaction will likely be much better, but wouldn't it still be more suppression against a (partially) smoke/dust-obscured target than an fully-accurate return fire. I think that is what you are also saying. The more "proper"/"realistic" reaction would be a tentative contact for units with visual (and the abstracted spotting), and then speculative suppressive fire in that area, rather than a complete contact with immediate accurate return fire? Of course, speculative return fire is not likely be coming to CM since it may also cause other problems. But I do share, although with inexperience, the sentiment that maybe ATGMs are a bit too vulnerable, and are taken out too quickly by an accurate first-shot-response.

I am not sure I understand how the sudden flash instantly attracts the eye if you are not looking in the right direction. I assume the observer is looking at a thermal image, either on a screen, or through optics. Does a launch 2km away "blink" the entire display/optics? And, if that is the case, how do you know whether to rotate left or right to pick up the launch in 2s before the flash fades - is that even feasible? After that you would have to pick up the smoke and dust, but could that blend into the background? To give, an admittedly poor reference, I was playing the recent update to Steel Beasts (tank simulator) with includes upgraded graphics (especially with respect to ATGMs). A BRDM-AT fired at me, and the only reason I discovered it was because I was looking at it and could see the launch smoke, which dissipated very quickly. It should be mentioned this was not with thermal, but with zoomed "natural" optics. I also could not see the incoming missile, even when I know exactly where it was coming from, until it was within 500m - but this could be because of the low field of view when playing on a computer screen. All those tanks being destroyed in the Middle East, almost none seem to react in the sometimes 8+ seconds before impact. Do they lack thermal, or can it be explained by poor crew?

Thanks for the digging. Would seem like the recent patch may have broken more than it fixes. Hopefully someone in the "inner circle" will notice this and make a ticket. About #3. It turns out the [Infantry]Infantry Battalion in the editor corresponds to the [Mech] Infantry Battalion in QB. But, there is no formation in the editor that has fully dismounted infantry battalion that corresponds to the [Infantry] Infantry Battalion in QB.

I would like that the tanks can't throw smoke to escape the first round. After lasing someone, the FCS is ready almost immediately, <1s, and a round should be fired no matter what, regardless of smoke being deployed.

I will try and explain more detail, about my perceived discrepancies. I am primarily dealing with a pure leg/dismounted-infantry battalion (or part of it). 1. When buying an Infantry Battalion, you get some extra trucks in the editor, but not in QB. I don't know, maybe BFC made this choice because most players would't want to spend the points on pure transport humvees. So by default they are not there, but you can buy them back in the individual vehicles under [Infantry]? 2. I cannot choose any non-vehicle based TOW weapon teams in the editor, but I can under [Infantry] for a QB. I do not understand this, I would think the available choices in the editor should always include at least those available for QB. 3. Another discrepancy I could be misunderstanding, also related to #2. If I buy an Infantry Battalion in QB I get [Dismounted] weapon platoons (the entire company). You cannot make it "mounted". I guess you can attached separate vehicle and put them in there if you want to (for a "heavier individual vehicle price"). If I do the same in the editor, all the weapon platoons are mounted in Humvees, and you cannot make them [Dismounted], or manually remove their vehicles. And since #2, I cannot manually delete the TOW-humvees, and replace them with stationary TOW-weapons. Under unit properties, like experience, motivation, headcount etc, there is vehicle status. I can make the weapon platoons have vehicle status dismounted. But then they complete disappear (including the infantry itself).

I couldn't find the forum rules to determine whether bumping is allowed, so I'm bumping this once, in case somebody who knows what's up missed this thread.

Not knowing how it works yet, let's just say that you place hull down point at the position you want the unit to find hull down towards, and it will move towards until it has LOF. Probably too late for v4, but could be useful if "hull down" was extended to infantry as well, since you cannot really lower the camera to the infantry point of view. If you could place hull down points such that units would move to acquire LOF on the target position in their default combat orientation. For example, rifle squads would move such that they have LOF when prone. Crew served MG's might move such that they have LOF with the MG when deployed. In CMBS, ATGM units might move to a position such that their deployed launcher have LOF.

Why are there differences in in the equipment for quick battles compared to the editor? Why can I opt for some extra Humvees in the editor, but not in QB. And more significantly, why can I get separate TOW teams in QB but not in the editor? http://imgur.com/a/EcaL4

Note, the same goes for the AT-4, and AT-7, although I wouldn't rely on them to take out an Abrams with ERA. Of course US don't not have problem since they do not use beam riding, or SALH.

Slightly related to ATMGs. ERA bricks defy the laws of time travel ! After a (sufficient) hit to an ERA brick they disappear. But if you go backwards in time, those rascals are still gone. In addition, in hotseat mode, this means before the vehicle has ever been hit -- from the owners perspective -- the brick is already gone. Or depending on the order, the shooter may already destroyed the brick before shooting :O. There is some deep theory of relativity going on here.

I definitely echo this. Just played a bit and had an Abrams sit two full minutes with view of a BRDM, no tree between, it did not engage. On the second minute I gave it a target order, but still it didn't shoot. Also had a Javelin in view of a BMP-3, and it tried to engage for 6 minutes, kept shuffling around, aiming, eventually stop aiming, repeat; but it never fired. Visibility was actually fine, sometimes better from the shuffled to position (I have the saves for the Abrams and Javelin in case....). And for some reason the Bradleys kept shooting over targets, or at the very top, occasionally hitting because of a round going "lower" than intentionally. This means almost all rounds went over, some hit the very top, and a rare round went lower than "target center". This happened against both infantry and vehicles in 11 out of 12 engagements played. None of the targets were hull down. But yeah, there is nothing better. Alone "relative spotting" puts CM ahead of other games. Played Armored Brigade recently (which uses Borg spotting), and my dug-in infantry unit was spotted. Half the enemy force all turned their guns at the same time and wiped the unit out in 10 seconds.

Not sure if you or akd has it listed, but the Tunguska also has a green missile.

Yes, you are right. Guess I got confused was also I played a game, where there was a long delay before firing the third missile at the same target the previous two went to. That reinforced my believe about only having two missiles ready to shoot. I am not entirely sure what you mean about the two green missiles, which are also under crew equipment (below support menus) with binoculars and night vision; is that another bug, and they are all supposed to be white?