fivefivesix

I ran into this problem as well during the Russian campaign. I was torn between leaving my vehicles stationary in the open (and hoping they were overlooked) and rushing them into tree cover (probably making them much easier to spot, but potentially safer under cover). For what its worth, the 2 vehicles I lost were the ones that I elected to leave stationary. The manual doesn't specify the optics available for the Ukrainian Mi-24s (some of the Russian variants have FLIR / TV cameras listed) but I have concluded that moving to a covered position is definitely safer than the stationary option. While the "sacrificial goat tactic" maybe a gamey option, with that being said, I seem to remember that the tyrannosaur in Jurassic Park had difficulty spotting you if you remained motionless ... unfortunately not the case with Ukrainian air support!

How far is the smoke canister expected to discharge from the BMP-3 when deploying smoke? When attempting a mechanized assault of a small village in the Russian campaign, I set my 3 vehicles to stop in a hull down position about 100 meters from the first buildings, deploy a smoke screen, and let the infantry dismount under cover. The smoke screen launched way farther than I expected, basically overshooting the buildings I was hoping to obscure. I seem to remember in CMSF the Stryker smoke screens launched a nice little pocket within a few meters of the vehicles. Is this just a difference in Russian vs. NATO doctrine? I lucked out in this event, as the buildings in question indeed had enemy infantry occupying them. 2 RPG rockets missed and a 3rd was APS intercepted. Either way this is an awesome game. Maybe next time I'll dismount a little further back

Being able to replay the last 60 seconds of action is one of the best parts of the game for me. I played real time for about 3 or 4 months when I first got CMBN. When I switched to WeGo, I saw my first sweet replay of a bazooka team brewing up a halftrack, I was sold on it. Even for tiny scenarios, I need to be able to replay turns and check out all the angles / perspectives.

I have to agree with the first few comments - in the middle of the night, in hazy conditions. There are zero light sources, with excepting of the burning wreck. Its not like these vehicles have headlights on. The game lighting is usually brighter than I expect actual conditions, to aid in actually being able to see as a commander. I would bet that all 30 eyes had a strong sound / vehicle contact coming from the SPAA but no one could actually visualize it enough to engage it. I just think about how it must appear from the ground. No light, looking across a dark field with even darker forest / trees on the horizon behind the vehicle. Sure, you could probably see something moving, maybe even men moving around on the vehicle, but probably not enough to even know what it is.

Thats all it appeared to be. The drop-down to the right still has the typical "axis - allied" "axis-axis" "allied-allied" choices.

Aha thanks. I thought I had updated. Will do that now.

I am putting together a small scenario in the CMRT map editor. When I went to set the parameters for the battle, I noticed the last item listed reads "Axis Electronic Warfare Strength" where it should say "Force vs. Force". Was not aware that electronic warfare was so prevalent on the 1944 Eastern front! Did BF get a little ahead of themselves with Black Sea and accidentally put this in with the latest RT update? I am running v. 1.02 if that matters.

I think the game experience is mostly determined by one's own interest in that theater / TO&E / history. With the engine updates pretty much across all titles, the programming is almost equivalent at this point. Tank riders would be great, but it isn't important enough to the overall tactical decisions for me to knock a title without them. I started with CMBN because that was the theater I knew most about. I didn't know very much about the Eastern or Mediterranean fronts. Having played FI and RT, I find that Fortress Italy is the most challenging theater (and most fun to play). The TO&E is unique, and the terrain is the most challenging of the three. CMBN can sometimes feel like solving a bocage puzzle (spot enemy - find flank to bocage - kill enemy in open ground - repeat) which probably very accurately reflects the nature of combat in that environment. I never had a big interest in Eastern front history. I picked up Red Thunder to "complete the collection" and because it is a great game, but I probably play it the fewest of all three. A big part of that is probably my own interest in light infantry tactics. Red Thunder is very armor - heavy (as it historically was), so it is out of my natural comfort zone.

Fantastic post H1nd - and also ikalugin - both breakdowns of a hypothetical full scale invasion made for an interesting read. I'm looking forward to seeing the scenarios that come out of these maps!

Quick question - when assessing enemy casualties during the last streaming game, Chris remarked a few times that the enemy was "incapacitated" rather than dead - in my experience with the WWII titles, while your own casualties are clearly marked "dead" or "incapacitated" by the UI, the enemy casualties are always "incapacitated" until the final end screen, when you can finally see their ultimate outcome. Has this changed for CMBS? Or am I just totally misremembering?

I was doing some research for some possible CMBS scenario designs (what better to do while waiting for release?) and found a fairly helpful map viewing website. Base maps can include road networks, satellite views, and topographical information. You can easily measure distances to find the proper region you're looking for. Here is the link if anyone else is interested: http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9984aff335b6471089952a4be4b68ef6

Is there any way to order units to use javelins against buildings at all? They're used IRL against infantry in buildings / bunkers ... I always appreciated being able to demolish a building floor with them in CMSF if needed. Does the armor-heavy environment just preclude their use against anything but vehicles?

Thanks for the response AKD. That is what I figured may be the answer. Good to know regular cover arcs don't prevent AA fire.

Long time lurker here, had a few questions after watching the last few twitch streams. With the engine changes allowing ground forces to engage air support, is there any thought about adding an "air support target arc"? For those vehicles that have the capability to engage both air and ground targets, it would be helpful to be able to limit valuable air defense assets to engaging CAS targets only. I currently own and play all the WWII titles and shock force. I think that the enemy effectively bringing close air support to the battlefield will be one of the biggest challenges faced in the new title - I don't really worry too much if the Luftwaffe is buzzing around, or even WWII US air support. Modern air support seems much more deadly (as is apparently everything else on the modern battlefield!) Thanks in advance for any thoughts / answers on this.