Thewood1

https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946 An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks. Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources. There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance. If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info. Note the comment about damage to gunner sights. Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions. Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.

Did this get fixed? I don't remember if it was mentioned in patch notes, but thought it was finally recognized post-patch. Its a bug that can bite hard sometimes.

Is there any thought or desire to move the base of the game to CMCW. That way its aligned with actual unit stats and performance. I would also think some of the OOBs might align better as well.

If the 577 reps an HQ, they should be worth a lot of points.

Part of it is in squad and platoon training around fire lanes. Even a hasty attack has some semblance of fire lanes. That's why training as a squad and platoon is so important. They really don't mean much in the CM AI mind.

I still play both CMAK and CMBB...more than CM2. For games spanning the North Africa theater and early east front, they are are the only game in town.

I know. I'm just pointing out that was a larger thread about Intel GPUs where someone stated it was in the specs that Intel GPUs weren't supported. I couldn't find it.

That's a very good book if you are interested in wargaming tactical ground combat in the 80s.

Its very effected even in turn-based. I see big differences in fps when looking at empty map spots and spots with a lot of units. Or do you mean the difference netween RT and wego not being impacted by number of units.

https://www.battlefront.com/shock-force-2/cmsf2-base-game/?tab=demo Windows 7 or MacOS 10.7.5 (Lion) Pentium IV 1.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor 256 MB VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution in OpenGL DirectX 10 compatible Sound Card (Windows only) 4 GB RAM 8 GB Hard Drive space The game does not work in a virtualized environment (virtual machine) Minimum specs listed for CMSF2. None are listed for CMCW. I sure hope someone at BFC tests scenarios in the campaign on that minimum spec PC. I tried the Citadel scenario on two different machines: Wife's old desktop bought in 2014 - i3-3220, GTX 280, 4Gb RAM Citadel ran about 10-12 fps at lower settings and in single digits at medium settings. Granted that this PC is seven years old and only gets fired up a couple times a year. My current laptop MSI Titan GT76 i9-10900K, 2080 Super, 64Gb RAM. (This is a desktop CPU and GPU chipset, not mobile) Citadel ran at 19 fps at highest settings and 35-40 at medium settings. The desktop is well above minimum settings and meets recommended spec and it struggled even on low settings. And that was with no action. I was just sitting looking at level 3. Again, I'll point out that if you are going to put large scenarios like that in an included campaign, might want to warn people starting the campaign about it. I'd hate to spend a lot of campaign time then have to slog through a large scenario on the edge of being unplayable. btw, note there is no warning on that page about intel GPU chipsets. I know in another thread it was stated that warning was posted. Couldn't find it.

Steel Beasts, basically since it more modern versions, has had formation movement. That includes column, echelon, wedge, line, etc. You can set spacing of the formation, speed, use cover, use road, reaction to enemy, etc. One of my biggest frustrations with CM, and the reason I only play company-level scenarios, is the number of commands needed just for some simple movements. Its not impossible to do. Steel Beasts figured out how to do this a decade ago and at the same formation level as CM. And they also have a relatively simple cut and paste function for routes, as well as a simple to use "follow roads" setting for a formation. If you don't pay attention, you can still get units all bunged up on a road. But I can set a battalion's worth of simple road movement orders in about two minutes in Steel Beasts. Its that capability that has continued to limit my CM play time in a modern combat setting. The short of it is, I would love to see CM have the capability. But its been a twenty year forlorn hope.

If you can run it effectively. My point being that if you have a very large battle in mind, its probably not good to put it in a campaign where a new player won't know what the performance implications are until too late.

There is a sweet spot for CM-sized battles. And its much less than 1200 soldiers and 300+ vehicles. Kind of surprised to see that as a scenario included in the game.

I'll look at it in more detail. Thanks. I had assumed that having everyone on the same net would be incredibly chaotic. Thats why you have command vehicles with multiple radios.

I only looked at the first diagram. It reinforces what I said. The battalion command does not go down to the individual level. It passes through company and platoon command in sequence, unless its an emergency. That's what I thought and thats what the diagram seems to show.

There are multiple command nets for a reason. A battalion commander would pass their orders through several layers to get a single unit. Orders are not broadcast all on one net for everyone hear. With the exception of emergencies. Thats why command vehicles are so important. Thats true in the 1980s and most true today.

The source for that pic no longer exists. Not sure BFC can use it legally.

Is there a way to make the AI dismount a weapon and use it?

A thread on the TOW thermals here.

Are you sure you know the difference in all the American tanks?

I have some of the CO2 modules and used to play them a lot. But looking around, there's been no new modules of updates in five years, correct? I had assumed it was done.

This is a short tutorial video from Steel Beasts on the T-72. Most of it isn't very applicable to CMCW, but it has some interesting comments about the idiosyncrasies of the T-72 family.

The tracking unit has to see the flare to track as mentioned above. If two TOWs are fired and both come into the FOV of one tracking unit, there is a good chance the tracking unit will "capture" either the wrong missile or both. The tracker might start giving corrections to the wrong missile, because to it, there is no difference in the flares. The wire is only there to provide positioning feedback to the tracker and for the tracker to send corrections to the missile. In TOW 2, the flare/beacon flickers at a known rate and sequence as a solution to the crossed-capture issues and the countermeasure of a target shining a bright IR light at the tracker. In later versions of TOW 2, I think wire is out altogether and RF is used.

In all the reading I did on the TOW thermal/smoke discussion, I also noted that TOW launchers had to stay at least 300m from each other. Otherwise there was a significant risk of a launcher missile/track mismatch which would lead to missiles tracking from the wrong tracking unit. So IRL, there's already incentive to mind spacing. Thats in TOW and ITOW.

OK, so its just reversing, not find a secondary position. I thought maybe a big piece of micromanagement was removed. One can always hope.