Thewood1

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.

Is that part of the game or are you talking about IRL. Does the TacAI pop smoke and then relocate to a new position?

I think the biggest issue with tank crews is that experience and training levels really should only apply in vehicle. Once out of vehicle, they should become at least green.

I just went through Janes AFV 2004-2005 and 2008-2009. Both show several pictures of the 1A5 with the box on the front. Does that make it absolutely definitive? No. But its close. Its the exact time period of CMSF (2008). There were a total of four pics of the 1A5 and all had the box. None of the 1A3s had them. I have a couple more references I'll check. btw, I have no issues with it. Its so minor I'm surprised it even got a mention. edit: Just confirmed that Tankograd's 2007 book on the Marder also shows at least a dozen pics with the glacis-mounted stowage box. In fact, in the description of the 1A5, they use that box and one on the back hull as the main recognizable external differences between the A3 and A5. btw, it always kinda shocks me only about 4% of the Marders were ever upgraded to 1A5.

Is there something keeping you from elaborating on that? Other than just stirring things up.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Is it because the AI doesn't think the AP rounds will penetrate? It seems like they should penetrate, but just wondering.

Yeah, I tend to agree with not being able to document every little nook and cranny of info. But this one was obscure enough that mentioning it in the write up in the manual would and will eventually save some frustration. It took me a long time to find that excerpt and that was only because I have access to search tools an average gamer doesn't have access to. I think all highly complex games should have a moderated FAQ section that has these little pieces of critical info deposited in them. Its also a good repository for devs to look at what info their customers find necessary to play the game. That's why it should be moderated or even locked.

A more detailed technical description of the beacon issue is here: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-34/Ch1.htm "(f) Thermal beacon. Under some battlefield conditions such as heavy smoke, dust, or fog, the xenon beacon, which operates on the lower end of the infrared spectrum, cannot penetrate the obscuration. With the TOW missile and weapon system it is sometimes possible for the gunner to be able to acquire the target, yet the infrared receiver on the daysight tracker cannot acquire the infrared beacon and the system loses the missile. TOW 2-series missiles have a thermal beacon to correct this deficiency. The thermal beacon operates on the upper end of the infrared spectrum and will penetrate any obscurant the nightsight can see through. A postamplifier was added to the AN/TAS-4A nightsight on the TOW 2 weapon system to acquire the thermal beacon and track it in much the same manner as the infrared beacon. The basic AN/TAS-4 is a passive sight, but the AN/TAS-4A is an active sight with the ability to steer the missile to any target that the gunner can see through the sight itself."

The flare visibility on early TOW and M47 tracking units is a fairly critical piece of info to have. I have never played a game with either in this time period and never even considered that. Most of my Cold War gaming experience is mid- to late-80s. Publicizing it more will sure save a lot of people some frustration.

And we always come back to this. The game is built for people who have been playing CM games for 20 years and scour the forums for every tidbit of information. It has been requested ad nauseum to have a FAQ section where little pieces of info can be collected. It would seem to be a common sense approach if its too resource intensive to keep updating a manual.

That Warrior upgrade has been cancelled. And I don't think those turrets are very close to similar.

3Gb for a patch is kinda big.

That's assuming Apple doesn't do something stupid.

In Steel Beasts, and these guys are current and former tankers, the default is a 90 deg constant scan with 45 deg to each side of the point that the TC sets. It can be widened and narrowed by order and SOP. In fact, there are have been arguments from noobs about not having the constant scan. But the experts all insisted that is an absolute part of maintaining situational awareness. It should also be noted that more and more tech is being added to tanks to keep the TC buttoned...field phones, RWS, ITIS, etc.