Thewood1

Steel Beasts also has that capability. You can set a retreat path if spotting an enemy or taking fire. You can also differentiate the action based on the type of fire. It really increases the ability for the AI to scout without micromanagement. You can also set alternate paths forward based on contact. I really liked and used the different Hunt and Move to Contact orders in CM1. We gained a lot in CM2, had a lot of CM1 stuff added back into CM2 over the years, and we had stuff like this that never made it back.

And thats why the link I posted was in the general information forum. Where this one should have been also.

A thread from a while ago with opinions on Graviteam games.

Where are we on all of this. I know that CMCW was updated. Did CMBS get the new PBEM system? Is any of the rest even close to release? Are we anywhere near the Commonwealth module for CMFB? Other than that, are any modules for CMBS under development or are we looking at 23/24, maybe 25?

PLAAF and RoC have had some pretty substantial air battles over the last 70 years. All types of Migs mixing it up with F-86s, F-104s, etc. There have been naval clashes, artillery duels, etc. While not Gulf War scale, RoC has held its own and managed to use that experience to build a better military. I think any invasion would play out similar to Russia-Ukraine. China would take big losses just crossing the sea. China would eventually win if the west doesn't intervene, but it would wreck both economies beyond short-term recovery. I'll also go back to my standby statement...China needs the West more than we need them. They can't feed themselves. And will likely not be self-sufficient in energy in the short-term. Add to that that Taiwan investment in China is fairly substantial by itself. Taiwan is connected to a very large portion of the world's semicon production, but not its design. That is still the US and the EU. You can play a lot of this out in Command: Modern Operations. There are a bunch of scenarios built around it.

The amount of time needed for all of the movement and observing would be an entire CM scenario length.

One of the issues around recon is scenario design. An entire CM scenario should be about recon. That's at the scale CM plays at. In larger offensive scenarios, recon should enter the map many turns ahead of a main force with the role of detecting enemy disposition and pushing them back from the entry point of the main force. In a defensive large scenario, they should be doing the opposite. The better use of recon units is as the opening scenario in a campaign/operation. With exceptions, if your recon elements end up in a heavy firefight, they've done something wrong. With scripting capabilities beyond me in CM, if recon elements end up heavily engaged, they should be pulling back and asking for reinforcements or support fire.

Its probably more a matter playing the game, not fighting the battle that matters most. Real life things that don't translate well in CM like finding good hull down for a tank. A CM player who has play for years knows a lot of the little command nuances and what they really mean.

Might be the fastest I have ever seen a thread start to derail. Especially disappointing considering the excellent topic.

I know that. I'm just pointing out CM2 has issues with Intel drivers. Thats why you should run the demo if you have the Intel driver.

From the Battlefront.com CMSF2 game info page...not all the games used to have this statement. Most do now. 256 MB VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution in OpenGL***IMPORTANT*** Not all Intel integrated video cards will play the game. If that is your only video card try the demo before purchasing

"The integrated Intel chipsets leave that blurry after-effect on the text. As far as I know, its always been like that and there is no fix." It won't work. This has been an issue for Intel graphics forever with CM2 games.

The integrated Intel chipsets leave that blurry after-effect on the text. As far as I know, its always been like that and there is no fix.

I have two laptops. One is an MSI GT76 with an i9-10900K and a 2080. Both are desktop processors. I also have a Asus Z13 Flow with an i9-12900H with a 150W 3080. Believe it or not, they both run Barkman's Corner, my typical benchmark, about 45-50 fps at max settings for CM. Thats only a couple fps faster than my old i7 Surface Book. CM does not benefit a whole lot from modern architectures.

Interesting video on ATGM vs tank in Ukraine.

Four times.

Thats not what he is asking. Did you read and understand it? He wants to know what the differences are between all the game engines. You can't get that from the demos because not all of them are up to date. Plus the differences might not even show up in the couple of scenarios. Much of those differences don't even show up in the manual. So three times with the same not very useful suggestion to someone trying to work their way into the game.

How would that help? 1) He would have to go play every demo of every game and be able to note the differences. 2) Not all demos are on the current engine. Also, I guess your first stab at being helpful was so goo you just had to do it a second time.

Hopefully someone can net it out with my question. Is the hulldown tank a smaller target than a fully exposed tank? Wouldn't that make a significant difference in the hit rate on the hulldown tank?

This is one of the best descriptions of games like this.

Some people consider that a feature.

I grew up in North/Central Maine in the US. My mother has a very heavy Maine accent (Dolorus Claiborne attitude and everything). I have only a slight hint. But my brother, who is 10 years younger, has a much heavier accent. The difference was I had an entire daily class on phonetics and it was removed by the time he went to school. No one in my class or the years around me had a Maine accent. But it has actually crept back in for the younger generations.

Would it be possible to post the scenario(s). I'd like to play around with them a little.

I'm a little stunned the movers got equal kills to the non-movers. That seems to go against everything I remember BFC telling us about moving and buttoned tanks have significant disadvantages in spotting. Some of that shows up in some of the stats, yet the equal outcomes belies that.

One thing to keep in mind is the story that missile-capable tanks were reserved for platoon commanders in Soviet tank formations. That was due to missile and fire control costs. So that cuts missile armed tanks by a third to a quarter. I'll see if I can find the source. I think it was the Osprey book on the T-64 and a doc on steelbeasts.com.