Paulus

Message sent, thank you Erwin

Hello, im trying to find Paper Tigers revised Road To Montebourg campaign. The GoogleDrive link on the Few Good Men forum is down. Does anybody know how to aquire this excellent campaign? Or is somebody willing to upload it? Thanks guys!

Hi, I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction. I've got a grasp of US infantry doctrine, thanks to extensive documentation (mostly US Field Manuals) Now i'm having a go at Russian infantry. Perhaps someone can give a link or explanation at the usage of Russian infantry. Regards Paul

Hi Slim, Nice vids, I like the way how you implement the theory into the CM battlefield!\ Regards Paul

IMHO Baneman is lacking in reconnaissance (little intel on Bill's composition and position) and lacking in maneuver capabilities (fire and movement), making the traditional find, fix and destroy hard. I think he has 2 options. 1: Make an concentrated effort, like the fist. 2: Try to overwhelm Bill with multiple aggressive actions, Bill can't man the entire front. Don't know wich one i would choose

Hi, You could try adjusting the 3D Model Quality, this can be done in-game by 'Alt-[' and 'Alt-]'. This setting changes the radius where high quality stuff (various grasses, distant tree's etc.) is rendered in. I find that each map has his own 'sweet-spot' depending on the map and number of units.

Hi domfluff, I started a thread a few months ago about the same topic. Regards Paul

Hi, I'm playing a mission, NATO side, and am given UAV's and Apache air support. At the moment one of my UAV's spotted two Russian IFV's, within 100 meters of each other. When calling in the air support, via the UAV operator (a Fire Control Team), does it matter if I use point targets on the IFV's (so two separate fire-missions, + 2 times waiting time) or an area target (including both IFV's in a single fire mission). My big question is; does one or the other way, makes a difference in spotting and/or engaging (air support wise) the IFV's. And does the area mission reduce the chances of engagement enough to justify the use of two separate point fire-missions, + 2 times waiting time? Thanks in advance!

yeah, already assumed it was a hardware/software problem on my local system. I would have read about it here long time ago.

adding to the mix. shadow off - shader on shadow on - shader off May i assume you don't have the same issue then, IanL?

That makes 2 of us.

Ok, can't upload any others, but other setting of shadow-shader causes different white or black decals. Regards Paul

Im sorry, i'm talking CMBN, same also on CMRT. Some specs; graphix AMD Radeon R7 200. No mods, no forced settings on graphix card control software. A few screenshots; Shader on, shadow on shader off - shadow off

Same problem. With shadows on, hit decals are just black holes, especially in the shaded areas.

Yeah interesting, a 75mm Pak 40 can easily punch through a 2-story house ánd the front of a M4 Sherman at 200 meters. Also found out; a deployed AT Gun can move while being deployed.

Re bocage forcefield, I can remember on more than 1 occasion AP going through bocage and hedges. Isn't it possible for an AP round to start wobling after hitting a tree or branch or something?

Kudo's to BFC, I just did my own testing, HMG at 2000 mtr firing range. Impressed by the way ballistics are modelled!

Yes, thanks 4 the tips, and links, very interesting! The obvious eluded me; just keyhole'm back Thanks!

Hi, I'm playing for several years, and I'm finally getting somewhat familiar with infantry tactics. But this reveals my noobiness in tank tactics, especially in built up areas. I'm not sure how tanks are used "in the best way" Do i create a wall of steel, blasting every possible hide-out, protecting infantry? Do i hide the tanks behind walls and houses, only to advance in order to blast identified positions? I just seem to get ambushed by key-holed AT weapons and Pz shrecks. Perhaps someone can help me out! Regards Paul

Yes, excellent concealment but no cover. I find smg's very usefull in them. For covering fire, i use a shortrange area target (max LOS 40-50 meters) in general enemy direction, but this burnes away ammo quickly (smg+mg)

Yes, this would make further debate pointless. Too bad, I for one, wouldn't have a problem with paying for more visual eyecandy. Not just the blood and gore, but hit decals and modular destruction of buildings to. Just my 2 cents. Regards Paul

Sorry, but i find this insulting. Yes i take this game seriously (but perhaps not to your level), yes i would like to see some blood and gore. It's not gamebreaking the way it is, not at all. But it would be nice to add, immersion and overall mood in the game. As people who find it too offending (to see blood etc.) i've 2 arguments; -99% of games, model blood and gore (in combat), but almost none of the gamers complain. - Combat Mission models in great detail the psychological effects of combat (the fear, the panic, the cowering, the screaming when hit, the running away when broken etc..) and we love the game for it! But the physical effect are too shocking or sickening, or what? I find this some what hypocritical. Perhaps somebody can correct me? Paul

+1 to above. Perhaps the rounds per minute for, harras, light, medium and heavy could be given? each tube type has its values, i'm using at the moment a spreadsheet, would save me the hassle of 'ctrl-alt-del'-ing to desktop.

IMHO, both views to combat operations are correct. You'll be limiting you options by just focussing on the enemy force, or only on terrain and time. Every situation is an unique blend of these factors. Perhaps a few interesting insights can be found in the works of Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Guderian - Achtung Panzer. They trie to explain, how to best prepare and execute combat.... and wargaming

Ok, thanks for the responces! Just never noticed before. Regards Paul