The_MonkeyKing

Thanks for the clarification! Makes sense. Oh, and actually just noticed. The amount of LAWs seem to differ as well.

I wonder why do these variations exist in the game?

The high resolution small screen laptops are more common by the day. I would say CM is close to unplayable unreadable on these devices. 15 inch 4k screen.... hrrrr I also have 27 1440p and the game is very readable.

Haha, nice example on how silly it is that the game has no resolution scaling what so ever. It is the same old 720p? 4:3 screen for all of the UI.

Use the sandbags only if terrain doesn't provide hulldown options. I think concrete/rock fences should also work better than sandbags

https://youtu.be/5CBAPVVXehY

They don't bother me but I do wonder why the briefing text are not copy pasted to some proof reading software before called "final"

I wonder how it is with the Bradley now

I wonder about the ammo load it carriers

Also Combat Mission unofficial Discord has lots of matchmaking going on: https://discord.gg/5VDn9qED The opponents on Discord are more varied (in skill and reliability). Properly because barrier to entry is lower there.

Almost all CM titles have demos with like 10h of content. Try and see for yourself. I don't know about graviteam demos And it doesn't have to be "either or". Get them both I you like them.

It depends, as all things complicated. General rule, the newer the tank better it does bottomed up. It is situational, unbuttered does better close by and with wider field of view. On the other hand if the commander seat has thermals and there is smoke in the line of sight it is far better to be bottomed up.

Norway DLC with airborne and marines for both sides!

Good post @domfluff Also now in desert environment the ranges between tanks and infantry can get pretty far. Infantry and tanks might be separated by a kilometer but they are still participating in the same killzone an working together. When in other environments like forest tanks cannot really go farter than couple of hundred meters most of time.

I like the dragon. Light, hits, kills (modern MBTs require a little luck or something else thank front armor).

- The ATGM vehicles in hulldown positions on the high ground on the right side of the deployment zone. As far away from the enemy as possible. Prefer limited line of sight. (keyhole) - Terrain is stepped. This creates dead ground at the base of each step. Find a good one (big step in good location) and put your infantry in defense there (place the Dragon in a way it can cover the two other squads) And hide the M113 near by so you can mount up fast in case of artillery or reposition. - Use your fire support in front of your defense lines. So your infantry platoon stops the enemy and the fire support destroys the enemy. - Use your tanks in close range combat. These steps in the terrain enable this. Rush between steps with minimal exposure. (Infantry should make sure the base of the next step is safe for the tanks.) - Optimal range to engage BMP seems to be around 200-300m with M60A1. Here you can hit with each shot and it is to most awkward range for BMPs weapons.

Yes I had the same problem, and also in the decision point 2 it is impossible to choose the counter attack mission. (I opened a ticket on this to battlefront)

I cannot choose the "counter-attack" option in the NTC campaign decision point 2. No matter what I do I get the "delay action" More pictures: https://imgur.com/a/B5XFO3B I am not the only one having this problem

The scenario design has taken a huge step up from the original scenarios. "Vengeance" is now one of my all time favorite scenarios and I am not event that into WW2 CM.

hmm, sounds like unlikely locations for a future module to happen. Too bad

Hi, I was wondering how Us Airborne would have been used in a cold war gone hot scenario like CMCW 1975-1985? (Yes, I am also thinking about modules...) Where? How? Against what?

Thanks, just what I was looking for. So the situation is still indistinguishable from a reality where Russia is going to start a kinetic operation. We will see in coming weeks.

Very interesting. Source?

As I understand it there were a lot of formations on paper. Combat capable ones are another thing. When I looked at the forces used in the early ATO-operation they seemed to consist of handful of low strength battalions. I would assume now lots of these paper formations have been made in to real formations that are combat ready but data on this would be interesting.