IICptMillerII

I'm a little confused on how this is supposed to work. How do you simulate the sling loading, variable reinforcements and such? Did you develop a script to work in the background or something?

Not to bee too cheeky, but honestly the best way to manage lots of units is to play turn based. I understand why you like real time. When I first started playing CM I only played real time as well. There are some benefits to it, one being that playing the game itself flows much better. However, especially with larger scenarios, the game really does shine in turn based mode. I would recommend giving it a try a few times and seeing what you think. You can always do turn based on larger scenarios and real time on smaller ones.

Very much seconded! Can't wait to see how the battle and the AAR turn out. Looking forward to updates!

Argh, my mistake. I had the Leopard 2 confused for a moment. Apologies for the brain fart, and thanks for the correction. Completely useless is definitely a stretch, though the advantages provided by quality thermal optics really are big. In short, no. ATGMs have largely been dealt with as a threat going back to the original M1, Leopard 2, and Challenger tanks. They were all designed with new composite armor (chobham armor is one example) that was designed to defeat HEAT projectiles. The protection these tanks have against even modern tandem HEAT warheads is massive. For example, the M1A2 SEP Abrams has over 2000mm RHA equivalent protection against HEAT rounds, without ERA. For comparison, the AT-14 Kornet ATGM has around 1300-1500mm RHA equivalent penetration capability, if Wikipedia is to be believed. Even if Wiki's numbers are off by hundreds of mm, the M1A2 still has more than enough armor to defend itself. The AT-14 is a top of the line, modern, tandem HEAT warhead as well. Other tanks, such as the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 have even better protection against HEAT warheads than the Abrams does. Yes, there are some certain, small areas on the front of Western MBTs that have less protection and a lucky hit will penetrate (turret ring for instance) but by and large, from the front ATGMs will do little to a modern Western MBT. Do note, that the same is NOT true for export models of the same tanks. This is why you see Saudi/Iraqi M1 Abrams getting blown up by ATGMs fired by ISIS, etc. No. Not even a little. There are like 4 stereotypical generalizations here that are not true. I'm not going to bother with the Panthers and Tigers part, as I could easily write an essay on that. The Russians USED TO be good at making lots of efficient machines that were rugged but more than got the job done. This is no longer the case, mainly due to industrial and specialty limitations. Western gear does not have to be "mollycoddled" or kept in "pristine" conditions in order for them to function. This has never been the case. In fact, the Abrams is well known for its reliability (despite what the Australians may claim) and was one of the most operationally reliable and capable tanks during the Gulf War. As for "quantity having a quality of its own," this is only true in a relative sense. Again, if this were an absolute, then we should scrap all of our expensive jet fighters and revert to using 10s of thousands of bi planes. After all, quantity has a quality of its own right? Thats a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously no in that context.

The Leopard uses an autoloader. The 120mm isn't going anywhere for a while. If your tank cannot go toe to toe with the enemy tanks, you need a new tank. That is a massive simplification of course, but it holds true if you don't get bogged down in the nuance. The point is, Russia throwing 50,000 T-55s on the border and saying "good enough" is in fact not good enough. For the same reason no one uses bi-planes as fighters anymore, or wooden ships with black powder cannons. The fact remains: if you want to be competitive on a modern, conventional battlefield, you have to field competitive vehicles. All of that said, the main issue with Russian tanks are not the tanks themselves. Upgrading existing models is definitely the right decision. The United States has been using upgraded versions of the M1 Abrams since 1980. The Germans and other nations have been using the Leopard for even longer. The key is in the upgrades. Russian tanks are not competitive with Western MBTs because they lack the optics (specifically thermal optics) to see their targets first, and arguably more importantly, they lack ammunition that can reliably kill Western MBTs in standard combat conditions. There are other issues such as armor protection, but these are less important in the scheme of things. If you cannot see, and you cannot kill what you do see, you are not effective. The only real reason why the Armata received attention among credible circles is because the Armata specifically promised to be the tech leap forward in these critical areas that would actually make the Russians competitive again. The Armata promised to come with new ammunition that was advertised as being capable of reliably penetrating Western MBTs from the front at combat ranges. It also promised to come with a completely new optical suite that would finally bring Russians quality functioning thermal optics. Is any of this likely or practical? No, but the fact that they were saying it was enough to draw some attention.

You could try The Few Good Men (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/) Its a wargaming club of sorts that primarily play CM. Could be possible you find someone there who would be willing to try co-op with you. Otherwise, do what I did and make your friends buy CM

The Abrams still uses manual loading, and likely will for years to come. I agree. Designing a prototype for a "super-tank" (now meant to mean an actual super tank, not an MBT) doesn't help at all if it is operationally irrelevant because it cannot actually be produced. Upgrading old tech, especially if it is all you can do industrially, is preferable to doing nothing of course. No one here is arguing against this.

You don't keep a fire extinguisher in your house because you need to use it every day. You keep it in your house because 1 day out of 1000 you need it, and if you don't have it on that day, all other days are irrelevant because now you have no house. A military (for a world/want to be world power) is the same concept. Said military needs to be able to fight against the worst possible threats primarily, even if they are not the most common. Modern MBTs will always be relevant to conventional militaries. Any opinions formed about ANY fighting vehicle based on observed experiences in the Middle East should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

Context. Steve was talking about Chechnya, which would be another so-called "low intensity" war. Meaning, it would not be a full on conventional conflict against a peer enemy. Against a peer enemy in a conventional conflict, you need "super-tanks," which I'm taking to be your way of describing modern, category A tanks. The T-55s and T-62s were deployed to Afghanistan by the Soviets for this reason. They were not fighting NATO, but a smaller, unconventional force that did not require large amounts of category A mechanized forces. T-55s and T-62s (even modernized ones) would not last very long at all on a modern conventional battle. If you would like some proof of this you can see for yourself, load up CMSF and fight Abrams/Challengers/Leopards with T-55s or T-62s.

As Raptor said, there is no co-op mode. However, there is a way to force a type of co-op. If you play a PBEM, instead of giving orders and then hitting the red button to hand over the game to the opponent, what you can do instead is save the game, then send the save to a friend. When he opens it up, he can then give his orders to his units on the map, then hit the red button and send the completed turn to the opponent. I've played a battle like this before and while it did take longer to do turns, it was a lot of fun. To be clear, you have to decide who is commanding what. For example, each person could command a company. You will still have full access to giving orders to every friendly unit on the map, so you'll have to adopt an honor system so that neither player on the same side messes with the others units. As I said it takes longer than a traditional PBEM, is more of a roundabout way of playing, and has more administrative overhead. But if you are ok with all those things, it can be a lot of fun. All of that said, if the game having true co-op is make or break for you, I would recommend holding off and maybe starting with the demo's for now. There are no future plans to add co-op to any of the CM titles either.

Not entirely sure if you're joking, so I'll just assume you are. Apologies, currently running low on sarcasm. Aaaaaand this would be why I'm dangerously low on sarcasm. I'm not going to waste time rebutting this as I've learned better than to scream at a mud wall. However I will say this; please do not derail this thread with comments such as this. If it continues I'll just be reporting it, and the BFC admins will then see it for what it is and choose and appropriate action. Hopefully they will not be forced to lock the thread, as I think it is an important resource concerning the patch and the bug the patch will address.

Was the scenario "Buying the Farm" by chance?

Any word on the patch for the v4 infantry bug? Its been a while since we last heard anything, and when we did last hear, word was that the patch was nearly done and was a priority to get out the door. Any hope on this still being the case?

This is an issue that is greatly exacerbated by the 4.0 infantry AI bug. Word is that a patch has been developed and is being tested now before its released. Hopefully the patch comes out soon. I just played a battle in CMBN v4 that was particularly infuriating due to the infantry bug.

In reality it would be something like: "Gunner, target ATGM, building" "Identified" "Fire!" "On the waaaaaay!" But you got the jist of it. Great screenshot too!

To extrapolate on this; don't fight anything you don't have to. The typical game mentality is to engage everything you can find. However, the opposite is generally true in real life. You want to try to avoid contact unless absolutely necessary. It seems like you started to learn this lesson when replaying the battle. Why engage an enemy force when they have such an advantage? Remember, "The only fair fight is the one you lose."

Uh-oh, your power levels are showing!

Fortress Italy is the hidden gem of the WWII titles. It is easily one of my favorite CM titles, and I've probably put more time into FI than any other single CM game. All the various goodies aside, there is something intriguing about the Sicilian campaign as well. Enjoy, and welcome!

Hot damn this is exceptional bait. Hats off to you sir. I nearly chomped down, hook and all! Alas, I am already quite full from taking the OPs bait. Maybe next time

Exactly. In fact, later in the war this was one of the main ways Germany was losing their heavy tanks. Many were abandoned due to mechanical/logistical issues in the field. For example, when the Elephant (Ferdinand) tank destroyer was used in Kursk, most of the vehicles had to be abandoned and destroyed in the field without ever encountering the enemy. Later in the war, due to poor training, German tank crews tended to prematurely bail out of their tanks in combat after receiving glancing hits and the like. You don't have to blow up a tank for it to be mission killed.

Ok, if you're going to post stuff, you should probably have a slight idea as to what it is you are posting. The United States has over 4,000 Abrams in its active inventory. The Russians have less than 1,000 operational T-90s. The meme of red hordes died a long time ago. Continuing to base all future conflicts on this assumption is both ignorant and embarrassingly wrong. The West, specifically the United States, has both a quantitative and qualitative advantage over the Russian military. This has been the case for decades now. Please, please let this terrible meme end.

There are already a handful of threads here on the forum regarding the effectiveness of artillery against tanks. Mostly in the Black Sea section. Some of those threads got a bit heated, so be warned some of that might spill over here. My opinion is that, while artillery (105mm included) can destroy halftracks, open topped vehicles, and tanks, it is not effective. That is, the amount of shells you have to fire to score a direct hit to knock out the target is not worth it. If you have ludicrous amounts of ammo, then there is no harm in trying to take out enemy vehicles with it, but generally speaking you do not have an over abundance of ammo. Artillery is best used against infantry and fixed defenses, such as an occupied trenchline or a series of occupied buildings and the like. Point targets unaffected by shrapnel (tanks and to a lesser degree AFVs) generally aren't worth it.

Here is a really good tactical principle to live by, especially in forests: Always make contact with the smallest amount of your force possible. This means that it is better to discover an enemy fighting position with 2 men than it is to discover that same position with 10 men. You can then "1 up" this all the way up the scale. For example, it is better to discover the enemy with one platoon instead of the entire company, etc. What this allows for is discovering where the enemy is without having your entire force then committed to combat once you do discover the enemy. With most of your force not in contact, you are then free to maneuver against the enemy. This is extremely helpful and important in forests. Instead of blundering into SMGs with your entire platoon, and getting the whole platoon pinned down, you can discover the SMG position with a scout team, and then use the rest of the platoon to maneuver against the SMG element. Check out this video. It shows how to move infantry through woods in a manner that will avoid a massive first contact firefight.

I can shed a little light on this. First off as a disclaimer, please note that I have no "insider" knowledge on the development of CMSF2. That being said, the model artwork for both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 in CMSF are exactly the same in CMBS. There is additional artwork in CMBS such as the BMP-2M and some other variants of the BMP seein in BS that is not seen in SF, but the base model vehicles have the same textures. This means that when CMSF2 comes out this mod and other vehicle texture mods should work with it out of the box. That being said, if for whatever strange reason the texture files have been altered for CMSF2 (which I highly doubt) making the mod compatible should be relatively easy to do.

You could try sending him a direct message on youtube. Not sure exactly how to do it, but I know its possible. He might also have a contact email posted somewhere on his channel, or some other means of contacting him. Others here may have a better suggestion, but that would be a good place to start.