IICptMillerII

Looks like another fantastic campaign, and just in time for the anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge too! I'll definitely be making some time to play through this.

MRAPs were designed specifically for Iraq and Afghanistan, and will not be used in any other theater. In fact, as the conflicts in both of those regions wind down, the MRAPs are being scrapped/sold off, not retained. MRAPs would not be deployed to Ukraine, either in reality or in the fictional scenario Black Sea presents, so it is highly unlikely we will ever see them added to the game.

Something similar to this happened to me in CMRT. First, go to your options, then controls, and make sure it is set to what you want it to be set to. If it isn't, set it to the control scheme you want and you should be all set. If it is set to the scheme you want, and resetting it to that still doesn't fix the problem, then you can manually rebind the keys by clicking on them, then hitting the desired key. For me, it was my face command and target light command that had funky hotkeys. Doing what I stated above fixed my issue. Hope that helps.

Just and fyi for Armorgunner and anyone else who wants to modify morale in campaigns; morale DOES NOT effect the current fleeing behavior seen in v4. A unit with maximum morale/training/leadership and a unit with the worst morale/training/leadership react the same to artillery. All flee at the first round that lands near enough to them. If you want to see the topic discussed at length, as well as a video presentation of the issue, check out this thread:

No one forced you to buy the upgrade. You only have yourself to blame. There have been plenty of threads discussing the bugs inherent to v4 since it was released a year ago. Enough with the over dramatic victimhood.

I have to admit, I laughed when I saw the video. It strikes me as a Monty Python moment. An ATGM team fires its ATGM, and is so terrified by the backblast they literally run away. "Brave, brave sir Robin..." As others have already said, this issue is known, and it is going to be fixed. You have to understand that BFC is backlogged right now. Bug squashing is not a simple thing to do. It takes a lot of time, even if the results of the bug (in this case, infantry fleeing when they should not) is known. I'm glad that @Machor has already linked my thread on the issue, and that you have taken the time to read through it. Aside from the pause workaround, I would recommend rolling back to v3 for now. I've done that with all my CM games (excluding CMBN as it is very large and has multiple licenses I have to worry about) and I can tell you the singleplayer experience is much better. Again, I get your frustrations, but screaming at the sky (or other forum members) isn't going to change anything. Try rolling your version back to 3.0 and enjoy that until the patch is released. You'll enjoy yourself a lot more.

@Gamma Check out this thread. In it you will see the issue presented and discussed, as well as links to the threads where BFC has officially addressed the bug: As others have stated, BFC knows of the issue and have said it is a top priority to fix. For now, you can either use the 'Pause' command to keep units from fleeing, or you can play version 3 until a patch is released for version 4.

What you stated is essentially the case; the US Army had to learn its own lessons. While there were urban fights before the invasion of France, all that were encountered were not on the same scale and ferocity of the city fights that occurred in Western Europe. So the US Army didn't really have a "proper" urban fight until France.

I'm a big fan of both the Armchair General videos and Josey Wales. If I could add another video in it would be this one by @PanzerPajamas: I think it shows off some good combined arms with some varied and fun equipment. It also shows off an often ignored theater of the war.

If your opponent is dumb enough to blind himself by popping smoke directly in front of his defensive position, I would argue that he is making your job easier, not harder. One of the biggest issues with modern "realistic" games is the over reliance on smoke. The second a bullet flies overhead, everyone starts chucking smoke grenades everywhere. Not only is this unrealistic, its completely stupid. Maybe the problem here isn't how the game handles smoke, but with players misusing an asset then wondering why things aren't going well for them.

Sounds very interesting! I would very much like to test it out for you if you are looking for testers. You can send it via PM here on the forum.

Ahh ok, I know both 'Red Thrust' and "The Bear Went Over the Mountain.' "Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics' looks like a very interesting read. Unfortunately I don't read/speak German so the last book is beyond my grasp. Exactly. To the nuclear deterrence stuff, I know a big reason why the Soviets shifted to a larger nuclear-based deterrence philosophy on the strategic scale was because their ICBM capability only became capable in the 70s-80s. Before that, they still relied overwhelmingly on more conventional delivery methods (ie bombers and such) The Marines used the M60A3 Patton tank in the First Gulf War, but by OIF all of their deployed armor was Abrams. The Abrams does, yes. Every branch claims that it is on the verge of technological obsolescence in order to attempt to gain more funding. This is nothing new. Being able to understand the reality is rather important. The fact is, there is no other military in the world that is as well equipped, on such a large scale, as the US. Arguing against this is asinine.

Is your tool able to repack the campaign? Do you have a working prototype?

I've only read the Field Manuals on Soviet Operations (FM 100-2-1) which gives a decent overview behind the philosophy and the practical applications in my opinion. Five books is impressive though. Any you would recommend? I couldn't tell you when the word "defense" was purged from tactical schools/doctrine, but that is indeed the case. So much so to the point where the Army and Marines don't even teach defensive operations. They obviously still teach things such as security postures, that if attacked are essentially planned defenses, but they aren't meant to be permanent. The idea is basically to always be on the attack, but on the off chance the enemy catches you while you are "paused" (so to speak) you are properly prepared to repel said attack. I'm probably confusing more than I am helping at this point though. Just know that on the war fighting level (that is, the tactical and operational levels) the idea is to always have the initiative, which is an offensive posture by nature. Its important to remember that while the strategic objective of NATO in Europe was one of defense, that does not translate to always being on the defense on the tactical and operational level. Essentially yes. To make things more confusing, the idea was not to wait for the Soviets to come at you through the Fulda Gap and defend in place, but to in fact attack the enemy who is trying to attack you. Not head on mind you. The entire idea is elasticity. Independent units (Brigade level) being able to act autonomously. This both helps during a conventional war, and in the event of the use of nuclear weapons. The entire army isnt wiped out in one strike because everyone is spread out, and all the smaller groups have enough firepower/logistics to operate by themselves. Again, this is an oversimplification, but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. Yes, new weapon systems are constantly being developed and added, and generally speaking it does not "break" the logistics of the army. The point is, adding the 30mm cannon to the stryker defeats the point of the stryker. Why do you need a stryker armed with a 30mm when you can have a bradley armed with a 25mm (literally just as good, with more ammo) and TOW missiles? It becomes redundant. Even this is irrelevant to the main point however. If you turn the stryker to a landship, you can no longer rapidly deploy it. If you can no longer rapidly deploy the stryker, then it has no purpose. Too bad it never gets to the battlefield. Wewlad.

The WHOLE POINT of the stryker is to give the US Army a modern, quick, flexible vehicle that can respond to anticipated and unanticipated situations. Just because the stryker can't swim, or fly, does NOT mean it is a useless antiquated vehicle. You are the only one here trying to claim that the US refuses to prepare for anything. What task, pray tell? We don't need amphibious vehicles in Europe. If we did, there are plenty of "old, antiquated" LAVs and AAVs lying around that could be rushed into theater to fill this glaring hole in strategic doctrine. Funny though, I haven't heard any Generals or otherwise losing their minds because their vehicles can't cross a river. Its a good thing you've managed to find the one massive glaring hole in US doctrine that all of those so called "experts" and "military leaders" overlooked. Ok, I'm going to call you out on this one to prove a point. Post your source. Where, in any official doctrine, does it say that if air superiority is not gained then all hope is lost? Back up you claim with a source. Again, not the case. But keep going with these absurd and false generalizations. I understand where you are coming from. At face value it would appear that US doctrine during the Cold War should be defensive in nature. After all, NATO wasn't planning on attacking the Eastern Bloc. However, US doctrine is actually the opposite of this. So much so that the doctrine doesn't even plan for defense. The entire goal is to always be attacking or counter attacking. This is for a lot of reasons, but primarily it has to do with initiative and the positive effects of keeping and maintaining the initiative in combat. This is an extremely simplified glossing over mind you. If you want to read more, I would recommend reading up on AirLand Battle. That is the doctrine the US Army developed during the 70s (as a result of what was seen during the 1973 Yom Kippur War in Israel) on how they planned to fight a mechanized war against the Soviets in Europe.

Wow. I'm impressed. I never would have expected to see someone honestly try to claim here that the US military is an outdated, antiquated force. Do I even bother asking the obvious; can you name a single Russian vehicle that is currently in service that is younger than 20 years old? No. The primary British contribution to the original M1 Abrams was Chobham armor. It was newly developed by the British, with the express purpose of being able to defeat HEAT warheads. The M68A1 105mm gun used on the Abrams and Patton tanks were the British designed L7 gun. This gun was in use with the US already. I don't get what you are trying to say here. Is it a bad thing that various NATO countries worked together and shared technology/parts/designs in order to develop new vehicles? Are you seriously claiming that just because certain countries do not immediately adopt US equipment, or vice versa, that said equipment is garbage? I'm actually surprised by the levels of ridiculous this got to. Basically this. A vehicle that can cross a river and do nothing else isn't very useful. To make the stryker amphibious, you would have to strip it down a lot, and say goodbye to the newer mine resistant variants with the V hulls, as well as getting rid of all ERA. The vehicle would essentially require a complete redesign. In short, it is out of the scope of that the stryker is supposed to do.

Wew ok we've really gone off the rails on this one. True. False. True. LAV-25 (and variants). AAV-7 (and variants). LCAC. (For those that do not know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion) False. (Did we "steal" the 120mm from the Germans then?) It is. False. The Abrams is no more "fuel/supply hungry" than any other MBT. And for the record, the Abrams exhaust cannot melt infantrymen crouched behind it, nor does it attract AA heat seeking missiles. All myths, long ago debunked. The History Channel lied to you. @c3k I have the perfect vehicle for you: For more designs, just search the term "Landship." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landship)

The Bradley isn't amphibious, yet no one is complaining about that. Nor has anyone, because the Bradley has been more than fine at doing its job without having to swim as well. Most M113 variants since the 70s have not been amphibious. Most vehicles in the current, and former US arsenal are not amphibious, with the exception of the Marines. Clearly, the US Army has not put any emphasis on amphibious capability since the late 60s, and it has not been a detriment. Further, a case study. In 2003, the Army and Marines made seperate pushes to Baghdad. Water obstacles were present in said pushes. The Army, with no amphibious vehicles organic to their formations, reached Baghdad first, before the amphibiously equipped Marines. Clearly, not having amphibious vehicles did not hamper the Army's drive on Baghdad. There are other examples, but the point is this; the US Army is not massively disadvantaged by not having amphibious APCs. Also, just because other military's 'around the world' adopt/do things, does not mean what the US Army is doing is 'wrong' or 'behind' in capability. Different missions, requirements, budgets, etc etc. Apples to oranges. This.

What does the tool do? Unless you're using it to open, modify, then re-pack campaigns and publish/sell them as your own, I don't see how it could violate the license agreement. As IanL already linked to, there is a campaign unpack tool that's been around in various versions since CMBN, and that is perfectly fine. My guess would be that you're good to go.

The stryker isn't amphibious for the same reason it doesn't have VTOL capability. This is a tired line of logic. "Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, then why can't it fly like a helicopter?" "Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, why can't it traverse the ocean with a full compliment inside?" ""Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, why can't it act like an ICBM, flying into low Earth orbit, then coming back down to Earth where it needs to be, ready to fight?"

A wireless mouse/keyboard on a coffee table. Mind you, I don't normally play CM on the TV, and if I did I would likely need a more proper set-up (such as a desk or something for the mouse/keyboard)

My understanding is that BFC has been backlogged with stuff and simply haven't had the time to rip open the code and try to mend then test it. Bug fixing/testing requires a lot of time that takes away from other projects. As I said they have been backlogged for a while now, so taking more time to bug fix would only make the problem worse. The good news is, they are aware of the bug and have said that it will be the first thing addressed when a patch is worked on. This is my understanding as well. BFC is generally very good about releasing updates, and they are good about releasing patches that address major issues. Though they are a bit slow on releasing patches, generally major fixes aren't required. I too think that the upgrade was rushed. I don't think it was adequately tested before it was given the green light. But again, I believe this is mostly to do with them being backlogged more than anything else. I don't think this is the case. They have already said that fixing the faulty behavior is a top priority. So not only are they going to fix it, but they acknowledge that it is in fact faulty. As JoMc said, I think it mostly came down to rushed testing.

I loaded up the posted save in V4. I haven't tried it as a fresh battle, nor have I tried unpacking the campaign and testing out the map yet.

I've been able to play CM on a full sized TV using Steam Link without any issues. For those that don't know what Steam Link is, it allows you to stream games from your computer to your TV. You can plug a controller or mouse/keyboard into it and play computer games on your TV like its a console. Combat Mission worked just fine when I tried it.

I read through some of those threads and it looks like it might be the wooden bunker causing a pathing issue. Maybe all thats needed to fix it is moving/removing the wooden bunker?