IICptMillerII

Yes. Scorpion was chosen over multicam because it performs better in a combat environment for longer. Camo fades over time, depending on how many times you wash it, sunlight exposure and dirt/grime and such. Multicam wore out after only a few months of use, whereas scorpion is designed to last longer. It even starts out an overall darker shade than multicam to help it resist fading as fast.

This is my original point: the pause command trick is fine for your own troops, but when fighting against the AI they have no such trick as well, making attacking a position defended by the AI unrealistically easy. All you have to do is hit positions with a few HE rounds and the enemy abandons their positions.

The upgrade to v4 in CMFI resulted in an overhaul of (and corrections to) the TO&E. If I recall correctly, Steve said that these new corrections to the TO&E will be coming to the other WWII titles as well in future patches. So it is possible there is a bug/mistake with the current TO&E in CMBN that will soon be resolved in a patch.

I personally do not mind the absence of tank riders in this title or in CMBN. Infantry riding on tanks was more of a behind the lines thing anyways. Anyone remember the scene in Saving Private Ryanwhere the paratroopers get raked by 20mm anti air fire while on the tiger tank? The result of that shown in the movie is exactly why no one wanted to be on a tank when the shooting started. So yes, infantrymen will hitch a ride whenever possible, but only on road marches and the like, not during an attack or firefight. For the Germans/Russians in CMRT it does make sense to have tank riders, seeing as both sides did not have an abundance of motorized or mechanized infantry, the only way to keep Infantry with the tanks was to have them ride them into battle. Even then though, once the shooting started I can't imagine anyone would want to hang on to the side of the bullet magnet that is a tank for long. It also makes sense for CMFB for the Germans due to the same reasons in CMRT. For the Americans it makes sense for two reasons. First during the battle of the bulge there was so much confusion and chaos that any vehicle that could be scrounged was used as transport. Second, CMFB covers more than just the Bulge. It covers part of the late war, a period where allied supply lines were very stretched and motorized/mechanized transport was not as readily available as it had been just a few months ago. I understand that being able to have a squad hop on a tank and be with it as it rushes around to flank the enemy in a specific instance during a battle is convenient, and thattroops riding tanks looks cool. In fact I think that's largely why many demand tank riders to be in the game. I just don't view it as that much of an issue.

Edited out due to wrong thread

I'm a bit on the fence with the new Infantry behavior as well. Oh the one hand I completely agree with what @Erwin said. Before, in many cases troops tended to stand their ground to the death too frequently. Specifically when taking direct HE fire from a tank they can see. "Displace dammit!" However on the flip side now with 4.0 and the new behavior, I've run into a few situations where Infantry break and run when they absolutely should not. In CMFB there is a mission that features a mixed group of US airborne and regular infantry defending a town against an SS attack with a king tiger and some disguised SS in American uniforms, and even a captured Sherman. Cannot recall the name of the battle at the moment. The battle begins with a germanartillery barrage, and to my horror, just as the rounds started landing my riflemen abandoned their defensive positions inside of houses, running out into the open and being cut down by subsequent shells. I've observed other cases of Infantry bailing from foxholes and/or trenches when they clearly should have stayed in place. A lot of the missions/campaigns in CMFI are based around entrenched defenders, specifically the Monte Casino campaign. Playing it in v3.0 is quite a challenge, as it should be seeing how difficult the campaign was in real life. But now with the 4.0 Infantry changes I'm afraid that the campaign will be too easy, as all you'll have to do to drive the enemy out of their defensive positions is put some HE in their general location. Doesn't seem right. I haven't upgraded CMFI yet because I'm away and haven't had the chance to do so. When I return I will be upgrading despite my few nitpicks with v4.0 as I think by and large the update was very good. And I already paid for it Is there any info about possible tweaks to this new behavior to make dug in Infantry more resilient? Right now the only thing I know that can be done is to give u it's you do not want to leave an indefinite pause command, but this obviously doesn't work for the AI in a campaign battle.

@TheForwardObserver No, I am not a 13F, nor have I ever been in any of the 13 series MOS. I have never called for fires, or seen the effects in person of fires in real life. I have never attended artillery school or FO school. I have read pieces of the US Army field artillery manual (there are two, but I'm blanking on the FM designations at the moment. My apologies) but as you already know reading parts of a manual without proper instruction is nearly a waste of time. I also do not have a CIB, or a Purple Heart, and the last time I was pulled over was two years ago and I only got a warning. I put up plenty of sources in the other artillery threads. You quoted yourself from one of them. I'm stuck on my phone right now so going through those other threads to post my sources here is too much of a hassle. None of them were simple wiki drivel. As for the 2002 report that keeps getting thrown around here, I would like to point out that one of the tests involved firing a BATTALIONs worth of artillery at a single mechanized infantry team. Said test resulted in over 50% of the mech inf team being destroyed if I remember correctly. Apologies if I misremembered. Fire a battalion of artillery against any stationary target and you're going to cause a lot of damage. In fact, if you fire a battalions worth of 155mm at an Abrams platoon in CMBS, you'll likely kill all 4 of them. I've done it myself. Again I cannot post results right now or run the test as I am away from my computer, but others here are more than welcome to try. I agree with you, HE artillery is not the first asset/tool you should utilize against tanks. HE against APC/IFVs is generally effective at disabling or destroying them, usually enough to take them out of the immediate fight. I also agree with you that the amount of hits your Abrams shrugged off was excessive, and in real life would have likely resulted in a mission killed tank. The only argument that I have been "tirelessly repeating" is that HE is not the optimal weapon to use against armored targets, specifically tanks. There are a lot of ideas/opinions being thrown around in these threads. Some are arguing that artillery should be able to kill everything with just a few near misses, others are saying that the Abrams is too resilient to artillery. I agree with the latter, to an extent. I never meant to butt heads with you, mostly because I am in agreement with most of what you have said. If you have any more personal questions for me, you can drop me a PM. I'll be more than happy to talk with you one on one, but I would prefer to keep character assassination off the public forum.

It is not possible to port assets between games, so you cannot port the PTRD from RT to Black Sea. Not sure about the airport map. You can try sending a personal message to the creator and see if he's willing to give you access to what he's created so far. Unconventional forces (the DPR) are not currently modeled in Black Sea, as that was not the initial scope of the game, and when the game was first being developed there was no war in Ukraine yet. However there are mods that change the Russian skins to look like unconventional fighters. If that isn't enough, there is going to be a module for Black Sea (I believe next year but I'm not sure on that) that is going to add more forces/expand on what there is now. It's possible that this upcoming module adds unconventional forces.

I was having a similar problem in a battle I was playing in Battle for Normandy. My soldiers were charging around the house and into the exposed street to use the main entrance of the building instead of using the much safer rear entrance. I've found that placing a move order right outside the door you want your soldiers to use tends get around this issue.

I had no idea bailed tank crewmen were so effective with small arms. For me, whenever I have bailed tank crewmen, their morale state is usually so poor that I cannot command them for a number of turns, and even when I can they are simply too brittle to stand up in a firefight. Plus, I always try to evacuate them to the edge of the battlefield, as I feel that's the most realistic thing to do with them. This is a really good point I never even thought of, but makes perfect sense. I imagine attempting to escape from a rapidly burning vehicle does not give much time for thinking about all the extra things to collect and bring along with you.

These are really excellent! I've always been a fan of AARs and screenshots, and you've convinced them both here. Very much looking forward to seeing more screenshots from you in the future, and to finally play your new campaign when I get back. By the way, are you touching up these photos using photoshop or some other software?

I would just like to quickly add that a test from the 1960s, or artillery tests done on vehicles from the 1960s (M48s/M60s/M113s) are very much out of date. Modern vehicles and armor are different, and essentially harder to kill. Just because a 155mm round to the turret of an M48 can knock that vehicle out, does not mean that same effect applies to every tank that has ever existed ever. I've stated my interpretation of the data in a few threads now. Essentially Combat Mission gets it right more than it doesn't. However if someone can post recent data (within the past 2 decades) using recent equipment (modern tanks/IFVs opposed to early Cold War vehicles) I am more than happy to revise my position.

I like the infographic as well. It does a good job of illustrating the concept without getting too complicated or cluttered. Looking forward to the video!

I am personally extremely excited to have the CMSF content brought up to current engine capabilities. There is so much content and possibility with CMSF as it is now. You can essentially simulate most major Middle East conflicts since the 1st Gulf War. While it doesn't have the most up to date equipment in service by the US Army, it does have more than enough as is. Plus, once they bring it to current engine capabilities, they can always release another module that adds all the latest toys to the game. I'm very much looking forward to the planned upgrade, and I'm willing to pay full price for such an upgrade. The amount of content alone is more than worth it in my opinion. And worst case scenario if people do not want to pay for the upgrade, the game is still plenty playable in its current state.

My apologies Steve. It will not happen again.

I definitely agree with you on these points, specifically the dynamic campaign. That feature is great for a many number of reasons. Unfortunately BFC has stated that they have no plans for including this as a feature in the near future. However it is possible to simulate an operational layer (dynamic campaign) with other games. Currently there is a game being developed that will be able to use combat mission as a way to resolve tactical battles and then input the results back into the operational layer. It's a ways off from being completed though. If GT has one definite advantage over CM, it's the dynamic campaign. All that said, I still couldn't get into it and much prefer CM, but I recognize GT does some things differently which is a good thing.

This sounds like a 1 in a million fluke to me, which sucks. However there is no way to confirm that without a save. Testers need the save in order to see what happened and to begin to diagnose the issue, if there is an issue. If there's a chance that the turn is floating around in a drop box or recycle bin somewhere on your computer (if you are playing MP) it would help the testers out a ton. Otherwise you might have just gotten extremely unlucky. If you're playing single player and that tank was crucial, you can always restart the battle or revert to a previous save if you have one.

Hahahaha, that's right, I forgot. Rights only exist until something bad happens, then we throw them out the window! It's a wonder why those pesky colonies decided to take their leave from the crown. It figures that it's you who decides to derail the thread with your usual crap, adding nothing of value to the context of the conversation. You are clearly a bitter, delusional old man who comes here mostly to spew your particular flavor of bull-dung, and frankly it's gotten old. Luckily you likely only have a decade or so left on this earth, but I don't have to wait that long to be rid of you. Blocked, and good riddance.

I agree with everything @Macisle said about the game. I don't like the UI, the action is real time so things are missed, and a lot of it felt rather gimmicky. For example, the flares and smoke grenades infantry seem to throw at random during firefights. That and I could never really get a hang of the controls. It feels more like you give very generic orders and then watch them kinda play out. Overall I wasn't a huge fan. I will say that the vehicle graphics and physics (armor being blown off, full destruction models with burning tanks and such, and things like tracks throwing mud around) are a very nice immersive touch that CM lacks. That said, I much prefer what you get with CM, and if that means no fancy mud flaps for my tanks, then so be it. Just my 2 cents.

I know exactly what you're talking about. Anyone who has any decent time using and shooting firearms knows this. Seeing as our British cousins across the pond do not hold the same values when it comes to private citizens and the ownership of firearms, it makes sense that they have little to no practical experience of said flash phenomenon. For example, most firearms (pistol to rifle to shotgun to whatever) produce a flash of light when discharged. However, during the day the flash is so quick that it is generally missed. At night however it is much easier to see. In this photo you can see the large flash in the dark as the shotgun is discharged: https://goo.gl/images/xI934t During the day that same flash happens, it's just that ambient light and the speed in which it happens drowns it out. The reason flashes tend to be more visible in videos is because a video captures light differently than the human eye in the moment, which generally means that a flash that is hard to see in person is easier to see in a video. I believe this is the phenomenon Splinty is talking about.

I played this battle H2H with a friend as the US and had a tough, though not impossible time with it. My biggest problem was how short the battle is (1hr) and the terrain you have to advance out of, thick forest. Because of this I found that I had very little time to adequately recon the town. My Infantry was very slow to get in position due to the forest terrain, and my vehicles were very restricted to where they could move, which made it al the easier for my opponent to position his AT assets against me. I ended up probing and trading blow for blow with the enemy before I had finally opened a blind spot large enough to pour Infantry, then tanks into a section of the town. From there it was mutual cat and mouse fighting with our vehicles and AT assets. Once I had knocked out the enemy tanks and AT guns (and had inflicted a lot of casualties and morale issues) my enemy capitulated and the battle ended in cease fire. For me, there wasn't any kind of tactical trick or anything to exploit. It's essentially a brick wall that must be smashed through, with all the consequences that brings. The US reinforcements that show up do help at undoing the enemy's defense, but even with their added support it's far from a sure thing. Last note I'll make: my armored cars were unsung heroes of this battle. I thought they would be useless given how vulnerable they are and the very limited maneuvering space, but they ended up causing a lot of casualties and being instrumental in providing suppressive fires for my Infantry. Don't underestimate them like I did. They can certainly pull their weight and then some.

Very excited to try this campaign out! Big fan of all your work so far @dragonwynn I'm sure this will be as spectacular as the others! However I won't get a chance to get my hands on it for some time as I'm away right now. Something to look forward to when I get back!

Those are some seriously impressive shots! Love the atmosphere. Hoping to see a lot more pics from you now that you know how to post them!

Hey all, I've been a pretty big fan of the "Wargame" series of games by Eugen Systems over the past few years. They recently announced a new WWII strategy game that is looking to be quite interesting. Heres the link to the game website: http://www.steeldivisiongame.com/?gclid=CKjwqq_e29ICFUlWDQodUukMdg Looks like a very interesting blend of tactical and operational strategy, with some interesting game mechanics as well! It went into closed beta yesterday (15 March) and is supposed to be released this May. I have a few reservations about how the game might turn out, mostly fueled by my qualms with the "Wargame" series, but overall I am very optimistic and excited for this. Whats everyone else think?

I like the idea of a shoot and scoot command, but it is a rather niche-use command. It really only applies to AT infantry or tanks in an urban environment. I have found that at long ranges (400m+) there is generally enough time for you to set move and pause orders for tanks. In a multiplayer battle a while back, I had 4 shermans against a whole horde of PzIV's and panthers. My shermans were in a town and the enemy was advancing against the town. I was able to move my shermans in and out of keyhole firing positions by using the reverse and pause commands very effectively. I destroyed over 20 enemy tanks and lost none of my shermans. The engagement happened at ranges between 200m-600m roughly. I could see a shoot and scoot being more useful for tank destroyers like the M10 seeing that they are essentially glass cannons. Again though I think that the commands in the game already are enough to manage most situations involving tanks, and that a shoot and scoot command would mostly benefit AT infantry. In the modern titles, it would greatly enhance the survivability of AT infantry, such as Javelin or RPG armed infantry. Again though, the command seems to be too niche for the developers to commit to it and devote a bunch of time developing and testing it when they could be working on other things. As far as spotting goes, I really have never had a real problem with it in any of the CM titles. No game is perfect, and during more competitive multiplayer games it can be very frustrating to have a unit not see something that you, the player, feels he should be able to see. Most notably occurring with tank duels in my experience. But by and large, 99 out of 100 times I see CM getting it right. I am usually able to explain away the 1 time something odd happens by assuming the TC is going on his third day of no sleep, or was recently concussed, or something along those lines. A little role playing never hurt anyone