IICptMillerII

I was able to partially replicate what Shift8 is talking about. Here is the video: First thing you'll notice is that the first Panther posed no problem. It was engaged and serviced promptly, before it could even start to get its turret around. The second Panther goes differently, but not due to a slow RoF on the Shermans part. I would chalk this one up to poor gunnery/panic in the heat of the moment, as you'll see he fires the second shot at the armored turret and the round bounces. The Panther then returns fire and the result is predictable. I believe this is at least part of what Shift8 is getting at, but again here it is due to poor gunnery and not some bug in the spotting/firing system of the AI

Fair enough! What I mean by using mods to add flavor is things such as adding unit patches to the soldiers, or tweaking the uniforms slightly to fit a specific campaign/scenario. Things like that. I also have a sound compilation mod that makes the firefights sound more like Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan and a few choice sounds from a few video games that I really enjoy. For me, mods are like all the cool gear accessories to a standard GI Joe.

I completely agree. Could the graphics be better? I suppose. After all nothing is perfect. But what we have looks pretty good as it is, and (for me at least) mods add the extra flavor I want. I'm hoping that the animations are improved and expanded in the future, but they are very functional as it is now, and I really don't see it as a major issue. The best part is, it's only going to get better from here!

My point was clearly missed so let me clarify: I have no issue with time limits. In fact, I view them as essential in CM as a way to keep players on task, whether it be against the AI or a human opponent. If there were no time limits, then the battles would last forever for no good reason. My complaint is with a scenario, such as a multi company attack against dug in defenders, and the attacker is only given 30 minutes to win. That is ridiculous. Losing a scenario IS a defeat. Period. End of story. There is no theatre of operations in CM. There is no operational level, no dynamic campaign, and no continuity of forces outside of a campaign. Stop trying to apply something that does not exist in the context of CM. I and many others would love some form of operational layer in the game, and some have gone so far to find ways to simulate it (CMPzC for example) But without an external system, there is no operational level at all. A win is a win and a loss is a loss. So, if you and I were to fight out a battle, and you won the battle, that's it you win. If I came onto these forums and started bragging about how I defeated ASL Veteran in battle, even though the end result of the scenario would have been a defeat for me, I'm sure you would disagree. As to the lolly-gagging: again you have clearly missed my point, despite my attempts to illustrate it. If you consider reconning the enemy, probing his lines for weakness and targets of opportunity and other essential tasks before an assault lolly-gagging, then you clearly know nothing about how battles are actually fought. Read Bil Hardenburgers blog or any number of his AARs here on the forums. He repeatedly states that good recon is the most important part of the battle, but before and during the action. Watch the Armchair General CM Tactics videos. Paulding also greatly emphasized the importance of recon, both the terrain and the enemy. I am NOT advocating for an attacker to sit around and take his sweet time with every mission. I understand and know of many who were canned for doing less during WWII and other conflicts. I am not Fredendall at Kasserine Pass. So in conclusion, I am for time limits. I like them and I understand why they are necessary in CM. (Side note: they are also in Steel Beasts, an armor simulator and I like them there too for the same reasons) I DO NOT like unrealistically short time limits imposed on an attacker with the sole purpose of inflating the challenge of an attack. There is a range of time limits acceptable for battle sizes. That range is perfectly debatable, but that is not what I am arguing. I am only arguing against unrealistically short time limits. As a final note, I understand that many times in real life there are times when commanders must conduct hasty attacks without time to do proper recon. This happens for various reasons, time crunches being one of them. Other times, it is necessary due to the situation at hand. (Easy Company and The Island in Holland is a great example of a necessary hasty attack against an unknown enemy force due to the circumstances of the situation) Hopefully this was clarifying.

Timetables do matter, but it is not the end all be all. When were the British supposed to take Caen? D-Day. When did the British actually take Caen? 6 August 1944 (according to wikipedia) According to those highly in favor of strict time tables and limits, the Allies should have lost the Battle for Normandy on D-Day. "Well chaps, we couldn't take Caen in the time table, looks like the invasion was a failure. I say, back to England for tea and crumpets!" Omaha beach is another example. They were supposed to be off the beach by mid morning, yet they ended up being bogged down in heavy fighting well into the evening for the beach. They failed to achieve the time limit set for them. Despite this failure to hit the time limit, D-Day was not a failure and the battle continued. There are a ton of other examples of time tables not being met. It happens, Charlie Mike.

I'm sure you know, but for those who don't, you can open up any scenario in the editor and simply add more time if you feel the need to. I've done this on occasion, as well as adding a few units here and there as well. I mostly play singleplayer so I never have issues with upsetting multiplayer balance or anything of the sort. The same can be done with campaign missions, however you must unpack the missions first in order to do so. There is a tool to do this on the repository and it is quite simple to do. I generally do this to most campaigns, if for nothing more than to be able to use the maps within. As to the raging debate about time limits in general, I'm rather confused about whats being argued. Its pretty obvious that time restrictions, such as a 30 minute time limit to conduct a multiple company sized assault on a defensive position, IS in fact put there to increase the challenge. Give me two hours for the same scenario and what happens? You take your time, thoroughly probe the enemy line, find weaknesses and engage targets of opportunity. Then when you are ready, you unleash the full might of your force against the enemy's weakest point, and it all comes crumbling down around them. But with a time limit that is very restrictive, you don't have the time to do that. You have to conduct a very quite recon and follow it up with a hasty attack. It becomes a race against oneself. Can I build up enough fire superiority in time before all of my men are slaughtered in the frontal assault I must conduct due to the time limit? There are a ton of other reasons/scenarios I could get into, but I think this point is fairly understood. The less time you have to execute an attack, the less thorough you can be. As to the gameplay mechanics such as the gods eye view of the commander and situational awareness and all that, all I can really say is that yes, of course it is a factor, and there is no way to get rid of that. Simulations try to emulate real life to the best of its abilities. It is NOT a surrogate for real life. If anything, the gods eye view and other necessities of the simulation aid the attacker. In real life, the scenario I described above is nearly impossible to execute. Most of the time limits in most CM scenarios are. That doesn't mean I think there needs to be a change or anything like that, but its worth mentioning. Finally, I'll point out that I believe with @Shift8's overall point is that creating very small time limits in order to increase the difficulty of a mission is, at the least, annoying. I do not like it, and it is why many times I add more time to the scenarios I play using the editor. He is arguing that it is not realistic, and I agree. But what I would argue is that, for me it is not fun.

Ahh ok. I personally haven't experienced the issue then, but I also almost never use the BMP-2M. With the Bradley, I've noticed that it will tend to use its autocannon against tanks even when they are far away, around 1km. In that situation it would be much better off using a TOW missile. Not entirely sure why it loves using the bushmaster against tanks so much, but I think there is a reason for it that I'm not aware of.Could simply be things like blocked LOS for a missile shot, such as through trees or something, so it defaults to the autocannon. Just a guess.

These look amazing as always! Looking forward to the complete set!

Wow does this look fantastic! I'm sure many of us will spend hours trying out the different options. Can't wait to try it out myself. Thanks for the great work!

Figured I would throw in on this. I just engaged an enemy tank successfully with a cannon fired ATGM from a BMP-3. Heres the video: Image of the actual missile in flight: Image of the spotted target before missile impact: Image of the target after impact (trees turned off): Not exactly sure why many people think the BMP-3 does not use its ATGM. I've never had issues with it, and hopefully this is evidence that at least it does use the ATGMs, even if others don't personally experience it. I have noticed that Bradley's do not tend to use their TOW missiles unless the target is very far away, usually beyond 1km, but I think thats a topic for a different thread.

Great work! As far as the rate of casualties suffered in the game, I dont think its far off from reality. I do think that those killed as compared to being wounded is very much off. Most battles, the number of men killed is far greater than the number wounded. In reality, its the other way around. I actually started a thread on this forum a year or so ago asking about this very issue. There were some good responses overall and it might be worth searching for those who are interested. I've come to believe that the reason there are more dead than wounded at the end of the battle is due to a gameplay mechanic. Essentially, the game punishes you for not buddy aiding. If you look at the casualties before the battle ends, you'll likely notice that most of the men who are downed are showed as wounded, not killed. However when the battle ends, a large portion of the wounded are switched to dead. I know its listed somewhere in the manual, about a certain percentage of wounded (25% I think) are converted to dead upon the end of battle. I personally do not like the mechanic, but it has no real effect on the actual simulation of combat during the battle so in the end it does not bother me much. As far as splitting vs not splitting squads, I tend to view it as situational. I tend to keep my squads as a whole until I encounter the enemy and need to split. There really isn't a downside to splitting squads (besides adding more micro) as long as you make sure they are mutually supporting one another. This principle applies from fire teams all the way up to divisions. You NEVER divide your combat power. This does not mean you can't split your squads, or have your platoons far apart. All it means is that the separated elements must be able to cover each other. As a quick note, this same idea applies to tanks as well. Tanks should generally be used in pairs as the smallest maneuver element and even then the pairs should mutually support one another. I tend to agree with this. I've found that, while the 'Assault' command has its uses, it is mostly misused by players (see DiplexHeated playing CM on youtube) because they misunderstand the command. Basically, people think it does a lot more than what it really does. All it does is move the squad up to wherever the waypoint is placed in small teams. Its so simplistic that there really isn't any rhyme or reason to the bounding. For example, I used it once a while ago and noticed that the first group of soldiers to move up were the base of fire soldiers in the squad. Instead of being last to move, the base of fire element was the first to take off running. Not smart. The command also does not make the squad breach and clear buildings or anything like that. If you tell a squad to 'Assault' a building, nothing special happens. The squad will just run into the building one team at a time. I've found that the 'Assault' command can be very useful if you are bounding teams forward while providing general covering fire or recon by fire. It works best when your men aren't taking direct enemy fire. Also, if you are looking to the 'Assault' command as a way to have your men leapfrog while using suppressing fire, you need to give the squad a 'Target' command. Using the 'Assault' command in this manner has actually been very successful for me at times, but its generally highly dependent on the specific situation at hand. Finally, I also tend to play the game very conservatively. My goal is always to minimize my own casualties while maximizing the hurt on the enemy. But this mostly comes down to the individual and what they are seeking to get out of the game. I personally treat the game like a simulator and try to play it in a realistic fashion. Others may treat it like a virtual tabletop game, where the appeal is more in seeing the units and models interacting across the map and completing battles set up in a tabletop format. Others still play it as purely recreation, in the sense that they enjoy strategy games in general and play CM because it does things differently than your standard strategy game. (Again, see DiplexHeated on youtube) I'm not bashing any of these play styles at all, just pointing them out and acknowledging that an individuals style of play is going to yield different results.

First off, this is a great thread. Lots of good information! This is not true. You can target any spotted enemy with the unit that is spotting it. For instance, lets say you have a squad of 12 in the woods. 2 of the men can see a single enemy soldier, but the rest of the squad has no line of sight. Using the target or target light command, you can tell the entire squad to engage the spotted enemy. The men who see the enemy will engage and the ones who can't will hold in place and scan their sectors. Further, if that single enemy soldier is part of a larger unit, but the rest of his larger unit has not been spotted, he can still be engaged. While every system can continue to be improved, I think the current spotting mechanics are exceptionally good and realistic. And whenever anything rather silly happens (like two adversaries lying in front of each other and not seeing each other even though it looks like they should) I always remind myself that the visuals are a little abstract, meaning that there is generally a reason the two soldiers cannot see each other. The player cannot see what that reason is. Also remember that humans are hardly infallible. Add on the fact that in combat everyone is fatigued, stressed to the limit, hungry and thirsty, and generally miserable, you can begin to understand how these seemingly simple mistakes are made. I'm just amazed (and glad) that CM is able to so realistically simulate this behavior. I would like to quickly point out another part of CM that fascinates me. The discussion about how to move infantry around. Many have different approaches. Some like to move quickly in bounds, others like to take it slow. The cool part is that both methods work, and have their benefits and drawbacks. This is much like it is in real life. Different units have different SOPs to fit their capabilities, just as different commanders have different techniques. The end goal is always the same, but the route taken is vastly different. I find it fascinating that CM is able to simulate this. Think about any other strategy game out there. Generally speaking there are set ways of doing things because the game mechanics limit the player. Compare CM infantry combat to say, Star Craft and you understand my point. Not hating on Star Craft at all, just pointing out the fundamental differences in the way the two games are able to be played. Essentially, you can give two players the exact same force set up and mission, but each battle will play out very differently. There are many 'right' ways to do things. 'Wrong' things tend to be more universal. For instance, charging across an open field into the guns of the enemy without proper fire support is always a recipe for disaster. For me, I always try to look at a specific situation and identify what not to do first, and then go from there. I do have a question however. I've always struggled with troop experience levels. I understand the manual definitions, but I'm unsure exactly how they should be applied. Take Easy Company on D-Day. Should they be set to 'Green' because they have not yet seen combat? This seems wrong to me. While its true that their baptism by fire was D-Day, I would not consider them to be an overall 'Green' unit as far as the game mechanics are concerned. The years of training (which was to a tougher degree than regular infantry) and their combat record on D-Day and beyond lead me to believe that 'Veteran' is a more appropriate starting point. Another example is regular US infantry during the Normandy campaign, such as those in the Road to Montebourg campaign. Again, its true that for most of the units involved, it was their first time seeing combat. However, in the game 'Green' quality troops seem to represent a unit with the bare minimal training (and the manual terminology supports this) whereas the divisions first deployed to Normandy trained for the invasion exclusively for upwards of 9 months. 'Green' seems too harsh to me. 'Regular' seems more appropriate. The manual seems to support my understanding. Here is the definition of 'Regular' copied from the manual: "professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops that received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience." However it seems the community disagrees with this, as evidenced by the Road to Montebourg units being reduced to 'Green' as well as many stock scenarios having 'Green' units as well. Anyone care to share some insight on this?

Very cool! Reminds me of some of the infantry tactic comics they issued to US troopers prior to Normandy. One in particular illustrated the four F's of combat. Looking forward to more!

I know I'm a bit late, but thanks for updating this! I personally love using the career recorder. I find it especially useful for recording individual campaigns as well as operational layer campaigns, such as CMPzC. It really adds a lot of depth and continuity. Plus, its a lot more convenient that manually writing down all the casualty numbers and battle info. The presentation of data as graphs and charts is also very useful and really helps to visualize an operation. You can literally see the ebb and flow of the conflict. Highly recommend it to everyone, as its very easy to use. As long as you have Windows Excel you're good to go. Thanks again!

Bless you, sir. I agree completely with you in reference to WiC vs Wargame. WiC had such a great story and fantastic missions. I usually do a playthrough once a year which usually coincides with a re-read of Team Yankee. There are numerous employments of VDV in the game, such as during mission 2: 'Reunion' there are VDV paratroopers in a number of houses marked as rally points. Then in the next mission: 'Pine Valley' the initial resistance in the town is VDV. Remember Cascade Falls, Cpt Bannon, and the men of Charlie Company! (For reals though, 'Pine Valley' is such a good mission. Easily my favorite. The USS Missouri showing up at the end is too epic)

Good point, comrade! One of my favorite games, second only to CM of course! This is the song that is playing in the background:

Its a good start. Needs more dancing VDV though. The date is no mistake! Not a hint for CM: Fulda Gap. I have no insider info. But keep the faith brother! One day we will get the CM Cold War game we dream of! In the mean time, Chest' i khvala!

Ahh yes the VDV song! Perhaps the greatest music video ever made? Surely the VDV's proudest moment, one they'll be hard pressed to ever top, in peacetime or war! One thing is for sure, Captain Malashenko bursts with pride whenever he hears it! (Pictured: Cpt Malashenko bursting with pride, just prior to liberating West Berlin, 1989)

Here is screenshot proof: Really cool actually. Having just learned this I'm going to play around with it for a bit. Should be fun!

This is great! Props to whoever made it.

This is an awesome resource! Thanks for putting this together!

I'm loving this game. The infantry skins are extremely well done. I think I remember @ChrisND saying the skins were made in part by @Vein They're fantastic! When I run the game in WEGO I tend to not have performance issues, even on large maps, and that trend continues in CMFB. No performance issues for me. However I have noticed faster loading times, both when loading a scenario and processing a WEGO turn. The textures for buildings and the environment are extremely well done as well, as are the horizons. Its very immersive and really helps it all look real when you get down to eye level. The snow feels cold, the mud looks cold and muddy. Really a good job here. The new vehicles are fantastic as well. The modelling and skinning of them are top notch, the best yet in my opinion. Plus playing around with all the late war toys and the German uberweapons is a lot of fun as well. Last but certainly not least, the maps. Damn. Extremely well done. From the master maps to the QB maps to the scenario maps, they're all amazing. I personally prefer realistic maps, either directly based off a location and made to be a model of that location as it was, or a realistic representation of a chosen location. CMFB does it all. I especially love the maps of Foy and Noville. Now we can live out scenes from Band of Brothers and other famous films and books in CM in the exact place they happened on a highly realistic recreation of the actual battlefield! I honestly don't have any gripes with CMFB. I haven't encountered any bugs or issues yet. I think its pretty darn close to perfect. In short, its great, I love it and highly recommend it to anyone who may be on the fence about buying it. Go for it, you won't regret it!

Saw a screenshot just like this over in the CMFI Screenshots Thread a while back and just now got a chance to take my own! Canister shot really is a beautiful thing: The nonchalant look on Hans' face is priceless here. "Vell, zis is ze end..." Not pictured: Hans and Hinkels corpses. Didn't feel an aftermath shot was needed.

A bit late, but here are some screenshots of my current operation going on in CMFI: (Note: Be sure to full screen the photos, otherwise they will appear grainy/blurry) Operational Situation: This first image shows the current operational state. A few hours of battle have happened at this point with mostly skirmishing actions. US forces were able to take the villages of Naro and Palma di Montechiaro from the remains of Italian Coastal Defense units. Currently the Germans are about to initiate a major push against the American center. The operational objective of the US 3rd ID is to advance farther inland and take the town of Canicatti in order to expand the US beach head on Sicily. The objective of the Germans is to counter attack through the American lines to Licata in order to create a breach in the lines which can be exploited to attack and overrun the US beach head. German Push: This image shows the axis of attack of elements of the German 15th (Sizilien) Panzer Grenadier Division, as well as secondary efforts, against the center of the American line. The attack is being spearheaded by a Stug tank element supported by Panzer Grenadiers. The Germans have more tanks on the way. Opposing them is Company C, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment and a company of Sherman tanks from CCA, 2nd Armored. Both sides are well supported by artillery. This next turn or two should be very interesting. If the Germans are able to break through here, they have the potential of smashing through and seizing Licata quickly. If the US is able to hold in good order and counter attack, they too have a good chance of achieving their objective early by taking Canicatti. However, elements of the 16th (Sizilien) Panzer Grenadier Division (Fictional) are moving quickly to reinforce the 15th Pz Gren Div and are only a days march away. The Americans have their work cut out for them.

Regardless of whether or not the change in the number of BARs is intentional or not, it is more true to reality. Rifle squads rarely stuck to the standard TO&E. For example, squads would pick up additional BARs, and many would ditch the M1903 Springfield in favor of a regular M1. It was universal across infantry units in Normandy to accumulate new weaponry, after all they were doing whatever they could to give themselves an edge in combat. So either way I wouldn't let it bother you, and if anything I would look at it as a better representation of the reality on the ground at the time.