Nefron

I understand that perfectly, and I consider this game to be very heavy on micro, and I love it. I know that it's expected of me to micro units into little squares and plan each move in details, etc. It's the situations in which some of these little details matter very much, and I'm powerless to influence them that are the problem, but for some reason that should be handled by the AI, and it frequently gets handled in a completely unrealistic and immersion breaking way. I don't understand why aren't you embracing the micro all the way. Why is it OK for me to place an IFV in an exact spot, but it's not OK to tell it to use ATGMs, etc. If I have a situation where my two man Javelin team easily spots stuff on the move, but cannot fire on it because they immediately go prone and lose LOS, I consider that to be broken. I have a realistic and reasonable intent, for them to be in overwatch on that hill, that the game simply won't let me express. That is not my fault. This is a specific example that stuck in my mind from a user created mission (Myrne roadblock or something). I understand that you are resource constrained, and being a developer I know that it's never so simply as adding a button or two and calling it a day. However, I think these problems need to be addressed, and that letting the player decide is going to be the easier way. I don't think any amount of tweaking the TacAI is going to produce much better results.

Yes, but it's not because we want to click on things. What gets on my nerves in CMBS is that the game is already so detailed in some respects, and requires plenty of micro managing as it is. With the way the engine is, I cannot step back and give general orders like take cover there, watch over that area, etc. I have to manually position my ATGM team in a little square, and then check if they have the line of sight to the thing I want them to fire on, or is there a tree, or a rock in the way, and if there is, I have to somehow shuffle them around to get it to work. My Javelin team that is supposed to be on overwatch will lie prone into the tall grass and stare at the ground, and there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. My point is that if a minute detail like an individual soldier being one meter to the right or left can affect the entire situation in a big way, then give me control over those details. Because the feeling I get is that the game lacks features, or is simply broken in some way, rather than it forcing me to take a hands off approach. This aversion to micro, and the distinction between what is and what's not micro management seems completely arbitrary.

ICAO states that it is the responsibility of member states to close the airspace in the event it is not safe. MH17 was flying where the Ukrainians told them to. They actually did. The militia basically declared a no fly zone, and they showed a captured Buk. The Ukrainians ignored it because according to them, the captured launcher was not operational. Meanwhile, Ukrainian planes were being blown out of the sky, including at 6500m, leading them to complain about the usage of advanced air defense systems. They knew and chose to do nothing, there is no way around that fact. As I've said, the separatists announced having a captured Buk. The Ukrainians were all like "lol".

That's not true. A Ukrainian An-26 was shot down at an altitude of 6500 meters. The Ukrainians acknowledged that it was shot down by a more powerful air defense system, and of course accused Russia. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334 Of the top of my head, I can't think of a single system which can shoot down targets at 6500m, but can't do so at 10000m, so it is inconceivable that they thought 10000m is a safe altitude. Besides, the militia bragged about having a Buk days before. The Ukrainians assumed that the people they label as terrorists would differentiate between military and civilian targets? You're saying that they basically put lives of those people in the hands of terrorist groups.

The Russians, on the other hand, are complaining that the Dutch ignored the data they have given. For example, Almaz-Antey had something to say on the matter, and they are the ultimate experts on the subject, not a Dutch civilian agency. It's not like anybody here can be considered impartial. And this is guesswork at best. What they say is entirely plausible, but it's way short of proving that this exact launcher shot down the aircraft. It's circumstantial. The launcher could have done it, but there is nothing directly linking it to the incident. Are we in agreement on that? You can't claim that this part is a fact.

Sure, I would say that's the most likely explanation. Let's just not pretend that it's a fact.

Isn't that all circumstantial evidence? I mean, how the hell do they know it was that launcher that shot down the airliner, it's impossible.

World opinion meaning the opinion, more like faked outrage, of US and its allies. Again, you pick the highest possible standard to judge by, and everything less is apparently inhumane. I think Russia is content to just defeat the jihadists, without the style points. Well, the targets in Syria don't really shoot back, and there's very little armor and such, so I guess those munitions work good enough. There are no laws that forbid usage of unguided bombs. Incendiaries in residential areas are another thing entirely.

Of course not, it is commendable. It is also commendable to donate to charity, reduce your impact on the environment etc. What I cannot do is demand that everybody does the same as me, because not everybody can. Unjustifiable to your standards, which are the very highest and self imposed. The US has the biggest military budget by a factor of x, and you have all the nice toys. Not everybody does. In fact, nobody else does. There has been plenty of reports on other NATO allies being dependent on US logistics, and not being able to even remotely sustain that kind operation on their own, Libya for example. I'm sure Russia can't either. And this is where your argument disingenuous. Should Russian military just cease to conduct operations and serve their national interests just because they cannot do things in the way the US does? And if they catch up to this technology and capability in ten years, the US might be using god know what, and this will be barbaric and inhumane. This cluster bomb incident though, I'm not sure what was the point of that. It's more accurate than I expected in that case.

But that's not what I'm saying. The US is trying to impose it's standards onto others. So? Reading this forum, I'm constantly reminded how the Russian military is almost decades behind NATO in capability. Seriously, which country except the US can sustain a sizable operation while dropping a guided bomb on every target? I don't think Russia can, do you? I'm sure they'd love being able to do that, it's not like they have anything to gain by being less effective. And it's not like they aren't using guided munitions at all. This is pretty good for example:

Not WP, but there are plenty of videos with Russian incendiary attacks.

How is it that what the US does is now supposed to be the standard? What other country has the ability to exclusively use guided weapons in an operation of any significant scale really, even against targets that do not require pinpoint precision to dispatch? Don't worry, I'm sure they'll handle it internally and punish those responsible, if it wasn't an accident of course.

How the hell do you get it down to 30 seconds? What are all the factors that affect the time to boom?

The thing is, at no point do I feel like a battalion or company commander, when I have to micro all those units not to stare into trees. I spend a lot of time planning a one minute turn, so it gets weird when people talk about not wanting to micro. And don't get me wrong, I actually like it. I also have nothing against improvements to the AI itself, but that's a lot harder to get right than adding a couple of toggle buttons. And I'd let the AI do its thing in the majority of cases, but when it doesn't, and it's important that gets frustrating. Same as popping smoke, I rarely do it manually, but I like that I can.

Except telling the units to stay crouched or prone. Except being able to fire at an exact spot, fire light, fire heavy, fire till the end of the turn, fire briefly, pop smoke etc. I don't really understand why there is so much resistance to this. I'd get it if the purpose of the game was to take a step back, and act as a higher level commander, watching your subordinates execute the actions and make the decisions that they are responsible for. However, the way it is now, if I get a battalion to command, I don't feel like a battalion commander, and I can't give out orders like a battalion commander would. The game forces me to get to the eye level of my troops to move them and position them, down to deciding if a tank is buttoned up. But apparently telling a BMP to use an ATGM is crossing some line, and invading the TacAIs space. The distinction seems artificial and silly to me, like having only anal sex to stay a virgin.

I don't think it would, in its current state. I guess it comes down to a disagreement of what the game should be, and how it should feel like. For example, Flashpoint campaigns, another game that I like very much, is based around forcing the player take a step back, and act as a higher level commander. You are forced to plan out your moves in advance, and changing things up on the fly is punished. However, that only works when combat is abstracted on such a level. I place my units on a hex that's supposed to be 500 or so meters in diagonal, and they duke it out with the enemy. The commands aren't much more detailed than "attack there", and it works. CMBS on the other hand is so much more detailed. I cannot just send an ATGM team on to a ridge, I need to manually check if a tree won't block their LOS. I don't think it is feasible to expect such decisions to be made by the TacAI. Combat Mission allows you to tell individual tank commanders to peak out of their hatch, to fire at an exact spot, to move to an exact spot etc. I don't see how allowing the player to toggle individual weapons is any different. We already need to do things that range from battalion commander's responsibilities, to something that a tank or squad commander does. Same thing with infantry. We can chose if they sprint, jog, walk or crawl. Why shouldn't we be able to choose if they crouch or lie prone when they get to their destination? I feel that there is a disconnect here between the level of micro the game requires from you, and the set of actions it allows you to do, and it feels completely arbitrary. It's already very detailed and micro heavy, and I say embrace it. As it stands now, these feel like missing features, rather than something that goes against the spirit of the game.

I simply do not see how adding stances and weapons control wouldn't improve things. For example, two situations that I remember happening to me: 1. I have US infantry advancing across some tall grass, and some units are on overwatch, including a two man Javelin team. A BMP gets spotted by a squad next to them, and they would have a clear line of sight to the enemy if they weren't prone, but I have no way to change that. So, I had to do this little dance using the hunt command, and at some point they stayed crouched long enough to fire a missile. 2. I have a Russian Metis team, and I want them to fire their missile at a Ukrainian AGS position. I order them to attack, they start shooting with their rifles, receive return fire, get suppressed, and finally they decide to fire a missile, missing of course. These are all engine limitations, which prevented me from telling the units under my control what I wanted them to do, and I simply can't see a valid reason for this to be defended. It's not completely game breaking or anything, but it is frustrating for no good reason. I see no situation in which giving additional control to player over things that matter is going to be detrimental. Their limitations aren't really my concern, and they don't factor into my opinion of the game's features or the lack of thereof. I think this needs attention more than a new WW2 game. You, and Battlefront are of course free to think otherwise.

Sure, I agree. My point is, we are not giving high level orders in regards to movement, so why would we be restricted in orders for weapons employment? The game is already detailed enough that a Javelin team being prone or crouched can make a difference between having a great firing position and being completely useless, and that's great. What isn't great is that the game takes that out of my hands for no apparent reason, and at times that can be really frustrating. I just think it's silly that I can position an ATGM team in an exact spot, tell them which way to face, whether to break out the tripod etc. but I can't tell them not to shoot that building with their rifles, or not to lie down in the tall grass.

I'm certainly having fun, but there are things that can be improved, and they shouldn't even be that hard to do. I don't understand the people defending these shortcomings as saying that they don't want micromanagement, when in fact there is very much micromanagement in the game as it is, you can, and frequently have to manually position units very precisely. I don't see how giving them an order to use or not to use certain weapons would be any different. No, I'm putting that as an argument that there is already a ****load of micromanaging to be done, and that I can't see how somebody could argue against giving the player more control by saying that they don't want to micromanage.

I don't really buy the micromanagement argument. The biggest problem is that the AI has no real authority in movement: you have to position your units manually, you cannot order them to say take up positions on that ridge. Now, the terrain is so detailed that you frequently have to get down to eye level of your units, and position them in an exact square to achieve what you want. Now, there is nothing more frustrating than having that Javelin team that is supposed to be in overwatch just throw themselves on the ground in tall grass, or stare at a rock. The same thing applies with an IFV firing the gun instead of an ATGM, an ATGM team engaging a building with their rifles etc. When it gets like that, I don't feel like the engine is protecting me from micromanaging. It feels like I just can't communicate my intentions.

I'm pretty sad that is not the case by default. I don't mind the superior spotting or armor on Abrams and Bradley, but I mind that they spoil my shots when I actually ambush them. Should've left that to Shtora equipped units only, it would add a more unique flavor to the Russians, since they are the ones actually fielding the thing.

Giatsint-B I think.

I think there is already plenty of micromanaging in the game, since you can position your units within a square meter, and the terrain is detailed enough for you to have to do so. I'd love to have things like weapons selection and stances, rather than having to micromanage some elaborate dance ritual to make my Javelin team actually stay act in overwatch, instead of burying their faces in the ground. When that nicely positioned BMP opens up with the cannon instead of a missile, or that ATGM team operator stares at a rock, those are the things that incredibly frustrating.

Does CM support replays? I'd love watching some of those games.

In my experience, Oplots are getting absolutely clobbered by T-90As, let alone AM.