CarlWAW

@poesel I don't think the argument from JasonC is valid because it focuses on what was happening more often and what not in his opinion. But the raised question was not how often situations in CM appeared in reality. Or how realistic the gaming styles of players are. The raised question is the incredible effectivity and accuracy of Soviet SMG units compared to all others - even compared to modern infantry... How do you remove insurgents or infantry from a house or from woods withpout the use of heavy weapons? According to the CMRT SMG model, just get machine pistol units (not US or German, but Soviet PPSHs are best) and every infantry in MOUT without support is toast. Perfect. Maybe someone should email the Pentagon, that their instructors in Ukraine should demand the production of a million PPSHs to deal with the MOUT rebel problem, where the use of heavy weapons is a big problem...

Playing the German campaign Blunting The Spear with so many vehicles in mission 3 makes me almost cry about plotting vehicle paths. Please, could we have the opportunity when plotting moves for vehicles, that an already existing path for a vehicle could be used for another vehicle? Illustration of what I mean:

+10 A shortcut for a 180 degree CA would be extremely helpful.

You are correct Vanir. Everything works as it should. Somehow I must have confused the directions. Tx.

Glad someone raised this topic. I have been wondering if I am the only one finding the accuracy of machine pistol units way off in CM. Three main arguments come to my mind: 1. If I take the performance of Soviet SMG-units in CM, they obviously should have become the ULTIMATE infantry weapon for urban fighting or fighting in woods after 1945. Now I am wondering why the US Army or the USSR in Vietnam never heard about this secret weapon? Why did they go the German StG44 (called MP44 wrongly in game) assault rifle route with the AK47 and the M16? Where are today's infantry units equipped with machine pistols like PPSHs? 2. The numbers of German losses against Soviet infantry do not indicate they were as effective as they are portrayed in the game, too. To my knowledge even until the end of the war, the Germans never had higher losses than the Soviets despite the inferiority in headcount numbers and equipment and scracity of everything. 3. 1st hand experience. Ever shot with a machine pistol in reality? It's a generalization, but to say that it's impossible to hit anything beyond 50 m comes quite close. In my experience more bullets from automatic rifles do NOT automatically translate into a higher chance to hit. Quite the contrary IMO. In CM the kind of automatic fire seems not to be modelled. In general I think that the hit probability of (machine) pistols in CM, be it PPSHs or (the sharpshooting crews with normal!) pistols, already beyond 25 m is too high and beyond 50 m is quite out of proportion. I think the rifle based weapons (M1, K98, StG44/MP44) dramatically are undermodelled in comparison to (machine) pistols.

I am currently at scenario #3 Blunting The Spear and I noticed that the wind is blowing the smoke to NE, but in battle conditions it is mentioned it was coming from NE.

@Baneman Thanks for looking into it. I have identified the problem. The problem is not in the game, but the idiot who sat in front of the computer. I obviously was so clever, that I ordered the two crews, once I had noticed they didn't recrew the tanks, not on the other tank, but in the next minute onto the wrong tank again. Embarassing.

@ASL No casualties happened to the affected crews. Interestingly a crew from a third tank suffered a casualty outside but recrewed its tank. @Baneman Yes, to be sure I tried both variations. That's the third crew with the casualty. The affected crews are the two others: 2.Co./3.Plt/HQ 2.Co./2.Plt./3rd

In a recent game I noticed after giving buddy aid that two tank crews were not able to recrew their tanks but instead climbed on them like passengers. I moved them off the tank and tried again. Same effect. This problem did no occur with other tanks in that game. Save available: http://www.dropbox.com/s/dizk33q30spzmen/Bug%20ReCrew%20Panzer.bts?dl=0 Affected units: Pz. IV: 2.Co./3.Plt/HQ 2.Co./2.Plt./3rd

It seems the main idea behind the suggestion has not been understood. The need to use a second unit means that an isolated unit with wounded cannot help itself but another unit needs access to it - which would be a much better implied reflection of medics with access.

I think buddy aid is way too easy and highly unrealistic. Why not make it more realistic? Instead of current behaviour I think a two stage procedure could improve realism a lot. Instead that buddy aid is finished with one unit, a second unit should be needed to complete the task. The first one does buddy aid, the second one simulates a route for transporting away. More realism: The number of the needed headcount of the second unit could be set double as high as the number of wounded to transport. Example: Two wounded. Phase 1: Buddy aid conducted like it is now but after finishing the casualties do not magically disappear, but stay where they are (in the UI the status could be marked differently, for example showing a strechter). Phase 2: Since there are two casualties four different heads would be needed to move up to the casualties to make them disappear from the battlefield after some time. Even more realism: Time could be taken into account. The longer it takes to finish Phase 1 and 2, the higher the chance of a fatality.

Going into the editor is taboo for double blind players.

Since QBs are popular what about an additional option for normal premade scenarios, to let the player decide about the units he wants to use for the scenario, instead of the always totally fixed force? Maybe the optionality could reach from much freedom to choose similar to QBs, less freedom by choosing among predefined forces (e.g. a regular with 100% strenght, or a much more experienced one with understrenght) or only among certain additional units (e.g.: do you take the 2 flamethrower units or the 2 HMGs?; do you take the Kingtiger or the two Panthers?).

@derbius They do not behave like recon vehicles. The recon vehicles in CM seem to be one of the weakest spots of the game. And they not even can be made to behave like recon vehicles (reverse on dangerous contact). They just stop movement or even engage tanks. This reduces their useage into Russian Roulette missions and has nothing to do with their real life useage or capability to survive. I wish if the hide-command was enabled, that they would reverse in conjunction with a movement command.

Me too.I am wondering how many of these posters receive a free game as beta testers?

After having upgraded to a new laptop I finally can play everything at highest settings. The game looks really good (except the coloring, which I would prefer to be more artistic and less natural, but that's not a problem of the engine). So from the GFX point of view, I don't see the necessity of another engine. But what I do not like at all and where I wholeheartedly agree, is the very slow development of the engine. Every little improvement takes years. I don't know if that's the result of a spaghetticoded engine or if the programmers are doing other things, but if the slow development is engine related, then I would say that a new engine is needed: I find it inacceptable that after such a long time assignable hotkeys for units still are not stored with savefiles, for example. Or that anitaliasing stops working when swithcing on the beautiful movie coloring. Or that it's still not possible to create half cover arc circles or that the campaign system is consisting only of independent battles and that they only can be played against the AI. BFC says they have so many ideas, but the development of the game engine does not reflect that but to me looks more like a vacuum of ideas.

Cool that you like it. Can we expect it with Bulge? (the earlier, the better for scenario designers)

As a scenario designer myself, I don't have a problem with no feedback, but feedback would be good, to learn in which areas something could be improved. The solution could be soo simple: It had been suggested many years ago, to give scenario designers the ability of a debriefing text, after the battle is finished. In this text, a clickable e-mail or HTML-link, the program is able to call, would do wonders, since the player only needs to click it, an email for the scenario designer would pop up and would be sent automatically, all managed by the installed mailprogram. A debriefing text would have numerous other positive effects, but who am I to make suggestions to the allknowing mob on this forum...

Probably true, but I am afraid, if it would be overcome, the current tagging system couldn't even use it to it's full extent anyway. The suggested solution would make it a breeze to include i.e. a certain unit portray for a certain unit, or give a certain vehicle or building in the scenario unique paintings, while this possibility would create total chaos with the current tagging system.

ASL Veteran, although it's moot because the current system is purrrfect and has 0.0000000000% chance to be changed, I want to clarify to you that my suggestion should be understood like an optional very last mod folder (higher priority of the mods in the z-folder).

Do you really want to demand from others, to show respect to provocateurs? Where was the respect torwards my suggestions, when the answers were: you need help, we can help you. Do you really believe, people do not recognize the false friendliness in this forum and how you support mobbing of critical voices? Customers may not know how the mod tags work, but I believe they recognize very quickly what is going on here. This forum is the proove that you like mobbers. Therefore I find it a bit funny, that you cricize me about being rude or showing no respect to mobbers. Interesting, but the most important aspect you seem to have forgotten: user friendliness. In the past there have been corrections because the initial plan or design didn't work out. The less than stellar success of modded scenarios could also be an encouragement to improve it. But it's definately not a high priority thing, there are many other things that need to be improved. Is it really 0.0000000000%? Not 0.0000%? Or maybe even 0%?

@folkie Did I ask for help? You remember me about a rapist, saying he only showed his love to the woman. @ASL Veteran I wrote that the subfolder should contain the mod data, not the scenario or campaign files. That would not be good. The whole gamefile sorting mechanism would no longer work. The most transparent solution I can think about would be a packed format: the scenario designer packs hid BMPs/BRZs with the scenario-file into one archive, similar to the BRZ-packer, but, ofcourse, a BTT/CAM file would be created. The difference between the current naked BTT/CAM files and the one containing additional mod data could easily be seen by the larger filesize of the scenario/campaign with the extra visuals.

You seem to be quick with personal judgements. Where did I write about problems finding mods? Have you never read this or any other forum? Even PBEM is already too complicated for many customers. My point of view is taking the DAUs into account. And I thought I mentioned several facts? Is it beyond your imagination that someone can think outside the fanboy-box. Because the current system is good enough for you, doesn't make it any more accessible for the average customer. I raised several arguments why I think the current implementation sucks - btw which arguments did you reply to when you are talking about throwing the baby out with the water? For many customers even installing mods in a special folder is already too difficult. I also often cannot understand the reflexes on this forum: instead to think about the additional possibilities and optionalities, the mindset of fanbois is strictly binary. Transparency is one of the main design principles of user friendly software. If something is not transparent, it is rejected by customers. And searching for mods that fit to a scenario and installing them separately is such a case. But this doesn't make the problem go away: the average customer will never see your mods currently, although he has played scenarios from you. How many CM customers even have heard about mod-tags? How many of them can install mods? How many know, how the tag system works? How could this system have been tried, if the game doesn't check if a subfolder exists? And Kohlenklau, if the current system was such a big success, how high is the percentage of scenarios with dedicated mods? I guess even 10% is way to high! Now lets take into account how many are downloading and installing the mods. You probably end up in the low single digit percentages... Great system?

Kohlenklau, if I want a mod from you or anyone else, it would be installed in my mod folder and I would have it available all the time. -Y No need for tags to see cool mods from modders. But the real power of individual modding lies in individualizing battles. A certain unit, certain buildings in a certain scenario or campaign. All that works with a simple subfolder. And if someone prefers his beloved standard mods, he just removes the subfolder. And with the current system nobody sees your mods anyway. I don't have the time nor do I want the time to search if a mod exists to a corresponding scenario. Additionally if BFC offers only huge 15 GB downloads for customers to be even able to install a module, then I think the size of a few MB for scenario is moot. Additionally since PBEM turns easily can exceed 100 MB per turn. But that's not all: Even if I would have the time to search for mods corresponding with a scenario, I wouldn't do it, because there is no data consistency. Which version of the mod belongs to the scenario? Is scenario X the older scenario that is covered by mod A, or is it the newer scenario which isn't covered by your old mods? And to prevent that, the size argument even comes hunting you: if you want to make sure, all people have all the mods you use in a scenario, then you must offer mod packs, if you don't expect players to go hunting for all available mods from you and finding out which one is the newest version, or if there maybe could exist a newer version somewhere. So instead of just packing the corresponding files into the scenario's subfolder and making sure, that players get the scenario in the form you expect it to look like, they would even need to download mod packs to be on the safe side. The current system is awful from a data consistency point of view, it is not user friendly, not modder friendly. And the amount of work to program something like tags probably cost way more precious development time than to check if a subfolder of the same filename exists and load the BMPs or BRZs from that folder.

1. I am not sure if I understand you. There are not that many scenarios and campaigns out there anyway. So where is a problem? 2. HDD space is huge and cheap. There will never exist enough modded scenarios to fill a HDD. 3. Tidy, no confusion. If a scenario/campaign is finished, it can be deleted and with it all associated mods in the most comfortable way. You should like that, you know, your argument about wasting HDD space... 4. Much easier to create for scenario designers. Therefore much more inviting for designers to use. 5. As easy to install as a single scenario. 6. No obsolete, unused tagged mods. 7. If a player doesn't want to use the mods, he doesn't need to research tags, he just deletes the subfolder. It's hard to imagine how someone can defend such a complicated system with so many disadvantages.