Pericles

One thing I've noticed with CM games, is that the AI is not reactive. For example, I'm playing the "First Clash" battle in CMBS. Three enemy tanks approach my front line. One is knocked out. The other two proceed to advance in the next turn and are promptly knocked out. I've experienced this many times. I've never attempted to create a scenario myself. Is it simply because the scenario designer decided that the tanks were going to advance full throttle regardless of whether contacts are made? Is it possible to create scenarios where the two tanks do instead what is rational (e.g. stop, pop smoke, and reverse)?

In this particular mission you are tasked with eliminating a platoon of Tunguskas and then destroying a bridge with CAS. To accomplish the task of Tunguska neutralization, you have two mechanized companies (w/ BMPs), one on-map mortar attachment (3x 88 mm), and no tanks. The map is open with multiple large, wide hills and little forest cover. Therefore, destroying a single Tunguska with a RPG is fortunate. Destroying a platoon of Tunguskas with RPGs is impossible without autistic attention to detail (something I do not have) and turn-by-turn game savings and reloading. Since mortars cannot be relied upon to destroy single targets in this game (I targeted a Tunguska with all 3 mortars (medium - maximum) and patiently waited as all rounds missed), you are left with only one other option: the BMPs' 30 mms.

I lost four BMPs to a Tunguska last mission over a series of turns. Despite having neighboring BMPs repeatedly obliterated by the creature over a series of turns, and despite restriction of commands to slow and short movements followed by pauses, they kept getting knocked out by the thing. Area fire eventually forced it to retreat. How can I get the BMPs to spot better? If I had a recon team with eyes on a Tunguska, and a force with complete C2 linkages, would my BMPs have spotted the creature eventually? Thought I'd ask here to see what information I could get before testing this out myself by more forcefully advancing my recon teams.

Too many rules? Scenario designers will stop creating? Have the units spawn on map boundaries to avoid having them materialize in buildings that have already been cleared. It's that simple. This is not a burdening request, any reasonable person would agree. But to each his own. That's my two cents. Scenario was great otherwise, except for the absolutely terrible and clueless BMP spotting I had to endure.

I think it is reasonable to expect scenario designers to restrict spawning to the edges of the map to simulate movement from off-map positions; that's more realistic than having a soldier pop up inside a building. nik mond, thank you for letting me know that "the map is hostile and the main objective is on the other end of the map." ... Had no idea ...

Very interesting. One is forced to pretend that the enemy units that spawned in those buildings were hiding in the attics or basements or something. It would have been better if the units spawned on the map edges, simulating the movement of flanking units from off-map positions to on-map positions. Anyway, I took care of them and the mission is overall enjoyable despite the random and (in my opinion) unrealistic spawning event.

So I'm playing the CMBS battle called "Interdiction". Great map, fun times, difficult enemy placement, etc. But I make it through about 41 turns and something strange happens. Out of nowhere, I spot enemy units back near the starting point of the mission. Some ride in off the map along roads (tricky but acceptable), but others are spotted in buildings near the center of the map (near the back where I started). I have good map coverage with my units so I should have seen them sneak in and take up positions in buildings. Any thoughts on this from long-time CM players? I am quite confident that this battle ("Interdiction") was developed to include a random enemy spawning event at around 1:19:00 (41 turns into the battle). If this is the case, it saps all the life and realism out of the mission. Not a fan.

Nevermind. New computer. Default keybinds for increase screen brightness happen to be "alt+l".

Anybody here experience this weird glitch in CMBS v.4 or any other CM game/version? I can toggle everything else, but I can't toggle floating icons.

Judging from this thread, there is near universal opinion that the AI's current cut-and-run into the open behavior is crap and needs to be fixed. Emrys, Xorg, Rinaldi, Liderkranz, Kraze, and Holman all agree with this. The only one who has implied that it's not a problem is IanL. He seems to believe that the AI has always been like this and that it isn't the result of changes made in v.4. I can confirm that the irrational cut-and-run behavior is alive and well. Just returned to the game after not playing for a month. CMBN v.4. One of my squads was pinned down in and around a trench with contact with platoon leader maintained. The trench provided cover from an MG that was located at least 200 m away. But a couple of the men became casualties. And instead of crawling into the trench where they had cover, they ran away from the direction of the MG into an open field.

General, I'm interested in a massive QB. If you're the same General Sir Anthony, I enjoy your RO2 youtube videos. Let me know if you would like to move ahead with an engagement.

Razorback Ridge ended the campaign for me. There is no way I'm slogging through that again. The enemy has eyes on the hill and has lots of arty. Your armor can't go anywhere due to hedgehogs. Maybe if I had more arty to work with. The mission requires meticulous attention to detail and has low window for error. I appreciate the work that must have gone into setting up the campaign, but I don't think I have the patience to reach the level of expertise in Combat Mission required to survive this campaign.

I'll play a CMx1 PBEM with you. It will be my first PBEM. How do we proceed?

I'll play a CMx1 PBEM with you. It will be my first PBEM. How do we proceed?

Bridges in the Combat Mission series are bugged and they have been bugged since the beginning. I reported a bridge bug a few days ago in one of the many existing bridge bug threads. Then I started reading up on the issue. What I find most interesting is that many of the long-standing members of this forum have nothing of substance to say on this issue in the threads. For example, in 2016 IanL wrote in the "Courage & Fortitude - Tank stuck on bridge" thread: "Bridges are a pain sometimes. There have been may glitches and many fixes. As they come up they get fixed. Do you have a saved game file you could share? Also what version of the game are you playing?". Also in 2016, rocketman wrote in the "Battle Pack Bridge Bug Report" thread: "Oh no, the bridge bug. I thought we had got rid of it Hope it will be solved finally." Often what I hear from senior members is "do you have a save file?". Can someone explain this issue to me please? I don't get it. My take-away from IanL's comments and other members who ask for saved game files is that bridge bugs are viewed as being solvable on a case-by-case basis. But given that this has been a problem for over 5 years, it seems to me that the issue is systemic. Perhaps the problem is not solvable without major changes to the code that render other aspects of the gameplay imperfect? Just trying to understand, since the bridge bug can ruin hours of gaming, requiring that the victim start over or give up and go for another mission/campaign.

Anyone here ever experience this?: CMBN (or other CM title) executable suddenly disappears from your hard drive. It just happened to me. Reinstalled and the executable was missing again. I started a ticket with Battlefront, I'm just curious whether anyone else has experienced this. Norton Antivirus doesn't appear to be the culprit.

Update: The tank managed to get across the bridge, despite jumping around. However, upon reaching the end of the bridge, it hit a mine and the entire crew was either killed or wounded horribly. So there is a bridge bug, but with a single order, one tank unit at a time, it can be avoided (albeit, with much animatory jumping and bumping).

I can confirm that the tank bridge bug that the OP reported for Mission 02 of the Courage and Fortitude campaign is alive and well in v3.12. Critical to success in the mission is to move the tanks up beyond the river. The way the mission is designed, tanks can only move beyond the river across a narrow bridge that has a width that is barely larger than that of the tanks. I issued the simplest of commands: one tank, one slow waypoint at the beginning of the bridge and one slow waypoint at the end of the bridge. As the tank traverses the bridge, it jumps up and down and side-to-side. I have yet to advance more turns to see if the tank gets stuck or not, but it looks terrible. I will provide a follow-up post to report whether it gets stuck or not. But this is such a basic design flaw/bug. How is it that the campaign designer did not realize this issue? How is it that Battlefront vetted the mission design? If I was a developer, and I knew that this sort of bug existed, I would not be allowing the use of such narrow bridges by designers. Instead, I would allow for a narrow piece of land between the swamps so that the mission does not become unplayable. Maybe a wider bridge? Is the bridge bug fixed in the new v4? *Note: Please do not ask me to attach a zip file as evidence of this problem. It is a problem that goes back to 2012 (at least). It is well-documented in this thread, and these threads below. I have yet to find an explanation for this bug by Battlefront.

You're correct akd. I checked from an earlier save game file and the full engineer squads can split. I later took too many casualties, and so was no longer able to split.

No, I mean an engineer squad. Maybe there are different types of US engineer squads, but the ones in the "Cry Havoc!" battle cannot be split.

There are so many things one needs to learn about the game before succeeding, but the most important is effectively spotting with infantry (as everyone in this thread has already said). To effectively spot with infantry, you must: 1) issue small fire arc to the unit, so that they do not fire upon spotting enemy (giving away their position) 2) move slowly (using slow, hunt, and/or move movement commands, depending on context), and if the unit is "tiring" or "tired" let them rest until they are "rested" or "ready" 3) when issuing movement commands, ensure that the final waypoint offers Line of Sight (LoS) to the areas you are attempting to spot enemies - to do this, select the waypoint and select the "target" command, then move your cursor to the areas to see if you have LoS - if no LoS, adjust the waypoint so that LoS is achieved This all requires lots of patience.

I normally separate the AT team as well, but engineer squads cannot be split. So the conclusion is not to have engineers wield Javelins, because effective use of Javelins requires small AT teams (which cannot be split from engineer squads). If engineers do have Javelins, or you have not yet split off a Javelin team from a parent infantry squad, perhaps a target armor arc would succeed in restricting fire to the AT weapons.

I recently commanded a squad of US engineers in possession of a Javelin to engage a Russian T-90. All squad members with small arms fired on the tank, giving away their position before the soldier with the Javelin could fire. Does this happen with a normal infantry squad as well? If so, it is a design glitch. If not, it is a sort of clever way to penalize players who choose to have their engineers acquire Javelins from the AFVs of mechanized infantry battalions.

Has anyone listened to Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History - Blueprint for Armageddon" series? It is brilliant, putting the scale of modern warfare (as of WWI) into thorough context. Here is an exert from episode 4, where he's talking about the first appearance of the German army's new uniform in 1916 at the Battle of Verdun, as German infantry advanced following a day-long artillery barrage: "And then the French survivors see the first signs of German infantry activity... What they see is like something out of a time machine... Gone are the Pickelhaube, the iconic pointed helmets that the German troops wear that harken back to the greatest days of Prussia. [The Pickelhaube are] symbolic... and they're replaced by something that looks like a miner should wear it. Thoroughly working class. Nothing romantic, gentlemanly, officer, or aristocratic about it. The Germans are wearing the Stahlhelm, which with a minor modification or two is the exact same helmet that the Germans will wear in the second world war. These "storm troopers" as they're called, and have been known to history, look like the Wehrmacht. And they're carrying flamethrowers. They have machine guns. They have men who are wearing clothes with big bags in them that are stuffed with hand grenades..." In total, the Blueprint for Armageddon series is over 10 hours of audio, so be prepared for lots of direct quotations of first hand accounts of WWI if you're interested.