KungFuTreachery

Soviets are tricky and it also depends on a lot of factors (year and weather conditions, time of day etc).  So with the Soviets you have to remember that optics and spotting are not their strong suit (and I know some people will argue the opposite but on the whole it is true).  This makes sense as Soviet doctrine was never to elegantly out maneuver an opponent; their aim was to overwhelm through speed and mass.  Basically the choice for the Soviets is "die all at once and maybe win" or "die slowly and definitely lose"
"Uh that is nice Capt but what does it mean on the board?"
Well here are few rules of thumb that you can play with:
- Take your time picking the line.  Soviets were all about speed and violence but they were not stupid.  Look at the ground and pick a line of assault carefully and then once you have decided...commit hard.
- Make a Hole: strip off the US AT assets early and do so through attrition.  So here you actually try push in and engage US tanks and AT first, probably why Soviet doctrine has tanks leading.  BRDM AT systems are brutal little bastards here if you can get them.  In this gun battle you do not need to win the firefight, you just need to strip the US down until holes start to appear in their line.  Here trading 1 for 1, or even 2-3 for 1 is acceptable.  And concentrate, concentrate and concentrate along your line of assault, do not try and take them all on.
- Get in close and start chewing.  The Soviets are brutal in closer terrain and here the BMPs really can make the difference in close up fights.  Trick is that you need to get there.
- Arty is not a paintbrush...it is a bucket.  Drop it early and hard.  Soviets are hard to delicately time rolling drops so just wait long enough to get a sense of where your opponent may be and then drop the sky (lots of "Maximum").  Smoke works very well against ATGMs.
- Weather plays a very important role.  Soviets are in real trouble at night and in fog; however, they actually do much better in damp or wet conditions.  The reason is that guns do not kick up as much dust so their optics work better. 
- Speed, never enough.  There is a fine line between suicidal and effective momentum, judging that takes time and experience.
Finally, if you are of legal age in your country/state, try vodka, it helps. [note: BFC official policy is to always remember to drink responsibly while wargaming but clothing is always optional.]

 

Decreasing quality settings does not make the roads stop cutting off or the trees stop disappearing at distance. The attached picture was taken on "balanced" - and I assure you my GTX 1080 is up to the challenge of drawing that highway texture across the entire map if it were allowed to do so.
"just don't zoom out" isn't a solution. You need to view the entire map to coordinate your operations and see what is going on. The detail needn't go away when I play high up, not to this extreme.

It would be a shame if the Swingfire's unique capabilities weren't modelled properly, but I would rather that than have the BAOR go unrepresented.

I agree, this is very annoying. The other end of the map itself will literally disappear on the largest maps at certain angles.

Decreasing quality settings does not make the roads stop cutting off or the trees stop disappearing at distance. The attached picture was taken on "balanced" - and I assure you my GTX 1080 is up to the challenge of drawing that highway texture across the entire map if it were allowed to do so.
"just don't zoom out" isn't a solution. You need to view the entire map to coordinate your operations and see what is going on. The detail needn't go away when I play high up, not to this extreme.

I agree, this is very annoying. The other end of the map itself will literally disappear on the largest maps at certain angles.

I agree, this is very annoying. The other end of the map itself will literally disappear on the largest maps at certain angles.

I agree, this is very annoying. The other end of the map itself will literally disappear on the largest maps at certain angles.

I mentioned (a couple titles ago) that i had played a night scenario on a cloudy moonless night and couldn't see my hand in front of my face. Switching the date to get a full moon and giving the scenario clear skies the enemies were exchanging shots across the full distance of the map. So there are variables involved in night fighting. For one Fire and Rubble scenario I kept a 1944 lunar calendar handy to give me the level of darkness I was looking for. I don't know if anyone tested if M60A1 passive night vision devices get a boost on clear starry nights and a hit on dark overcast nights.

Ah, so we have been expecting the "NBCD Question".  Yes, we did look at it in detail and the decision to leave it out was a conscious one.  We knew some would disagree but hear me out:
- Nukes.  Ok let's just put that one to bed.  We have a beta tester who was in the "nuclear artillery" in the time period and the smallest strike would wipe out our largest maps, so not real point in modeling this as there is already a ceasefire/surrender option in the game.
- As much fun as it would be to drop a nerve gas salvo on the enemy and watch them squirm (I think inside all of us is that kid with the magnifying glass and the anthill) this is highly inaccurate use of these weapons in context of the game.  At a minimum chemical warfare was controlled and used at the operational level or higher due to the whole escalation dynamics.  So in game it really becomes an environmental factor much like weather or EW as opposed to a tactical weapon system (i.e. it is highly unrealistic for a Bn CO - the main rank of players in the game - to have control of chemical rounds.)
- So that fact really impacts the whole cost/benefit equation for the feature, we prioritized new features that the player can actually employ (e.g. ICMs).  So as an environmental factor, unlike rain or fog, chemical warfare was basically invisible beyond the initial drops, which look like smoke rounds.  So modeling smoke rounds outside of the players control, who then has to live with the effects is starting to sound shaky.
- So what does chemical warfare do.  Well it puts everyone in TOPP/MOPP whatever, so there are now uniform modeling efforts which are not small.  Then play-wise it slows everything down.  All infantry take a serious movement, morale and fatigue hit (which as has been noted the player can already model), vehicles are fully buttoned so spotting goes down.  And probably most importantly logistics take a serious hit, which was the actual main point of chemical warfare, strain operational logistics.  [Aside: this was over 60 years after Ypres, so no one was expecting magic breakthroughs, that is what the nukes were for].  So now supplies may run low and medivac becomes a nightmare.  Interesting but who does that really effect the 90 mins of a CM Battle in any better way than what we already have?
- So now we have a significant amount of work to essentially take decisions out of the players hands.  Play would risk slowing to a drag, which really goes against the fun factor.  And, if a scenario designer really wants to, they can already simulate some of this in the current game. 
So at the end of the day, even though we knew many players had been talking about this feature and it is likely that chemical warfare would have been employed, the effort was simply not worth the potential gains to in-game experience.   We needed to put it on the shelf right next to real-time area denial through flooding and psyops as all really cool and realistic stuff but simply not worth the level of effort to implement while a lot of other priorities existed.

Honestly, I think CM would be a better game if it didn't feature aircraft at all, and left them as something outside of scope (and limited to the pre-battle phase). It does a pretty poor job of modelling them (they're too effectively co-ordinated for most of the WW2 titles, and not sophisticated enough for the modern titles), their use in scenarios and quick battles tends to be extremely random and binary, etc., etc. 

Even in the situations where it's tactically relevant, it's basically a dice roll, and not a terribly interesting one. It's obviously important in the modern titles to have some CAS coordination, but really it's only barely within the purview of a CM battle.

The Americans didn't like the man. But General Montogomery made sure the troops had a sausage (aka bangers) and two eggs for breakfast. Now male strippers will show the 'Full Monty'. The Hi-Power the only thing I didn't like was the magazine safety some bureaucrat must have thought up. It is the only reason I prefer a 1911 tactically 13 rounds in your magazine is hard to overlook. 

Is it possible to increase the draw distance for the road textures? It bothers me that the highways and railroads disappear at such a low altitude

SORRY MY LAST COMMENT BUT YO ARE YOU KIDDING ME
THANKS TO @Kevin2k'S FIX I DONT HAVE TO REPLACE A SINGLE BUILDING. THE WHOLE MODULE TRANSFERS OVER BY HIS SOLUTION. WHICH BY THE WAY, IS CHANGING 2 BYTES AND REMOVING 1.

BERLIN, IN CMCW, JUST ABOUT 0 EFFORT REQUIRED
THE SMOOTHEST ENGINE RUNNING THE MOST DEMANDING MAP
THIS IS HUGE. I CANT EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH
I AM AGAIN AN OVERLY HAPPY CUSTOMER. THANKS TO THE COMMUNITY THOUGH
@Kevin2k@Kevin2k@Kevin2k
^^^^^^THANK THAT GUY ^^^^^^

Consider therapy?
How can I play F&R maps fine in CMBS but not in CMCW? Did you even read my posts first before replying?
I agree. But the only thing that happened was they slapped a lock on the files. Just like BP1 for CMBN- something which I will probably never touch again in my life unless upgrade 5 doubles the performance...
Everyone, as stated, uses Hexed.it... It converts all the F&R maps fine. The ONLY THING that needs to be replaced are BUILDINGS! Again! Same issue as the Nijmegan map (Which I replaced every single building on... and then it WORKED IN EVERY CMx2 GAME).
I'm not asking for a converter. We have one already.

It only applies to BP1 from CMBN, F&R from CMRT, and (I believe) BSBP from CMBS.
It might not be a "block" or "drm", but it certainly seems intentional to stop people from using the content in other titles.
I believe it's for a legit reason, bfc is selling maps.. but this is where the core of the problem lies imo. They are restricting the fun of their whole series by selling maps for specific titles only. Granted a whole module was built around it, but still. It works.

the French 1st and 5th Armored Divisions were stationed on the German side of the border at Oberhofen and Trier. It's easy to come up with a scenario where France for various reasons refuses to participate, but the "standard" Fulda Gap scenario generally assumes the French would be fighting in Germany.
I voted for the two Germanies. While I prefer Britain personally, it just makes more sense to do Germany first for a war fought in Germany. Also the NVA should be easy to do since nearly all the assets are already there. And you already have German voice acting from a wide range of titles.
edit: it should also be fairly simple to do Poland and Czechoslovakia, whose units would have been included in the follow-on forces behind GSFG and CGF. 

The 2A42 30mm autocannon on the BMP-2 in the game has APDS ammo. I presume it's the 3UBR8 round. AFAIK this particular type of ammunition wasn't available for the aforementioned weapon during the 1979-1982 timeframe (IIRC it entered service after the end of the Cold War).
No Beehive ammo for the 152mm gun launcher on the M60A2? Was it a Sheridan-only asset? 
Moreover I dare to say that some obsolete round are not likely to be found in units stationed (or deployed) in Germany during the first weeks of war. I mean the M392 105mm APDS and the 3BM12 125mm APFSDS. In the first case, even if NG units equipped with M48A5 would have been rushed to Europe I presume it would have been a  folly to add another round to the logistical queue (in addition to the two or three available), considering that in the 1979-1982 timeframe even the newer M728 APDS was obsolescent. For what concerns the Soviet round, well, Fofanov wrote that 3BM22 "was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s", so there's ground to presume that also 3BM15 should be rare in the 1979-1982 timeframe, let alone the 3BM12!
And last but not least, I presume that the more modern variants of the T-55 should get the 3BM20 APFSDS (minimum!) instead of the 3BM8 APDS. Let's remember that the mass production of the 3BM25 started in the mid '70s (although the round officially entered service only in 1978).
Thus, by 1979 we have two newer generations of AP ammunition already available for the 100mm D-10T gun to supersede the obsolete (and expensive - don't forget that one of the goal of introducing the 3BM20 was to issue the 100mm rifled gun a cheaper, tungsten-wise, ammunition than 3BM8). It makes no sense to suppose that these rounds were all deployed in some obscure military district in the interior of the USSR, instead that with the GSVG units.

This has been discussed before. Not sure if a consensus has been reached yet, but for what it is worth I agree, I think they should be in their collapsed state. 

Don't forget France. Unique and seriously good kit.