Gkenny

Fortunately Sheridans were still in ACAV service in 1979, although they were being phased out. Though I would love to see a US airborne and VDV module, as well as east germany, west germany, and the BAOR to flesh out the german region.

Yikes can you really see everyone's email who preordered?
Hopefully the same won't happen for CMCW...

Yikes can you really see everyone's email who preordered?
Hopefully the same won't happen for CMCW...

For most line units during the soviet era it was pretty much completely numeric IIRC. 
It depended on the commander of the higher unit, but the numbers on the side of the vehicles were the callsign for that squad + vehicle (especially because the squad's radio was the vehicle). 
One way I've seen it was XYZ, where X was the battalion number, Y the company in the battalion, and Z the squad/vehicle in the company.
So 346 would be 3rd battalion, 4th company, 6th squad/vehicle. Soviet companies were usually 10 strong, with XX0  being the company commander, XX1 through XX3 1st platoon, XX4 through XX6 2nd platoon, XX7 through XX9 third platoon. The 1, 4, and 7 callsigns would be the platoon leaders for their platoons.
Because the vehicles were their main radio source, I believe most units simply stayed and communicated on their respective company net. 

For most line units during the soviet era it was pretty much completely numeric IIRC. 
It depended on the commander of the higher unit, but the numbers on the side of the vehicles were the callsign for that squad + vehicle (especially because the squad's radio was the vehicle). 
One way I've seen it was XYZ, where X was the battalion number, Y the company in the battalion, and Z the squad/vehicle in the company.
So 346 would be 3rd battalion, 4th company, 6th squad/vehicle. Soviet companies were usually 10 strong, with XX0  being the company commander, XX1 through XX3 1st platoon, XX4 through XX6 2nd platoon, XX7 through XX9 third platoon. The 1, 4, and 7 callsigns would be the platoon leaders for their platoons.
Because the vehicles were their main radio source, I believe most units simply stayed and communicated on their respective company net. 

For most line units during the soviet era it was pretty much completely numeric IIRC. 
It depended on the commander of the higher unit, but the numbers on the side of the vehicles were the callsign for that squad + vehicle (especially because the squad's radio was the vehicle). 
One way I've seen it was XYZ, where X was the battalion number, Y the company in the battalion, and Z the squad/vehicle in the company.
So 346 would be 3rd battalion, 4th company, 6th squad/vehicle. Soviet companies were usually 10 strong, with XX0  being the company commander, XX1 through XX3 1st platoon, XX4 through XX6 2nd platoon, XX7 through XX9 third platoon. The 1, 4, and 7 callsigns would be the platoon leaders for their platoons.
Because the vehicles were their main radio source, I believe most units simply stayed and communicated on their respective company net. 

Man I need to become mega rich so I can pay battlefront to make a CM Korea game.

Man I need to become mega rich so I can pay battlefront to make a CM Korea game.

Man I need to become mega rich so I can pay battlefront to make a CM Korea game.

Man I need to become mega rich so I can pay battlefront to make a CM Korea game.

Man I need to become mega rich so I can pay battlefront to make a CM Korea game.

Do I spy an M60/M48 In the far treeline? Is that DPICM I see raining down on the red hordes?
 

CM Cold War takes place on the cusp of big changes happening to both the American and Soviet armies. The arrival of Abrams and Bradley changes the nature of the fight in Europe. Also in this time frame we get a fashion change! See attached, the Americans switching to battle dress uniform. This is new-new art that's still not in the current Beta so you won't see it in any of the posted screenshots. Please forgive my crappy graphics card.

Do I spy an M60/M48 In the far treeline? Is that DPICM I see raining down on the red hordes?
 

Do I spy an M60/M48 In the far treeline? Is that DPICM I see raining down on the red hordes?
 

While I agree that top mounted MGs and APS systems should be taking damage, I'm not too sure about optics considering that I believe a lot of modern tanks have armor plates that they can raise over cameras and optics to protect them specifically in the case of artillery. Also I'm not sure if ERA would be detonated by an artillery shell, I think it would have a higher chance of getting sheared off to be honest.
Herr Tom had some great simulation work done with fragmentation and vehicles I think in the CMBS subforum, although I recall last time I brought that up I was angrily told that tanks should be impervious to near hits by arty so 🤷‍♂️.

Try low motivation troops? I feel like motivation level would be the primary deciding factor that determines whether they stay and fight vs flee or surrender. Training level in my experience affects how well they perform in combat (spotting, shooting, etc).

Some IEDs also have a random chance to fail to detonate I believe as well - so everything could be perfectly set up and RNG decides that the explosive is a dud. 

For example, this thread :CM Shock Force2 v2.03 patch has been released.
Has 3 (Though one could be argued intentional) bugs that have not been acknowledged by anyone in those three pages (I'll let you guys dig through the post to find them, since you guys seem to think that's the most efficient way of doing things 😂) . Have they been logged by the team? Who knows? There are many other threads just like this one which have reported bugs that no one has responded to throughout the forums. 
 
People think somehow that suggesting just some sort of more centralized public bug reporting is somehow worse than the current system, which is complete chaos. I am only suggesting this because I simply just want to see the game improve with time, and having a centralized place to report issues would only serve to make this process faster. 
 
 

As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs happens to see the post chances are it won't be recognized, whether it be campaign issues, Tac AI issues, or model issues. As such, I feel both Battlefront and the community would greatly benefit from a bug tracking site that allows users to post issues with descriptions and evidence, which can be viewed by all such that people can identify what has already been reported and acknowledged by the team. This would also allow others to contribute additional evidence/discussion to any specific bugs reported.
 
For example, take sites like these from the game Arma : 
https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/
And from some mod teams:
https://dev.cup-arma3.org/
http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php
Thoughts?

As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs happens to see the post chances are it won't be recognized, whether it be campaign issues, Tac AI issues, or model issues. As such, I feel both Battlefront and the community would greatly benefit from a bug tracking site that allows users to post issues with descriptions and evidence, which can be viewed by all such that people can identify what has already been reported and acknowledged by the team. This would also allow others to contribute additional evidence/discussion to any specific bugs reported.
 
For example, take sites like these from the game Arma : 
https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/
And from some mod teams:
https://dev.cup-arma3.org/
http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php
Thoughts?

As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs happens to see the post chances are it won't be recognized, whether it be campaign issues, Tac AI issues, or model issues. As such, I feel both Battlefront and the community would greatly benefit from a bug tracking site that allows users to post issues with descriptions and evidence, which can be viewed by all such that people can identify what has already been reported and acknowledged by the team. This would also allow others to contribute additional evidence/discussion to any specific bugs reported.
 
For example, take sites like these from the game Arma : 
https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/
And from some mod teams:
https://dev.cup-arma3.org/
http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php
Thoughts?

As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs happens to see the post chances are it won't be recognized, whether it be campaign issues, Tac AI issues, or model issues. As such, I feel both Battlefront and the community would greatly benefit from a bug tracking site that allows users to post issues with descriptions and evidence, which can be viewed by all such that people can identify what has already been reported and acknowledged by the team. This would also allow others to contribute additional evidence/discussion to any specific bugs reported.
 
For example, take sites like these from the game Arma : 
https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/
And from some mod teams:
https://dev.cup-arma3.org/
http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php
Thoughts?

As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs happens to see the post chances are it won't be recognized, whether it be campaign issues, Tac AI issues, or model issues. As such, I feel both Battlefront and the community would greatly benefit from a bug tracking site that allows users to post issues with descriptions and evidence, which can be viewed by all such that people can identify what has already been reported and acknowledged by the team. This would also allow others to contribute additional evidence/discussion to any specific bugs reported.
 
For example, take sites like these from the game Arma : 
https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/
And from some mod teams:
https://dev.cup-arma3.org/
http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php
Thoughts?

Wow thanks for spotting this, I just tested this out with a friend ... You can do realtime COOP kind of. Only one person at a time can be moving the mouse/keyboard around and giving orders, but its a lot faster than swapping save files around.