Oliver_88

Wah? That texts there in Combat Mission as standard.

Answered your own question there. Target Armor Arc.

Yeah that combined with the Bren gun bug really neuters the Carrier Platoon sections. Imagine them once both those bugs are gone, they are going to be absolutely fantastic assets. The Anti-Tank platoons have 2 inch mortars available in their Lloyd carriers also. Reason being I believe in order to screen the guns movement with smoke rounds. So it's affects part of their tactical employment also.

HQS (http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?author=50) though am not too fond on the voices for some reason so removed those in my installation.

Plus another icon bug that don't particularly want to discuss too much in public (could maybe ruin some games). But upon your advice I private messaged sburke about it earlier in the year. Turned out that an ticket was existing for it already and that the bug was not introduced in Engine 4 but earlier.

Count me as another "same". Or at least I have no interest in CMSF2 for the moment. It's got British units so at some point I may become interested. But more interested in bugs getting squashed than new content at the moment. Cannot wait to see the Bren used to its entire glory. Also hoping that the acquire mortar and some icon bugs are squashed.

I would add onto that the condition of "if the unit gained the tentative contact themselves" or "if the unit has had no prior knowledge about the enemy unit". Otherwise they could be quite inaccurate due to a bug. But then again ridiculously accurate locations for tentative contacts can be regained through another bug for those with the inclination to cheat. But yeah I agree also worth firing at tentative contacts (that you yourself also believe are there). The enemy unit might start running then also and therefore make themselves fully visible to your units.

I've seen my guys shooting at dead enemies plenty of times, and places where there are tentative contact icons remaining from departed enemies. And have just considered it to be that those individual soldiers do not know for sure that the enemy is dead or think there might be others there so put some rounds out to be sure and etc. But I've not known the target line to change to anywhere but where enemies exist (or rather where the centre of mass for a group would be).

Interesting idea. How would one determine the game maps to be used? Would you always use the same game map size given that the operational maps hexes are of fixed size? Basically players need to be able to figure out some way to easily deduce from the operational map what the terrain the hexes are going to use should they result in battle. I guess if you instead made your own hex map (rather than laying hex grid over historical map as above) then each style (could be just a colour does not need a graphic) of hex could just represent each option under the games Environment drop down list. Any benefits to using engineer/pioneer units? Maybe when an engineer/pioneer Platoon exists in the stack fortifying could provide mines, bunkers, hedgehogs etc? And provide just foxholes, sandbags, trenches etc when no engineer/pioneer Platoon exists in the stack that is fortifying? I guess when an mortar platoon exists in the stack in combat they get provided as on map assets. But when they are instead one or two hexes away from the stack in combat could they get provided into the battle as off map assets? How could assets that are only off map be used in the operational layer, how could they get destroyed and etc. Could airborne units get an special action for airborne movement? Like spend two turns in preparation (no fortifying or movement) and then be able to move a large number of hexes on the next turn? I gather for that though you would need to keep track of the frontline, and have that action only usable from within friendly lines, would be silly for an airborne unit to do a reverse airborne landing in the WW2 games. Combat Mission cannot do cooperative games. So I gather that different players Platoons cannot stack onto the same hex with each other. And also that attacking and defending is only done from a single hex into another single hex. Rather than players being able to stack on the same hex and battles being able to be made between multiple hexes as that would I think result in units from two players or more being involved in a battle but with only one player being able to control them. Single hexes to single hexes would mean battles can only be max company versus company also. But also then I query how you can support other players?

I tend to use the Hull Down command combined with the Target command. Because then where the Hull Down commands node is placed kind of determines the limit of movement. And the Target command determines the position to be hull down to, and therefore stop their movement once they can see it. So take a tank behind an ridgeline, and you want them to go hull down to a enemy position somewhere. You can place the Hull Down command near the top of your ridgeline. And give that node a Target command onto the enemy position. The tank would move forward to that node and stop once it sees the enemy position. But should he not see the targeted enemy position during the movement then no problem he's going to stop near the top of the ridgeline anyway. But not using the Target command and just placing the Hull Down node onto the enemy position your tank might move over the ridgeline and continue downhill moving right onto the enemy position if needs be. I reckon that's probably got something to do with the reason he's acting strange in your situation. It's being told to move to the ground in front of the house (and only stop once it can see that terrain). And for some reason takes that route towards the house as it considers it would take the least effort (maybe because of the nearby road and lack of brush compared to the direct route). And it only then ends up stopping once it passes through the fence because it now can see the terrain in front house.

More likely the Humbers, Daimlers or Staghound armoured cars than the Greyhound considering that his enemy is British in this scenario.

I believe that a unit using the MOVE command when shot changes their waypoint into the QUICK command instead. So again no they are not going to go to ground when shot at. Unless that incoming fire is enough to pin them.

I cannot quote the manual directly (on phone) but I can quote Hardradi’s post above mine that does so. According to the manual they can change.

Yeh I did not mention that extra piece of information (but should have) as once I saw your conditions I assumed just light rain for this short of a mission would not change the ground condition from dry drastically enough to cause any problems. But now that I am thinking about it I do not actually know how long takes the states to chane. Has anyone tested or documented anywhere as to the time needed for the ground condition to deteriorate to the next state when subjected to the various rain strengths?

I believe it’s a well known phenomenon with some explosives (also remember QI refering to it as “bang head”). Assuming I remember correct it’s apparently due to Nitroglycerin in them. Seem to remember that you do not have to even ingest them or anything to get the symtpoms, just handling for long enough could bring them on, as you absorb the stuff through your skin or through smell etc.

Indeed.

I do seem to remember something about Yankees using thermite grenades upon German artillery pieces during the Normandy landings. But the idea was that they targeted the firing and sighting mechanisms (welding the working parts together basically) rather than putting them down the barrel to deform it. Some period (and modern) engineering manuals also suggest using the pieces own ammunition to do the job on the barrel;

I consider another benefit to the orange axis compared to the green/red to be the existence of the road. You have not stated what the initial ground conditions are but from the images does at least seem to be raining. So that road could maybe be some use for the armoured car that he is going to be reinforced with. I am thinking about the possible risk of bogging that asset down when going via the red or green axis instead. Does not appear as though you have any road routes for when you are reinforced with yours?

I've skipped through the thread so not read everything. I used to play it as I am very much into the naval stuff. And enjoyed it at the time. But there are some game crippling bugs such as British fleets getting sucked closer to the German ports as you switch between the map/battle instances and etc. And I do not think I am too far off the mark in stating that the company are dead (other than continuing to take your money on purchases). I think I seem to remember they were hit bad from some hurricane or something over there in US and seemed as though never recovered. For anyone looking into the game I would just suggest avoiding like the plague now to be honest. Unfortunately...

Alt W

I never played the first SF so unsure whether intended or whether others would counts this as a minor visual obdervation. But anyway the weapon icons for the L85A2's in the British Infantry appear to differentiate between two types, a weapon with an optical sight from a weapon with just a iron sight. But these in the 3D world seem to instead differentiate a weapon with ACOG from a weapon with SUSAT. Maybe this is actually intended as I imagine could be too hard to differentiate the two icons apart if they both showed the two optical sights upon them, the optical sight from the iron sight stands out more.

Isn't that part in your house rules sort of broken due to this;

I'm no great shakes and I've not as yet done anything other than played against the computer in combat mission. But I tend to go with whatever distances and positions I can get away with so long as those keep the C3 chain intact to some degree. For what that constitutes I refer you to the thread on C2 and information sharing that @MOS:96B2P posted, also the thread that @Josey Wales posted about unit morale and etc.

Seems when I posted about this also earlier this year I ought to have searched better, did not see another thread about it So that's been broken since 2015 then...