DerKommissar

I didn't even know these IED minefields existed. If ordinary minefields and IEDs weren't bad enough! 7 minutes is a long time -- 30 minutes is an eternity. Even without these illusive IED minefields, the thoroughness to time exchange is pretty bad. You really can't afford to do proper minesweeping operations in the timespan of a CM game. You really have to pick 'n' choose where you send your valuable engineers. I usually only deploy them at obvious choke-points or previously "discovered" mines. It so happens that mines are rarely deployed without some sort of overwatch. Maneuver/flanking has to be my #1 solution to minefields. I've never been in a situation where all my approaches were mined. Usually 1, atmost 2. Yeah, I've been wanting these toys for a while. They seem like the perfect solution. MBTs are tough and fast -- made for breaching through enemy strongpoints. I'd also love line charges. Looks like they smash through barricades, rubble and buildings with utmost excellence.

MINE, as well. xD So it appears demining is an exhausting task and takes a long time. WHERE'S THE REALISM? The enemy is happy when you try to do this, with mgs, snipers and FOs likely watching over. Air-burst artillery can leisurely zero in, while your sappers are taking their time, on their bellies. Honestly, at this point in my Combat Mission career. If I detect mines -- and detecting mines usually costs an arm and a leg. I just bugger off, and find a different way in.

Well, it does certainly reduce the lag. But it also reduces the terrain texture distance significantly. Balanced is ridiculous -- there's a triangle wave that separates rendered terrain and a greenish substance that lies beyond. This being said, I've had good experiences with setting them to Better or even Excellent -- putting that threshold farther and still reducing lag to some degree. The Best setting is most certainly the issue here. I can confirm AA does affect FPS. I tried messing around with Radeon Settings and did make it look pretty good at AA:OFF, TEXTURE: BETTER, DETAIL: BETTER. I'll try yours as well. My drivers are like half a year old. I'm a bit hesitant to upgrade them as everything works. Do you think the newest driver runs smoother?

Ok dude, I'll try it out! Much appreciated.

I put the highest settings. So: max AA, Very High detail, High tree detail, Very High shadows I got Vsync off, Highest Priority Process and ATI mouse click fix on I'll double check when I get home. I hear people have issues with CM and AMD cards.

Let's see: CPU: AMD FX 6350 RAM: 16 GB DDR3 GPU: Asus Radeon R9 270x with 4gb GDDR5 HDD: Western Digital 2 TB OS: Windows 7 64-bit I get this lag on maps with lots of buildings and/or vegetation. Toggling tree tops off only helps a very small amount. Naturally desert games run better for me. When I pan the camera to the horizon, view lots of stuff, the framerate takes a hit. When I move the camera down to the ground beneath, framerate becomes reasonable. From what I saw CM really runs on 1 core, and the FX's single-core performance is not the best. Great for newer games that are multi-threaded, though.

Now, I usually try not to post in these threads. But I've recently come to a realization: America and Russia are like an old married couple. a. They like to argue, they like to misuse eachother's possessions. b. Keenly aware of eachother's flaws, and very eager to blame eachother. c. While they're happy to sabotage eachother, they always ally together when a third party steps in. d. Have a lot of common history, and even more common interests. e. Each one tries to prove they wear the pants in the relationship. Like I said, I try not to post political things. But I think people have more in common than they realize.

I'm guessing they're still in their very early production and adoption. New designs like that will no doubt go through a few revisions before being greenlit to replace a current design. And that's only in the German army -- no doubt the MG3s in other armies, such as the Portuguese, will hit the century and maybe even exceed it. Some info in the air assets that participated: I didn't know COBHAM was a country...

JK is a national treasure. Don't pester the man and let him post absurd nonsense. I find it amusing, and you do too. In the words of Hunter S Thomson: "Buy the ticket, take the ride." They're invisible, man...

Yeah, I think CMSF really lacks an SAA campaign.

I got an AMD. Haven't messed around with their settings -- perhaps I should. I'm currently playing FB, which is beautiful -- but barely runs (lags badly when I move the camera). Thanks for the tip!

I was just about to ask that. Never have I seen my Combat Mission looking so well, and running so smoothly. What's your secret? An interesting experiment, none the less. I can see an anti-material rifle being preferable to an ATGM against wheeled armour.

Yeah, the graph is certainly "use at your own risk". Not all HEAT missile weapons are made equal, and neither are all tank cannons or auto-cannons. It is important to note that armour estimates are more likely to overestimate protection than underestimate it. This is a huge problem in real life (just as relevant now as it was in WW2), that tankers are aware of and train for. Maneuver and terrain features are your AFV's main protection -- armour is a last resort and I would not really rely on it. The graph can be useful for comparing AFV's side, top, and back armour to the front. Just to get a sense of its vulnerabilities. My advice is to take any threat to armour VERY seriously. An autocannon will destroy your optics, weapons and tracks -- so will an RPG hit. A NATO supertank with meters of effective HEAT and kinetic protection is utterly useless if it is immobile, blind or weaponless. IFVs and APCs are similarly vulnerable to HMGs, especially the AP-focused 14.5mms. Oh -- and heavy artillery and IEDs can pretty much render any crewman to jelly.

Awwwww, that's a shame. Off-map ones were too pricey. Guess I'll have to push them up to the front and use them as direct fire! Hope a patch comes soon!

His campaign in Egypt was a disaster, and was a clear indication of what kind of man Nappi was. He executed thousands of PoWs, and when the situation got hairy -- he left to France and abandoned his army to their doom. Luckily they managed to hammer out an agreement with Britain and managed to be repatriated after the siege. I am guessing the British thought they'd seen the last of him. Nappi was a neurotic ego-maniacal sadist, I think these days he gets too often romanticized.

I am playing as the SAA and I bought a T-62 company and parts of a mechanized infantry battalion. This includes A Company, B Company, FO section and the Heavy Mortar battery. The battery came in Ural trucks and I dropped them off, hoping to use them as a support against those pesky UNCONs. The 6 mortars were deployed in proximity to their trucks and their officers -- I think an officer had a radio and pretty sure the trucks had radios. The problem is that I could not open the artillery support tab (greyed out), let alone see the mortars in the tab. Sad that I couldn't use smoke for my mechanized assault or general purpose town levelers. Is this a bug? Or am I doing something wrong? I was recently playing Final Blitzkrieg, and I know that even un-deployed and out-of-contact mortars show up in the artillery support tab.

That's good news, cheers!

I've seen this happen while modding. The strings are all messed up. The indexes for those table entries must be screwed up. That's why you got T-55mv as region, and T-62 in the army drop down. It is curious to see entries from other titles, I'm guessing BFC tried to standardize string tables for all Engine 4 games. I'd recommend a reinstall.

Yeah, I remember hearing the arsenic theory. The stomach cancer story makes more sense -- not entirely sure why I never heard of it. If he had won, he would have Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and everbody's mum crashing down on them. His main advantage during Waterloo was surprise -- fool me twice situation. Barclay de Tolly did an amazing job at delaying the Grand Army -- probably why Napoleon lost. Shame that history has largely forgotten him. Aye, that was quite a campaign. After all, the term Guerrilla originated from it.

Black Sea will blow you away, there's nothing like it. Well, the story was that Napoleon was badly ill before and during the battle. IDK how true that is, and am curious if the audiobook mentioned it. What if Napoleon won Waterloo? What would it have changed? Maybe, he could have played Emperor for a few months longer. Instead of a Hundred Days it would be Two Hundred Days. Only a matter of time before the Nth coalition would come in and exile Eugene for good.

As a fan of the Napoleonic era (I find the American Civil War interesting as well), I have to say there's very little games about it. Especially tactics games. It's a shame, because I think Napoleonic tactics could be developed into a genre to rival WW2 tactics games. I got these guys on sale, I'll have to play them sometime. I will say this, though: I think the Battle of Waterloo is hyped up. I swear it seams 90% of media about the Napoleonic era is about Waterloo. Really, I find Napoleon's earlier career (Italy, Egypt) to be very interesting, and much like in WW2 -- the eastern front was the real decisive campaign (including the biggest campaign in human history, up to that point). Not even talking about all the Naval clashes and colonial skirmishes that pretty much made it a world war. Napoleon Total War was pretty good at covering most theatres, but it had my usual problem with TW games: small maps and armies. War of 1812, I swear I've never seen a tactics game about it.

I am actually converging on a draft of the rules, following the Engle Matrix structure. CM:A, CM:BN & CM:RT are all tied -- surprisingly enough. I expect BN to prevail as the most popular title, but I love all those theatres. Curiously enough, CM:FI is the only one with 0 votes. I intend for this to be a coop campaign. One side is players and the other is GM/AI (or an OPFOR general). I understand plenty of folks do not like QB AI. Players wishing to fight human opponents will be able to request such and anyone wishing to indulge them will be able to step in. Players will be able to choose their faction, as long as its not absurd. Going with the narrative focus of this campaign, each player character will have an appropriate rank to their command. As such, senior officers will be responsible for organizing their subordinates into a coherent battle-plan -- antics will ensue. Expect Paths-of-Glory-style court martials (xD). Thank you for your interest. I do want to model all the supports that we have in-game, so CAS is a must. I am leaning towards Roll20, just because I am more experienced with it. All the info on the Roll20 will be shared on the forums. The more I read about the Engle Matrix system, the more I think it is suitable for a narrative like this. My current ponderings are on random elements in Engle Matrix systems, how much RNG do I want in my campaign?

By platform, in that regard, I mean means of communication between players, generals and GM. So where TO&Es will be stored, where orders will be declared and updates posted. Roll20 does all these things, it's a pen&paper RPG simulator. But you do need to register for an account and take a few moments to learn the interface. Which if people already have accounts and are fairly familiar with the interface, that's good. If people don't want extra hassle, that's also understandable. I just checked out Vassal, yeah -- roll20 is pretty much that except browser based. A good free option. I'm curious how it handles rule checking? Google Docs is another platform we could use, easy to make interactive sheets, post rules and campaign updates. I am currently entertaining a narrative-based system like the 'Matrix' one suggested, with Roll20. Players being able to improvise and write up non-standard solutions. Limited mostly by the RL capabilities of the systems, and GM's discretion. So players will end up caring more about their units rather than rules. So for example, an artillery system will only be able to provide fire within its real range (Roll20 has a convenient ruler for that). Yeaaah, I figured somebody voted for CM:A -- never figured it would tie CM:BN. I love it too. I like the idea of an army dedicated to mobile offensive warfare in Europe against a peer thrust into central asia to fight an asymmetric insurgency. I really appreciate the offer of help. I would like someone to play the role of OPFOR general -- commanding all OPFOR units on the operational level.

So I've screwed around a bit with roll20, as an alternative to the forum or Google Docs. Here's the link if you want to try it out: https://app.roll20.net/join/3974528/dmgl5w I'm curious if you guys are familiar with this platform, or if you prefer more traditional mediums (forums, google docs). Main advantages with it is that is a more visual representation of the operational layer with the ability for players to interact with the map, including measuring distances, editing their TO&Es, drawing orders and/or writing them in the textbox. Also this thing supports RNG elements very well, if that's what people want. Lends itself well to the more RP heavy "Matrix" format. Here is a strawpoll for the preferred CM title: https://www.strawpoll.me/16929097