holoween

Buddy aiding is human behaviour. kneeling in the open to get shot yourself isnt.
Hiding in a trench doesnt protect you from the shells landing inside. CM trenches simply are far wider than any infantrymen would ever build them.
To get supression fire only on the last 15 seconds you need to get a movement command inbetween which makes it practically impossible to do what you suggest with a hmg and simply impractical with lmgs. Unless youre in a perfect flanking position with your hmg targeting one action square wont get fire on the entire treeline so if there is more than one team your supression will fail.
Yes you can use bad things in a smart way. Doesnt mean most defenses arent underperforming in CM.

Houserules shouldnt be required for something so simple
As long as your unit is in an action square with a casualty it will try to buddy aid no player choice involved
Yea if i want to assault a treeline ill put my hmg on a cover arc rather than have it fire supression fire at it great idea.

There are a lot of reasons why the casualty rates are so high
 
Things that arent related directly to the mechanics:
Battles usually represent tip of the spear scenarios where high casualties are expected.
Players push their forces way too hard.
Low time limits lead to overly hasty attacks.
 
Directly related to the mechanics:
Infantry maintains too little spacing.
Infantry accuracy is too high while under fire (and too low when not).
Support weapons can only effectively supress one action square. All belt fed mgs are far less effective at supressing than they should be.
Hunt command doesnt work properly. Units shoudl stop when getting shot at rather than just when they see a target.
Entrenchments are underpowered. They are far too easy to spot and generally provide too little cover.
Tanks are far too good at spotting infantry close up especially on the flanks and rear.
Units giving first aid expose themselves unnecessarily.

Except if you have to take the area

Sorry to resurrect the thread somewhat, but I just wanted to thank you guys - something that I can be guilty of not coming back to threads to do.
Having built on my skills using lots of the advice here, I am improving! This is from a recent CMBS small battle against the AI only, but it was a mission that previously I had no hope of winning, but now, using realistic tactics, I was able to do just that.
I think the best advice was 1) To slow down; 2) To zoom down to eye level and think "would I run over there?" before placing a move order, and 3) For every movement I make a fire plan. I work out what enemy positions, or possible positions will be able to see me when I move, how I am going to deal with that, i.e. which of my over watching squads can open fire, and so on.
It has made the game 10x more enjoyable.
 

Looking at the CMFB qb points for german afvs it seems to me that they really arent priced based on actual performance.
It goes from 241points for a pz4j early to 418points for a king tiger. Unless the battle is on tiny there will rarely be a reason outside of rarity to not go for the heaviest german tanks possible.

A few things to keep in mind for mp
Anything except wego becomes practically impossible to controll past platoon level in real time (ive tried).
 
An ingame automated pbem would certainly be nice to have though i think it would be fairly low priority overall since the majority of players interested in it will find their way to the forum or any of the fan forums to organize games.

I dont see how the germans could be considered to be the underdog in quick battles.
Their OOB is simply better than the americans. I rarely cut or add anything to german infantry units but find myself doctoring the americans around until im basiacally left with a german unit in american uniforms.
Their infantry has more firepower and since a large chunk of it comes from the mg42 german infantry units tend to dropp far less firepower as they take casualties. They also have the best at weapons.
Their tanks are as good as anyones and if youre buying panther and up youre completely dominating open ground to the point that more open maps are practically guaranteed wins for the germans.
Their only real downsides are that arty is less responsive than the americans, they have fewer radios and rarity can limit your choices.
 
I think its quite telling that in the scenarios and campaigns ive played so far the americans tend to bring a reinforced company to attack a platoon while the germans get a depleated company to attack a reinforced one with both scenarios carrying the expectation of winning.
 

Operation Market Garden Multi-Player Campaign (Holland '44)
Today, I am supposed to get a physical copy of Holland '44 in my grubby little hands to use in testing VASSAL for our first prototyping campaign game.  We thought it would be wise to iron out the rules above and find the best location in the battle/map for the campaign.  It will be ~3 short turns of intensive testing and feedback to get us ready for the full campaign ~next month in 2021 (no way I'm starting anything in 2020!).
Thanks to everyone behind the scenes who have helped us get this far.
So now I am officially asking for VOLUNTEERS for the proto-multi-community-campaign-mini-test-game (PMCCMTG).  No. No. No.  I'm a government engineer,  I can do way better than that for an acronym.  Hmmmm.....
CM2PTG - Community-Mini-Campaign-Multi-Prototype-Test-Game.  There, much better, anyway,
If you are interested please PM me which position(s).  Here is what we are looking for in our Victims Volunteers:
1. 🥇Field Officer - Axis Forces
  a) Operational Command 🗺️
  b) Orders 🧧 to Company Commanders
  c) Take over temporarily for ☠️KIA, 🤕MIA Company Commanders under certain conditions.
2. 🥈Company Commander 1 - Axis Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
3. 🥈Company Commander 2 - Axis Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
4. 🥇Field Officer - Allied Forces
  a) Operational Command 🗺️
  b) Orders 🧧 to Company Commanders
  c) Take over temporarily for ☠️KIA, 🤕MIA Company Commanders under certain conditions.
5. 🥈Company Commander 1 - Allied Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
6. 🥈Company Commander 2 - Allied Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
7. 🥉2nd Lieutenant(s) - Faceless Pixeltroopen
  a) Field promotion to Commander for (☠️KIA. 🤕MIA) Company Commanders. 
  b) ☠️KIA - Permanent, 🤕MIA - Temporary, but axis/allied designation will stay the same.
  c) This will happen🤞 in our test game a few times to test the substitution rules.
Patience and feedback will be required.  Competitiveness is optional during the testing.  We are looking for "devils 😈 advocates" but any criticisms should always be accompanied with solution(s) and work arounds.  Our motto will be 💋KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid 😃
Thanks!  This is going to be a blast!!!

If you have any lightly armoured or unarmoured vehicles aircraft will shred them with ease earning you several times its points back. And shooting at infantry a single basic infantry squad makes its cost back.
At 30 points a piece its an auto include in every QB. Youre not sacrificing anything and get to invalidate any attempt at using mechanized troops.

All infantry tactics boil down to the find, fix, manouver, destroy loop.
All the textbooks do is show this principle applied in different situations to help teach new leaders.

I think more transparency would lead to less animosity towards BFC, not more.
I recently wrote a (polite) email directly to a beta tester, asking "Is BFC even aware that [some problem]?" The reason I wrote that eail was not to vent anger or attack, but just to find out if the issue was known. I don't want to spend my time testing, arguing on the forums, and reporting a bug if BFC already knows about it.
The answer I got from the beta tester was that yes, BFC is in fact aware of that issue. Which settles it for me and lets me spend my time on other things.

Greetings everyone.
We at the Developer Dialogue podcast (A Single Malt Strategy Podcast) are hosting an interview with the Dev team of Battlefront.com.  We invite everyone to join the Live Interview to participate and ask your own questions to the developer.  
DAY: Sunday, AUG 23rd
TIME: 9 PM EDT
 
Here is the link -> https://discord.gg/Y4rgNN 
 
Developer Dialogue (Interview Podcast)
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/developer-dialogue/id1524192396
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/33DiH9pCrcV9bVw4WeDWmS
Google Podcasts: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc3ByZWFrZXIuY29tL3Nob3cvNDUwNTYyMi9lcGlzb2Rlcy9mZWVk
 
Single Malt Strategy Podcast Streamer (Web Player) ‪
https://www.spreaker.com/user/single_malt_strategy
Apple Podcasts ‪ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/single-malt-strategy/id1148480371
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc3ByZWFrZXIuY29tL3Nob3cvMTkxNjA5MC9lcGlzb2Rlcy9mZWVk
Spotify ‪ https://open.spotify.com/show/2YMkUR638whzsK2QD19RjW?si=9XLld5uyQ4qgnRWNJZ9siw ‬

Co-operative multiplayer would be a nice option for large/huge scenarios...😁
 

1. trench vs foxhole comparison was last patch but the behaviour still exists.
2. Agreed Trenches are awful
3. Id expect buildings to have a far better cover rating than foxholes in the open so as far as im concerned no surprise or problem there. Equally Foxholes in dense terrain provide great cover which is again something id expect. The reason i dont have a larger sample size there is because ive been doing such comparison tests quite a bit in cm and while there are usually some outliers in every test the small sample size is enough to give a rough idea which is enough for me. It really doesnt matter to me if the foxhole cover is 90% or 100% as effective as buildings but rather that its comparable.
 
4. That wasnt directed at you specifically so sorry if that came across as such. Ive had that discussion now several times and usually the issue is that too much is expected of defenses.
Also i dont disagree that defenses could get a boost but i think foxholes are in a good place. Trenches though are just plain aweful and really need a buff or preferably proper narrow and deep trenches need to be added rather than the wide and shallow ones we currently have.

1. trench vs foxhole comparison was last patch but the behaviour still exists.
2. Agreed Trenches are awful
3. Id expect buildings to have a far better cover rating than foxholes in the open so as far as im concerned no surprise or problem there. Equally Foxholes in dense terrain provide great cover which is again something id expect. The reason i dont have a larger sample size there is because ive been doing such comparison tests quite a bit in cm and while there are usually some outliers in every test the small sample size is enough to give a rough idea which is enough for me. It really doesnt matter to me if the foxhole cover is 90% or 100% as effective as buildings but rather that its comparable.
 
4. That wasnt directed at you specifically so sorry if that came across as such. Ive had that discussion now several times and usually the issue is that too much is expected of defenses.
Also i dont disagree that defenses could get a boost but i think foxholes are in a good place. Trenches though are just plain aweful and really need a buff or preferably proper narrow and deep trenches need to be added rather than the wide and shallow ones we currently have.

As a retired Light Infantry Platoon Sergeant and Sniper with 28 years of service to include several combat tours, this has got to be one of the more interesting threads I've read on a gaming site in eons. There have been some great points made by several people, and it has been very interesting to read all the differing views and opinions, as well as the shared ones. I also have enjoyed how it all relates to CM. Great stuff!
Some general points of consideration regarding combat and firefights that I would like to make in relation to this topic:
1) Most times in a firefight, there is so much noise that it's very hard to hear near misses. You might know you are being shot at by dirt and debris being chipped at you by near misses, but many times you won't hear it due to the multiple, loud weapons being fired, Soldiers and Leaders shouting out orders, and information on the enemy. It's chaotic and loud.
2) As far as U.S. Infantry training goes, when enemy fire is received, the SOP is to take cover and return fire. Almost always 'take cover' means fall prone, and then seek to improve your 'cover' position. For example, you are prone and returning fire, but there is a nice fat tree five feet to your left that would make better cover. You do what you can to move to it, usually by crawling. 
3) Usually, when a firefight starts, there is an initial round of firing, people hit the dirt, and then people start yelling. For the trained U.S. Infantry, that means enemy identification. As an example, it might sound like this "Contact 1100, 3oo meters, squad size". The direction is important obviously, as it alerts the formation to the general direction of contact as well as the distance. The element size is purely an initial estimate to give leaders an idea what they are up against. Of course this whole contact statement gets echoed back down the formation so that teams and squads at the back of the formation know whats going on. Also, it gets refined as the firefight goes on. As you can see, this equals lots and lots of yelling. Add in to that calls for medics, special weapons teams to deploy, new enemy sightings on the flanks or, Heaven forbid, in the rear, and one can quickly see how chaotic it can get. And then there are all the weapons firing and explosions. Like I said, chaos. 
4) Now, all that said, the mark of an experienced and/or well trained unit will handle that chaos much better. That is why SOP's are tantamount to success. When bullets start flying, Warfighters have to react without thinking, for best success. LOTS of time is spent training and practicing on initial contact with the enemy. It is the basic building block for all other Infantry training and operations. How your unit reacts to initial contact can make or break your unit.
5) I must absolutely agree with those above that said you shoot what you can see, and you suppress what you cannot see but suspect might be there. Also, as a trained and experienced sniper, I will always be of the mindset that well placed, accurate single shots are more effective at taking a target out then suppressive fire. But, suppressive fire has it's place. When an Infantry platoon is conducting a standard platoon attack on an objective, and you are in the Assault Element, you definitely want that suppressive fire to be hosing the objective before your assault begins, and then following in front of you as you assault across the obj. When the enemy is keeping their heads down from the barrage of M240 and M249 fire as well as some 40mm grenade fire mixed in, a trained designated marksman or sniper can more easily pick off specific targets on the obj, especially as the assault element is moving across. When all this is executed by an experienced unit, it is a thing of beauty. 
 
Anyhow, some general thoughts. I could talk about this topic for hours and days, but hopefully I've made some salient points. 
 
Cheers!

Ive been playing quite a bit with the german army and ive noticed several inaccuracies in the equippment which i think could be adressed.
Ill note here that the german army is quite unwilling to give out documents so its quite hard to present hard evidence for some of these.
 
Infantry cant fight from marder even though this is part of the core doctrine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjGL65hNDRw MG3 weapon teams doesnt have the tripod even though they should https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9jlx9NGqyo PzGren should by default come with the mg3. The mg4 should at best be an option. https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/ausruestung-bewaffnung/mg4 end of the first paragraph "The mg4 is mainly used in the infantry" PzGrens in the german army arent counted as part of the infantry and anecdotally ive yet to see an mg4 in any PzGren unit but plenty of mg3s and a few mg5s Milan has a minimum range of 400m but should be 20-25m http://www.guerredefrance.fr/Documents/AIDE MEMOIRE CHEF SECTION INFANTERIE.pdf on page 86 armin distance is 20m

Of course I could only think of one question. Kinda wanting the Professional version now though.

7. "Fulda Gap": 1970-90
Europe WWIII

9. One Engine - CMx3
game performance improvments, graphics improvements, ray tracing, intermediate distance bitmaps
additional editor features, dynamic operational campaigns
additional gameplay features, coop, LoS tool, visible aircraft

So ive tested it a bit more and it seems that for some reason the majority of the spotting potential from the stuart comes fromm the driver and bowgunner.
5 stuarts in hulldown position barely spotted 5 p4s in the open while 5 stuarts in the open easily spotted 5 p4s in hulldown.
Trying the same with shermans there was a similar effect but not as drastic.
 
What seems to be clear though is that being hulldown doesnt seem to give any benefit to being spotted for some reason and in CMFB at least for all tanks ive tested so far noticably decreased their spotting ability.

... if you play as the Germans! Don't think I've ever had an Allied tank with a destroyed main gun.

Obviously this has a lot to do with German anti-tank weapons slicing through Allied armour like a knife through hot butter but acknowledging your tanks are fragile makes you play them better.
On the other hand, the mythic allure of superior German armour might encourage people to play more aggressively and recieve a face full of subverted expectations when they inevitably get damaged.

I am going to host a Tournament over at "A few good Men" site and just wanted to post here to give others who might not use that site a chance to get involved.

The format will be new, in that you will be given a selected force. Your mission will be to do the best you can with the situation you have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle.

So in otherwards, your side could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and you have won and will be given a point value as to how you have done.

Winners will get a score of somewhere between 80 to 100 points per match depending on how they have performed to each other. so best player will receive 100 points, lowest winner will receive 80 points, and everyone else is somewhere in between.

Scoring in scenarios will be your score minus your opponents score (as to how you will be selected for the top 50%).


Each round you will be in charge of a different Nations forces, so skill with all forces will be a factor.


The first scenario is ready, a Marine excort team with additional elite units attached are in a small town for a pick up when they are attacked by a Syrian mech recon company bent on their distruction.

quick and intense (battle will be 10 -15 minutes in length.)

This is the point of zeroing.
Because that is exactly what they are doing.
It's pretty pointless to compare real world data for Tiger 2 and ingame data for the Sherman 76 (Have you got a link or reference for the Tiger 2 accuracy stuff?) It would more useful to compare the ingame Sherman accuracy once zeroed to the Tiger 2 ingame accuracy once zeroed.
The Sherman gunner's main optic is 4x IIRC, so it looks even smaller! Im not 100% up on my Sherman fire control and gunnery mechanics, but I don't think firing the gun is going to change the gunner's point of aim... so why would the gunner voluntarily aim somewhere else once he's on target?

Finally... in theory you could increase the deviation to make the guns less accurate to simulate the gunner "shifting his aim" or "targeting different points of the tank", but
a) how do you know that BF hasn't already done this?
and b) It's such as an edge case. This setup- one tank plinking another 2000m which isn't allowed to shoot back on a flat map with no cover- is an accuracy test (which I understand is what you're testing) but it's not an accuracy test that takes into account likely battlefield conditions. What you're effectively testing is the maximum accuracy of the Sherman vs the Tiger 2, but there's no indication that this is relevant to actual gameplay. If the Sherman doesn't survive long enough or isn't exposed for long enough to get that maximum accuracy- or the Tiger 2 is smart enough to avoid getting plinked like this- then does it matter?