FlemFire

I don't know about historicity of these things, but as far as effectiveness is concerned I did have an entire American squad get deleted when it took a hit from German self-propelled arty. They seem pretty jank and easily destroyed, but they do put very explosive and deadly rounds down the range for whatever time they still live.

#1 would be dynamic campaigns. Even something simple like the way the Close Combat series does it would be nice. I think it's the biggest thing missing by far.
 
"Nice to have" would be something like a replay feature that lets the player watch the whole battle once it is finished.
 
Better vehicle dismount/mount rules for interactions between infantry and vehicles.

This is from the demo as I don't own RT, but an amusing clip of two tanks operating in Mutually Assured Destruction.
https://streamable.com/4pvcuf

Some screenies from a recent PBEM.
Snipers bugging out.

 
Weapons team crossing the street gets a bit of collateral damage as an ancient Leopard tank does battle.

 
Main street.

 

Still persistent issues as this thread has already stated. Not to be a Debbie downer, but this is so far probably the worst "official" campaign across any CM game I've played. I'm shocked this is in the final product, much less an add-on. How do you not even fix the basic stuff like correcting the stated equipment? The campaign in general has a distinct vibe of not even being playtested at all.

Some screenies from a recent PBEM.
Snipers bugging out.

 
Weapons team crossing the street gets a bit of collateral damage as an ancient Leopard tank does battle.

 
Main street.

 

Oh, and a bit of creative landscaping to spot a sound contact.
Dunno how to embed videos:
https://streamable.com/pobbhj
 

Gotta think of them as fireteams, but yes. Edit: I see what you mean now, I originally read that as "three man/two man squads"; I'm not that pedantic I promise.
A four man fireteam has less firepower and fewer eyeballs, but also fewer targets to hit.
A six man fireteam has more firepower and more eyeballs, but has more targets to hit.
 

Perhaps you solved a problem of Office Politics.

My anecdotal experience suggests that the MG42 is the deadliest MG in the game by far, and I'd rather be shot at by almost anything else (as far as MGs go). It is remarkably deadly, accurate, and suppressive. Again, that's more observational than anything.
 
As for cause of casualties, you have to be very careful with things like that as you're often drawing data from the entire scope of a campaign instead of from the 'small screen' which would be scenarios like CM depicts. From the big screen, where you have interdiction and all sorts of artillery exchanges happening, yes, the vast majority of damage accrued over time would be from explosives and not all of them inflicted on combat-oriented units. We can tell the difference pretty easily by just looking at combat units themselves, which often have egregious lossrates of 50%+, wounded and killed -- basically, being the actual guy doing the fighting is an insanely dangerous job (no surprise). If the army as a whole had rates like that it would be drawdropping amounts of casualties.
 
But as for bullets specifically, John Ellis's book has this remark about it:
 

My anecdotal experience suggests that the MG42 is the deadliest MG in the game by far, and I'd rather be shot at by almost anything else (as far as MGs go). It is remarkably deadly, accurate, and suppressive. Again, that's more observational than anything.
 
As for cause of casualties, you have to be very careful with things like that as you're often drawing data from the entire scope of a campaign instead of from the 'small screen' which would be scenarios like CM depicts. From the big screen, where you have interdiction and all sorts of artillery exchanges happening, yes, the vast majority of damage accrued over time would be from explosives and not all of them inflicted on combat-oriented units. We can tell the difference pretty easily by just looking at combat units themselves, which often have egregious lossrates of 50%+, wounded and killed -- basically, being the actual guy doing the fighting is an insanely dangerous job (no surprise). If the army as a whole had rates like that it would be drawdropping amounts of casualties.
 
But as for bullets specifically, John Ellis's book has this remark about it:
 

I think the self-restraint itself isn't even that easy to do for super vague reasons of tactical consideration: my issue with the idea of not firing at an adjacent and un-reported 'spot' is that I may have already been preparing to fire at that spot to begin with. So it almost seems counter-intuitive that if one makes a spot that it would then preclude any preparatory fire just on account of avoiding 'gaming' it. I still think it's just some sort of gamification that one has to roll with as best they can.
Maybe they'll someday implement some nice multiplayer features such as multiple players with each controlling a platoon and seeing ONLY what that platoon sees. Things like that are probably in the sci-fi realm of BF development timeline, but it's nice to dream.

Unless there's subtext I'm missing somewhere, I don't think highlighting Stalin's atrocities automatically makes one an apologist for the 'other' side (Nazis, in this case). It's a rather large leap in logic. Typically, if you're against murder you're against it. End of. Nevermind that as time progresses onward and onward that these two men will presumably blur and we'll just be left with blips of abhorrence whose import will be left to the nerds and historians. I think Hitler's Vlad-like place in the history books is pretty well set in stone, but I am not so sure about Uncle Joe. I am all for reinforcing that Stalin was a monster, lest you end up with him being another Genghis Khan to the layman, great big statues built in his name, his appearance adorning video games and the like in positive light, and the absolute monster that he was buried in the long years that have passed. We know that simply 'winning' is well enough to rehabilitate one man's historical character.
 
As for Russian cinema, it is a boring and largely non-introspective snoozefest. But then again, that's not too dissimilar of the American media's "war movie" output. I find that the quality of movies in general has nosedived considerably the past twenty years. That or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical.

My understanding is that marking mines doesn't remove them -- it simply lets others know they are there. So while infantry might carefully step around them, a large piece of metal on wheels/tracks might not be so nimble as to ballerina its way through a 'the floor is lava' scenario. I think that mostly leaves you with the HE route or the "go around" solution. One thing I haven't tested is if it is possible to set off mines by doing a manual-target with infantry and having them throw grenades at them.

My understanding is that marking mines doesn't remove them -- it simply lets others know they are there. So while infantry might carefully step around them, a large piece of metal on wheels/tracks might not be so nimble as to ballerina its way through a 'the floor is lava' scenario. I think that mostly leaves you with the HE route or the "go around" solution. One thing I haven't tested is if it is possible to set off mines by doing a manual-target with infantry and having them throw grenades at them.

Unless there's subtext I'm missing somewhere, I don't think highlighting Stalin's atrocities automatically makes one an apologist for the 'other' side (Nazis, in this case). It's a rather large leap in logic. Typically, if you're against murder you're against it. End of. Nevermind that as time progresses onward and onward that these two men will presumably blur and we'll just be left with blips of abhorrence whose import will be left to the nerds and historians. I think Hitler's Vlad-like place in the history books is pretty well set in stone, but I am not so sure about Uncle Joe. I am all for reinforcing that Stalin was a monster, lest you end up with him being another Genghis Khan to the layman, great big statues built in his name, his appearance adorning video games and the like in positive light, and the absolute monster that he was buried in the long years that have passed. We know that simply 'winning' is well enough to rehabilitate one man's historical character.
 
As for Russian cinema, it is a boring and largely non-introspective snoozefest. But then again, that's not too dissimilar of the American media's "war movie" output. I find that the quality of movies in general has nosedived considerably the past twenty years. That or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical.

My understanding is that marking mines doesn't remove them -- it simply lets others know they are there. So while infantry might carefully step around them, a large piece of metal on wheels/tracks might not be so nimble as to ballerina its way through a 'the floor is lava' scenario. I think that mostly leaves you with the HE route or the "go around" solution. One thing I haven't tested is if it is possible to set off mines by doing a manual-target with infantry and having them throw grenades at them.

Better to get somewhere fast, tired, and safe than slow, rested, and dead.
Javelins can delete men just as well as material.
You can throw grenades over walls by force-targeting the opposite side.
That gut-feeling/intuition is usually correct and reluctance to adapt in time can be a killer.
Making snipers Crack or Elite is usually a very good investment.
 
 

I've seen the footage of at least one of these incidents and I think anyone would be hard pressed to defend it.

I use OBS to record video. Steam has a good picture function (F12) if you have SF2 on that platform.

Sorry to necro an old thread, but felt it best to keep the 'literature' on the campaign in one spot.
I had a question that maybe @Paper Tiger can help answer.
These are the results of my campaign thus far:
Mission 1 - US Major Victory
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/726719104
Mission 2 - US Major Victory
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/734166124
Mission 3 - UK Minor Victory
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/739472085
Mission 4 - Draw
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/746181765
 
I had to take a break due to life stuff but will be resuming the campaign soon. Before I start battles, I like to plot them out and then do the stream (so the stream isn't just me looking at the map for an hour). But on the Fifth mission, the one where you're tasked with capturing VPs with a platoon of American airborne, the game is giving me a three hour limit. I thought the three hour limit didn't kick in unless you suffered two defeats or draws in a row. Did I miss something on this?
 

For 30 points it should be a moderately armed air balloon.

For 30 points it should be a moderately armed air balloon.

For 30 points it should be a moderately armed air balloon.