Grey_Fox

I know some people have been editing their sizes and colours in order to make them more visible, but I don't know how they do it.

Do you expect actual combat operations to be less confusing and less distracting?

Sarcastic, not biased. It shows just how limited the field of vision armoured vehicles are when they can literally drive into each other on an open field.

As you can see in the video here, what we see in game is not representative of reality:

You need to select the battalion formation itself, the top-level label "1st Tactical Group (Battalion [BMP])", not the individual vehicles. Then you'll be able to select which variants of BMP that the various sub-formations use.

@arkhangelsk2021 why are you citing WW2-era documents to question Cold War era doctrine?

I've sent you a PM with a link to a dropbox folder containing the file, and included the password. Error happened 2-3 times yesterday, but if I clicked ok on the messages it still allowed me to continue to the results screen. I did not get the error just now when I tried.

This was on the very last turn before the victory screen. I was able to reproduce it 3 times in a row. It did not prevent me from doing anything. I have not seen it in my current in-progress CMCW pbem.

@BFCElvis for visibility.

Per the subject line. This is a normal PBEM, using dropbox and CM Helper, not PBEM++. Using the BFC install, version 1.03. Why is PBEM++ trying to screw around with my normal PBEM? The only interesting thing I have done is moved the installation folder from my SSD (F: drive) onto my HDD (D: drive) this afternoon.

Dunno about that, in a recent Black Sea PBEM I used the AT-14 to great effect against US Bradleys and Abrams. Even without firing a single missile. forcing the US to pop smoke and reverse into cover can be extremely useful.

The only thing the video shows tbh is that if you try to use the Soviets like you use the US forces, you're going to suffer. The thing that keeps need to be repeated again and again (including in the discussion.video in the OP is that if you are trying to fight 1:1 as the Soviets against the US, you're doing it wrong. You need to have local numerical superiority. Who cares if your guys only have individually a 40% chance of getting the first spot in an individual matchup if you are using the formation as it was I tended to be used, where your 10 T62s engage 3 or 4 US tanks at a time?

In a recent PBEM I was playing as Russia against the US. After some initial bloodletting I set up my ATGM teams in a set of tall buildings which were able to overlook much of the map. I had them all on short range target arcs and gave them sufficient time to acquire as many of the enemy as possible. When I was ready to begin the engagement proper, I turned off all target arcs and laughed in joy as almost every single US vehicle popped smoke and reversed into cover, allowing me to push my company of T90s into positions where they were able to engage a fraction of the US force with maximum firepower. By the time we ceasefired, out of the US force (a platoon of Abrams and a company of Bradleys) only 4 Bradleys and 2 Abrams were fully operational. Although I didn't kill a single Abrams, one was entirely combat ineffective and the other had substantial subsystem damage, both after taking several ATGM hits frontally. The US infantry had used up almost all of their javelins, to little effect due to my tanks being on higher ground, allowing Arena to defeat almost all of the javelins which were fired. In return however I lost about half of my BMPs (mostly from an ill-considered attempt at an opposed rover crossing) and a third of my T90 company either knocked out or immobilized.

This is a 2-hour conversation between @Hapless, his opponent @Rice, and @domfluff, who is the admin of the unofficial (but extremely active) Combat Mission discord server. They go into detail about their thought processes going into the game, how they responded to what happened during the match, and how Soviet doctrine can be used successfully in CMCW. Figured it's worthy of its own thread because of how fascinating it is, and I hope we see more like this in the future. This is a link to the unofficial discord server if you want to interact with more people in the community: https://discord.gg/SXkQ6rUuJN

It's still unacceptable performance either way.

Are you sure the game is using the graphics card? Can you check the Nvidia control panel and confirm that it's being used, and that FXAA is set to off for CM?

What's your computer spec? Bear in the Sun/Mist was fine for me, performance wise.

Also known as the SMAW-D. I don't think there has ever been a war where the winner never performed an attack, and if you're in an urban fight it's perfectly reasonable to use one of those on the building next to you which the enemy has gotten into.

They should have standardized their equipment and gone for a production-line style process, like the US did with their equipment. It might not be a "positive", they might have had more equipment, but they would still have lost the war.

If the soviets ran into a defensive position that they couldn't bull through with the FSE or Advance Guard then I don't see why it would be unrealistic to assume they would call in a full artillery barrage which would allow them to do a breakthrough with acceptable casualties and continue to advance.

Why wouldn't you know the terrain? Maps have been around for centuries. A basic read of a map would allow one to determine potential defensive positions and chokepoints.

What's the rationale behind no TRPs on a route?

Well that's not entirely true. BFC still own the website and could change it to show more information on individual orders in the list if they were willing to pay somebody to do it if they can't do it for themselves.

Not necessarily. There is a setting that determines the likelihood of any individual unit showing in pre-battle intel. If you redo a campaign, it's entirely likely that you could get tentative spots of more or fewer (or potentially even zero) enemy units.

I think it's to simulate that in a meeting engagement you haven't made contact yet and so aren't aware of enemy positions, or if they're even present.