Grey_Fox

The patch worked!  Scratch one T-90 and one BMP!

Steam does regional pricing, making the games more affordable in non-USD currencies, and does regular sales. This makes CM far more accessible and creates sales which may not otherwise have occurred.
Another great benefit is that users do not have to check a forum to see if there are any patches as they are downloaded automatically, and steam will notify you if any DLC becomes available.

Target arc overrides and disables the face command.
If you want to use a short target arc as a way to stop them from opening fire while facing them in the right direction, use an actual arc where the centre of the arc is in line with the direction you want them to look, rather than a circular target arc.

Target arc overrides and disables the face command.
If you want to use a short target arc as a way to stop them from opening fire while facing them in the right direction, use an actual arc where the centre of the arc is in line with the direction you want them to look, rather than a circular target arc.

That is because this low hedge is assumed to be low bocage, which in the CM universe cannot be traversed.
 

I do this sort of stuff for a living, and I'm honestly appalled that they thought it was a good idea to just do their testing in prod. Like that's amateur hour stuff, only suggested as a joke and not something to be done for real.
Either they thought it was a good idea, in which case I have concerns about their professionalism, or they didn't think it would matter because PBEM++ isn't being used, in which case why the hell have they been delaying releasing the other games on steam and holding up patch releases?

streaming CMBN, courage and fortitude campaign mission 2:
 

Well, those two diamond shaped enemy icons are tanks. So being 1km away means those CV90s are definitely not  safe.

But like Chuckdyke says- you can override the "I want to live" behaviour to some extent by using the Fast command.

I am surprised they (Matrix) don't have a separate test/staging server for testing new versions before they go public. Upgrading the one production server to 1.06 before any of the customers can get 1.06 is a little below the standards of good software engineering.

Wait wait wait, y'all haven't been doing ANY work on the next module for Cold war for a solid year and a half?  Wasn't it developed by an independent team?  This is deeply frustrating...

Also no update on Engine 5 ;(

Actually if it is a good simulation things will not always pan out as you expect. If everything were predictable and known before issuing orders what good would that be as a simulation.

First post, provocative name, grandiose claims, not enough supporting information. I have my suspicions that this post is not really in good faith but lets start out charitably and assume it is.
I think you are demonstrably wrong about that. Countless situations (even tricky ones) are simulated successfully every day when people play CM. The game simulates LOS and spotting with reality in mind. The reality is people don't spot everything - their brains make it seem like it but we don't. How often have you experienced someone trying to point something out to you but you just don't see it right away. Surely that's something we have all experienced. CM is simulating that.
You screen shot is showing that the BRT has an obstructed LOF to the location of the BMP. It is not out in the open. The crew do know something is there but they have not yet spotted it. What is so wrong with that? Are you expecting that the crew are perfect? Are you expecting that they know what you know?
There is a lot of unknowns in your screen shot as well. Is the BMP sitting and waiting? Is the BTR moving? Other way around? Even if the LOF was unobstructed (yes it is possible for the BMP to have an unobstructed LOF to the BTR while not being the other way around - hint gun height) we cannot tell from that screen shot why.
But none of that points to any bug.
If the bug is you didn't get the outcome you wanted - that's not a bug. If the bug is you feel like it should have gone differently - that's not a bug either. If you bug is the BTR should have known the BMP was there and spotted it first cause reasons - that's not a bug either. If there is a bug here and I highly doubt it then you need to show what the issue is. Because I'm not seeing it. If someone else sees it I'm all ears.
 
Most of what you are upset about are features of the spotting and LOS system that are designed to be that way. The devs do care. LOL bugs get fixed improvements are made all the time. I am sorry you are butt hurt that things didn't go you way. Roll with it. Stop expecting perfection from your pixel troops because just like real troops they cannot deliver perfection.
Here is the thing: the game is working as designed. It is supposed to be hard. It is supposed to be messy. You, or anyone else, declaring it's broken and has been for years does not make it true. The devs have made numerous design decisions and they are largely happy with them.
 
No the crew new approximately where the BMP was. Once your BTR shows the BMP model when it is selected - that's when the crew knows exactly where the BMP is. That is how the system works. The crew in the BTR are desperately searching for multiple enemies through small vision slits. Suddenly a BMP opens up but they still cannot see the damn thing even where it is supposed to be. Then they start getting hit that doesn't improve their situational awareness any. Sounds pretty realistic to me. Mind you we don't actually know all of what is going on in that situation from just the screen shot.
 
And that's not a good way to open a discussion about any potential bug. Here is the thing you can be arrogant and angry but that does not mean anyone else can automatically tell what a bug might be. Quite the opposite, the vast vast majority of complaints, even those phrased with honest intent, are not actually bugs. Sorry I guess I went and rattled off variables. Or actually no sorry at all.
Here is the thing the game is simulating a combat situation all kinds of things effect a crew's ability to spot, morale, training, moving even luck. That's how it is. Heck you could re calculate that turn a number of times and it might not play out the same way every time. That's how the game is supposed to work. It is designed that way.
Sorry you didn't get the result you wanted. If you cannot handle some unpredictability and some bad luck maybe this isn't the game for you. Switch to chess or go or something else where you are in total control of your destiny. Well other than the fact your opponent is trying to win as well.

Hi everyone! I've put out a new video where I compare a combat mission scenario to both the historical events that are portrayed and the actual real-life location. I thought I'd post this on the General Discussion board as it's also kind of about Combat Mission scenario design and research in general.
As it's about a Market Garden scenario, I've slept a quite few hours less the past few nights in order to get this video done in time for Operation Market Garden's 78th anniversary on saturday the 17th of september. I hope you'll find it interesting; spending the day basicly giving myself a battlefield tour and filming the locations of the scenario that I just played was amazing. Geeky, for sure, but amazing 😁.
Props to @Pete Wenman who is the author of this scenario for his excellent research and scenario design.
 
 

Hopefully a fix for the T-90 issue can be snuck into this schedule. Not having front hull armour for T-90s significantly reduces choice in multiplayer and breaks a whole bunch of scenarios.

...and that's how one starts to arrive at Soviet doctrine.
 
One of the core tenants of the Soviet way of way is a mathematical adherence to firepower-above-all. You can indeed create situations where firepower alone is sufficient to get the job done, but it's a narrow and single-minded point of view. It can certainly be powerful, but it's successful if and only if you can remain in control of the broader variables, and can successfully shape the engagement to your liking.
As soon as you run into situations where things aren't going your way, you'll start running the risk of such an approach being badly exposed. In those situations, you're often better having some more depth to your thinking, and giving yourself more outs.

There's an analogy I like about this kind of thing, about mountain climbing - one school of thought gives the climber a bunch of different backup ropes, so that they can lose half a dozen of them, and it doesn't matter. This is wasteful of resources, sure, but this kind of redundancy can severely reduce the risk you're willing to accept. The other gives the climber just a single rope, but focuses on making it a really good rope. In this situation, you're following the straight line path to the goal, and if you're not hitting anything outside of the parameters you expect, you're doing it with maximum efficiency and economy of effort.
So yes, it's a viable approach, but it's not necessarily uncovering some deeper truth - rather it's one possible way of thinking, which will sometimes be the best (or least-worst) course of action, but not always, or in every situation.

So this is an opinion entirely unmatched by the totality of military history, historic doctrine and current practice.
I'm honestly a bit curious where it's pulled from.

Create a support ticket here: https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

There are a couple of ways to approach this.
You can use mortars or artillery to suppress or destroy enemy positions (the former is far easier than the latter), giving you the breathing space to move troops into position.
You can use mortar- or artillery-dropped smoke to break up lines of sight and isolate enemy positions from each other.
While the above are being done, move MG teams and vehicles into position to further increase suppression and destruction, followed by infantry pushing to mop up.
Aggressive scouting is necessary to identify enemy positions.
In the WW2 games in particular on-map mortars in direct-fire mode are excellent at achieving suppression and obscuration in timely manner.

Artillery has almost always caused most of the damage and done most of the killing for over a century now. This is nothing new.
This whole "tanks are obsolete because there are weapons that can kill them" drum that keeps on being banged on this forum is frankly silly - there has never been a time where tanks were not killable by anti-tank weapons and didn't get knocked out or destroyed in obscene numbers, yet tanks are still incredibly useful at doing the whole mobile protected firepower thing.
You're  basically saying that the recent fighting in Ukraine has proven that tanks are obsolete, yet almost every single attack and counterattack we see *still* has tanks playing an important part in the combined arms warfare thing.

CM needs a modern lobby system like you'd get in any RTS game made in the last 15 years. PBEM++ feels more like desperately wrapping duct tape around a leaky pipe instead of just replacing the pipe, but with how the engine is built maybe that really is just the best that can be done.

What's with the ad homs?

Artillery has almost always caused most of the damage and done most of the killing for over a century now. This is nothing new.
This whole "tanks are obsolete because there are weapons that can kill them" drum that keeps on being banged on this forum is frankly silly - there has never been a time where tanks were not killable by anti-tank weapons and didn't get knocked out or destroyed in obscene numbers, yet tanks are still incredibly useful at doing the whole mobile protected firepower thing.
You're  basically saying that the recent fighting in Ukraine has proven that tanks are obsolete, yet almost every single attack and counterattack we see *still* has tanks playing an important part in the combined arms warfare thing.

Does everyone collectively keep forgetting that aps do exist but are currently not used in ukraine be either side?
Because they do fix the core survivability vs infantry issue tanks currently have.

Thank you, please work on it. I wont even touch the new PBEM+ system, its so bad. 
The helper tools we have had in the community are SO much better and more advanced, and yet more simple too. 
Not to bash anyone, but theres no way you guys can release that as the final product CMx2 multiplayer solution. 

The US did. Biden was announcing to the world that the invasion was coming.