THH149

I'm exploring CW and noticed that infantry seem to take casualties from small arms fire at a higher rate than other modern CW titles, is anyone noticing a similar pattern? Similar say to Syrians in SF2 maybe. I haven't tested this per se, but wondered if US or Soviets lack of body armour could be a cause? THH

just kidding ...

And to do that you'd reverse into cover obviosuly ...

So, I need an VPN for argentina, BS is just A$8.90! 1/10th of the Aussie price. I'm expecting CWQ to go for same as BS, about $85, which includes local taxes. Perhaps it will go on sale for one day for A$55 a month or two after release on steam, like BS did (which I have since kicked myself about...)

Before I dive into CMCW, I wanted to think about my budget. On BFC, CW is US$60 or about $80 AUD, does Steam do games cheaper locally than the BFC price? Thanks

Agree, the Brits are using the old flat head in a phillips head screw. Breaking the Bank: i have entered two of the 4 objective buildings with 35 mins to go. As I say to my opponent, I'm expecting a platoon of Syrian infantry on every floor as I havent encountered much opposition so far, maybe theyre all in the bank. Lost a Warrior to a BMP and another to an IED, d'oh!

That rubber banding happens a quite bit in Going to Town, sometimes with the tank, other times with a BMP, but I've never seen it with the Tunguska!

Ammo supply and rate of fire in the Warriors is a real issue. Playing UK Breaking the Bank and we're nearly out of HE with 35minutes to go, and have only been shooting at known targets. The warriors are a kind of hybrid IFV and APC. The Spartan are even worse, just have a 7.62 mg, so need to be always used as APCs rarely IFVs. I'm not sure why theyre in the scenario, maybe just to fill out the order of battle for the UK unit. If they're not used, better just to leave them out. Maybe there is a use for them to do an end run though, but that exceptionally dangerous in SF2. They both need as upgrade.

I've just been reading over this thread and just read the source article, it definitely jars with those who watched the 2014+ events pretty closely. I did hear (from Ukr YT sources IIRC) that Russian Spetsnaz were involved in the final battle for Dontesk Airport, havng infiltrated the building and attacked defenders from upper floors and below. Any insights as to whether Spetsnaz were used at Dontesk Airport?

If there's something smallish I can do let me know. I'm willing to give it a go, though I only have CMSF2 and BS!

By Jove, you've got it! I mistakenly gave them a reinforcement command (used the number keypad) and didnt recognise the error! Nice catch! Thanks bud

Hi I've graduated to a second scenario design, and have a new problem: after I deploy Red forces on map, they don't appear in the scenario when played. This happens to the whole Red force except mines, trenches and barbed wire! B;ue force just wanders around any empty battlefield. Any tips on the source of the problem? or things to check? I'm scratching my head as early versions were playtesting well. The thing that changed was the addition of an AI order for some minor movement of some minor units. Thanks THH

Thanks heaps for the map from the soviet side, I've never seen that before - can you share the source? However, I'm not convinced that the Russians ever tried to use a crossing either side of the Moltke Bridge ('cos there weren't any!) but that map raises an ounce of doubt of what in fact happened, and I can only conclude that the 597 and th 525 put fire across the river rather than attempt a crossing per se (and any other differences are conveniences of the map maker). That map and this map from wiki (which matches my Bloody Streets book) shows the 597 and 525 (the possible candidate Russian forces) both crossing the Moltke Bridge. But I'd like to know more about the Soviet map. The only reason I raise the differences between the FR Berlin map and the actual ground is because doing non-historical things changes the CM simulation experience, and surely one would llke to recreate the actual ground fought over in a super accurate sim like CM. At least I would! THH

That quote from Wiki is describing the Moltke Bridge, which is famous in the battle, but thats not the one I'm talking about! The one I'm talking about is an wrecked bridge that infantry crossed to get behind the German defenders and to the German left of the Moltke Bridge, the left of Himmler's House and on the river frontage in front of the Kroll Opera house. It has no name 'cos I cant find it on any maps of the battle, which leads me to ask why its included in the FR berlin map. My question is, was there historically an infantry crossing to the left of the Moltke Bridge (but not the Moltke Bridge)? T

In a RT scenario I was watching someone play on YT (smartwargames iirc), there is a second crossing to the German left of the Moltke Bridge of the river Spree which was used to move infantry over the river into the rear of the forces defending Himmler's House and in front of the Kroll Opera. It struck me as something I hadn't heard about. So I looked at my copy of Bloody Streets and there was no mention of such a crossing (most bridges had been blown) there. So, is that crossing on the Berlin RT map historically accurate? I'd like to know more about it. THH

And just a comment on MLRS, in game barrages are fine by me, so long as its realistic (the customer promise by Bf). There is a constraint though on Minute 1 artie, and the scenario designer has to take care that the game starts after the battle field preparation has ended (and this is for both sides), so the troops if they're assumed to be subjected to pre game bombardment have a force set that reflects their state after such a barrage, not the pristine TOE that one so often sees. So a very tight coordination between turn 1 barrages and movement is ok by me, if that's realistic, but the designer has to make the case for it (ie they need to explain why an MLRS arrives at the start line of the attacker if the attacker has only been standing there for a few minutes and is out of LOS). Designers could show effects of pregame barrages, eg some troops are busted down the a lower level of experience, not at full strenth, start cautious or out of C2 range. In other tactical games, the pre-game barrage effects ones OB, and then the game starts. In CM, there could be a pre-game variable turn length to account for those barrages and a commensurate abstracted time to recover before the scenario proper starts. Just a thought.

In Objective Delta, the Russian Helo/fast air deliver some kind of 'sparkly' payload mainly against infantry in buildings, which is very nasty. Does anyone know what kind of cluster munitions they're using? In Syria, I think they're using cluster phosphorus! In a quick muck around play in OD the US got hammered. I'm finding this scenario more realistic - in the sense that there's a lot going on from lots of systems - than most, though why the US puts strykers against tanks I couldn't possibly fathom. The strategy I'll be toying with next is to pull back and 'remove the feature'.

I had a quick muck about play of this and came out with a US Major Defeat against the AI, so at first glance I'd call it a fair fight. Just takes a bit of practice to get it sorted. Stingers (only 2?) did nothing, Also, had a whole squad in building get destroyed by a russian firing a thermo RPG7 round - very nasty - the building collapsed and the squad took several casualties and become rattled. Interesting to see/be exposed to the CAS of the Russians, as that's a new trick for me. Has anyone tried this against a human player? I'd think pro-Russian in that case (as they could hide/better use their armour).

Just had a situation where my Challenger destroyed a T-x while firing through a wrecked Warrior. Interestingly the Challenger's LOS wasnt affected at all by the wreck, is that normal? Or does the sighting time increseas and hit chance simply decrease? On the reverse, the T-x could only see the tip of the barrel, the left fender and the top turret optics! Best THH

That's good thinking. I had the sense that a H2H scenario need to be different from the AI versions, also including the option that a H2H game would allow each side to add extra forces (like an extra vehicle or two) to help make the H2H match-up more competitive. Say if a player preferred one side or the other they could allow the other player to take the extra forces in return for getting their side of choice - in ASL this is called the Australian Balancing System. Such an approach would fit into AI version as a player could choose the extra forces or give them to the computer to make it more difficult. Also, the AI needs an extra level of difficulty: an Ultra victory if they get total destruction of the AI while losing less than 10% of manpower. All I'm hoping for right now is that when a scenario says its suitable for H2H play, the two players should have a thrilling competitve match where they both have a reasonable chance of fulfilling victory conditions. Best THH

My gigabyte brand laptop has Intel CPU 10th gen i7 but both integrated and RTX 2060 graphics which works fine. But I had the pixellation problem that was fixed by forcing the laptop to use the RTX graphics. I also have 2 SSDs, to make the scenario loads, turns and saves load ASAP but stll not fast enough for me. My buddy has an AMD PC with integrated graphics which still cant fix the pixellation. BTW if I run OBS at the same time as the game, OBS crashes, 'cos of laptop problem OBS has! Its worth doing all the research you can...on all the potential uses for the gear.

There seems to be to little of the good stuff your doing. Lack of stats is one part of the problem, time is another, understanding of the techniques how to get a better fight is a third. Inclination/built in bias is another-i've seen some ppl argue that balance doesnt matter, but I assume they always play AI and always Blue, which is fine for many ppl, but they shouldnt impose their approach on others who'd like to play a gripping battle H2H.

I'm pretty impressed by this whole AAR, and presume it is part of the playtesting of the scenarios coming with CW. Nice to see the scenario being tested in H2H format and hopefully it will be developed to at least 60/40 win loss for either side. I know its super hard to get the scenarios balanced to that level - lots of moving parts and the two sides are very different - but the victory conditions can at least be tweaked. If Bf has the capacity, it would be super interesting to get the win/loss of all games played (2H, AI, at each level of skill) automatically reported to it by the CM code (a feature of some software) and aggregated results (to hide identities) posted on a public page so players could use that to help them decide whether a scenario will give them a good battle (after all the investment in a game is a few hours at least). The engagement the CM community would get from that would rocket! THH

Finally, I achieved a great result on this scenario Keys to victory: - hide everyone - setup Syrians to fire enfilade, and only reveal them when its worth it - develop a network of interlocking fire RPGs and ATGMs - don't risk tanks unless theres a clear flank shot - plot offboard artillery to attack German's as they set up to attack the village, within the combat zone - it helps to group Redforce infantry platoons so they're in voice or hand signal command of their HQs Mistakes that could have achieved a better result: - ATGM could have been given armour target arcs, rather than target commands as they sometimes prefer to shoot at closer infantry rather than further away Marders - BMPs could have been deployed better (sometimes destroyed without firing a shot - but its midnight in this game, so ... can't be to harsh, and they were great distractions while Red did other stuff), enfilade from hull down from further away. Have you played this as Red, what did you think? Best THH

Did you design the scenario? I'm impressed by the rubble, how'd you do it? Looks like a combo or hard ground, large rocks and brick piles but how did you do the bricks?