PEB14

New to CM I am... As a matter of fact, the tone in this thread is somewhat surprising... As usual, some people complain about bugs, while most others ask for more content (with diverging demands, obviously). The former seems obviously justified (who wants to play a bugged game?), and the latter demonstrates that the game is much appreciated as people ask for more... But to the newcomer it really looks like the relations between Battlefront and at least some of its customers are... tense to say the least! Enough for a newcomer to flee away? Not in my case, the game is really good!

I don't get your point... Of course, if the tile border is not passable, I shall rely on engineers. Ans so even if there is no place big enough for a man to pass, as the engineers can blast holes upon demand. My point is, you're not sure that a tile border is passable or not until you tried the hard way. And what you really need is to avoid having your tanks turn around ans pass a dangerous place only because they could not cross the tile border you thought they would!

OK my guess wish here: the BP will be dedicated to post-Dragoon operations; one campaign will feature the French forces battling their way inside Marseille.

Ok but was is true for Pixeltruppen is not for vehicles. I was a little bit upset when my Churchill tanks turned the other way on front of what seemed to be quite a small hedge...

@WimO I completely get your point. But basically @RMM answered to your comment the way I would have: if troops can't go through the passage intended, then troops should stop (and a notice of that shall be given). THAT would be realistic. My point is, except if I missed something, in CMBN there is no way to know wether a low hedge is passable or not, even if your adjacent to it! There is no ambiguity for the big hedges, impassable for vehicles and for pixeltruppen (except in gaps - which can be difficult to find but tha't pretty fine); but it looks to me that there are at least three other kind of hedges, the lowest of which only is passable. And distinction between low hedges and medium hedges is quite... difficult!

What I clearly would like to see in the next engine is a tool for movement similar to the one used for LOS: the color of the line changes when the LOS is obstructed. Doing it with the straight line between two waypoints would avoid to have tanks, of pixeltruppen, start to move AWAY from where you asked them to go, only because that damned little hedge is finally to high for them to cross, or because that stupid gully a little bit too deep…

So basically, internal walls DO already exist?

I certainly won't pretend I tested it extensively, but based my observation in the last urban combat scenario I played I completely agree with you. You have to spend a LOT of small arms bullets to get one kill. Looks like you didn't get my point. More walls wouldn't add anything in terms of of physical protection, but it would in terms of LOS obstruction. As of today, you can see everything inside the building in front of you, from the external wall on your side right to the other side's external wall. THAT is what bothers me, nothing else. Not only you can afford it, but you pretty much need to do it if, as you rightfully pointed out, you don't have the support of HE of flamethrower weapons (i.e., if you're playing the Russians). And if you assault a building, you come under instant fire from the units inside the next building (the one one the other side of the back street), beacause they can trace a LOS through the whole building you're assautting. A this point you get under fire from the unit's you're assaulting AND from the unit in the next building. Not very realistic. Which, once again, is the main reason why I think that adding internal walls would be a good thing.

I guess you're talking about modern combat. For WW2 stuff it's clearly not the same thing, infantry has much less firepower and you can pound infantry in concrete building for long before they get "dead meat", thanks to the protection offered by the walls! That's what I observed in mys last game in which I played Russians against Volksturm. Anyway, your argument is pretty much going in my sense, in the way that adding internals walls to buildings would provide with more opportunities to hide, so it would favor the hit and run tactics as well.

Sorry if the subject has already been discussed, but I didn't found any search function I think adding some internal walls in building could be interesting. Presently, I find frustrating to become instant targets for units placed in the building beyonf the one you're assulting; while this is OK for empty space buldings like hall factories and barns, for farms or city buildings internal walls shall block LOS until you're on the other side of the building... Tiles size being 8 m, this should be possible to split big buildings this way, and would make street fighting even more realistic!

I think you should post screenshots...

Thanks everybody for the answers! Now that I finished the scenario (with a win, obviously! ), it appears that my Pixeltruppen were killed by Panzerfaust shots, not by mines (except where the mines signs appeared, obviously). Concerning the skulls in circles, based on this CMRT game and on your kind explanations, It appears to me that the code is the following: Lightly wounded walking wounded = yellow circle base. Wounded (casualty) = red cross in circle Killed (casualty) = red skull in circle Aren't brown skulls for enemy troops only?

This was CMRT, so I guess no IED mines? I really was pretty sure it was some kind of booby trap, because it happened at the entrance of a building. (I mean, it happened at three instances, each time at the entrance of buildings...)

Really? So the skull is for a dead pixeltruppen, whatever the cause, whereas the cross is for an incapacited one? It's disturbing, because in the squad's user interface they are both lister as "casualties". And as they were all killed by explosions, I was pretty sure it was caused by mines....

It cannot be the same minefield as there is a building in between. Which puts me back to the first question: does the "red skull in a circle" around the corpse always mean that the casulaty was caused by a mine? I will post a snapshot this evening to makes things clear.

Thanks Erwin; of that I was aware of. My question was: why triggering a mine not always generates a minefiled sign? I set off a first minefield, and such a sign appeared at the place. Then, at a totally different position, I set off mines without any sign appearing afterwards (only the death skull around the bodies).

Hi, Just a simple question concerning mines. If I understand correctly, pixeltruppen killed by mines host a red skull inside the red circle around their corpse. Am I correct? In addition, sometimes a "roadsign" indicating minefield is sometimes placed in the area… but not always! Is there a meaning associated with the lack of sign? Thanks in advance for the clarification! PEB

Minor bug found in CMBN. It happens when you scan through units in the final map screen, searching for trophies. For at least two of my units, the number of captured enemies in the scenario was BIGGER than the number of enemy units captured in the whole campaign! Only happens for missing, not for KIA. I forgot to take a snapshot, sorry. It shouldn't distrurb anybody's sleep, but I felt I shall report. Greetings, PEB (CMBN newbie)

Indeed. (End of off-topic mode)

That does explain your question which sounded strange out of this context! I hope you enjoyed your stay in Normandy last year by the way!

Eeer.. What do you mean by France terrain? I mean, German and French terrains are quite similar, depending on regions... And Free French forces battled their way through Germany anyway...

Thank you for the information. I'm even surprised that CMBN remains your best seller, I thought the modern titles were. Concerning the Eastern Front, I was very surprised by your choice to focus on Bagration as a first release. Economical choice perhaps, as you already developped a lot of German stuff for CMBN? I believe that Kursk and Stalingrad would have been sexiest (and thus potentielly better seller) than Bagration.

I take the advice. Thanks.

Which still indicates that Germany sells... Normandy is no exception: it features the German forces (including SS). BattleFront was really courageous to release CMFI, as I don't believe that WW2 in Italy is a popular subject. No iconic battle, no gigantic Panzer struggles... For sure they do. The younger public hasn't the same tastes as the previous generation. Interest for the Napoleonic campaigns has faded, as does interest for WW2. But I remain convinced that, as far as WW2 wargames (in the broad sense) are concerned, German centered topics are better seller than US centered ones, especially when they deal with iconic battles: Normandy is the best example, but Stalingrad or Kursk are excellent ones either...

I hope there is more than the three of us... Anyway, I have read somewhere that titles not featuring US forces don't sell well. I'm really wondering on what facts this assumption is based on, as there are very few Combat Mission titles NOT featuring US forces (Afghanistan and Red Thunder if I'm not mistaken), which makes few data for comparison ? WW2 wargamer popular wisdom tends to designate the German forces as a good seller, not the US ones. As a matter of fact, the original tactical games (SL and ASL) were based around the Eastern Front, with the US forces only appearing in later modules. I would be very interested to have Steve comments over this "only US forces sell" assumption!