PEB14

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!

So would I. ANY ! North Africa, East Africa, Poland, France, Greece, Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Finland, Norway, Spanish Civil War… All of them !

Nicely said!

Covering the Tunisian campaign? That said, I'm sorry the program isn't very exciting for WW2 afficionados; the long awaited CMFB Commonwealth module shouldn't add much which isn't already covered by CMFI or CMRT late modules...

No I didn't. One right before, and one just after. And as the first tank stopped, no chance for another try. From now on, I remember to save before each bridge crossing…

Indeed. That's exactly what I did with my stuck tank. Smooth turn before the bridge, along the road, to position the tank along the axis of the bridge, then one waypoint just before (at the end of the turn) and one after the bridge. My mistake might have been to use the hunt command, but I'm pretty sure that I went for a standard "move" command, and that the R35 stops because of TacAI overrule…

Thanks for the information! One question though: what bug is well known? The poor handling of vehicles movement on an obstructed bridge, or the fact that a vehicle might get stuck in the middle of the bridge without any reason? The first issue I can understand, the second one looks a lot more strange! By the way, what is the advice of the senior players to avoid this bridge thing? (Don't answer "avoid crossing bridges with vehicles", please…) PS: I have finished the scenario with my first total victory, despite having two tanks stuck on the bridge (the HQ tank finally managed to reverse away). I'm quite happy with that. But the AI had no issue crossing the other bridge with several halftracks. I'm jealous.

Hi everyone, This is my second scenario beyond the tutorials, and it's getting pretty frustrating. I encountered two "bugs", one which may be only "newbieness", but another real, boring bug. I'm playing CMFI "Avanti!!" scenario. I am trying two make my R-35 tanks cross the first bridge. Once in the middle of the bridge, the first tank stops to fire on a distant target. It will NEVER move again. Never. I cancelled all orders to give new ones, asked for a short-range armor target to keep him from targets distractions, I saved and reloaded. Nope. No way. Won't move. I have put his HQ tank next to him and unbuttoned both of them: no Sir. I won't move. I'm very pleased where I am, blowing the bridge. The tank is completely undamaged: It's getting really boring when the second tank ENTERS the first one and gets pausing every two seconds without moving anymore. Now I've got two tanks stuck at the same position. And the HQ tank, right behind them, refuses to reverse to another place to fight. Don't tell me it's on purpose… Shall I report a bug? Other bug (or misunderstanding): in this scenario I have got three light mortars and one FO team, the latter with a radio. I don't know why, by the way, because absolutely NO other Italian unit has a radio. Well, I placed the FO team right next to one mortar team and its HQ: impossible to call for indirect fire. Any time, any place, with any HQ unit. No indirect fire. I looked at somme AARs on the web: they shall be able to. So what's the hint here? Hopefully they proved more useful in direct fire than those damn f**g tanks!

Don't get me wrong: it IS a clever use of the XO team, more clever than to use it a reserve squad by example! By gamey I only mean that it is a completely ahistorical use of this team, no criticize intended. Anyway I don't think the XO team role is properly simulated, nor that it could be in such a game anyway. Indeed I don't understand why the XO team is not simply included in the HQ.