Needed Implements: what do you feel is lacking, is missing, is buggy?

[Blackcat]

"A reduction in the pro US bias."

There ought to be a monthly prize for this sort of comment.

[dieseltaylor]

US bias - Possibly it seems that way as the game is FUBAR in a number of areas. and perhaps with the preponderance of US attack scenarios it makes this more pronounced.

In a single game I have had the Sherman tank which can have two members of crew die - tank commander and loader - both standing up in the cupola, killed and fall back into the 5ft diameter turret but this does not prevent the gunner from firing and nailing my 88mm. In fact the RoF for the Sherman is as good as an unsuppressed 88.

Subsequently 88mm shrek hits the rear quarter of a half track where the second MG is located. Result it backs away without even the gunner killed! Feasible possibly but gine the Sherman...

Incidentally the three man crewed Sherman has continued to be involved in the advance and battle. Anyone who might believe that headless bodies gushing 10 litres of blood into a fighting compartment is a serious inconvenience perhaps ought to let BF know.

Perhaps a vote here would help? I will phrase it thus, if your TC is decapitated and falls into the turret, followed with seconds by the radio operator/loader dying from a strike on the turret top ould you expect:

1] driver throws tank into reverse and hightails it

2] tank fights on, and on, and on

[McAuliffe]

1. Follow the leader command (don't want to flog the dead horse over that, but ...)

2. Target lines

3. Transparent overlay for bitmaps in Editor

4. Get rid of the 'memory leak' or whatever you call it, that makes your computer crash

5. Water able to flow over multiple elevations .

6. Follow the leader command ...

Oh... and Kingtigers, snow, 20 mm flak and mortars firing from half tracks, but I will show patience for that.. not too long though.

[Statisoris]

More on map artillery that can be used as such. Right now the 75mm and 150mm german infantry guns are the only non-mortar, on map, full spottable artillery I've seen. Why can't Priests, 88s and others be used like this, are maps too close scale & range for the higher velocity arty? Want to set up a battery of pack howitzers on map and play with them.

[Gen Von Television]

Keep 'em coming Guys: there are plenty of good observation and points in your messages! I hope BF will take notice and do something about them when possible.

As for the American Bias in the game, I'm not so sure; I haven't played that many battles, and I have the impression that mostly I fought against AI conscript or green, and a few Regular or Veterans; Sometime I was surprised on the precision and mortality of a single round shot by a 75 mm Sherman destroying in flame a PzIVJ: I didn't remember it was so effective in AK; even so I've seen also the M4s burning and exploding in a short notice, by panzerfaust or enemy tanks, while the surviving crew was running for life: never witnessed the headless rider event...

It would be nice to have the 75 mm Pack Howitzer (often used by the AB) handy, or the recoilless guns that came later; I still have to check about this: are you sure there are no other artillery pieces available? I need the 88!

[Magpie_Oz]

It would be nice to have the recoiless 75 mm howitzer (often used by the AB) handy; I still have to check about this: are you sure there are no other artillery pieces available? I need the 88!

You mean the 7.5 cm Leichtgeschütz 40?

They were in use with the German Abn, I believe the next module will have the Fallschrimjager but not sure about the RCL. It is maybe a little bit obscure and might need some additional rules because of the unique parameters it has for firing. Much more back blast than a Bazooka etc.

As for On Map indirect arty, there is no practical reason why an on board artillery unit cannot fire a spotted indirect mission the only thing you would need to do is remove their ability to do so if they move. The set up to fire an indirect mission with SP or Towed Artillery takes too long for the scale of the game. For direct fire weapons like the 88 the situations where it can provide indirect fire are quite restrictive as it they do not have the variable range abilities of pure artillery pieces.

I rather think true field artillery firing indirect on board is excluded from the game from a realism point of view.

A big map is 4klm, this is way to close to the pointy end for the artillery pukes.

Would be cool tho' especially in Airborne scenarios, "Defending the Guns".

[Gen Von Television]

You mean the 7.5 cm Leichtgeschütz 40?

That would also be a very interesting weapon to see in action. But writing about the RCLs I was thinking at the US Pack Howitzer I've seen it's used as an off board Artillery: that is perfectly OK, but it was also used as a close support weapons many times in many different campaigns and theaters. Even a Jeep would have been able to tow it in position, if not man-handled.

I agree that Long Toms, the 105s and the likes would be out of scale in this game, but not so for the 88: there were many scenario in CMBO (BB and AK too of course) where they were present already deployed, and a true hard to chew bone, as they were in RL; supposedly the most dreaded weapon in WWII against, infantry, armor or aircraft!

And we also would need a battery of 105 to create the Cpt. Winters scenario at Brecourt Manor: and that is pertinent to CMBN.

Later in the war there came a few other RCL used mainly by the US AB too.

[Magpie_Oz]

That would also be a very interesting weapon to see in action. But writing about the RCLs I was thinking at the US Pak Howitzer I've seen it's used as an off board Artillery: that is perfectly OK, but it was also used as a close support weapons many times in many different campaigns and theaters. Even a Jeep would have been able to tow it in position, if not man-handled.

Ok but the pack howitzer is not recoilless, just small and able to be packed. Otherwise it is much the same as any other field arty piece. The lack of a gunshield would make it uber vulnerable in the direct fire Infantry Gun role that the German iG75 and 150 are used for. Again tho' it comes down to how they were deployed. The 75 packs (not PAK which is German anti-tank) are an Airborne or Mountain Division's cannon company and meant to provide artillery support, not really in a direct fire or infantry gun role.

I agree that Long Toms, the 105s and the likes would be out of scale in this game, but not so for the 88: there were many scenario in CMBO (BB and AK too of course) where they were present already deployed, and a true hard to chew bone, as they were in RL; supposedly the most dreaded weapon in WWII against, infantry, armor or aircraft!

Yes but their ability to fire "spotted indirect" missions is greatly restricted by their inability to fire truly indirect. As they fire from a fixed shell they cannot alter the charge of each round they fire so they have to be sighted very carefully to be able to fire indirect and are quire restricted when they do so. If an 88 is on board there will be almost nowhere it would be able to fire indirect because they have such a flat trajectory.

And we also would need a battery of 105 to create the Cpt. Winters scenario at Brecourt Manor: and that is pertinent to CMBN.

Later in the war there came a few other RCL used mainly by the US AB too.

Sure but the Howitzers at Brecourt Manner couldn't fire at Capt Winters.

[Gen Von Television]

Wait a minute! I went through the manual and the 88s are all there! So at least we have them! I agree, they cannot fire like howitzers and that Winters wasn't the target of those 105s, but still we need them, and possibly firing to some distant target (in this case Utah) while the 506 prepares its moves...

[Erwin]

""A reduction in the pro US bias."

There ought to be a monthly prize for this sort of comment."

I agree it's like beating a dead horse. But, there was a reason that Allied troops were so scared of German armor. You wouldn't get any understanding of that from CMBN however. The German armor seems to function more like the dear old Italian M13/41's.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Get rid of the kevlar trees. (!!!)

Maybe I misunderstand penetration ) , but I see M10 and sherman turrets holed by panthers with no effect on the crew very often. Might have been lucky crewmen, but no casualties seems unlikely IMO.

[drrowley]

wasn't sure where to put this, ....all complaints, but here will do.

1st QB i tried, 1st unit i selected, turned out to be at gun connected to a truck. since i just wanted to position the gun, i dismounted it. couldn't move it anywhere and couldn't re-mount it to the truck. i could move the truck. so it turns out, when the units were placed on the map, the truck was in the setup zone and the gun happened to end up in the non-setup zone. i found, after moving another truck/gun in same situation, that the gun will move with the truck. and making sure the gun is in the setup zone, then, dismounting it.

had a mark4, with an abandoned sherman 100 meters in front, that i gave it a 'hunt' order. it would stop immediately, with gun pointed at the sherman, but would just set there. (ok, undamaged tank in front, put couple of rounds in it and move on.) i manually targeted the sherman, but mark4 still refused to shoot it. (wasting ap?)

in same QB, had a panther that start with 39ap rounds and ended the hour game with same. no matter what was going on, it would refuse to shoot at any vehicles, even if manually targeted to do so. it would shoot at infantry. during one tank target rich turn, i just watched it. gun would traverse left, then right, then left... but would never shoot, at anything.

in same QB, i noticed, for an at gun placed at the forest edge, that right in front, that i hadn't notice a small rise during setup and that there was no los to the area i wanted covered. so it was a real big surprise when a sherman halted in that area and started shooting at the gun AND knocking it out. this was at 600 meter range. so how did the sherman manage to see it, in the forest edge at 600 meters, as well as manage to hit it when the at gun had no los to the sherman. i had several at guns, that never got any shots off, that were all placed on the forest edges and were engaged in ranges over 200 meters. and many of them were first shots.

(why the loss of the LOS button?)

had at infantry, in 'hide' mode, for ambush position on forest edge, but when the shermans show up, the shermans start shooting at the infantry at over 200 meter range. how are they being seen?

had non-at infantry 'hiding' 100 meters into forest area and they too came under sherman fire at over 200 meter range. how the hell were they seen.

in set up, had mortars' so that they were in range of a command flag, but when game started, they were now 'out of range'.

i had several tanks, (including some of my own), were firing on the run, and worse, hit something on first shot.

can the amour be ordered just to concentrate on enemy amour and not their dismounted crews?

what happened to several levels of sound. like being able to shut off annoying birds or crickets. or distant cannons.

[stikkypixie]

wasn't sure where to put this, ....all complaints, but here will do.

in same QB, had a panther that start with 39ap rounds and ended the hour game with same. no matter what was going on, it would refuse to shoot at any vehicles, even if manually targeted to do so. it would shoot at infantry. during one tank target rich turn, i just watched it. gun would traverse left, then right, then left... but would never shoot, at anything.

Having LOS and LOF are two different things. Have you tried moving the panther to a better location? It could be that the panther could see the enemy tanks, but not point it gun at it (i.e. only the commander can see them because he sits higher up)

in same QB, i noticed, for an at gun placed at the forest edge, that right in front, that i hadn't notice a small rise during setup and that there was no los to the area i wanted covered. so it was a real big surprise when a sherman halted in that area and started shooting at the gun AND knocking it out. this was at 600 meter range. so how did the sherman manage to see it, in the forest edge at 600 meters, as well as manage to hit it when the at gun had no los to the sherman. i had several at guns, that never got any shots off, that were all placed on the forest edges and were engaged in ranges over 200 meters. and many of them were first shots.

(why the loss of the LOS button?)

had at infantry, in 'hide' mode, for ambush position on forest edge, but when the shermans show up, the shermans start shooting at the infantry at over 200 meter range. how are they being seen?

had non-at infantry 'hiding' 100 meters into forest area and they too came under sherman fire at over 200 meter range. how the hell were they seen.

Cover doesn't work like in CMBB or CMAK any more (in case you were unaware of this). The forest edge, really means the forest edge and not the edge of a forest "tile". Being in "forest" doesn't give a uniform cover bonus like in the old games. So basically there were only a couple trees in front of your guys (literally, the game tracks every tree). It doesn't make for the best of cover. Also depending on the difficulty level you are playing, the spotting rules are relaxed.

As for the tank, the height of units is taken into account. The target tool does not take into account the height of the target when trying to see whether you have LOS or not. Because of the height of the tank it could see the gun (again the edge of the forest is not a good place to be) and shoot it because it is so tall. Have you tried targetting the tank?

in set up, had mortars' so that they were in range of a command flag, but when game started, they were now 'out of range'.

Did you move the HQs or the mortars?

i had several tanks, (including some of my own), were firing on the run, and worse, hit something on first shot.

luck?

can the amour be ordered just to concentrate on enemy amour and not their dismounted crews?

what happened to several levels of sound. like being able to shut off annoying birds or crickets. or distant cannons.

There is no armour only target arc unfortunately, and I believe there is a mod that lowers the ambient sound.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the game really needs a 180° Cover Arc command. I use them far more than 360° arcs.

[dakuth]

I must admit that I don't quite get this one. I thought I would since I appreciated movable waypoints in CMx1, but it hasn't happened. The main reason is that for other reasons I prefer not to set movement paths that are going to take longer than one turn to complete anyway. So they tend to be pretty simple for the most part with only one or few waypoints, and if I decide to do the whole thing over again, it is only a matter of a minute or less to correct it. The other thing is that I have a pretty good idea by now of how most of the terrain types are going to effect movement, so I don't get a lot of the AI redrawing my movement paths. And since these paths are shorter in the first place, my units are less likely to wander off very far into dangerous territory. And if they do...well, that's war ain't it?

Michael

No command delay. Therefore setting up long and complex waypoint systems are not required anymore. if there is a minor mistake, you can correct it at the end of the turn with no penalty. No "I'm stuck with this general plan now, and unless I want to waste 30secs of sending a new command down the chain, I had better just tweak it bit by bit"

Now you can just delete the lot and re-order

[womble]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the game really needs a 180° Cover Arc command. I use them far more than 360° arcs.

I used to think that too, but then I realised that the situations where I don't want my troops to shoot 'behind', but do want to control their shooting range are pretty rare. Since limiting the angle of the target arc gives no advantage in spotting focus, I'm pretty sanguine about the circular arc; it's rare I use anything else unless I want my tank's gun to be already pointed in a certain direction.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Since limiting the angle of the target arc gives no advantage in spotting focus

It doesn't? If spotting checks are made for each infantryman, as I assume they are since LOS and LOF is calculated for each, then I would think having everyone looking in one direction would increase spotting chances in that direction.

But the main reason I use 180° target arcs is because I can control facing and engagement range with the same command. This is important because Face commands and Target Arcs are mutually exclusive at movement waypoints.

[womble]

It doesn't? If spotting checks are made for each infantryman, as I assume they are since LOS and LOF is calculated for each, then I would think having everyone looking in one direction would increase spotting chances in that direction.

Does setting a target arc get all of an infantry element's personnel looking in the one direction any more than they would be already? I don't often see troops taking up 'all round defense' positions, even with my 360-arcs set; they face in the last direction they were moving, unless I've given them a Face order.

But the main reason I use 180° target arcs is because I can control facing and engagement range with the same command. This is important because Face commands and Target Arcs are mutually exclusive at movement waypoints.

I recognise the exclusivity, but I don't know that your troops will face their target arc. If they do then you're probably right and I need to reassess when I use TAs. I'm pretty sure that in the particular case of the 360 arc, they face where they move, though, so if that's where you wanted them to be looking, no need to fret over a 360 potentially drawing their attention away.

[Bemused]

I know this has been commented upon elsewhere but I've just finished played the US campaigns and am now moving on to play some German missions.

In the US missions it became a tried and tested technique to move to contact with scout sections, identify enemy firing locations at which point I would move up my mortars which would 90%+ of the time neutralise the target after less than a turn firing. If it took more than a turn the challenge was to manage ammunition using "Target Light". MGs in general were much less effective - while I would move them up as well, they generally took a couple of turns before they even had LOS on the target to fire (in contrast to the mortars which generally were able to draw LOS to slightly behind the bocage covering the target). I should note that these situations mostly reflect firing at bocage targets from the same cover.

Enemy HMGs rarely caused me trouble and the only time I ever had to restart a scenario was when I was caught by enemy mortar fire which was infrequent. I was struck though by how effective individual rounds were in terms of range of effect on impact. At the end of the campaign I would have mortars with 30+ kills each while my MGs were doing well to have 3 odd.

Now I have just started playing German (attacking) missions against the AI and can see the effects of the mortars more directly. They do seem like death rays I must admit. Whatever about accuracy their effects on impact are devastating. I have now got to the point that I try to draw fire with as few troops as possible in the hopes that this will make the defending mortars waste their ammo.

I guess I am asking that BFC take a look at this: were mortars really that effective and MGs so ineffective (at least in terms of inflicting casualties)?

Cheers

[Gen Von Television]

No command delay.

That to me added one more variable of chaos that was making the game seemingly more realistic; admittedly having to organize and tweak all the waypoints to keep 'em rolling right, was a bit of a PIA, but very handy and necessary sometime and not necessarily all the times.

In CMX1 there are some scenario at Regimental level you have to move on huge maps (think of Africa or Russia, but there were in ETO too), and the movement to get to the line may take several turns and you have to move many platoons and vehicles and tanks.

In the bocage you have to frog jump from one field to the next, so your movements are very limited and can be solved turn by turn; the AI seems to mess up many times the movements in CMX2 as it was in CMX1, so even in one-turn-move you'll get the chance of someting weird happening, and you cannot check it before the action, but only after its execution.

I have to admit I'm starting to get used to the carelessness and velocity of this new way to assign movement paths, so you do not concentrate too much on micro-management but more on the whole of the situation; Still I miss that option and I'm convinced that not to have it may bring serious problem in situations similar to the ones I have described.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Does setting a target arc get all of an infantry element's personnel looking in the one direction any more than they would be already? I don't often see troops taking up 'all round defense' positions, even with my 360-arcs set; they face in the last direction they were moving, unless I've given them a Face order.

I recognise the exclusivity, but I don't know that your troops will face their target arc. If they do then you're probably right and I need to reassess when I use TAs. I'm pretty sure that in the particular case of the 360 arc, they face where they move, though, so if that's where you wanted them to be looking, no need to fret over a 360 potentially drawing their attention away.

I just checked and we are both right. Men with a 360° arc will stay facing whichever direction they were moving. But men given a 180° (or lesser) arc will change face towards the center of that arc as if they had been given a Face command in that direction. This behavior works the same for tank turret facing.

[womble]

I just checked and we are both right. Men with a 360° arc will stay facing whichever direction they were moving. But men given a 180° (or lesser) arc will change face towards the center of that arc as if they had been given a Face command in that direction. This behavior works the same for tank turret facing.

Oh, good catch, that man! No longer will I be torn between getting a team to set up one way when they've moved another without junking their "don't draw attention" target arc. And both of us being right? On this forum? The End Times Cometh, I tell you

[123456789]

Friends,

well done on the new CM. Some initial observations/questions:

1) it is not obvious what defense, if any, is possible against aircraft. In actuality mounted .50 cals were a deterrent- is that a factor in the game? Can planes be defended against, at least passively? Is an infantry unit in a halftrack with HMG any different to a passing fighter than one in a truck? Could not find reference to this in the manual.

2) have continued to have situations in which I command a tank to open up and move, which is interpreted by the game to mean that the crew opens up then move out of the tank.

3) antitank guns are a headache to place and point. It takes several minutes of game time to get them facing in the right direction. Could be related to limbering. Very hard to move them into trees, so they become sitting ducks in the open. In reality few forests are too dense to stash a small AT gun.

4) the visibility of small infantry units to tanks is unrealistic to a degree that alters the quality of the historical simulation. I was noticing that tanks easily spot and kill small units hiding in trees and buildings, seemingly moreso than in previous CM editions. So I gamed several scenarios with german armor advancing through forest paths into towns that were infested with numerous (like 20) sniper and bazooka squads, hiding in dense forest and buildings, with target arcs set to ambush tanks from the side or rear as they passed by. In reality a tanker's nightmare. In the game a turkey shoot- as soon as a bazooka squad 'unhides' in order to fire (or even while still hiding), it is spotted and destroyed by every tank within LOS, even though they are buttoned up by the sniper fire. In the last one I played the Germans (AI) laid down a thick smoke screen to cover their advance- US bazooka teams could not see a thing- which did not prevent the tanks from seeing them and destroying them. Furthermore, as pointed out in other comments, the courageous but dimwitted rifleman accompanying the bazookaman usually starts firing his carbine at the tank being ambushed as soon as the team unhides, needlessly giving away his position. Historically there are numerous examples from WW2 and Korea of tankers having no idea where they were receiving bazooka fire from- its not easy to spot 2 guys under cover from the inside of a tank from that era. This is more than a niggling point since it strongly tilts the balance of power between tanks and infantry to tanks, even in close quarter urban combat and forested environments which historically favored infantry over unaccompanied armor.

5) had an amusing incident in which a tank crew dismounted under fire, rallied, and then I commanded them to re-enter their vehicle, at which point they hid under the tank, from which position I was unable to command them for the rest of the game, even though they were not panicked.

[stikkypixie]

Friends,

well done on the new CM. Some initial observations/questions:

1) it is not obvious what defense, if any, is possible against aircraft. In actuality mounted .50 cals were a deterrent- is that a factor in the game? Can planes be defended against, at least passively? Is an infantry unit in a halftrack with HMG any different to a passing fighter than one in a truck? Could not find reference to this in the manual.

2) have continued to have situations in which I command a tank to open up and move, which is interpreted by the game to mean that the crew opens up then move out of the tank.

3) antitank guns are a headache to place and point. It takes several minutes of game time to get them facing in the right direction. Could be related to limbering. Very hard to move them into trees, so they become sitting ducks in the open. In reality few forests are too dense to stash a small AT gun.

4) the visibility of small infantry units to tanks is unrealistic to a degree that alters the quality of the historical simulation. I was noticing that tanks easily spot and kill small units hiding in trees and buildings, seemingly moreso than in previous CM editions. So I gamed several scenarios with german armor advancing through forest paths into towns that were infested with numerous (like 20) sniper and bazooka squads, hiding in dense forest and buildings, with target arcs set to ambush tanks from the side or rear as they passed by. In reality a tanker's nightmare. In the game a turkey shoot- as soon as a bazooka squad 'unhides' in order to fire (or even while still hiding), it is spotted and destroyed by every tank within LOS, even though they are buttoned up by the sniper fire. In the last one I played the Germans (AI) laid down a thick smoke screen to cover their advance- US bazooka teams could not see a thing- which did not prevent the tanks from seeing them and destroying them. Furthermore, as pointed out in other comments, the courageous but dimwitted rifleman accompanying the bazookaman usually starts firing his carbine at the tank being ambushed as soon as the team unhides, needlessly giving away his position. Historically there are numerous examples from WW2 and Korea of tankers having no idea where they were receiving bazooka fire from- its not easy to spot 2 guys under cover from the inside of a tank from that era. This is more than a niggling point since it strongly tilts the balance of power between tanks and infantry to tanks, even in close quarter urban combat and forested environments which historically favored infantry over unaccompanied armor.

5) had an amusing incident in which a tank crew dismounted under fire, rallied, and then I commanded them to re-enter their vehicle, at which point they hid under the tank, from which position I was unable to command them for the rest of the game, even though they were not panicked.

1) No, they didn't put any AA fire in the game.

2) Make sure you are not accidentally pressing the bail out order. This should not happen (at least in my experience).

3) In my experience it's better to find a good place to put the gun from the start than to move them there

4) Cover is treated differently in this game. You now longer have hexes/tiles which give a cover bonus. What you have now is more explicitly representation. So if you put your squad behind a couple trees, you are *actually* telling 11 men to hide behind two or three trees. In other words, those trees are no longer a representation of a dense forest. The game tracks every tree.

Another factor is the undergrowth, the game now allows you to mix trees and undergrowth. Obviously more undergrowth will mean more concealment.

So it might be the case that you are not getting the concealment you are expecting.

Not saying that tweaks are not needed, but it is something to keep in mind. 11 guys behind two trees on a lawn is bad concealment as those two trees do not represent a forest, but are really two trees. It takes some getting used too. You can experiment in the editor using the most dense trees and undergrowth and you should see a marked difference.

Also in my experience unless guys open up from a building, they are virtually invisible. What difficulty level are you playing?

5) maybe they thought it was a safe place

[TrapOne]

As someone working on scenarios involving mechanized cavalry and TDs, on large maps and in task-organized groups, I've got some probably pretty unusual wishes:

- Ability to purchase radio jeeps and MMG/radio jeeps as individual vehicles.

- Ability to purchase some vehicles, like jeeps, without crews.

- Ability to purchase mortar halftracks and trucks carrying mortar ammunition.

- Reduce M20 scout car crew from four - the same as the Greyhound's - to one or two. It's not clear to me what these four men are even doing, since the M20 is only armed with a single machine gun. There are six seats in an M20 but right now, the crew occupies four of them, meaning that few kinds of teams will even fit on board.

- Allow crews to dismount the machine gun on armed jeeps; that machine gun gave cavalry troops most of their firepower when operating in defensive roles.

- Allow cross-attachment of platoons and companies, in order to allow correct modeling of command and control within task forces. It should be possible to have a medium tank company under the command of an armored infantry battalion, for instance.