Just played through Orange Comet with a Marginal Win (likely higher than that if the Immenrode objective had reverted back to NATO control due to no enemy units on the objective and significant RTR presence overwatching the objective). Screenshot below:
op_orange_comet_final.JPG

My concept of ...

The reason I bring this up is that a number of scenarios have forward-deployed units in the defense and a major river (with associated bridges) behind them. With the current state of the game, we can either order engineering units to begin the demolition process (with demolition occurring ...

Currently, the "Blow Bridge" order will cause an engineering unit to begin working on demolition and destroy the specified bridge immediately upon completing the process. However, it appears to me that there would be situations where a bridge or similar feature might be prepared for demolition ...

I definitely see the potential pitfalls with adding these features - no argument there.

As far as suggestions go, an algorithm that considers some/all of the following when choosing a withdraw location would be a good starting point:
- Line of sight to the objective (if the task is to control a ...

This issue is a tough one to replicate, but it seems to occur when the player happens to be mousing over a visible enemy unit when its AI executes a transition (withdraw, relocation, etc.). In these cases, the AI's internal processing information (e.g. "[unit name] must relocate 500m after receiving ...

The following is a somewhat lengthy post - apologies in advance for this.

When giving orders to lower-level formations, we generally have a specific reason for a particular tactical/movement order (for instance, we would move units to a particular hex to control/inderdict movement along a route ...

The key (to me) appears to be blowing the Heustreu bridge to channel the WP attack to the south (or possibly the north, with increased travel time). Since there is only a single crossing point well to the north, blowing the Heustreu crossing allows you to utilize interior lines and concentrate on ...

I will second (third?) the initial post here - my observation is that in certain circumstances, the VP hex radius is insufficient to represent actual control. Especially if a VP location is commanded by terrain that is multiple hexes away but offers a clear line of sight to the VP hex, having this ...

Re (1): I agree that this would add an element of randomness to gameplay, but as numerous examples over the past few years alone (the star one being the Russian advance to Kyiv in Feb 2022) demonstrate, such factors do indeed appear and play a major role in the overall outcome. At the least, having ...

The current framework for unit movement is very detailed in certain aspects, but I feel that it could be improved in a few areas. Some suggestions are below:

1. It would be interesting to introduce (random) events that disable one or more subunits in a formation to represent factors such as engine ...

My perspective on this:

From a combat system/scenario development standpoint, real-world scenarios (i.e., battles/campaigns that actually took place) are valuable for validation purposes. Setting up a real scenario and letting it play out allows you to compare the simulated results to the actual ...

This post lays out two areas where I believe the existing interface could be improved (mostly relating to displaying data at a later point in the scenario than the current time):

1. The LOS/spottable distance overlays currently display their values at the current time. This is OK in most cases, but ...

My specific case is that withdraws are occurring due to the stance/standoff distance setting. But it still leads to a situation where the unit cycles between withdraw orders from the same two/three enemy units and never settles down - that in turn means that it attracts more fire (due to being more ...

I have observed several situations in various scenarios where a unit will enter an essentially infinite withdraw loop due to ping-ponging between two enemy units on opposite sides (withdraw from enemy A to achieve standoff -> gets within standoff of unit B -> withdraws from B towards A -> repeat ...

Since the "improved position" markers can be moved by the player during setup, I often find that selecting a hex to view LOS/spottability/other characteristics (using shift + click) leads to a marker in that hex being picked up and inadvertently moved (either to another hex side, or to another hex ...

Below are a few observations that I've made about how recon units tend to work in-game and where these may deviate from real-life:

1. Recon units are commonly used to spot minefields/improved positions/obstacles in advance of the main body. However, is it correct that they should detect an entire ...

These are all good points. I will say that I have an ingrained habit of using recon units like skirmishers/cavalry in earlier eras (due to a background in ACW/Napoleonics), so I tend to deploy my recon to "feel out" the enemy defenses as would be done in those periods. But the higher lethality of ...

As the attacker, I tend to use my recon units primarily for route clearance (scouting out potential avenues of approach prior to committing to a particular COA). The often unintended consequence of this is a "recon by fire" scenario where I gain knowledge of enemy positions at the expense of losing ...

This is something I've noticed consistently across multiple in-game scenarios but I'm curious if it's reflective of real life (actual or expected). The reconnaissance units of the attacking side (whether NATO or WP) tend to have very high attrition rates (in most cases, they serve as equal parts ...

Greetings all,

With the release of the modding guides, I have been trying to implement air-dropped nuclear weapons in the game. I have the following lines added to the base US data file (obviously copied into a separate directory):

In "Munition Types":
NWB1_NUKE1 NWB1 B61 Test Nuclear Bomb NUKE AA ...