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 ...

Thanks for the update. Will these FMs include instructions for changing the actual game mechanics and rebuilding a modded executable?

I see that the battle planner missions have a "Frontage" setting (which I assume sets formation depth/breadth for units assigned to that mission). Is this something that can be changed for player-side orders as well or are there plans to bring this functionality in in future updates?

Or is this ...

Thanks. The main issue I have with this mechanic is that it results in situations where a single casualty snowballs into multiple after the unit stops its movement, assigns a "Withdraw" order, and then withdraws. Although maybe I'm biased by having the 'god's eye' picture as opposed to what a real ...

How do the "Acceptable losses" and "Relocate when" parameters interact in the context of an assault/move order? My experience is that setting the "Relocate when" parameter to "After taking direct fire losses" will stop a move/assault order regardless of its associated "Acceptable losses" setting (i ...

Hi all,

I noticed that FMs 7-10 are not mentioned in the update notes. Are these documents still being worked for release?

Posting a short vignette from my playthrough of Lesson of War as the Warsaw Pact. I focused on pushing my armored and mechanized units forward rapidly to occupy positions commanding the likely enemy AoA (advancing towards Wotzendorf from the southeast). This resulted in my tank company almost wiping ...

Understood regarding the group move; I have used it mostly to lay out waypoints for a group that I can then move around as needed (without ordering the individual units). My question is more towards being able to give a formation HQ an order such as "attack this location starting from point A with H ...

I feel that the game would benefit greatly from including some level of subordinate AI in order to avoid giving orders to individual units. Currently, even though we command at battalion level or higher for most scenarios, units must be given orders individually (the group movement only applies the ...

Saw this post and wanted to add some observations (may be WAI):

With the current artillery implementation, the waypoint for a Barrage order can be moved after the barrage commences without any penalty. This means that a barrage targeted at a particular hex can be instantly retargeted to another hex ...

Another aspect of this is the delivery method (toss bombing, level bombing, etc.) as I doubt aircraft would drop even a low-yield weapon from within the same hex. Ultimately this may be more of a cosmetic addition than anything else, but it would be nice to be able to utilize air-delivered tactical ...

The briefing for "The Heilbronn Gambit" appears to have an incorrect graphic relative to the initial situation. The threat assessment indicates two tank regiments converging on the Sulm river, while the mission briefing graphic indicates a "Block" task with an enemy axis of advance from the east (as ...

This would probably require adding additional AGMs under the "Systems" sheet of the relevant database and assigning them a NPCHEM, PCHEM, or NUKE type. I assume this would result in the corresponding effect being applied based on the targeted hex and the effect radius of the munition.

Will test ...