AlexUK

If I send up a swarm of drones that are capable of communicating with each other, while not taking input from me, are they not autonomous?  If I send up a drone that picks what it's doing based on some pre-determined guidelines and then communicates what it's doing back to me, is it not autonomous? 
Autonomy evades certain countermeasures, but doesn't preclude communication. Wouldn't a clever drone herder develop a swarm of drones that had some diverse capabilities?  Maybe give 10 or 20% of them a suite of RF sensors and autonomy to go hunt radars and EW systems, while the rest were capable of picking targets on their own, but also at least some rudimentary communication to keep multiple drones from picking the same target if they happen to have comms with their neighbors?

On victory and defeat - because it is the basis of so much “proof” on the opposing sides of this thing.  In warfare victory and defeat are very slippery concepts.  One can win a war by all metrics and wind up losing in the long run (see European Allies after WW1 and 2).  The vice versa is also possible (see Japan).  So whenever someone jumps in with the “Ukraine is obviously losing, Russia is winning” or vice versa, without clearly defining what that means, I get suspicious.
For now the best way to try and determine what victory/defeat means in this war, one needs to come to a common understanding of what the initial political and strategic goals of this war for each side were and were not.
When I am looking at the “winning/losing” equation I am using the following objectives.
For Ukraine:
- the survival of the state as independent and sovereign.
- the creation of a narrative of effective resolve and resistance that draws in international support.
- shape and set the conditions for enduring security integrity at wars end (this one is key to effective reconstruction and recovery).
For Russia:
- the complete political absorption control of Ukraine as a vassal state or sub-state.
- a clear demonstration of Russian power within its Near Abroad designed to push back on Western encroachment and reinforce the notion that other states within this region need to “stay in line”.  This one plays to both external and internal audiences.
- any and all erosion of NATO unity and resolve, as well as a draw back of US influence in the region.
For the West (we often forget we have a win/lose calculus here as well):
- A clear demonstration of the western rules based international order.  Russia must be forced to get back in line and face punitive measures for an illegal invasion that violates the rules we constructed.  To this end we support Ukraines objectives; however, we do not need all of them in full to achieve ours. We do need a clear demonstration of western unity and resolve as a foundational underpinning for that western rules based order.
- Any opportunities to expand western influence and control - see Sweden and Finland.
- the reduction of Russia as a security threat to Europe and globally.
- Avoid a catastrophic collapse of Russia at all costs as it would make the overall regional situation, and possibly global one much worse.
You will note that for me none of these are tied directly to lines on the ground.  I do not believe that where this war ends drive those strategic objectives (within reason of course - if Russia takes Kyiv the viability of Ukrainian state is greatly diminished).  
By my metrics, Russia has already pretty much “lost” this thing.  They can hold onto to what they have now but none of their strategic objectives are accomplished.  They end the war in worse position than when they started it.  Their only Hail Mary is that western support and attention dries up over time and they can exploit that to try and pull this one out of the dumpster.  The odds of full Russian control over Ukraine by this point are pretty damn low.  Much worse than at wars beginning.
Ukraine has two out of three, that last one of setting conditions for enduring security has not been accomplished. Ukraines long game is to enter into western economic and security mechanisms.  They definitely have earned that but we have the thorny issue of Russia still able to make trouble and project that into Ukraine.  We can live with a level of this a la South Korea, but I suspect we will need this thing to hold more water to work.
The West is doing well but we are not there yet, and things could still go bad quickly.  We definitely have shored up influence, control and unity. And we have managed to reduce Russian threats pretty significantly as the Russian military has been shattered. What we do not have are the conditions for long term stabilization. Russia is neither a zero-threat nor stable in the long term.
So to summarize…on victory/defeat so far:
Russia - nope.
Ukraine - OK, but not there yet.
West - meh, so long as we don’t blow the whole thing up.
I hope this is useful for the next time someone rolls through here with “well obviously Russia is winning” due to some headline about a tactical twitch somewhere.  They likely are not using the same metrics I do and in many cases have ulterior motives for painting this war in a certain light.

There is so much more that we can do with this simple binary system with a little imagination. I'm feeling the 'so little time' part too.  There reworks are taking up months of my time - I had hoped to make much faster progress with them but I just have to rework these old maps first and the AI in these two early campaigns was abysmal, basically being QB map AI plans. Although I was pleasantly surprised by what I was getting from testing the original Amarah - one sees what can still be done with the old forms by one who knows how to handle them.

After completing the Seven Days Campaign for CMCW, which is part of a 3 part trilogy following the legacy of Captain Charles Stevens  (In the Fields Where the Poppies Grow CMBN and Fields of Tears CMFB) (and his son Charlie Stevens in Seven Days CMCW), I decided to go and revise In the Fields Where the Poppies Grow. 
It was my first campaign for CM and I made a lot of mistakes along the way. I had did an earlier revision but I still left issues unsolved. So this is an attempt to get the campaign up to the standards of the other two hopefully. Below is the information.
In the Fields Where the Poppies Grow
(Revised)

This campaign is a complete revision of my first ever campaign that I created. Being a novice, I made a lot of mistakes, despite the campaign being well received by the community.

So I have gone back and reworked the entire campaign, making what I hope, are some noticeable improvements.

In the Fields Where the Poppies Grow is a semi-historical campaign following the 31st Tank Battalion, part of the 7th Armored Division, through the Battle of Normandy during August of 1944. It is an interactive campaign, the first part of a trilogy that continues with Fields of Tears in CMFB and Seven Days in CMCW.

It follows the legacy of Captain Charles Stevens (In the Fields Where the Poppies Grow and Fields of Tears) and later his son Lieutenant Charlie Stevens (Seven Days) through the trials of war.

In this campaign Captain C. Stevens is in command of A Company, 31st Tank Battalion and he must lead it through the later stages of the Battle of Normandy. Your job is to keep Stevens alive as his loss (2500 points) will effectively end the campaign, and still complete the missions.

About the Campaign:

It is a 10 mission campaign.

In the original you had a command decision to make which was confusing to some players so I eliminated it.

A draw will advance you in all missions.

Mission Tree:
1. The Crossroads
2. When Angels Weep
3. Tiger Tiger
4. The Road
5. The Bridge Over the Eure
6. A View to a Kill
7. Dance with the Devil
8. Bunker Hill
9. Encounter at Loire
10. Chartres

All the missions are from the original campaign, but have been heavily reworked and one renamed due to script issues.
Improvements:

1. All maps have been reworked, especially the annoying roads, and much more micro terrain has been added as well as flavor objects reworked.
2. All mission dates and times are in correct sequence
3. The command structure for all units is now correct as well unit names. The core unit commanders are all named from friends or actual participants.
4. Mission objectives have been updated and expanded and the point system modified for better balance.
5. Mission briefings have been reworked for better detail and there are now tactical maps for each mission as well. To follow the narrative of Captain Stevens, read the designer notes for each mission as I have updated these as well. They give you insight into his experiences.
6. Artwork has been updated for all the missions.
7. I have added a number of additional mods to the mods in the original campaign for better immersion. One not included in the download  but needed for the immersion of this campaign, is Lucky Strikes Hedgerow Hell mod, a must have for CMBN. All the other mods used are included in the download. Just drop into your z folder. All credit goes to the authors of the mods.
8. AI has been reworked as well for hopefully a better challenge.

My goals was to bring this campaign up to the standards of the other campaigns in the trilogy and I hope I have succeeded. In the download you will find the .cam file and the mod folder.
 
As always let me know of any issues and I hope you will find the campaign enjoyable.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/n8exclchbhzupfiokoqg2/h?rlkey=v5t7xumw8235ay0v1084jfztd&dl=0
 

Peace on Russian corruption and dated equipment.  But almost everything you list on that Type 45 is designed either for 1) enemy conventional aircraft, 2) enemy missiles and 3) enemy conventional surface combatants.
Not a lot are designed for swarming small surface or air systems, let alone small underwater systems.  Ships create big defensive bubbles but are not designed nor built for these sorts of threats, any better than modern mech was.
So if someone were to say, swarm that Type 45 with 50-100 small surface and flying FPVs those systems would quickly be overwhelmed, particularly in choppy seas.  None of those small system could kill that Type 45 but they could do critical damage which is just about as good as.
We of course are going keep putting up freakin Thales commercials and feel better until someone seriously damages one of these ships out on the open ocean.  Gawd help us when sub-surface gets into the game.  And then someone is going to hybrid and put FPVs onto a small subsurface vehicle so we get twice the fun. 

Exactly one year after the first announcement, the project is now finished. In order to avoid
misunderstandings on the part of the company Battlefront.com, I chose the name CampaignPack 😎.
The pack (as described in former threads) consists of 5 campaigns in which the player is thrown
into the events of the summer of 1944 in the sector of the German Army Group Center.
In total you will play minium 52 single missions, maximum 55 single missions (depending on one
branch). To avoid technical problems, I didn't add any mods to the campaigns. But I can, for example,
highly recommend the excellent work of @JM Stuff, especially his extraordinary mod collection of vehicles
and wrecks 👍
I recently visited the forum regularly to stay in touch with people who wanted to register. However, I have
asked the people at Battlefront.com several times to delete my profile.  This request has not yet been
granted to me, so as a quasi "undead" I will always stop by - but I will no longer take part in any discussions
or answer any questions in the forum. To get in touch with me, please write to me at:
E-Mail: f-s-zbg@web.de.😎
Of course, I can still send the campaign pack to anyone interested.
 
So all I can say is:
It was a great pleasure for me to finish this project and share it with many people.
I hope you have as much fun playing as I did creating it 🙏
 
Best regards
Mr.X 

Tonight, I have finished the complete (as it is now called) CampaignPack „Summer of Destruction“.
During the next hours, I will complete the short intro file and then start to send the content to all the guys who have ordered it. Within the next 2-3 days, everybody should get it 👍🏻
 
There is a small limitation:
The announced 20 master maps are not included yet. I simply don‘t have the patience to wait any longer with the release. I will send these maps with a second mail within the next 2-4 weeks.
Regards 
Mr.X

To be honest, I find myself somewhat underwhelmed by this expansion. The content I have tried so far is fine, but it falls short of expectations in terms of scale.
What it is missing is that "big thing" that gets you excited about it. In Fire and Rubble that was the Volkssturm stuff, which was completely new to CM and really unique. Downfall is a big content upgrade to Final Blitzkrieg, but in terms of the Combat Mission series as a whole, it does not actually add that much new stuff, with most of the formations and assets being ported over from other game families. Sure, the Volkssturm guys are still cool, but certainly not new anymore and frankly, I find it a bit weird that Downfall leans so heavily on those scenario and campaign wise, considering that they tended to surrender or go home on the western front, compared to the east.
Obviously there is not much new stuff you can realistically do with the Germans, but if you had asked me about this module before it came out, I would have bet that the new "big thing" was amphibious vehicles and river crossings, the capability of which exists in the engine, with various LVTs, maybe footbridges and campaigns at Walcheren and during Operation Varsity to use these new systems. That would have been cool and exciting and, at least to me, the obvious direction for the game to take. All of this is completely absent though. I guess the Schwimmwagen was added, but no allied amphibious gear? This timeframe would also be perfect for adding Commandos and Rangers (which already exist in Italy BTW).
There are the new super late war vehicles and weapons like the Pershing and Comet, but even in that area there is lots of unused potential that would have made the module feel way more unique and interesting. Just from the top of my head: Sherman Tulips, Sherman Crocodiles with fuel trailers (used at Juelich, another river crossing), Super Pershing... personally I am more of an infantry guy, so for those few of us: Why not add M1 Carbines modified for full auto capability, a common field modification, with kits being shipped officially?
I could even think of some more German stuff that could be used to spice those up a bit, like the PAW-600 AT gun that was actually used at the Aller against British forces. In a similar vain, heavy AA gun formations that the allies overran (anti bomber positions), 10.5cm, 12.8cm AA guns... Maybe the 8.8cm improvised AT guns made from unused Jagdpanther guns, used at the "Düren belt"? And of course, since the MP40 was being phased out of production, some Beretta M38/42 for the Volksgrenadiers.
Anyway, my point is, the module feels light on exciting new content and like more could have been done with the scenario.

I agree this one should be priority and then starting making something new. You should first fix old well known bugs battlefront before you moving on pls

I’m with the not retiring+military contracts=CM3. I hope I’m right. 

I think it's extremely likely that Steve is referring to CMx3. There is nothing else BFC could be doing -- no new module, no engine upgrade, not even a whole new title in the CMx2 series -- that would warrant that type of language.
Steve had talked about Charle's insane programming workload over the last xx months. Nothing in CMx2 would likely be taking that much programming time. Plus there is now defense contract money coming into BFC. The engine is showing its age, despite still providing most of use with many hours of fun, so it's reasonable to surmise that the wargamers on this forum are not the only ones pushing for advancements. Plus... a few things said only a week or two ago in the "Is CMBS Dead?" thread might've revealed more than some people desired or noticed?
It's fun to speculate about what the potential first CMx3 title would be.
To me, yes, Normandy (or at least France '44), makes the most sense. CMBN is the company's most popular and highest selling CMx2 title for a reason.
I am so, so ready to give BFC even more of my money!

I don't know whether this might help anyone, or may be an interesting discussion point or not, but anyway...
I consistently used to look at a map and decide upon an avenue of attack based upon terrain alone. "That looks like a nice foresty side of the map, let's go that way.."
The issues I found were either:
1) The enemy was more concentrated on my avenue of attack, was as it was clear to me was also clear to them;
2) As I had overly committed to the attack on a narrow axis, my flanks were wide open and I was unable to maximise my frontage when my guys were so grouped up.
Having read through a number of WW2 era tactical manuals, my new approach is to attack over a fairly wide frontage overall, but to use narrower frontages on certain routes. Obviously this can be changed if the circumstances require it. 
You might think that this spreads your forces too widely, but remember, not all combat power is the guys on the ground. In-fact, most of your force multipliers are artillery, mortars, HMGs, tanks etc. If you focus these on the 'main effort' platoons then it doesn't matter that roughly the same number of rifle squads are spread over the front:

 
Edit - if this was really fking obvious, I apologise for everyone's time

My twopeneth, I reckon, first more details on the BAOR module for 'cold war' hopefully with screens of some of the new units. Second, more details of the various battlepacks in development. Finally CM3 bombshell announcement probably hypothetical modern war, nowhere near ukraine (puts crystal ball back in cupboard).

Thanks Chris good job with dlc it is really good one and now Shock Force 2 update please 🙂

1. Load the tutorial mission into the editor and go to the purchase units screen. Once there, look for the "codes" behind the purchased units. These will indicate which AI plan they belong to, if they are reinforcements or belong to a unit objective. Next purchase the units you wish to be in the mission and assign them the same codes as you see fit. Now go to deploy units. You should see all the "old" units already deployed and the "new" units in a big lump at one end of the screen. Using your best judgement, swap out the old with the new. Once you are done, head back to the purchase screen and delete all the old units. Double check the deploy screen, to confirm everyone is still where you want them. Save the scenario with a new name and you are good to go.
2. Make your purchases in the unit screen and then delete out whatever you can. Then set all other remaining units you don't want to appear as reinforcements. Set their incoming time to be after the end of the battle and they will never show up. While the units will be there on the "deploy" screen in the editor, they will not appear in your actual scenario. 
3. Ask questions. Seriously, there are no dumb questions. Pick your favorite scenario of all time and the person who built it was once like you trying to figure things out. The "pros" at scenario building got good through information sharing and trial and error work. Soon you will find yourself sharing your tips with the community as well.
4. Share your work, please. There are far to many scenarios out there on hard drives never to played because their creator felt they were "not good enough". If you take or modify an existing scenario or map, give credit where it is due, but share your work. The feedback from those willing to offer constructive advice will help you to build even better scenarios.

I am very very irritated to see my topic locked because an anonymus weirdo named JoMac has claimed that I would sell any of my content of my coming BattlePack.
I don‘t even have a PayPal Account. 
Thank you Battlefront.com for this great reaction. This level of communication is shameful.
Mr.X
 

Am really hoping that this is their last gasp at monetizing CM2 b4 announcing CM3. 
 

The_Capt is one of the CMCW development team, so if he says that CM3 is a thing, then thats good enough for me. Hopefully we will get confirmation in part.2 of the '2024 year ahead ' thread soon.

I'm not a big graphics nerd, but I'd love to see Bradley rounds hitting a T-90 looking like that in Combat Mission.  But it's the kind of thing big budget games have a team of programmers and artists working on for 6 months straight and still can't get it looking right. 

ChrisND definitely matters, working for Battlefront, and has already answered several questions super quickly. 
 
if only someone would answer my question on the LAV TOW variant thermals/night vision not working😶

@Vacillator I don't care what the new module will have for the players to have fun with. I'm not going to buy any more modules or such with the game engine there is now.
If Battlefront makes a new game engine wich offers at least some of what I mentioned in my posts about changes to the engine, which would make playing the game more interesting, I would buy something.

ChrisND definitely matters, working for Battlefront, and has already answered several questions super quickly. 
 
if only someone would answer my question on the LAV TOW variant thermals/night vision not working😶

Many thanks. Recovery is slow, but the girlfriend takes great care of me, and even listens to me waffling on about CM.

For the record I tried to play your Blue Hills scenario in FB as PBEM and whilst it was an interesting scenario it was unplayable due to performance issues, and whilst I don't have a top end PC it's no slouch. We had to abandon the game not long after starting as my oppo was having issues too.
So perhaps it was a conscious choice by the designer? To simply label them lazy is very judgemental, Walt Whitman would not be impressed
MMM

All the campaigns I made for the disk were tested by some beta testers before the release so these kinds of mistakes were caught. In fact it was great having them because they used to catch things like flavour objects out of place, in the middle of the road etc. However, Hasrabit and Dinas, both large campaigns were not and were tested all by myself. I seem to recall a similar mistake in Dinas when it was released where there was some tank sitting in the middle of the map. I used to have what I called a 'Finished' folder where I moved missions that had all the checks performed and the artwork done before transferring. I missed that this time around probably because I was in a hurry to get finished. There's a kind of fatigue that sets in when you have a very large project under development and the desire to get it finished leads to some cut corners at the end. My bad.
So the lesson is to take my time and make sure nothing like that slips through the last checks next time. Hasrabit is not as big a project as Montebourg (in fact, Road to Montebourg is one of the biggest I made after Road to Dinas) but I will start this process again with that.