CCIP

I like this train idea And thanks for the good words, folks! Just playing around with possible scenario ideas for the moment - nothing concrete as yet, and a bit of a learning curve with the editor for me to go still. Sorry about the delay with uploading to TSD3 - I seem to be having some issues with WordPress on my end, probably a browser thing, so I will get it up there as soon as I get the storted!

Thanks folks! TSD3 has been down today, it seems - as soon as it's back up, I'll hopefully be able to upload the map there. And yes indeed - I checked the Google Maps too and it's interesting to see how it's changed but is still pretty recognizable. Peat bog is still there, too. I actually started out by searching through interesting map data and imagery I could find - and playing with Google Earth to overlay various imagery layers. One was a map of Soviet fixed defences inside Moscow that were set up in late 1941 - it really got my imagination going, especially when I found matching Luftwaffe aerial photos... but I decided to try something smaller for my first try Maybe I'll tackle this next when I get a bit of time. But first - gotta figure out a good scenario setup for this. I might just start out with a QB template as those seem to be a little easier to make!

Thanks for the kind words, folks! Glad you like it Yep, I've just submitted a request to register at TSD3 - just waiting for it to get approved. Been using it for years myself! Hmm, I think it's the latter! I did add labels (village names and routes) as on the map I posted (I did the labels by hand since the red ones were hard to see in a forum post). I didn't realize the game saved my label state - if so, Alt+L should turn them right back on. Thanks for pointing it out though, I'll have to make sure they're re-enabled when I put it on TSD!

Greetings! This is my first real attempt with the editor - which started out from this real-world Luftwaffe aerial shot I came across for the village of Golynki, west of Smolensk... ...which I stretched to fit more neatly into a CM-friendly grid, and came out with this map: It is a 2000m x 1792m map, covering a few types of terrain: a peat bog in the northern half, a wooded area and the near-pristine village of Tregubovka to the southeast, and the larger village of Golynki to the soutwest, which has been largely demolished and abandoned under the German occupation. The map is divided in half by drainage ditch running north-south (both it and a secondary ditch on the northeast side are passable 'shallow ford' throughout), and has a major rail line running east-west in the bottom quarter of the map. At the moment, I have no data on any actions that took place here - all I learned is that this area was recaptured by the Soviets in October 1943 (I originally thought it was part of the CMRT timeline in 1944, but it is not so). It's a very detailed, handcrafted map - it may still need a bit of optimization as I went very heavy on the flavour objects (so the frame rate might drag down in certain areas, depending on your system). On the upside, it's very pretty in places I'm trying to figure out what to do with it in terms of scenario - and since I have absolutely 0 experience with scenario building and AI programming at the moment, any help or advice would be appreciated! What would you like to see on this map? At the moment, there is no AI and all the parameters, objectives, etc. are placeholders only. It's only really usable in the editor right now. You may download my current WIP version of it here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hA9cr80cdMmHkGK8mhhbNgZz_LAefsyH ...or in the forum attachment. If you have anything that you'd like to create on this map yourself, or use it or any part of it for your own scenarios - you're very welcome to do so (with credit for map given). Thanks for checking it out! CCIP - Golynki (v01 map only).btt

Sounds good, and the work is very appreciated, Steve! It may not be much, but as I'd said elsewhere, there's at least one sale you'll have for CMFI+GL as soon as it's back up :-)

I think you missed the "perceived" part, and highlighted just one part as though that's the whole point of the sentence. Germans were absolutely motivated by both the real and perceived treatment of POWs and German civilians by Soviet troops. Some of it was based on actual fact. Some of it was happily picked up and amplified by Nazi propaganda. But in the last phases of war, there's no doubt that the German soldiers on all fronts were motivated by fear, then dread of the Soviet invasion of Germany - whether it was to fight harder on the Eastern front to protect their own country from what was expected to be a harsh Soviet revenge, or on the Western front/in Italy because hey, at least you're not on the Eastern front, right? Plus the continued illusion that somehow the Nazis could put themselves into a position of strength in the West, make a separate peace with the Allies, then convince them to fight against the "greater communist enemy" together. Anyway, drifting way off topic here! But yes - in terms of motivation, I think there's no doubt that despite the massive losses in the war, the Nazi state was able to keep the German military together both at a high level and low level, until very very late indeed. Italian morale was shaky to begin with, but by early 1943 it was ready to disintegrate. By the time Mussolini was removed from leadership, the Italian public and military had thoroughly understood that the Fascist regime was a farce. There was nothing left to be enthusiastic about or motivated by. Nor was there the level of hatred or fear of the actual enemy facing them that the Germans might've had. The Fascists themselves are partly responsible for that, since before the war they convinced themselves and the public that their Mediterranean empire would be tolerated and accepted by Britain and the US, because the Italians could always reach a deal with them somehow. So the Italian troops in the field and their commanders really just didn't have the motivation to fight too hard for any of this. I don't think that makes them in any way cowardly, just smart. But it's certainly not a mindset you go to war with, let alone a war as brutal as WWII. As for Germany, for better or worse their narrative of "why we fight" stuck to the very end. There's little doubt that not many Germans (except for the hardcore Nazis) actually believed they were in any way "winning" the war even in 1943, let alone 44 or 45 - but they kept up convincing reasons for why fighting was better than not fighting. Ironically, one of the reasons for the difference was that the Italians believed (not unreasonably) that they would ultimately be "forgiven" by the Allies, while the Germans knew they would not be. Even for those in the German military opposed to Nazis, it was pretty clear that the Allies had not just overwhelming firepower but also an intense hatred for them, which I don't think the Italians (and indeed many other German allies) didn't see. So, the Germans didn't see any option except to fight, while the Italians saw fighting as maybe the 2nd worst of several options.

Well, I'd even go a little farther and mention that as of late August, there was already an understanding reached that Italy would surrender the moment a full-scale invasion of the mainland went ahead, and they had indeed done so. Since Mussolini's overthrow, ending the war was the agenda for the Badoglio government, which had no illusions that the only way to do so was by surrendering. After Sicily, they weren't worried about the Allied invasion because that was a foregone conclusion, and were much more concerned about the inevitable German response. Though framed as an armistice, Italy's agreement with the Allies was effectively an unconditional surrender. And even before all that, perhaps since the collapse in North Africa and certainly once the Allies started strategic bombing of Italian cities, the leadership, even the Fascists (arguably including Mussolini) knew that they already lost the war against the Allies and were looking for a clean exit, with damage control being the order of the day. Same for the forces on the ground - though it's very hard making a clean exit or preventing collapse when you're in the middle of the whole mess and facing overwhelming Allied firepower, in person! Anyway, we got a bit off topic

Yep, looks like this is about as concrete as it got: Which is okay by me, and rumours aside, I'm pretty sure there won't be a sudden module surprise - considering how drastic an action it is to pull a product key from sale for over a month, I think BFC is just busy dealing with the engine 4.0 issues, not just for CMFI but the other titles as well (which apparently only happen to a small number of players, but still). Hopefully it's sorted soon - me, I just want to buy and play the darn thing I guess to an extent maintaining 5 "families" concurrently is tough, when realistically there's only enough manpower to focus on one project at a time. It would be easier to deal with the update issues like this if the entire thing was one program and everything else was just content modules, but I understand why the engine is separated like that - basically to specialize and optimize features in development, so that functions are plugged into each game "family" only when they're needed, and you don't have to worry about changing some of the code for UAVs in CMBS and somehow accidentally breaking Bazookas in CMFI as a result, etc.! Or, more basically, the separate families just help shorten the development cycle for each individual title, which is also kind of a big deal for a small-sized developer... But I guess the support gets tricky when you have to go back and plug the same updates into each individual program. Anyway, the wait continues!

Ahhh, I see, thanks for the explanation! I do remember now buying the 2.0 for CMBN upgrade when it came out together with the CMFI release, I didn't realize that the first CMFI release was numbered 1.0. They really should standardize the CMx2 version numbering It gets confusing enough with the original release CMBN technically being a different engine version than CMSF was. Anyway, I'll continue to twiddle my thumbs here and wait The irony is that I have the full CMFI download available on the file list for my account and can get the actual files on my system - but no way to buy a license key to unlock it at the moment...

Oh, I meant I got the $25 4.0 pack for all the CMx2 titles - I have other titles in the series that it applies to, and it does list FI as one of the titles. However BFC manage the upgrades (i.e. whether they have the 4.0 update cumulative, or whether I'd have to also get 3.0 separately), I'll be game! It's the actual FI/GL that I don't have, seeing that they're not currently on sale (and have not been since 4.0 went up for the other titles).

Not to be that guy who nags, but I was just wondering if there's any ETA on when CMFI will go back up for sale? I've been a CM player for 15 years, but since I wasn't too familiar with Italy as a theater this one sort of passed me by... but I got really interested in the theater since doing some reading about it over the holidays, and eagerly came here to get CMFI, only to discover that, well! Anyway, if nothing else, just putting this out as a vote of confidence that you'll have a sale on CMFI and GL as soon as they're back up - I already have the 4.0 upgrade pack, too.

That's not unique to the Garand - rifles in general are not going to hit anything very often, especially if it's in cover. While this CMRT thread doesn't cover the Garand, you can see that rifles in general aren't going to be very accurate at range: Even in those test conditions, both the German and the Soviet 7.62 rifles averaged about 34 shots for 1 casualty at 120m distance. I don't expect the Garand would be much different (although it should fire quicker). It's also worth factoring troop experience into this, which isn't in the favour of American troops.

I think it's decently effective, I see a lot of kills from HEAT weapons on infantry in houses in general, though it doesn't really have a "clearing" effect, just creates some casualties. I think the difference is that the game doesn't consider houses to be small enclosed spaces in the same way as bunkers, so a PIAT hit just creates a small-sized blast when it hits. But I do find it pretty effective against troops - I notice that it's more commonly fired on buildings when you give it a target/area target order as opposed to just letting troops fire them on their own.

A couple of those screenshots are, yes! A couple are from another mission iirc. And here is some wanton destruction:

LOL,that's how I feel when it's game over! Thank you, much obliged