MikeyD

Patch v2.02 is up now.

A lot of problems with trenches in the game can be attributed to 'user error'. I mean there's often a lack of well  thought out 'fortification' planning, no overlapping fields of fire, no layered defenses,  no obstacles, barbed wire or mine fields employed. Its often just some unlucky dudes sitting in a short line of trench in the middle of a field like shooting range targets. There's also a matter of scale. The more geography your trench/bunker system covers the less impact a single artillery stonking is going to have. Use up all your artillery on the first line of trenches and the second line will give the first line defenders covering fire. Use your artillery to suppress the 2nd line covering fire and you've left the first line defenders intact. But CM battles aren't often constructed on that scale.

A lot of problems with trenches in the game can be attributed to 'user error'. I mean there's often a lack of well  thought out 'fortification' planning, no overlapping fields of fire, no layered defenses,  no obstacles, barbed wire or mine fields employed. Its often just some unlucky dudes sitting in a short line of trench in the middle of a field like shooting range targets. There's also a matter of scale. The more geography your trench/bunker system covers the less impact a single artillery stonking is going to have. Use up all your artillery on the first line of trenches and the second line will give the first line defenders covering fire. Use your artillery to suppress the 2nd line covering fire and you've left the first line defenders intact. But CM battles aren't often constructed on that scale.

A lot of problems with trenches in the game can be attributed to 'user error'. I mean there's often a lack of well  thought out 'fortification' planning, no overlapping fields of fire, no layered defenses,  no obstacles, barbed wire or mine fields employed. Its often just some unlucky dudes sitting in a short line of trench in the middle of a field like shooting range targets. There's also a matter of scale. The more geography your trench/bunker system covers the less impact a single artillery stonking is going to have. Use up all your artillery on the first line of trenches and the second line will give the first line defenders covering fire. Use your artillery to suppress the 2nd line covering fire and you've left the first line defenders intact. But CM battles aren't often constructed on that scale.

Here's an update. I just checked and with the new patch comes the correct finished BMP-3 IR searchlight box texture. All fixed.

Here's an update. I just checked and with the new patch comes the correct finished BMP-3 IR searchlight box texture. All fixed.

Here's an update. I just checked and with the new patch comes the correct finished BMP-3 IR searchlight box texture. All fixed.

"...Less Hollywood, more real".
The problem with  tailoring sounds is it place-specific. You watch Youtube clips. A rifle being fired at one test range sounds like a blunt "Whump!", At another test range its "Crack!" The same gun at a third test range sounds like "BOOM!" with the sound echoing off the surrounding hills.

As for orders maps, in the editor if you go to Mission (Axis) for example you will see four tabs marked 'Strategic' 'Operational' 'Tactical' and 'Text'. The map tabs give you the preferred art size in pixels: 224 x 224, 702 x 224, and 952 x 350. The preferred art format is .bmp.
This is your own scenario so you can put anything you want into those orders map locations. Screenshots of the 2-D map, hand-scribbled art, art from ASL, Calvin and Hobbes cartoon panels. Put as much or as little work into it as you want.
Since you're not selling your scenario for profit I think you're probably safe from ASL's wrath

That would be a (real-world) issue with the parallax difference between the gun tube and the gunner's sight. In tight circumstances like in a stand of trees the commander (or whomever) may be compelled to open the breech and peer down the gun tube to confirm there's daylight at the other end. Stugs and Jpz IVs in particular had this problem. The roof-mounted gunners sight might see a clear view of the target while the low-mounted gun is pointing into intervening terrain. I read that Germans considered StuG and Jpz IV combat ineffective in Normandy terrain because of that.
If you look at titles like CMBS the tree complaints usually go in the opposite direction, that foliage is too effective at blocking LOF. Those darned deciduous trees!

There's only few vehicles in the titles that the AI allows to be driven by a different unit Humvee, Taxi, some NATO vehicles I think.  A rule of thumb is if you have to 'bail' the driver instead of 'dismount' then you probably won't be able to swap out drivers.

Give it a try and if it doesn't work its just 5 minutes to erase the terrain objective and try something else. That the nice think about making scenarios, you can't actually break anything.
Usually, though, players become frustrated with big 'occupy' terrain objectives because there's always one broken straggler hiding in a building in the corner of the occupy zone denying you your 'occupy' victory.

My own scenarios lean heavily on 'unit destroy' point objectives even if there are terrain objectives involved. When I refreshed a batch of CMSF1 legacy scenarios for CMSF2 I added unit destroy points so the player would at least get some credit for defeating the enemy in the field.
I do get a bit frustrated with big points terrain objectives at the far end of a huge map with barely enough time to properly recon the route of advance (not to mention stage an assault on a city center!) Often the scenario designer knows something I don't, that there's only one or two snipers between me and the objectives so he allots the time accordingly. But I don't know that. Every copse of trees and bend in the road needs to be reconnoitered for fear of being ambushed. That terrain objective looks VERY far off to me.

My own scenarios lean heavily on 'unit destroy' point objectives even if there are terrain objectives involved. When I refreshed a batch of CMSF1 legacy scenarios for CMSF2 I added unit destroy points so the player would at least get some credit for defeating the enemy in the field.
I do get a bit frustrated with big points terrain objectives at the far end of a huge map with barely enough time to properly recon the route of advance (not to mention stage an assault on a city center!) Often the scenario designer knows something I don't, that there's only one or two snipers between me and the objectives so he allots the time accordingly. But I don't know that. Every copse of trees and bend in the road needs to be reconnoitered for fear of being ambushed. That terrain objective looks VERY far off to me.

In a scenario I just completed for (redacted) I gave attacking allies fairly detailed orders in an attempt to get the player to fight in a way that's typical of the theater (you'll understand when you see it). I included a touch objective for points to incentivize him to move how I want him to move. That's not to say that's the only tactical solution. Writing-up Allied AI plans I did an alt AI orders that's an entirely different attack plan from the one in the orders text.
Bear in mind, scenario designers have to concoct AI orders based on certain assumptions. The orders set tells you to proceed down the road. Opposing AI orders are based on the assumption that you're going to proceed down the road. If you don't proceed down the road the opposing AI orders are shadow-boxing against nothing. There's a difference between genuinely superior tactics and merely gaming the AI to your advantage.

In CMSF2 recently I lost 8 men in a building to a single RPG round. An old joke of mine is the best type of building protection is staying behind the building.

In CMSF2 recently I lost 8 men in a building to a single RPG round. An old joke of mine is the best type of building protection is staying behind the building.

About casualties, remember the game simulates the 'tip of the spear', so to speak, so would produce a much higher than average casualty count than if you include logistic and rear echelon troops. Also, people don't quite comprehend how bloody things can get. In the Battle of the Bulge, for example, each side suffered about 90,000 casualties and 500 tanks destroyed (in VERY round numbers). This happened within a mere 1 month, 1 week and 2 days. That's frickin' carnage! I'm reminded of an anecdote from WWI. Rebellious French troops in 1917 bleat like sheep (lambs to the slaughter) as their general reviewed them, following a futile 10 day battle that had left 120,000 casualties. Bloody indeed.

About casualties, remember the game simulates the 'tip of the spear', so to speak, so would produce a much higher than average casualty count than if you include logistic and rear echelon troops. Also, people don't quite comprehend how bloody things can get. In the Battle of the Bulge, for example, each side suffered about 90,000 casualties and 500 tanks destroyed (in VERY round numbers). This happened within a mere 1 month, 1 week and 2 days. That's frickin' carnage! I'm reminded of an anecdote from WWI. Rebellious French troops in 1917 bleat like sheep (lambs to the slaughter) as their general reviewed them, following a futile 10 day battle that had left 120,000 casualties. Bloody indeed.

About casualties, remember the game simulates the 'tip of the spear', so to speak, so would produce a much higher than average casualty count than if you include logistic and rear echelon troops. Also, people don't quite comprehend how bloody things can get. In the Battle of the Bulge, for example, each side suffered about 90,000 casualties and 500 tanks destroyed (in VERY round numbers). This happened within a mere 1 month, 1 week and 2 days. That's frickin' carnage! I'm reminded of an anecdote from WWI. Rebellious French troops in 1917 bleat like sheep (lambs to the slaughter) as their general reviewed them, following a futile 10 day battle that had left 120,000 casualties. Bloody indeed.

Textures are not a gauge of how hard a building is, size is. Small buildings are porous to incoming fire, medium buildings less so, big buildings, especially cathedrals, are very tough indeed. Its not that difficult.

A little late to the party but I'll add...
The map editor painted setup zone is for the human player. It limits where you can place your units at startup. No moving your men to the victory zone before hitting 'start'. You need to stay within the setup area. The AI side either keeps the forces where they were dropped in the editor or places them according to where the initial AI group setup is painted. If you go a bit crazy painting your AI group setup location the AI will interpret that that as being granted leeway to choose how it can place the units.

City fighting and bocage fighting often lead troops into hazardous and confusing close proximity fights. Sometime the instinct of 'anywhere but here' causes them to run around the wrong building corner or in the direction of the wrong cover. Think of all of those bad WWII movies where startled German soldiers run out only to be mowed down before they take three steps. Casualties occur when stupid mistakes occur. That's why grizzled combat vets would say 'Never make friends with the new guy'. Because green troops tended to make stupid fatal mistakes.

I vaguely recall normal (real world) pedestrian walking pace is about 5km per hour.
Which means 2.5km in a half hour, or 1.25km in fifteen minutes, or 625m in 7.5 minutes, or 312.5m in 3.75 minutes
This is one of the hazards of making 'overly ambitious' maps. If your pixel truppen need to walk corner-to-corner across a 2x2km map its going to take them more than a half hour to get there

There's no law that says 3rd party scenario briefing maps need to include briefing maps in the style of the release game. Or need to include maps at all! Just put in whatever your heart desires. A lot of old CMSF1 scenarios had lacked orders maps entirely (they have them now in CMSF2.) Let me rummage for a bit... ah, here it is, the 'tactical' orders map for my old 'Lone Star Shopping Plaza' scenario