MikeyD

Well, there is a completed "2018 Turkish Army" mod pack that I've still got to upload one of these days.
That'll get you a little bit closer to 'modern war' timeframe. It'll take some imagination to concoct modern Syria battle scenarios out of what's in the game but that's half the fun! It wouldn't be fun if it was easy.

Well, there is a completed "2018 Turkish Army" mod pack that I've still got to upload one of these days.
That'll get you a little bit closer to 'modern war' timeframe. It'll take some imagination to concoct modern Syria battle scenarios out of what's in the game but that's half the fun! It wouldn't be fun if it was easy.

Well, there is a completed "2018 Turkish Army" mod pack that I've still got to upload one of these days.
That'll get you a little bit closer to 'modern war' timeframe. It'll take some imagination to concoct modern Syria battle scenarios out of what's in the game but that's half the fun! It wouldn't be fun if it was easy.

This brings up the topic of 'huge maps'. Huge maps and on-foot infantry don't exactly mix. So you're obliged to use your ICVs as 'battlefield taxis' to get your troops to within striking range, otherwise you'll use up half your game time just walking. The trick is to do it safely.

This brings up the topic of 'huge maps'. Huge maps and on-foot infantry don't exactly mix. So you're obliged to use your ICVs as 'battlefield taxis' to get your troops to within striking range, otherwise you'll use up half your game time just walking. The trick is to do it safely.

AAAAH! I recreated your problem!
The German Leopard crews in the full TO&E carry the G36 rifle. The 'single vehicle' select Leopard crews come with the C8A1. What a bizarre bug! Am running off to report it now.

There are no 'national modifiers' in the game but a scenario designer might chose to make one side fanatic elites and the other side green with low motivation (even scenario designers can fall prey to the Übermensch myth). Or, if both sides are picked equal one side only will facing the dreaded MG42 or the MP40 smg during close-in battles. Or both side may be equal but one side is out of contact with his command or his leader has unusually high or low leadership skills.

A standing joke is the official CM forces encyclopedia is named 'Google'.  Whether you're looking for vehicle armor stats or small arms specs or what a Marine corps boot sole looks like you'll find it in Google. Which is largely where much of CM's open-source info came from.

There's a scenario between Marine M1A1 and Syrian T90s and the M1A1s are being easily holed from extended range. I suspect M1A2s would fare better. I may swap out the vehicles to test that out.  If you're basing you assumptions on the little 'Defenses' UI graph that's a VERY rough assessment of the vehicles. Challenger 2, for example, shows the same level of protection as Leopard 2A4 in the 'Defenses' graph but is very very much tougher.

There are no 'national modifiers' in the game but a scenario designer might chose to make one side fanatic elites and the other side green with low motivation (even scenario designers can fall prey to the Übermensch myth). Or, if both sides are picked equal one side only will facing the dreaded MG42 or the MP40 smg during close-in battles. Or both side may be equal but one side is out of contact with his command or his leader has unusually high or low leadership skills.

To round out the Turkish mod pack, here's my almost-completed Dutch-turned-into-Turkish troops. Their new uniform  camou scheme looks like it might've been bought from Russia because it resembles the new Russian camou pattern. And yes the 'Artic Warfare Sniper Rifle' is used by the Turkish army.
Next up, assembling the full mod pack. I hope its not too large.
 

Checking this thread at 3:30 in the morning. Maybe you've got a point.

To round out the Turkish mod pack, here's my almost-completed Dutch-turned-into-Turkish troops. Their new uniform  camou scheme looks like it might've been bought from Russia because it resembles the new Russian camou pattern. And yes the 'Artic Warfare Sniper Rifle' is used by the Turkish army.
Next up, assembling the full mod pack. I hope its not too large.
 

A number of revamped CMSF2 scenario briefings did get condensed to be more concise. I'm one of those who get intimidated by 'wall of text' orders, myself. Other orders got expanded. The purpose of orders is to differentiate the scenario from a QB. 'You're on one side of the map and the enemy is on the other side' is insufficient info.
About scenario times. I've got an old habit of adding 5 min to the runtime... then another 5 min... then adding variable extra on top of that. An added 5-10 min rarely affects the battle but helps the initial approach-to-contact feel less burdensome. Sometimes a scenario needs the opposite. Two hour+ battles where AI movement orders run out after 15 minute. You either have to shorten the runtime or expand the AI orders or both.
There's also cleaning up maps. Its easy to make maps a bit more convincing. For first generation basegame CMSF1 , a standard hadn't been created to measure your work against. Nobody had made a game engine 2 map before! Map makers can work wonders but you first need examples of what a good map should  look like to aspire to.
Discussion about ideal scenario design can sound a bit theoretical, more players should be playing in the editor (which is fun, BTW). Try your hand at creating decent AI orders sets, try constructing your theoretical 'ideal' scenario. Then share the results with the community. You might come to see a difference between an 'ideal' scenario and 'achievable' scenarios

A nicely framed shot. A this point the squad is practically out of 5.56 so the leader has pulled out his sidearm.

A number of revamped CMSF2 scenario briefings did get condensed to be more concise. I'm one of those who get intimidated by 'wall of text' orders, myself. Other orders got expanded. The purpose of orders is to differentiate the scenario from a QB. 'You're on one side of the map and the enemy is on the other side' is insufficient info.
About scenario times. I've got an old habit of adding 5 min to the runtime... then another 5 min... then adding variable extra on top of that. An added 5-10 min rarely affects the battle but helps the initial approach-to-contact feel less burdensome. Sometimes a scenario needs the opposite. Two hour+ battles where AI movement orders run out after 15 minute. You either have to shorten the runtime or expand the AI orders or both.
There's also cleaning up maps. Its easy to make maps a bit more convincing. For first generation basegame CMSF1 , a standard hadn't been created to measure your work against. Nobody had made a game engine 2 map before! Map makers can work wonders but you first need examples of what a good map should  look like to aspire to.
Discussion about ideal scenario design can sound a bit theoretical, more players should be playing in the editor (which is fun, BTW). Try your hand at creating decent AI orders sets, try constructing your theoretical 'ideal' scenario. Then share the results with the community. You might come to see a difference between an 'ideal' scenario and 'achievable' scenarios

Real world normal walking pace is about 15 minutes for 1 km. I will admit occasionally  I'll look at a very big scenario map, look at my infantry sitting at the far end, then look at the time on the clock, and think to myself "Nope, I don't even want to try." The scenario designer may know there's only two snipers between me and the destination but I don't know that. Every terrain fold, every stone wall, every gap between houses must be treated with suspicion. Which eats up valuable time. Even adding another 10 minutes is often a huge help to me.
If a scenario's AI orders involves complex coordinated and timed movements, that planning is based on assumptions about the player's likely movements. A tight timetable forces the player to do his maneuvering inside the expected time window.
Most scenarios, though, don't involve such complex coordinated movements. An enemy on the defense is likely to sit and wait for the oncoming attacker. Sitting and waiting does not require a tight time window for things to happen in. Some scenarios need to be short-duration for all the gears to mesh, and other scenarios could just go on-and-on indefinitely. .

Here's the CM store page covering the WWII Russia title.
https://www.battlefront.com/red-thunder/cmrt-base-game/

A number of revamped CMSF2 scenario briefings did get condensed to be more concise. I'm one of those who get intimidated by 'wall of text' orders, myself. Other orders got expanded. The purpose of orders is to differentiate the scenario from a QB. 'You're on one side of the map and the enemy is on the other side' is insufficient info.
About scenario times. I've got an old habit of adding 5 min to the runtime... then another 5 min... then adding variable extra on top of that. An added 5-10 min rarely affects the battle but helps the initial approach-to-contact feel less burdensome. Sometimes a scenario needs the opposite. Two hour+ battles where AI movement orders run out after 15 minute. You either have to shorten the runtime or expand the AI orders or both.
There's also cleaning up maps. Its easy to make maps a bit more convincing. For first generation basegame CMSF1 , a standard hadn't been created to measure your work against. Nobody had made a game engine 2 map before! Map makers can work wonders but you first need examples of what a good map should  look like to aspire to.
Discussion about ideal scenario design can sound a bit theoretical, more players should be playing in the editor (which is fun, BTW). Try your hand at creating decent AI orders sets, try constructing your theoretical 'ideal' scenario. Then share the results with the community. You might come to see a difference between an 'ideal' scenario and 'achievable' scenarios

A number of revamped CMSF2 scenario briefings did get condensed to be more concise. I'm one of those who get intimidated by 'wall of text' orders, myself. Other orders got expanded. The purpose of orders is to differentiate the scenario from a QB. 'You're on one side of the map and the enemy is on the other side' is insufficient info.
About scenario times. I've got an old habit of adding 5 min to the runtime... then another 5 min... then adding variable extra on top of that. An added 5-10 min rarely affects the battle but helps the initial approach-to-contact feel less burdensome. Sometimes a scenario needs the opposite. Two hour+ battles where AI movement orders run out after 15 minute. You either have to shorten the runtime or expand the AI orders or both.
There's also cleaning up maps. Its easy to make maps a bit more convincing. For first generation basegame CMSF1 , a standard hadn't been created to measure your work against. Nobody had made a game engine 2 map before! Map makers can work wonders but you first need examples of what a good map should  look like to aspire to.
Discussion about ideal scenario design can sound a bit theoretical, more players should be playing in the editor (which is fun, BTW). Try your hand at creating decent AI orders sets, try constructing your theoretical 'ideal' scenario. Then share the results with the community. You might come to see a difference between an 'ideal' scenario and 'achievable' scenarios

A number of revamped CMSF2 scenario briefings did get condensed to be more concise. I'm one of those who get intimidated by 'wall of text' orders, myself. Other orders got expanded. The purpose of orders is to differentiate the scenario from a QB. 'You're on one side of the map and the enemy is on the other side' is insufficient info.
About scenario times. I've got an old habit of adding 5 min to the runtime... then another 5 min... then adding variable extra on top of that. An added 5-10 min rarely affects the battle but helps the initial approach-to-contact feel less burdensome. Sometimes a scenario needs the opposite. Two hour+ battles where AI movement orders run out after 15 minute. You either have to shorten the runtime or expand the AI orders or both.
There's also cleaning up maps. Its easy to make maps a bit more convincing. For first generation basegame CMSF1 , a standard hadn't been created to measure your work against. Nobody had made a game engine 2 map before! Map makers can work wonders but you first need examples of what a good map should  look like to aspire to.
Discussion about ideal scenario design can sound a bit theoretical, more players should be playing in the editor (which is fun, BTW). Try your hand at creating decent AI orders sets, try constructing your theoretical 'ideal' scenario. Then share the results with the community. You might come to see a difference between an 'ideal' scenario and 'achievable' scenarios

More Dutch odds-and-ends to whet your appetite. The Spike/Gill anti-tank missile in Dutch hands in the game.
 

Good news for you Dutch armor fans, an improved texture for CV9035 just slipped in under the wire. MUCH better looking than the original CMSF1 texture, and better looking than the texture in the game a week ago.
 

Good news for you Dutch armor fans, an improved texture for CV9035 just slipped in under the wire. MUCH better looking than the original CMSF1 texture, and better looking than the texture in the game a week ago.
 

Good news for you Dutch armor fans, an improved texture for CV9035 just slipped in under the wire. MUCH better looking than the original CMSF1 texture, and better looking than the texture in the game a week ago.