Vergeltungswaffe

We received a reload of TOWs directly from our battalion ammo section. They actually drove up and down the company line. (this was during the Battle of Medina Ridge in Desert Storm) We were engaging elements of the Medina and Takawalna Republican Guard as they did so. It didn't hurt that because of the ridgeline itself the ammo guys could drive their truck on the backside of our Bradleys in complete cover. However in the Iraqi desert this was an exception to the terrain. Most areas were as flat as a pool table. Normal resupply was done in precleared areas where we would get fuel, ammo, water and MREs in one stop. This was all set up in advance by our Brigade S4 (logistics). When and where was dependent on the battle situation at the time. Mostly it happened as we advanced to contact in the first 2 days of the ground war.  

Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work.
Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did.
Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/
He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design.
As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.

It's my favorite era

That would be awesome.

So maybe Combat Mission North Africa for the first CM3 title?   

Some general tips:
- fire superiority is THE key. When moving to another row of houses do it with maximum amount of troops simultaneously.
- Use AFVs to control roads and so split the city in sections. You can even block off retreat paths.
- Cover manoeuver with smoke. No street should be crossed without smoke. Throwables, tanks, mortar, artillery...
- Take your time. I always mentally prepare to be ok with time running out. (It almost never runs out)
- Divide the map in smaller sections to be cleared one by one. 
Here is some gameplay with even worse urban scenario. He plays pretty well. Good place to start learning.
 

Just so you know, the Eastern Front family will will cover Oct 44 through the end of the war in it's next module, but BFC has said in the past that they plan to eventually get around to modules that cover everything from 41 on.  Hopefully, that will come to fruition over time.
In fact, MOS:96B2P just quoted Steve from BFC in 2013 in the Roadmap thread in this subforum:
The Base Game establishes the start time and the theater. For Red Thunder we're going to start June 1944 and go through to May 1945.
The Eastern Front Families are basically divided up this way:
#1 = June 1944 - May 1945 Red Thunder
#2 = June 1943 - May 1944
#3 = June 1942 - May 1943
#4 = June 1941 - May 1942

...Before we're all too old to hobble up to the keyboard!

Michael

Please let's not turn this thread into another Suvorov discussion either. We've had those before.

Would rather have a CM_Afrika Korps than Fulda Gap...  But, regardless of what you wish for, remember that it was only a few years ago that some of us were asking for CMSF2 and the "common wisdom" was "no way".   
So, have hope and keep plugging away...

A LOT OF MarkEzra CMSF2 Quick Battle Maps is going to put a smile on many faces for a long... long time 
Thanks Mark👍
Buzz

The Quick Battle Maps are very well along.  No QB Map shipped in CMSF2 is an untouched hold over from CMSF1.  And there are a LOT OF THEM

Update greatly appreciated.
I'm firmly in the "I have so much CM to keep me busy, release dates don't matter" but I will gladly hoover up all the new stuff as you finish it. 😉

Life gets in the way of all the good stuff.
Glad you haven't given up.  There'll come a time when you have the opportunity and motivation and I'm sure you'll turn out some excellent mods.

Update greatly appreciated.
I'm firmly in the "I have so much CM to keep me busy, release dates don't matter" but I will gladly hoover up all the new stuff as you finish it. 😉

Update greatly appreciated.
I'm firmly in the "I have so much CM to keep me busy, release dates don't matter" but I will gladly hoover up all the new stuff as you finish it. 😉

CMFB Vanilla

CMFB Mord

CMRT Vanilla

CMRT Mord

VERY COOL!!!

Just uploaded some new menu screens to CMMODs. Which gives me the perfect opportunity to open an FB thread for all my modding work.
Hope you like 'em!
 

 

 

 
Mord.

In October 2017, in the thread Another Reason for a Centralized Forum, Steve said,
CMBS is owed a Module.  CMBS is theoretically next after CMRT.  Marines are an obvious selection for the first Module and the work being done for CMSF2 is going to pave the way for that to happen.
In June 2018, in the thread CMRT Module 1 Bones, Steve said,
Partisans could be introduced in Pack form to CMBN, CMFI, or CMRT.
I want to say Steve said uncons could be released for CMBS but have not found that yet. 

Hmmm,. Washington Post? Now there's a reputable source.

Which apparently have been going on generation to generation for all time with documented examples back to the anchient Greeks.

Lots of us is old and we hates it forever.
 
😉

Lots of us is old and we hates it forever.
 
😉

Lots of us is old and we hates it forever.
 
😉

Lots of us is old and we hates it forever.
 
😉