SlowMotion

I don't know what year CMSF2 background story uses, but should the air support plane/helicopter list be updated? New planes are used compared to CMSF era and existing systems are updated to give them new capabilities, like: http://www.gizmag.com/b-52-sniper-pod/26802/

But no more out of memory.

dragonfly: http://www.suasnews.com/2013/03/21929/festo-bionicopter/

Agree. Especially the aviation ones.

The reason I originally posted this was: IMO getting the elevations part of the map right is where I'd spend most time. If one could do this part with sand or other such physical stuff in real world and then digitize the result I think it would be sooo much better than what we currently have. Once elevations are there it would be much easier to add the rest. This would be best suited for making imaginary maps for QBs and maybe fictional scenarios. When it comes to making maps based on real battlefields I think it's best if you make a map *based on* real map, because you just can't make it exactly like the real thing. Buildings and roads on real maps can be oriented in any angle where as in CM we have only 45 angle steps available. So this digitized solution MIGHT be useful there as well. Maybe this is just another technology that will have no use in CM community, but if this "import elevations" ability was available in Scenario Editor, then third parties could write SW that produces those elevation maps in various ways. Just like the overlay image support in 2.0 makes it easier to place correct tiles to map.

What if you edit the game (set the dropbox folder), exit H2HH and restart it. Does the folder stay this way?

That got me an idea: the unit info might also depend on unit experience. A veteran unit might know that some tank is a PzIV whereas a green unit might think it's just a tank. I think it could be cool if units spotted by less experienced units might show less TEXT info. I have no idea whether unit experience has any effect on spotting accuracy or speed currently, but I think it might be a nice effect.

I do agree that FOW was improved in 2.0 - I like the new system better. But I didn't mean those symbols. I meant the info that is available when you *click* a spotted unit. Then it tells me things like whether it's rifle squad or scout. Or the detailed tank type which I doubt most soldiers could tell even from short distance. In the game tanks of one type look the same, but in real battles they often used bushes and other such camo which should make identification even harder. If most unit details were hidden (you'd have to look at the 3d model and try to memorize details) it would definitely make things more difficult. But would it make playing more fun, I don't know. But I do use this detailed info all the time when deciding what to do during next turn. Does some infantry unit have AT weapons or not? Is the AT gun 57mm or 76mm?

this one for sure: I think we know too much about spotted enemy units. If you see some enemy infantry let's say 200m away, how can you know that it's a scout and not a rifle squad? What about platoon HQ instead of some other officer? All different Sherman/PzIV/etc types - did normal enemy soldiers (not some intelligence headquarters) know what kinds there were - so they could check details like gun caliber? From distance most of them look very similar to me. I would like to have such "detail blurring" at highest difficulty levels. Now it's much easier to make decisions for example when you know whether it's a 75mm or 76mm Sherman.

I've tried RT mode in CMSF, but like turn based better. So pause or not in RT mode, don't care. When players have to make decisions based on incomplete information (partly because of limited time) you sometimes make bad decisions and unexpacted things happen. -> More exciting game play. = The reason I keep playing CM games. Before CMBN was released I was waiting for it exactly because during WW2 weapons and other equipment weren't so good. You could have tank duels where either side could win. There might be several misses or hits with ricochets. Especially from long range. Instead of the common CMSF case of one shot, one kill.

Like I wrote in my first post, IMO CMBN needs MORE FOW. All this digital age perfect information that is constantly available and up to date changes the feeling of game play. CM games can be played in turn based mode where you have all the time in the world making perfect plans to minimize risks. But the real battles work in real time mode where things change every second. You may try to make perfect plans but once you've gathered your data the situation may have changed while you were thinking. I'd be ok for seeing those distances *if there was a delay involved*. Like when you deploy a weapon if takes a moment. The same way, you could have your perfect distances, but it would slow you down (like it really does). This way you wouldn't do it all the time - only when you think it's worth the pause - just like in real situation. I have no problem with such stuff being part of CMSF, but not the WW2 games. Just an example from the days before computers changed warfare - During the 1980 Falklands war Brits made the longest bombing flight in history from Ascension to Falklands. Thousands of miles. They had no digital computers in the plane, but used a pocket calculator to assist their navigation calculations. And found the target without major navigation error.

Maybe so. But do you think when giving orders during battle they were constantly measuring distances that way in order to have this as-accurate-as-possible information? Like if a squad is supposed to go to a building in some direction did they give the order making sure the squad knows WHERE they are supposed to go or "wait, I'll measure the distance first". The game gives you perfect data all the time without any delays that would be involved IRL.

1) if you go for a walk IRL and see a point some hundreds of meters away, do you know how far it is? If not, do you think WW2 infantry had some devices that could tell the distance to all sort of places? I think CMx2 WW2 games need more FOW, not less.

waiting for these CM:EF CMBN:MG let's see how it differs from CMSF CMSF2 skipping CMFI CMFI:GL

And also the cases like anti tank guns when deployment takes several minutes.

IMO this is the point. I assume most people like playing scenarios where both sides can actually do something. So if the idea of how to win the scenario is vaporizing the opponent with endless arty, you can design the scenario to be played against AI only. The AI doesn't mind.

Agusto: agree. Even though patches have improved things, in some ways CMBN tanks are still more like modern tanks than WW2 tanks that were operated by human crews manually without computers.

Still about that rabbit case: Have you noticed what happens when you have given your tank a rotating order (like move to a waypoint and then face some direction) and while doing that face command the tank spots an enemy target? The tank hull starts turning slowly, then turret tries to turn towards target faster than hull, hull rotates more, turret no longer points to correct direction so it rotates again and so on. This hull turns, turret turns continues until hull is pointing to right direction. Usually only after this the turret manages to turn to correct direction so it can actually shoot and hit target. IMO this is closer to what I'd think should happen when a tank spots a target while moving.

That JasonC's "track a rabbit at left front" is one case which I think should be a pretty difficult target. Now in the game we can get first shot kills from similar situation. A tank moves downhill at least Quick speed and at left there is a static tank maybe 300m away. The static tank misses with main gun, but the moving tank kills with first shot.

Immobilizing a tank is often almost as good as killing it.

This is worst in scenarios with small map, defender has little cover where to hide and attacker has plenty of arty and TRPs already placed where default defense positions are. Then playing the scenario is like Iraqi Republican Guard troops on open desert waiting for those B-52s to arrive.

CMBO was the first, I played it most and none of the later versions has felt as exciting - yet, I wouldn't play it anymore. I like CMBN best now, but I feel there were more great scenarios for CMx1 - especially for CMBO. Out of CMx2 games I'd take CMBN first. More scenarios and Germans have better equipment than Italians. In CMSF you couldn't even split teams if you were playing Syrians - I hated that.

short clip shows how a small drone imitates an eagle catching prey while flying http://bcove.me/7esdlxv4

In this video's part about B-52 they mention that in Vietnam it was used to drop bombs 300 yards from own troops. Such bomb load so near is a scary thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RRZvXgF_QCQ;t=2730

IMO it's quite unlikely that a real tank would make 10 second pauses every now and then to fire, because IRL things take more time than in the game. How tanks work in 2.01 IMO does not take into account all the delays that are a result from the fact that tanks are operated by crews, not single man. Every time something new needs to happen, team members communicate and then act. All this slows things down.