SlowMotion

Decent suggestion. To add to "Have the currently-called assets shown on the left so you don't have to scroll through all the little stuff that's not going to be used for support missions to see how long remains before/on your big fire missions."

I read that to mean Arena has 360 degree protection on tanks, but not on BMPs. I believe the reason is they don't want it killing disembarking troops, and the doors are at the rear.

Player vs player is the highest form of CM. The game truly becomes a test of tactics and overcoming the friction of facing a thinking opposition.

As far as your questions go, it's really up to how you want to play. I prefer company or less sized games for instance. I also prefer meeting engagements.

PBEM is the most reliable way to play multi-player however it does take awhile. I hope that one day BFC makes playing via TCP/LAN so easy a grunt can do it because I think that style of head to head play would really take off.

I think it's okay to post my opinion to BFC's development strategy. Doesn't matter how many Zombies I have to defeat on this way
 
BFC is a company and of course they need to make money. For that target you need customers. So it's always good to hear their opinions. What they are doing with these opinions is another question, because only BFC (and the finance office   ) knows the sales volume.
 
The price is not so important for me, but the value for money. A new main game with this content is very unattractive to me. Yes, I know: I don’t need to buy
 
I play only PBEM and maybe that's the reason I have another view than other members of this forum. For me are graphic (effects) and some new rare vehicles are not so important than the gameplay system. A good example is the game Dwarf Fortress. The most people will run away after seeing the graphic, but I love the gameplay system.
 
I would have liked that BFC would have other priorities and changing the game system (e.g. no breaking FOW, a better spotting system, usefully ATGs, the possibility of an ambush).
 
[EDIT] Of course with "Zombies" I don’t designate any person in this forum. It is just a metaphor  

Favorite Combat Mission since CMBB. I really enjoy Red Thunder too, but Black Sea is simply awesome. It might just be me, but it also seems like it's a little better optimized, too. 

Interesting. I'm really not sure from that what your position on the matter is...
Personally, I think it's an argument for Charles and Phil making a map converter and putting it on the Repository. That way, the value of their new families to people who already own other families is increased: they don't have to wait for someone to make the map available on the Repository, if they fancy rolling their Abrams across their favourite bit of the Normandy countryside (with Ukrainian houses...), they can just roll the converter, plonk some buildings in to replace the mismatches and Robert's your auntie's live-in lover.

Maps, once the game is out, have always been in the public domain, and that's why scenario packs don't sound like they'd make BFC any money, as they lack any way of preventing freeloading. New maps are always very welcome, and would be as valuable a part of the product that BFC sells, to the person buying it, as they have ever been, even if all other Families' maps were potentially only half an hour away from being usable in the new Family. BFC could even batch-run the converter and include all the old maps in the product that introduces the map-converter, with that half-hour's work done on each. That might let them provide fewer new maps in that one product, and possibly future ones without too much aggro from the user base. But "300 new maps" is a bragging point that will sell games to the RT section of the community that's actually had time to play all the existing maps

I would be very happy if the mismatches were just defaulted to a basic grass, basic tree, basic house depending on what the object is.
 
There are some really nice maps for CM:BN. CM:FI, CM:RT, and CM:BS that would be nice to have in the other games. If the cost of doing so is spending sometime in the editor piecing together some parts of the map it would be totally worth it.
 
Most of the terrain seems shared anyway.

I prefer We-go.  I can play the turn back all I want and it also facilitates finding and taking screen shots.  I can also take my time replay the last turn and follow all the small dramas taking place across the map.  In real time I would probably have to mostly focus on the main effort / crisis and ignore the smaller dramas.  I also think We-go helps with studying and learning tactics which is one of the enjoyable parts of the Combat Mission experience for me.   

Im enjoying it. It is definitely a HUGE improvement over Strike Force, IMHO. It is what SF should have been. Mortars appear quickly! Dont stay in one spot too long! Or dont be seen.

Played a few hours today and even though I'm an East front obsessive I'm tending to think this is the best CM yet. The stock graphics for starters are streets ahead I feel on previous titles, esp the terrain.
 
The selection of toys is a joy and so far the scenarios I've played  have been superbly designed and have excellent terrain features\layout.
 
A HUGE thumbs up from me. Far exceeds my already high expectations!
 
I can't wait for future modules.
 
Who else thinks this could\is the best CMx2 to date?
 
I've announced the release on my Tactical Wargames FB page and so far it's getting excellent comments.

John has nailed it, good job (can't be bothered to type more)

Everything dies faster.

Damn.   That would have been great to have triggers on reinforcement spawn in times.
 
I remember with bitterness one scenario where a T72 tank company spawned on top of my Stryker platoon.  The outcome was ugly, needless to say.  And the Marine campaign scenario where you assault a ridge line.  I remember assaulting and occupying the trench works on the ridge, only to have Syrian infantry spawn into the trenches with my squads in them.   Mutual annihilation by grenades.  

If you use your Stryker as a fighting vehicle, I'd imagine no, if you use it in it's intended role to transport and provide local support for the infantry...  I served for 6 years as an infantryman on BTRs and BMPs.  The BTRs just took us to dismount points and we did our mission on foot, our BTR was not trying to fight other vehicles.  I son't know te USA doctrine, but I don't think they are going to put a company of Strykers on line and assault through an objective with them.

I have been watching effectiveness of Russian anti tank rifles vs German half tracks.
It seems that they are accurate, but don't cause that much damage.
 
Even though during a turn I may see several penetrations from ATR hits the HT does not reverse to safety like often happens when they are shot with smaller calibre weapons.
Especially when a soldier inside a HT dies.
Also despite several penetrations and the HT being full of soldiers in most cases nobody dies (no idea of any damage was caused to crew inside or the vehicle).
So I'm thinking: is this correctly modeled now?
 
I would assume hitting a HT full of soldiers would have pretty good chance of causing casualties to soldiers inside or the vehicle getting damaged, depending on the place of hit of course.
And why don't HTs react to 14,5mm hits at all like they do when hit with smaller or larger caliber weapons?