Pete Wenman

That's very kind of you @kinophile . It is always a challenge to get the AI to attack in a credible manner but l think it works ok here. It does mean the Redforce is a little stronger than in a truly balanced scenario (whatever one of them is ), but l guess that makes victory over Red all the sweeter. P

@ctcharger I hope you are enjoying Brutal, and the name should have given some indication of what was to follow. Playing as Blue is always going to be a challenge with this scenario, so I suspect you are getting on better than you think, despite the final score. Retain the victory locations where you can. Use your best Atgm against the toughest targets and shot and scoot as much as you can. Otherwise play as Red and enjoy the pain you inflict. P

Don't forget the classics - The Last of the Mohicans by Fenimore Cooper. P

LOL P

OK - sh/t mod (official tag [squalor] )is up on CMmods. This also includes amended rubble texture, rural wall and wooden 48m bridge. https://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=7522 @mjkerner @MOS:96B2P P

The sh/t mod is something I've put together, along with ground rubbish, amended rubble and a re-textured wooden bridge from RT I'll get them on CMMods later today P

Yep that doesn't surprise me. My balance test for the scenario Red AI plans was that on at least one occasion when testing the AI Redforce won.

So did I beat you with the Blue AI plan, or did Redforce win the day ? P

Chamberlain and Doyle do reference both with the 250 referred to Sd Kfz 250/1 ( s MG). No specific designation is given for the 251 In both cases the vehicles is identified as the carrier of the HMG group of an Armoured Infantry Det. For the 250 it is stated Crew 6. This version carried the support Halbgruppe with two MG34 in heavy field mountings. For the 251 Crew 11. Armament two sMG34, one MG34 or 42. Ammunition 2010 Difficult to determine whether these had different mounts for the MG from which the weapons could fire when mounted in the vehicles or whether they were just the carrier for the sMG teams P

P

This P

Highly circumstantial, but I've read an awful lot of post on these forums that I wouldn't describe with words like "clever" or "challenging". More like "lazy" and "malicious". P

It might be worth checking as to whether rate of fire is different for mounted mortars ?? Just a thought P

For those of you newer to the forum, I might suggest typing "Space Lobsters" into the forum search engine. It will happen one day ! P

What Ben says I got this I'm still not sure I'm fully over it P

@HerrTom. If you able to have a look at my river crossing scenario in the Red campaigne. The Red force was significantly stronger than blue in order to allow sufficient red forces to make it to the far bank and then move inland. In addition they had substantial arty and air support as is the Russian way. In order to allow for balance within an H2H game maybe it is worth considering more asymmetric victory conditions similar to those found in many of the CMSF scenarios. Just my 2p P

Yeah I've read on other forums that images are visible again.i think I read that the backlash was so strong that the policy was reversed. p

From Steve here What I can I say... we continue to be perfectionists! Some of you were envisioning us copying and pasting CMSF1 stuff into the current Game Engine 4. Over and done with within a few months, right? I think we had a similar concept at first, though a few months was never a realistic timeframe in our minds. Since digging into CMSF1 in detail we found there was a need to redo pretty much everything. Quite a bit from scratch. We even violated our original concept of "nothing new for CMSF2 because we don't want this project to drag out". Yes, that means CMSF2 has on map dismounted and mounted mortars, for example. All new Soldier models certainly took up a huge chunk of time. Correcting our original research and predictions for near future TO&E also was no small task. And scenarios... well, let's just say a lot has changed over the years and that is obvious if you play a stock CMSF1 (Game Engine 0) in CMSF2 (Game Engine 4)! The good news is that original CMSF1 content can be loaded in the Editor without doing anything special. We expect a lot of old CMSF1 hands will have fun upgrading their scenarios to CMSF2 standards. The upshot of this all is that CMSF2 feels like a brand new game instead of something slightly warmed over from 2008. We think you'll agree it was the right way to go, even if it meant a lot more time spent in the oven. This thread now officially announces and confirms that existing CMSF1 customers can upgrade to CMSF2 very, very, very affordably. Here's what the new website shows you when you select to CMSF1 Upgrades section: Yup, for $35 you can Upgrade the CMSF2 Base Game Engine 4, Marines, British Forces, and NATO in one go. Upgrades can not be preordered, so for those of you looking to Upgrade you should skip the preorder and wait until things start shipping. And when do we expect to ship? No later than the end of July 2018. I've asked the Testing Lads™ to create some fun screenshots for me to post. Here they are! Steve

Better P

You asked and we provided. Oh you said uncon - my bad ! P

Well played Sir !

The early war kit is more interesting imo, and i find the desert terrain too similar for prolonged interest. North Africa is better suited to Ops level actions or higher. Early war is much better suited to CM's scale. Just my 2p Edit to add I'll take Fulda over anything else BF could offer P

Early War all the way- not even a close choice. P