LongLeftFlank

Scenario alongside the Pacific terrain and ambience mod is great, unfortunately the Japanese Infantry and US WW2 Marines mod comes in legacy CMBN file standard. The Japanese are a real challenge. They are using Luftwaffe airborne skeletons in British infantry slots and renaming everything in order to make it work can really start to let your head smoke.
I just tried to convert those Japanese and managed a partial half-hearted result but I had to remove the LW skeletons because otherwise they got weird faces and uniforms, there is a chance that I incorrectly changed files.

Perhaps somebody that is good with CMBN naming conventions, dependecies, and conversions like @LongLeftFlank himself, @37mm , @Mord or somebody else knows if this can be converted without extensive rework.
This is really a gem of mod I didn´t know that it existed. It comes with alot of content, Japanese audio, UI mod, and pacific terrain. Taken together with the content that was recently provided by the H&E mod there are alot of options to go WW2 Pacific or whatever similar.

...a word from Druid must always be heard and respected !☺️
however, when somebody have  a magic potion...!

A little more progress at last. I (re)wrote US and German briefings and worked up tactical maps for PURPLE HEART CORNER. Now to start playtesting.

In a shooter, you want unnatural contrasts to aid spotting bad guys. Since CM units generally make their own choices what to shoot, we can go for photorealism (except maybe at night).
These building collapse physics are badly wrong, like dominoes, but if shooter players just want to blow stuff up with ubertanks,  who the heck cares? Sure, CM could use a modest overhaul of its building physics and cover values but this kind of eye candy isn't the solution.

I second the request for 'interesting' rural terrain. I'm a big fan of 'heavy rocks' to impede tanks, often tagged as [rubble] for blocked city streets. I also liberally use 'heavy woods' terrain tiles to create no-go areas for tanks. Lately, for CMRT scenarios, I've gotten into mixing up hedges, bocage, light woods tiles and trees to make strips of dense roadside foliage. And yeh, either slightly raised or depressed roads. You really do need to build in the 'mircoterrain'.

After another year+ long work-related embargo, quarantine has allowed me to do a little CM design work once again, on my second Le Carillon CMBN scenario, using version 3.0.
FWIW, I have observed the following AI pathing oddity, and am tacking it to this thread, as it isn't worth a separate one.  It didn't otherwise show up in search.
1.  After repeated tests, it appears that once AI controlled units enter a building, they invariably take up a unit Facing that is OPPOSITE the building side they entered. In Scenario Test mode, you can see the AI assign that facing (blue line) at the end of the move.  That is true even if the unit is facing *away* from the enemy. This is regardless of what the Friendly Direction setting may be, or the unit's game start facing (I tested). 
2. They won't subsequently change their facing, even if an enemy unit shoots them up ("Psst, we're over here you idjets!").  In the case of a Spotter team, that's more than a little inconvenient....
3. The workaround seems to be to give them an order to a spot behind the building (i.e. opposite the side you want them to face), and then a follow on order to enter. Just make sure those doors aren't obstructed.
4. I stress tested this using different building types, set destination squares only on the desired side of the building, flagged the enemy as Target Units, slapped a TRP on top of them, confirmed LOS was clear, gave the AI side Full Intel, etc. No love, nothing got the AI's attention.  Same thing happened with a non-Spotter team, although larger squads will post some squaddies facing other directions.
BFC, please fix or sumfinksumfinksumfinksumfink...

DOH! I somehow posted the link to this thread instead of the damn file!
NEW WORKING LINK TO FILE BELOW!!!
>>>> Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf  <<<<
While I'm at it may as well make up for it with a few teaser previews:

Last game a trooper of mine  fired 4 RPG7-shots into a tree right in front of him. The tank was 20-25m away...

I'm also a bit disappointed about how easily tanks seem to be allowed to manoeuver (and turn their turret/gun) in woods. It would be great if more map designers made use of small patches of heavy wood (impassable to tanks, afaik?) to make tank movement more complicated and less predictable in woods. Tank manoeuverablity in dense forest is one of my main gripes.

As LongLeftFlank also mentioned, very few CM map feature the thickets at the edges of woods (a gently rising canopy, so to speak), which would cut LOS into the wood. Of course this would also depend on the type of wood - there are many woods without that typical thicket.

Most woods on quick battle maps are way too small. As a result, these woods can be traversed very fast, they can be easily saturated by artillery fire, and defending them doesn't take a lot of troops.

@Erwin, I'll extend time as seems necessary as I playtest. "Winning" here is really about not losing too many guys to sniping and mortar stonks.
After 5 more hours, I got the ersatz morning fog smokescreen to work across the full US frontage. It's actually fired by the AI Germans (they have no other use for smoke rounds). Here's how it worked out:
1. As warned by @RockinHarry, no matter how large or irregular you paint an AI Support Target zone, the AI always converts it into a single small radius point target.
2. So to get broad coverage, you need multiple Smoke Support Targets. The AI fires on them promptly, one at a time, in no particular order, using both OBA and onboard guns. LOS is irrelevant.
3. Each Support Target needs its own arty unit, although sometimes 2 units will plaster 1 ST zone and leave the other unfired. Gentle breeze will cover gaps. 81mm mortars with Scarce ammo seem to work best. A Support Target mission keeps firing until tubes are dry, but they only have a few smoke rounds each, so it's over in 1-3 minutes. (Their HE will of course be available to the AI for conventional missions later).
4. For those interested, AI Support Target missions always assign a nominal "green line" spotter, even a sniper, and even if he can't see the zone. If no units are on the map (all reinforcements), the mission won't fire. 

Yeah, this is another venerable pain issue where your actual ability to see/shoot/be shot doesn't match the visual feedback or the LOS tool. Modeling real woodlands filled with many young trees and undergrowth would really tax graphics cards.
I made my peace with it once I understood the 1/2/3 trunk visuals are mere abstractions of the actual trunk density in that forest tile. 'Old growth' trees, with the kind of trunk thickness shown would actually be quite rare anywhere near human settlement.  But because I'm an infantry player, the 'steel trunk' phenomenon doesn't bug me so much.
Absence of woods edge thickets -- new growth that (seasonally) restricts LOS but not fire (think double height grain) -- is what bothers me more as a designer. But I simulate that on my maps by varying tree types, using gapped bocage/hedge and/or varying local terrain height.

One "fix" - to my mind - that I've mentioned over the years and seems to me (well, it would, wouldn't it!) to be easier to implement is to be able to select a unit and its movement waypoint(s) as plotted by you and then hit a command to "force' the pathing algorithm to run and show you the route and waypoints that will actually be plotted by the A.I. for that unit only ...
 
If it shows that the unit will actually take a path that's different to what you want / expect, you can "think again" ...
 
As the intended route will only be based on what the unit already knows before the turn starts (and before it reacts during the turn to enemy fire), it doesn't seem to contradict FOW?
 
And its using only the pathing routine that will run when you hit go ... so requires no new features as such; and is voluntary and for use as you decide or not, so will slow down moves only as much as you let it?
 
Cures AFVs thinking they won't fit through gaps in buildings, impassable terrain, etc and going the long way around via LOS to the enemy? And building entrances, like this?
 
Unless the pathing routine won't work in a "preview" mode like that?

I was largely away from first person games for years, but picked up Post Scriptum during the winter sale. Coming from CM, the tank armor and penetration values, along with special ammo loadouts seem rather "stretched" for balance. However,  that can be fixed when the sdk comes out and, allowing for the kind of realism compromises that must be made to make first person work, it's the best game of its kind I've seen for a WWII setting (if Darkest Hour had current graphics, it would be #1). I was really excited about HLL pre-release, but have lost interest due to the more mainstream direction the devs have taken it. PS is really, really good -- if, like with CM, you do the work required to play it properly.
I'm not a beta tester and so haven't played on the Berlin map. However, I've been spending most of my CM time for the last few years working on and off on a dense city map for RT. With it, I've tried to push the current engine in terms of complex urban layouts and large, connected multi-section building structures. So, I should have a pretty good handle on what combat on the Berlin map will be like.
The good news is that, overall, it works well enough and can be damn good -- if you are willing to put in the work to issue the detailed orders required. I've been pretty impressed with how well the engine handles the complex density of a realistic urban environment  (I'm generally recreating what I see in GE down to door and window placement) and the kind of close-range firefights and FOW it produces. In fact, with so much cover around, I feel that it often works better than non-urban to keep the casualties down.
The bad news is that there are still issues. As of the current build, the TacAI does suicide rout on occasion, no matter how much cover is around. Many of the buildings on my map offer "skulking" cover where a unit has multiple out-of-LOS adjacent action spots that it can fall back to, while engaging from one with LOS to the enemy. However, the TacAI will fairly often avoid these in favor of the most dangerous route. Another big problem is that generally the TacAI's first reaction to taking heavy fire when in a tall building is to drop to the lowest level directly under it. That has the double-whammy of leaving the unit in a potentially vulnerable, "known" position (when playing H2H) and adding a big workload to the player to get his units back into position as they scatter further than they need to. As I said above, on my map, units often only have to move one AS horizontally to disengage from LOS, but the TacAI very often doesn't use the feature.
My hope is that the current playtesting on Berlin will yield something good in the way of game updates. However, even if it BF leaves things as is, the combat is still overall good enough. You just have to write off a certain portion of your troops to immersion-blowing howlers, but frankly, not really any more than any combat environment in current CMx2.
In terms of CM's development, my position is that the "front end" of CMx2 is largely at diminishing returns. Mostly, it just needs some rough edges smoothed. However, the "back end" of CMx2 has HUGE room for improvement. By back end, I mean the Editor. It is here that I am at a point of increasing disappointment, as time goes by. There is so much that could be added to speed up and enhance content creation and add realism.  For example, think how long we've had AI Area fire. But how useful is it really? As a first pass placeholder, it was great. But it's been years and we still can't increase or decrease the fire rate or choose a building level to target. We still can't use the feature with any kind of artillery, other than on-map mortars. Basically, it is only useful for very specific situations with specific units. For example, the only tank that can be relied upon to put fire on a target with reasonable intensity is the T-34/76 because of its high ammo count. I spent about 10-20 hours trying to get a platoon of AI Tigers to offer reasonable fire support on my map and have just about given up. They simply can't be relied upon to put fire on target and the testing time is crazy-long. Now, add the ability for the designer to choose building level and fire intensity -- done, and you've just reduced testing to a fraction.
Another big area is AI artillery. So much to be improved there. It's incredibly time-consuming to just try to get AI pre-planned arty to use the right guns in the right place. There seems to be built-in variation, so that you can't actually be sure which asset will be used on which target every time. Couple that with the fact that you've got basically 8-9 minutes to do everything you need to do with opening AI artillery (including smoke) and it's very frustrating and time consuming. Again, for the first few years -- no problem. But by now designers should have the ability to reliably choose which assets goes where, exactly how long they fire and with any desired delays. And, all off-map assets should be available for AI Area fire and the same varying rates a human player can choose. Anyway, I could go on and on (did I mention expanding the number of Groups? Ahem).
So, to wrap this up...
Stalingrad-like action in current CMx2 is overall enjoyably doable. It's largely a question of map design. There are rough edges and howlers will happen, but actually about the same number as general CM. CMx2 IMO, is largely done at the front end development-wise. At the back end, however, there is a VAST amount of gold to mine that is currently untapped. And, at this late date, it's looking like a head-scratcher as to why exactly.  My guess is that BF is in a difficult position from a marketing standpoint. Players want to easily see what they are paying for. Front end features are easy to see and back end features aren't. That makes a paid upgrade offering primarily Editor feature enhancements a tough sell, unless it is coupled with adequate new content showcasing the features.
Anyway, in a response to a post from me, Steve very recently said that there is no current timetable for new paid upgrades. That means the back end is staying where it is for the foreseeable future. So...
Will combat in Berlin be good? Answer: I think quite, but YMMV according to your subjective taste. What are my feelings on CM? Right now, CMx2 has a few front-end areas that really need smoothing, but is largely "done." However, the Editor has massive room for improvement. If that happens, CMx2 will have new legs. If not, then I'll probably just go into waiting mode for CMx3.
However, CMx3 really needs to have an Editor that allows designers to make the SP experience better in less time. Otherwise, I may not spend much time there.

me neither.  I also hate to admit it, but its taken way too long to come out.  I know its insane to even say after reading 5 pages of aragorn bashing over saying it but its friggin true.  Im sorry guys but I think the game needs a new engine or to gracefully retire.  not be dragged around as a mummified corpse like Norman Bates dead mom.
I mean after these modules what then?  Berlin city fighting in this engine? ugh.   Stalingrad in this engine would be vomit inducing.  Theres a lot of other things too.  I love this game series and its given me more pleasure longer than any other series but Im burned out, have been burned out, and the engines over 9 years old...
Think about it.  CMBO released in 2000.  I remember it well.  9 years later I was playing a fixed SF and waiting eagerly for CMBN.   Not eagerly awaiting a 10th CMx1 release.  Im sure others will totally disagree and thats great  - Im truly happy you either found this game or can continue to get joy and delight from it, instead of playing it so long it has no allure or mystery.  Its all old tricks to get around broken or fudged in game mechanics, unrealistic stuff, and knowing that its really invisible die rolls and not bullets coming down that street that decide if those men get hit.
cheers to all that remember who I am.. miss some of ya

We've all been there with pathing bro, feel ya pain.
While not a comprehensive pathing fix, one of my 'top 5' wishlist items is for designers to be able to paint AI 'don't go here, known threat!' (mined, fire lane, wevs.) squares. The unit TacAI for the affected side (even if player controlled) would 'see' these squares as marsh or sumfink, and avoid entering them. During setup, perhaps these threat zones would highlight in red and could also be labeled.
Yes, one could also use actual marsh or mud squares (I've been tempted at times, believe me) as a crude hack, but they are ugly and have other effects. They also affect both sides.

...Ah, here's my workaround! I will autoplot a smoke mission with Severe ammo shortage (ht, @MOS:96B2P) across the US area which will lower visibility for the first few minutes, simulating dawn light plus June river fogs. Will let you know how that works.

We've all been there with pathing bro, feel ya pain.
While not a comprehensive pathing fix, one of my 'top 5' wishlist items is for designers to be able to paint AI 'don't go here, known threat!' (mined, fire lane, wevs.) squares. The unit TacAI for the affected side (even if player controlled) would 'see' these squares as marsh or sumfink, and avoid entering them. During setup, perhaps these threat zones would highlight in red and could also be labeled.
Yes, one could also use actual marsh or mud squares (I've been tempted at times, believe me) as a crude hack, but they are ugly and have other effects. They also affect both sides.

Good you got it working. 
Need to revise some my statements re stand-off or security range for AIP. Some more standardized testing (CMBN V4.02) revealed there´s likely no something like this. At least it all seems more dynamic and complicated. However, I got a german AIP using its assets at ranges as close as ~50m to its forward friendly lines (didn´t test any closer). This at almost perfect environmental condition (clear sky, daylight and opponent remaining static in little cover). Even at 50m it´ll use 150mm howitzers if it sees fit. Same for 105mm offboard Arty and 81mm mortars (onboard). But this involves the risk of some friendly fire falling on the line. Not so good in case of 150mm and airbursts. This can be single stray rounds but also an overlapping on friendly positions area target. The latter seems odd, but `ve seen the AIP doing it several times with 81mm onboard mortars.
In less than perfect condition (enemy on the move, insuffcient intel, good cover/concealment etc) the AIP surely is more hesitant and not using assets that effectively. Main point IMO still remains good LOS to a TRP and surrounding area, as well as highQ spotter and Arty. Unfortunately scenario author mode doesn´t give any further hints on AIP´s decisions, except type of Arty mission used and assets (when onboard). No info on a FO´s spotting and LOS quality (off course). 

OK, daylight is a good part of my spotter problem. The historical attack begins at 0645 (Overcast). When I push it forward to 0930, I do get spots and the kind of shelling I was looking for. Many thanks gents, for the useful pointers! 

Think @LongLeftFlank is still at V 3.0? AIP scripted area fire targeting requires V4.+ IIRC. It worked fairly well for me in a US AIP attacking mission some time ago. (LINK)
Stand-off or security range most likely is still key for AIP defensive ARTY missions to work properly. As mentioned further above medium guns (105mm +) require something like 300m minimum. For german 81 or 50mm it might be shorter, but haven´t tested in detail yet. In a current test setup with a US AIP attacking in urban terrain I found the US 60mm mortars are used at ranges between 100 to 200m (from forward friendlies), if a potential calling unit has both LOS and available TRP in desired area. Off cause C2 link required.
For a defending german AIP I´d guess security range for medium mortars might be at 200-300m. Maybe somewhat less. I´d likely add german obsolete 50mm mortars to the mix which I think have the least possible restrictions re security range.
In order to give the AIP a helping hand I don´t hesitate to add a very high amount of TRP´s, as well as allowing full intel on the human players assets. Think I´d go as far as cheating on the human player by reinforce inserting an AIP  FO in his rear area at appropiate time and places. This practice wasn´t that uncommon in WW2 anyway (leaving behind a FO to cause trouble in the enemies rear area), at least for germans and russians.
The AIP oftenly is somewhat hesitant due to available ammo. This counts the more for onboard mortars and guns which have little when compared to offboard assets. Think there´s some trucks with extra 81mm mortar ammo in german motorized Inf formations, which can be "unloaded" in editor. Usually any unloaded ammo dump gets combined into a single large one when part of a single formation initially. Buying multiple formations gets this solved usually. Wished BFC would add these (mortar ammo) to the supply truck formations.

For stonks I often have off map medium mortars with low ammo arrive as reinforcements about every 15 minutes or so.  They can't get to intense because the mortars are only medium and they run out of ammo. 
If AI units are to close to the targeted area they may not call in fire.  The AIs version of danger close.  I would leave the FO teams intact at a safe distance with Elite experience and +2 Leader.   
 
Below are from some scenario design notes I have reference mortars / artillery that may be of interest.  The first paragraph is a paraphrase of something @RockinHarry posted in 2016.
The more AI TRPs the better. The AI adheres to usual C2 restrictions, meaning that any spotter needs to be in chain of command AND is allowed to access a particular Arty or mortar asset. The AI is no different in this regard as a human player. Also the FO´s and artillery unit’s soft factors matter, meaning higher quality units respond, spot and shoot better. AI TRP´s should be placed with security stand-off ranges as the AI won´t risk targeting areas that are too close to friendly units. From my observations the AI uses point, area and line, but never smoke missions. I think the AI uses short duration destructive fires.
 
This next one is a paraphrase of something @nik mond posted in 2018.  This may be a trick you've not heard of.
You can trigger AI on map mortars to start firing at an objective once the enemy occupies it.                
1. Paint a terrain objective on top of the occupy objective the human player needs to take, but make this one an "AI trigger enemy" location.                                                                                                                                                 
2. In the AI plan have your mortars set up some place and then set the "next" move order on exactly the same tiles as the previous location except add a "Ctrl L click" (AI Area Fire) for the target location tiles which will be on the occupy objective. Important: make that "next" move order "wait for" invoked by that "AI trigger enemy" you made. Set time from 0:00 to end of battle. Now when the enemy moves to the objective location they get mortared.                                          
-if an AI FO calls a fire mission from the mortars it over-rides the target trigger until the duration of the mission is over (usually short) and then it resumes the trigger bombardment.
-The mortars never pack up from one move to another if the movement locations are drawn on top of each other exactly on the same tiles. So when the "order 2" which is that "AI trigger enemy" is invoked they start firing right away. -you can ctrl L click (AI Area Fire) multiple target tiles and the mortars will sweep, fire at one tile, then the next etc.
-line of sight not required.
Good luck!!

After another year+ long work-related embargo, quarantine has allowed me to do a little CM design work once again, on my second Le Carillon CMBN scenario, using version 3.0.
FWIW, I have observed the following AI pathing oddity, and am tacking it to this thread, as it isn't worth a separate one.  It didn't otherwise show up in search.
1.  After repeated tests, it appears that once AI controlled units enter a building, they invariably take up a unit Facing that is OPPOSITE the building side they entered. In Scenario Test mode, you can see the AI assign that facing (blue line) at the end of the move.  That is true even if the unit is facing *away* from the enemy. This is regardless of what the Friendly Direction setting may be, or the unit's game start facing (I tested). 
2. They won't subsequently change their facing, even if an enemy unit shoots them up ("Psst, we're over here you idjets!").  In the case of a Spotter team, that's more than a little inconvenient....
3. The workaround seems to be to give them an order to a spot behind the building (i.e. opposite the side you want them to face), and then a follow on order to enter. Just make sure those doors aren't obstructed.
4. I stress tested this using different building types, set destination squares only on the desired side of the building, flagged the enemy as Target Units, slapped a TRP on top of them, confirmed LOS was clear, gave the AI side Full Intel, etc. No love, nothing got the AI's attention.  Same thing happened with a non-Spotter team, although larger squads will post some squaddies facing other directions.
BFC, please fix or sumfinksumfinksumfinksumfink...

After another year+ long work-related embargo, quarantine has allowed me to do a little CM design work once again, on my second Le Carillon CMBN scenario, using version 3.0.
FWIW, I have observed the following AI pathing oddity, and am tacking it to this thread, as it isn't worth a separate one.  It didn't otherwise show up in search.
1.  After repeated tests, it appears that once AI controlled units enter a building, they invariably take up a unit Facing that is OPPOSITE the building side they entered. In Scenario Test mode, you can see the AI assign that facing (blue line) at the end of the move.  That is true even if the unit is facing *away* from the enemy. This is regardless of what the Friendly Direction setting may be, or the unit's game start facing (I tested). 
2. They won't subsequently change their facing, even if an enemy unit shoots them up ("Psst, we're over here you idjets!").  In the case of a Spotter team, that's more than a little inconvenient....
3. The workaround seems to be to give them an order to a spot behind the building (i.e. opposite the side you want them to face), and then a follow on order to enter. Just make sure those doors aren't obstructed.
4. I stress tested this using different building types, set destination squares only on the desired side of the building, flagged the enemy as Target Units, slapped a TRP on top of them, confirmed LOS was clear, gave the AI side Full Intel, etc. No love, nothing got the AI's attention.  Same thing happened with a non-Spotter team, although larger squads will post some squaddies facing other directions.
BFC, please fix or sumfinksumfinksumfinksumfink...

Heh  I have been working on a Sadr city map for what feels like forever and it is a much simpler project then most.  The dang place is about as grid oriented as one could hope for.  Why do it?  For the same reason I created a Cassino map- I wanted a better visual perspective on it.  I'll release it eventually but may never actually use myself.  Trying to do one for Warsaw with the same attempt at accuracy that LLF did for Ramadi I wouldn't even want to contemplate.

1. In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare....
 

I am sure the programming challenge is not inconsiderable -- finite brainjar hours -- but I feel the addition of even basic pbem coop play mechanics would breathe a lot of new life into the system, and the community.
Even having some friendly forces AI programmed/controlled could add new dimensions -- allowing a designer to assign a player a specific role within a larger operation rather than needing to micro the whole force. Faster play, more fun for those who choose it. Endless possibilities here, and seemingly well within existing design parameters of the engine with some help from newer generation computing power. Fwiw