Erwin

Quite... Note that in the game however, when intensively playtesting MOS' TOC scenario, we found the UAV's (even Elite with Elite JTAC controllers) did not do a good job of spotting infantry or even moving vehicles. It took a few WEGO turns/minutes for an Elite UAV "team" to spot stationary vehicles in the open. I can't recall ever spotting any enemy infantry - altho the inf would have been in woods. (BTW: My comments are based on my experience re what works/doesn't work in the game - not trying to make any points about RL.)

So the Bundeswehr would concur with the way scouting vehicles survive (or rather don't survive if actually used for scouting) in CM2?

Couldn't have said it better myself. Hope more folks here have a go at playing TOC and we see more similar style scenarios (or campaign version).

Sorry didn't understand. Probably an English as a 2nd language issue. No worries...

That is what is so great about your TOC scenario. If developed as a campaign with branching storylines the play value would be even more addictive.

Are we not saying the same thing? Yes, in the game my experience has been that it has been suicide in modern era games for vehicles to be used in a scouting role. Reading AAR's it seems that many players generally accept that the role of the vehicular scout is to locate enemies by getting blown up. My SOP in a CM game is different. I cannot think of a single modern era game I have played where I have not led with inf to locate enemy assets with armor being kept in safe locations - perhaps keyholed to reduce the change that an ATGM can see or fire at them. in the WW2 era games, one can afford different tactics (which is the point of the thread) as some tanks are relatively impervious to enemy fire - or at least can withstand a hit or two without being badly hurt. This all relates to the game btw. Not commenting on RL tactics. Of course a typical game designer will ensure balance of forces. So, if you have (say) a King Tiger, the enemy will almost always be provided with a counter. So in the game, yes, I also try to lead with inf as I know there is a high probability that my Tiger will be facing something that can kill it.

This idea looks good.

No they're not. In modern warfare we have weapons that can kill at several Km range. We rarely have that sort of LOS outside of CMSF which usually features the best long range features. But it's rare to see long range (2Km-3Km+) LOS in scenarios from the European titles.

I have those and took a quick look. Mein gott! there is so much programming. Could sit in my bunker for years and not watch everything that looks interesting. And they keep making new good-looking stuff!

really handy as am often abroad. might even tempt me into actually getting a smart phone.

Impressive work, mate.

Sniper is one of the most popular roles in modern FPS and similar games. Wonder why that is if above is true. It's understood these are games not real, but some of these games are gruesomely graphic - and that appears to be the primary attraction. Are we training gamers to be less "sensitive"? That question is even more puzzling for drone operators. That truly is very like a computer game.

In the game it nearly always seems like a bad idea to move tanks ahead of inf no matter what. I qualified that... But thinking about it, my experience is that in the game it is ALWAYS a bad idea. However, am not so sure that is true in RL as one may have much longer range LOS in RL. In the game nearly all our battles are essentially short range knife fights where you know for sure that enemy inf is lurking a couple hundred meters away (at most).

You are talking in RT rather than WEGO, yes?

In WW2 era one could be fairly confident that the first one or two shots would miss and even then there was a reasonable chance of survival. The fact that modern warfare has a "one-shot kills" environment demands that one has to adjust tactics. Good example (at least in the game). One has to move a lot faster now as well as be stealthier due to better enemy optics. In the game at least, (actually in all CM titles regardless of era) have found that one nearly always benefits from pushing inf ahead as spotters and holding back armor until you pretty much know/can guess where most of the enemy assets are - and hitting them with arty. Only then can armor be unleashed with confidence.

Have very rarely experienced this in the game and wonder if this has more to do with one's playing style - ie tactics. What is great about CM series is that the AI makes one's men (re)act in a fairly realistic manner - at least most of the time imo. Perhaps another player simply would not do what you are doing with your guys? CM does not play like other entertainment products in which a player can "get away" with a lot more.

Sad, but these days daily life is much tougher than for our generation. If you are trying to make ends meet with mortgage a couple screaming kids and doing 2 jobs, who has time for a complex wargame? It would be interesting to examine demographics of customers here.

FWIW I have TF Panther if required. But, seriously, post in CMSF2 forums. I never check this area unless I have a tech question to post.

Yeah. TOW looked great. But, if you are not a RT fan, not good to play.

I may have other campaigns. The challenge is that you have named the campaigns differently. I couldn't find a bunch until I realized they had USMC or NATO prefixes in my folder. Do you have Battle of Grozny? Also, I rarely check this TECH section. In future, recommend that u post these sorts of things in the CMSF2 Scenarios and Mods area.

My money would be on biochem etc. That is much more of a threat from nihilistic non-state actors.

Thank you for the reassurance.

+1 Well said. And we save a ton of money only having to buy one game system instead of a dozen every year that would only stay on one's HD for a few days or weeks.

We would all love something like that but this may be a bad business model for BF. IIRC it cost them a bundle giving players the whole war in one CMBBv1 game - no modules to sell. Or... the CMBBv2 game you suggest would have to cost $300+. Although not directly comparable games of course, look what's happening with "Star Citizen". In development since 2012 - lots of eye-popping graphics but very little playable content so far. (And cost $200 million so far!) This is definitely a concern since who knows where any of us will be in 5+ years. But, the bigger question is what new customers will buy a game in 2024 onwards with basically 17+ year old graphics? When one has slow development one runs into this "Catch 22" situation.

Interesting to convert from CMBO. Thanks...