Erwin

It definitely helps when using turreted vehicles to have the turrets facing towards the enemy (at all times). But, is it spotting that occurs faster or the fact that the crew don't have to rotate the turret and spend more time aiming? As mentioned I was always a big fan of directional arcs in CM1. One could definitely could tell the improved spotting effect. But, am not so sure when it comes to inf in CM2.

That's good news if one can suppress units that are hiding behind a building (two walls between firer and target). However, in the game I find that this is regularly the most deadly place to set a defender as they do not seem to be adequately suppressed by firing into the buildings (even by larger than 50 cal), and when one's troops enter, they are almost always massacred by the enemy behind the far wall. Even when I expect this ambush I have yet to successfully suppress an enemy behind two walls. Am talking about fairly large buildings, not just a single room structure. Maybe that makes a difference?

Fair enuff. But, it's still odd that the Ukr force can split into 3 while our supposedly better trained 9 man squads (in Strykers) can only split into 2. Maybe that reflects RL doctrine. I honestly don't know. Does it?

This is interesting. Have found that a QUICK move by a unit into the LOS of an enemy that you know is there via sound contact with an AREA FIRE order at the enemy can be more effective that using HUNT to close with the enemy. Often one can kill or suppress the enemy even when it is in a foxhole etc. Maybe the enemy is caught in the middle of its spotting cycle?

This was definitely true in CM1. I vaguely recall that the spotting in the arc direction was toned down for CM2. I still try and give directional arcs to units. But, it's not as easy to make 180 degree arcs in CM2 as it was (one click) in CM1. However, my understanding from posts over the years is that many CM2 players seem to generally just use 360 arcs and don't seem to have problems with spotting. So, not sure if giving directional arcs is worth it any more.

But, the rounds have little or no effect on inf behind the building - one has to demolish the building in order to shoot at those inf.

If you destroy the building you mean? How many times does one have enuff ammo to level many buildings? And if they are PRESERVE objectives, you could lose the game.

It seems many feel like that... and it is very strange cognitive dissonance. To me CMAK would be like CMSF2 with WW2 era units. Brilliant. What's not to like?

+1 The CM series has saved me literally thousands of $ that I would have spent on other lesser games that used to last maybe a week or two b4 I got bored with them and deleted from my HD. 15 plus years ago when average game cost was about $30, I calculated that each CM title was worth at least $350+ when you looked at the value for money. As pointed out earlier many/most people these days are obsessed with "cheap and disposable" and do not seem to understand/appreciate the concept of "value for money" when amortized over many years.

I used to use HUNT when contact seemed imminent - esp in woods. However, in the game it seemed that the enemy could often get to fire first vs a unit using HUNT as that unit moved cautiously and spread out - so maybe the first one or two guys would get shot while the others immediately hunkered down with no LOS to the enemy and unable to fire at the enemy unit while the enemy unit was still distracted. Nowadays, I find it often more effective to move QUICK in short (~5m-10m) bounds - preferably coordinating with at least one other team, and maybe a 5 second PAUSE at each waypoint. The trick is to gain an understanding of where to place waypoints so that your teams get LOS on only one enemy team at a particular waypoint/moment in time. What seems to happen using this technique is that the attacking unit(s) arrive with all team members in place before the enemy has time to react, and if one has done this correctly, then one's teams may get to fire first, defeating the enemy team quickly. Then rinse and repeat...

This was pretty much the way nearly all CMSF1 missions worked. One learned to win with very few if any casualties and that what was what made the scenario challenging (when normally one may have a big force advantage as Blue). The WW2 era CM2 games were a shock as they all seemed to be bloodbaths.

Oh good... BTW: I looked at my CMA Z folder and I see a "mujatribal_ALL_ragtag_camo" mod. And yes, I see the xnt Heart of Darkness Taliban mod in my CMSF Z folder as well.

That is my point. One has to be aware of this as trying to shoot thru more than one wall to affect enemy hiding in ambush behind a 2nd wall is not an effective tactic in the game as it would be in RL.

It's worth firing at sound contacts as well. In CM1 the sound contacts were vague and inaccurate and it was usually a waste of ammo shooting at them. In CM2 sound contacts are quite accurate and one can usually get a result by shooting at a sound contact.

You must be talking about CMSF 1 or 2? There is no way to spot or deal with an IED other than to get blown up by it. IED's are not mines, and are activated by an enemy unit either by wire or cell phone etc. The only way to deal with an IED is to either kill the enemy triggerman, or prevent him from seeing the IED area so he doesn't know your units are at that location - by using smoke etc.

IIRC the CMA developer "Snowball" did some things that were not compatible with the other CM2 titles created by BF. Some of the skins do not work in both games, and wouldn't be surprised if other mods did not either. However, I have used many CMSF mods in CMA successfully. Cannot recall if I successfully used any mods from CMA in CMSF... Re the Mujahideen mod have you tried renaming it as the naming conventions may be different in the two games(?).

For WW2 era at least Rommel experimented with ratios of support to maneuver and found that (IIRC) as much as 10 (support) to 1 (assaulting) was most effective. So, if suppression is powerful enuff one's assault element can be relatively small. Not sure if that still holds true for modern tactics. But, one also has to realize that one is "playing the game system" as well. So, RL tactics may not always be optimal. Eg: One cannot shoot through a building with 50 cal and larger like one could in RL. The first wall stops everything until it collapses. The enemy behind the first wall can be hurt. An enemy situated behind a 2nd wall, will not be affected by suppression fire (until the first wall collapses and one can see to shoot at the 2nd wall. In playing the CM2 games, one usually has to use a mixture of RL and game tactics to be successful.

AI makes the decision on which main armament to use. Also, many have noticed the demo issue with CMSF2 vehicles firing main gun when ordered to TARGET LIGHT. Can be fatal when supporting own inf. Hope this is fixed for release version.

Nice video. Thanks...

+1 I still don't use my new and expensive Win 10 machine and keep on with old Win 7 machine. My rationale is that the Win 7 machine does everything I need to, so why have to learn a new OS - esp one that seems primarily designed to market to customers something they don't want and suck out one's personal info to sell to other marketers.

This temptation is understandable. But, my experience is that one learns more and faster by overcoming one's shock, readjusting one's plans and keeping on going with what forces one still has - like one would have to do in RL. Generally I save every 5 turns and restart the previous save when the game system does something really dumb/unrealistic and one loses something cos of "design/system error" rather that one's own mistakes - eg when a doorway turns out to not work and the unit runs out to the street to be massacred instead...

There are mods that offer that along with weathering etc.

Online games are all heading in that direction. It exploits the same compulsiveness that players have when gambling. But, it's not regulated like gambling - so it's quite a clever money making scheme. Related: Check out the stories behind Star Citizen. Since development was started in 2011, fans have given that company almost 200 million US$(!) buying some of the dozens or hundreds of spacecraft that are available to develop this "dream game" they want so badly. People can buy enuff higher end weaponry so that they can "pay to win". But, after 8 years there is still no actual game that can be played - just lovely demos! So, an even more brilliant scheme.

I have a fairly fast connection but when I tried this b4, it said it would take many hours, days even. Worried that my server would cut me off or slow me down for using that much bandwidth. Don't want to tie up my equipment like that. Would prefer to put it all on flash drive(s) and mail when in the UK. Am in and out of Europe frequently.

True. However, in many instances (esp WW2 era) being the first to reach a location is a major step to victory. It takes a few minutes for arty to FFE so there is usually time to rest and recover a bit. In the game, we're saying that exhausted troops can fight as effectively as fresh troops - they just can't run much more is all. Not sure why the engine couldn't add some sort of combat penalty if they are fatigued or exhausted.