Erwin

Yes, I remember this now. I recall that I sent most of my guys along the left edge and then along the river to close to the bridge. I vaguely recall a German bunker and barbed wire at this end of the bridge - but can't see that in your pic. I think I had MG's in top floors of buildings able to provide covering fire. However, once the defenders on this side of the bridge were dealt with and smoke obscured the bridge from enemy eyes on the far side, I do not recall having a problem getting units to cross the bridge. But, this was several years ago. So, am wondering if later versions of the engine have buggered it(??)

Nice...

Thanks. I can use that. Google is not always good for all languages.

I played this otherwise xnt campaign but got stuck in one of the missions right at the end (in which the Germans are attacking the Brits who get armor and inf reinforcements to counterattack). I think that Heuman Lock Bridge is earlier. And I must have won it. So, it is possible. I regret all this was so long ago, that I can't recall the specific scenario and what I did. If you can post a pic or describe the situation it may jog my memory.

Ah... thank you for clearing that up, MOS. If correct then one can run one's units to the point of exhaustion with no penalty?? (In RL presumably a heavily breathing chap would not be able to aim accurately.)

Very true. The good news is that it can be done by the best designers. But, when they tell us how many man-hours/months it took them to accomplish brilliant work it's horrifying. One has to realize that these are works of true art/passion. As a result, am a big proponent of accepting that we should expect to pay for professionally made content to augment the work of the dedicated volunteers - especially for well-made campaigns (featuring ammo and force conservation + branching storylines etc) which can take months and even years to develop.

One rarely has enuff ammo to level every building just to see what is on the other side. And what if there are "Preserve" points on those buildings? My point is that this is one of the areas where the CM2 system breaks down. In RL, most small arms and certainly 50 cal and larger would penetrate a couple of walls and hit or suppress enemy behind the 2nd wall, making that sort of ambush less or non-effective. In the game, hiding inf behind the 2nd wall of a building is a deadly ambush tactic.

You have to be in the "in" crowd John. How are you doing these days btw?

This explains the high casualty rate amongst Utah kids. I had to live up there for a while and it seemed like kids were shooting each other, getting run over by boats or ATV's, or farm equipment all the time. Darwinism in action I guess...

Yes, as GJR says, you could now take actions on the safe assumptions that his men are nearing exhaustion.

The good news is that ragtagging uniforms (and vehicles) is exactly the sort of thing modders do quickly after product release.

Bulletpoint (and all designers): When you do different versions it would be helpful if you label them "v2" etc. I have a version of Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais but but the one I have and the one from the above d/l link are named exactly the same. So there is no easy way to tell em apart.

As we know, in cardboard wargame days (20+ years ago) , everyone wanted to play the Germans... Western Allies came a distant 2nd and you'd practically have to pay an oppo to play the Soviets. So, not sure if it's a self-fulfilling prophecy to market mostly to a US-oriented market, or it's indicative of a generational change.

Yes. But to clarify: Designs can be lazy - that's a term we used to use re failing to utilize all the features available to the designer, or just settling for a mediocre solution to a problem. In no way was that supposed to imply that designers personally are "lazy people". Far from it. We know that it takes a massive amount of time to develop a very good scenario and much more to make a campaign - we're talking many hundreds of man-hours over many months - sometimes years(!) It's not surprising that designers may start to burn out and just say "that'll do". But, all that massive amount of passion and work doesn't alter the fact that the design can be "lazy" or perhaps a more politically correct phrase would be "not optimized".

One problem is that some designers write the briefing like a RL mil set of orders and that means including a lot of info that is irrelevant to the player and the game scenario, as well as writing in an overly complex style that can be confusing to non-pro mil folks who just want the necessary info to play the scenario. For most players it's irritating to have to reread some briefings several times, and still forget or overlook important items that are buried under the complexity of the format/style. It's understandable that we have many milpros here who enjoy writing in a complex RL style the way they were trained. (Perhaps they could include a summary of their RL-style briefing which only includes the essentials needed to play their scenario written in simple english.)

Useful link. Thanks...

Thanks. I got my copy in early 2000's and did not seem to have that scenario in my scenarios folder.

PM sent.

Yes, good advice from domfluff...

The other issue with buildings is that the first wall stops all shells - there does not appear to be any way of shooting larger caliber stuff through a building to affect troops hiding behind the far (2nd) wall in ambush. And that makes those kinds of ambushes very deadly - perhaps more so than in RL.

Am happy that these stock CMSF2 models are much better looking than the stock CMSF1 ones. So far it seems like the stock CMSF2 looks as good as my heavily modded CMSF1. That is good news as it would be wonderful to not have to mod everything the way we used to.

Just curious if anyone knows if that is the original refurbished engine, or a modern replacement?

This is true. Many wanted the pleasure of carrying on a successful mission to the bitter end - seeing a successful plan come to an emotionally satisfying conclusion - even when the system has calculated that one side (esp the AI) has lost and wants to mandate a surrender - which was often frustrating to the winning player. Equally, it is frustrating to play an otherwise xnt scenario and win in the first (say) hour and wonder around the map looking for additional targets for another hour only to realize that all other enemy are dead or routed. It all comes down to the skill of the designer. Some designers have a better sense of balancing the above extremes.

Well said. That's the main reason I have been so enthusiastic about MOS's Tactical Ops Center scenario. TOC is an outstanding example of Ithikial's design philosophy and I highly recommend TOC if anyone hasn't yet played it.

How would you know? I worked for DoD designing military sims. Part of my job was playtesting our games "to destruction". Since then, have been happy to help out CM2 designers who are serious about producing outstanding work.