Erwin

Just Google "Combat Mission Tutorials" There are many on YouTube that do a good job explaining how to analyze a mission and how to go about playing well. There are also an enormous amount of AAR's on YouTube. But, I find them less useful as the AAR players don't explain WHY they are doing what they are doing.

IIRC airbust in trees is deadly to infantry even in trenches due to tree "shrapnel". General is better vs hard targets.

Yes, am looking forward to retrying mission one now that it's been fixed. Just need time playing other stuff so I will have forgotten all about it. Thank goodness age helps.

Will definitely be using that as a deliberate tactic. Generally, I QUICK move my recon guys using multiple 10-20 meters runs with a 5-10 second pauses at each waypoint - but only so they don't get tired. Never considered that would change their stance and therefore their spotting ability. So thanks for the useful tip. What I will do now when required for spotting is issue a movement order but give the unit a permanent PAUSE to force em to keep their heads up. Question: Can one order an FO in a similar way with it not affect his ability to order a strike? Or, do FO's keep their heads up normally (ie FO's naturally spot better/more efficiently than regular troops)? I already know that FO's and IIRC mortar units can spot further than regular troops. (Am not aware of any other way to force the guys to change their stance other than by moving. I think that stance is under AI control only.)

Thank goodness one can stand so close to the impact and only be "slightly WIA". No reason for our troops to worry...

"It would be basically a block of scenarios (each with variants) and two players would follow a flow chart based on who won the last battle and/or some other criteria. For example, let's say IanL and I fight the opening engagement with IanL playing the Allies. IanL win's with a Total Victory and pushes me back to my rear defensive line. We follow the flow chart and move to "Battle 2A" which is for when the Allies meet all their objectives in Battle 1. This battle is set a few hours after the last engagement with my forces in a battered state and the front line moved up to reflect earlier gains. Alternatively let's say I won the first battle with a Total Victory by holding IanL's forces in place quite comfortably then we'd move to "Battle 2D" which reflects the different situation, with the Allies needing to make a second attempt against the same line of defenses later in the same day. In this case, IanL may get additional forces/support for the second attempt as higher command realises there's a problem. That's up for the designer to plan out and construct a narrative to suit the varying situation. This has been done successfully in CMA's "Competent Incompetence" campaign Highly recommended. Several other campaigns in other CM2 titles have branching "storylines" that go in different directions depending on the result of a mission. There have been some clever attempts to give players a choice in this binary way by having "dummy missions" where one has a choice of either sending a kubelwagon to an exit, or not depending on what you want you next mission to be. ie: Exit and Win leads to Mission A, decide to not exit (and lose) leads to Mission B. This is a major reason why Campaigns are such a brilliant feature of CM.

IIRC "General" is effective vs buildings and perhaps vehicles as it includes some sort of armor-piercing shells. I have always used HE vs forests. However, I thought only certain HE, or maybe it is date-dependent, provides "airburst". Not sure about that.

Very good to know... I never noticed that a PAUSE puts a man in a different pose.

Are you sure that the stance taken during a PAUSE is actually calculated differently re LOS than from a normal resting position? I thought stuff like that was only eye-candy.

I am truly astounded that you could not be bothered playing a campaign to conclusion. In addition, time and time again we have been told that the vast majority of players play vs the AI not H2H. It brings into doubt the depth of your understanding of the CM2 game system. The reason campaigns have been important since CM1 days is that a large % of features and therefore programming resources have been devoted to enabling campaigns with all the additional challenges of ammo and force conservation, reinforcements and replacements. Campaigns also add a very important layer of realism. In a "well made" campaign you have to consider what your forces have to accomplish in the next mission(s). None of that "fight to the last man" nonsense that one very often encounters in standalone scenarios. However, if you are correct and the vast majority of people are not playing campaigns then yes BF may as well make their lives easier and abandon all the programming work and stop wasting all the resources needed to make campaigns work.

Well everything and every weapons system does get obsolete eventually. Probably when the counter measures become much more common and cheap and/or something new comes along.

Campaigns are the heart of the CM2 system. That is where the CM system shines. Have you ever tried to make a scenario (let alone a campaign)? Someone made a tutorial that demonstrated how complex it is to create a mere scenario. Scenario-making is decreasing due to the vast amount of time commitment and knowhow required. CM1 was out about 8-9 years before CMSF and scenarios were being created to the end. But creating content for CM1 was relatively easy. If you look at the content available for CM2 titles, there is a sharp drop of quantity from CMSF to the most recent release. That's a major reason that it's worth paying BF for professionally done content - especially campaigns (which can easily take months to create).

You could go back to the early posts when CMSF first was released 8+ years ago. That is where a lot of the CMSF tactics were explored and tested. Also use Google - tons of stuff available: Plus: And lots more...

Another question is whether the type of team left in the vehicle makes any difference in spotting. ie: Does the game spotting routine differentiate between a spare driver or two in a vehicle vs a command team with binoculars?

I have a many good CMA mods for the Soviets and Uncons. But for some reason DRA skins and uniforms are terrible and as we both found, the face skins are made differently from all other CM2 mods. Weird.

"Tibet is about the only part of the planet that we can't hit." If you look at a map Tibet is not that far from an Ocean. There are landlocked places far further. This all seems hyperbole. Are certain folks hoping the Russians are reading these forums to get RW info on US capabilities. (They will be a real walkover if that's the case lol.) And if Tibet were that safe, one would imagine all Chinese bases would be relocated there. After all, we're more likely to get into a war with China.

How would all those be stored and kept safe from pre-emptive strike, but at same time easy to launch?

The concept is good for a large map and a lot of time to hook up, move and redeploy. But for the average CM2 maps and scenario lengths, you probably have to assume that the AT gun will die in place soon after exposing itself by firing, and there may be better uses for the vehicle and inf. Also, a firing position with tight keyholed LOS would also be vital on any map.

If you are not photoshopping I am also curious as to what mods you are using. (I think I have all available mods, but obviously can't use em all at the same time. So, the mod package used here is interesting.)

Generally, "Area Fire" for aircraft does not seem that effective. (They have a hard time spotting anything.) Point target is usually good. But sometimes is spectacularly inaccurate. It's annoying to order a "Heavy" attack on a building that is easy to see... and the aircraft makers a huge hole 50 meters away.

Ok thanks... It's good to have all files.

I was looking at your pics for CMA. Do you have any mods for the skins for troops? The DRA skins available are bad. And I think the developer made the skin mod work differently to the other CM2 titles. So, troop skins from other games do not work properly in CMA. (Not surprised that BF ended their collaboration with this developer.)

Where can one d/l that? Yes, Road to Dina is mostly wonderful. But it's not vs uncons. There is at least one Dinas mission that I found impossible despite replaying it more than a dozen times. Very frustrating as it was towards the end of the campaign (which is a monster compared to the relatively short CM2 WW2 campaigns btw). So, have not been able to complete it.

"...im not teaching anyone how to play the game." Actually, I was hoping that sharing ideas on how to better play the game is what this thread is about. There's tons of grog threads and posts about the "real life" equipment and forces. It's great to finally have a thread that focuses on tactics and ideas that are useful in this game.

There's always a great temptation to use IFV's as tanks and armored transports like halftracks etc as armored vehicles. They are usually only good for mopping up ops. (On large maps, the ATGM's of BMP's etc are useful. But, most CM2 maps feature rather short range battles.) BTW: How are your CMA and CMSF campaigns coming along?