Erwin

There is at least one simple map design technique I have encountered for making the edge-hugging undesirable... Put a non-traversable obstacle on the edge in one or a few places - eg: deep water etc. That forces the attacker to go "inland" and should make the edge-hugging pointless/undesirable.

Great quality of that video. And here's the game:

Cars and trucks are not armor (as in AFV). IIRC IFV's are also classified as armor. (In CM1 IIRC halftracks etc were NOT counted as armor, so a change there.)

"...give us an option "attacker initial recon" (none/minimal/medium/excellent) in the quickbattle setup." This sounds good. However, RepsoICBR has some good points about the issues around random recon reveals. "The problem is that the designer have no controll at all over wich units from the two sides that will be shown as contact incons to the opposing player at set-up."

IIRC it depends on the experience level of the shooter. Ironically, the more experienced will follow orders more closely and may be less likely to shoot once the target leaves the arc. (Hope others can confirm this.)

#7: The edges of the world Part of this issue could be mitigated by larger maps. It's fine if you want to creep along the map edge, but if it takes so much time to get from the map edge to the objective, there would be no point. I recall rarely having this map edge issue when on a huge CM1 map. Also, re ammo crates, don't we have ammo dumps in CM2? (These were requested for many years and now have only seen em in a couple of scenarios(!). BF must be PO'd about the resources they put into providing us with this feature.) Re Recon, I agree. However, IIRC there is a way for the designer to give us varying amounts of info about enemy positions. I have played scenarios where we are told that there is info from recon, and indeed on the map during set-up on can see sound contacts.

"It is a fact that the force being replicated is not well resourced with armour or engineers..." Ok, I was not aware of that. If in RL the force is inadequate, I can now understand better why the current operation in Mosul is so f^%$#ed. So, yes, I agree re inadequate charges. You misunderstood the intention of my suggestion. No need to be snitty. Others are much better at it. SS: Looks like a great job you are doing! Looking forward to this. Hope I can get Op Barras done quick.

Ah I see it was only used in early war. That's explains it.

The situation should be difficult. It shouldn't be difficult cos one is given inadequate resources. Eg: Am playing Op Barras, and initially it seems easy as one has overwhelming firepower and Crack troops. But, taking even one casualty is a calamity. That's what makes it hard.

It's interesting that n CMBB it seemed like Ampulomets were very common - I assumed that reflected RL So it's odd that we don't have em at all in CM2.

Looks good. Just make sure units have enuff charges. It's irksome that most designs provide barely enuff (or too few). Am assuming that an assault force would have plenty of charges on hand.

Did they take a casualty at the same time? That could cause the loss of charges.

"...if you ran out of mortar HE, you've also run out of smoke shells (they're counted in the total number of shells available..." You sure about that? In CMSF that was true but I thought the newer CM2 counts shells individually, so smoke rounds are separate.

Yes, v good "cinematography" and well edited for dramatic effect. Amazing how realistic COTS software is getting that one can almost make professionally-looking movies these days!

Lovely. Thank you... (How come you didn't release to CMMODS or elsewhere last year??)

It's the original CMSF map.

Am not an expert on mods but since no one else responded... Generally, terrain mods work with all versions.

It may be that the issue is the scale of the scenarios. Due to relatively small maps there is little need for "maneuver" in terms of vehicular recon down miles of roads until one finds an enemy defensive location. In CM2, that sort of maneuver has taken place, and we know there is an enemy directly in front of us. So, in just about 100% of the time, one has to use infantry to probe and locate the ATG's and destroy them with mortars/arty BEFORE exposing one's vehicles used to hammer enemy defenses. Where I think CM2 scenarios may be deficient re design is that there is something missing... What is missing is the information about the locations of enemy strongpoints which should have been located by recon. In CM2 scenarios one is literally dropped into a situation where one knows that the enemy is within a few hundred meters, but one has no info as to what and where. So one is forced to conduct very rapid, almost suicidal recon, before an urgent assault. Armored formations are best suited for wide open terrain where they can move rapidly and in force, not just a couple of tanks or even just one platoon as we generally are given in a CM2 scenario. CM2 forces us to fight is highly restricted terrain which is NOT suitable for armored warfare. This btw is why CMSF is still a great game as it generally allows for more open terrain and much longer LOS opportunities.

Oops. Getting early senility. Thanks and apologies to nightops: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B0HhNCJWAbKmcUF0VHRERzdvYTA

No, I uploaded to IanL's area: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B0HhNCJWAbKmcUF0VHRERzdvYTA (This should be made a sticky.)

Presumably people can simply d/l the scenarios and campaigns I uploaded and see everything and pick what they want(??)

Could this be useful as an operational tool for scenario generation? http://www.matrixgames.com/news/2239/Are.you.ready.for.the.Desert.War

It's true my sojourn with SB was decades ago with the original version. I need to try the new SB version.

BTW: Re modern warfare, re my theory that we won't even get to the above sort of conflicts due to new systems... Here's a game from Matrix that seems to deal with this: http://www.matrixgames.com/products/693/details/Command.Chains.of.War "Think the new war in the Pacific will be just like the 1940s but with better bullets? Think again! All-new systems and technologies radically change the face of modern high-level conflict. Network and cyber attacks pull apart carefully constructed communications networks, leaving forces in the field blind and separated from their consorts. Electromagnetic pulses delivered from high-altitude nuclear detonations or tactical EMP weapons fry vulnerable electronics, disarming powerful units in a split-second. Massive anti-ship ballistic missiles threaten to turn aircraft carriers into sinking, burning hulks. Railguns deliver accurate, punishing fire at long ranges, challenging the post-WW2 reign of guided missiles. Anti-satellite weapons disrupt the critical communications & intelligence nodes orbiting high in the stars. High-energy lasers burn their targets with intense beams invisible to the naked eye. Are you ready for the intricacies of 21st century war ?"

"...adding an ATGM capability to some or all Strykers in the real world." This makes so much sense that one wonders if it's a political issue - as in we don't want to be appearing to copy the Russians with their powerful BMP's (and thus acknowledge they may have superior ideas even in some cases?).