Erwin

Have hardly used any. Can they not set the building on fire as in CM1?

Very informative. Reminds one of how poorly motorized the Germans were at the start of WW2 , highly dependent on horses - and even during the entire war.

"In the case of Mosul, the decision was taken to advise the population to stay in their homes so long as it was safe to do so...." LOL Great CYA BS.

Some of us are here. Just busy finishing up other uncompleted games. Am thinking that a major issue with CMA is that the majority of scenarios and the campaigns that came with the game were poor. There have been some wonderful user-made scenarios and campaigns over the years, but many players didn't last that long. Not many mods made for CMA either. I have some good Russian and uncon mods, uniforms, clothes and skins plus some vehicles. No DRA uniform mod at all, and the stock looks poor. And it seems that the DRA face mod that I have doesn't seem to appear in game - not sure if they are named correctly or if it's a date problem (the mod says "summer" in the name).

"...doesn't cover off on the eventuality that I could have levelled that structure in Mission 1 only to find it magically rebuilt in Mission 2. For that reason I maintain that reusing maps in campaigns is a bad idea." I agree... Am simply about not throwing out the bay with the bathwater... Sounds like design challenges... If you don't give the player the tools to demolish a building then that issue goes away. If you mention the stupid high command orders that may find you having to pull back unnecessarily for the start of the next mission, that addresses that issue, and so on... I used to enjoy fighting on the same map in CM1 campaigns. One could have (say) a huge 8Km long x 4Km wide map and fight on a "window" of that map which was the full width but could be made to display only a few hundred meters to several thousand meters ahead of you. The "map window" would move forwards or backwards over the huge full map depending on the success or failure of the campaign mission. Really miss that feature in CM2.

"...my Steam collection....." Yes RR modeling of the steam era is fun (unlike that accursed online game service...).

They will have to be like the X-Men or Avengers... complete with only one aircraft carrier... but it will fly... and be able to transform into a couple dozen hover tanks...

Yes, MOS's info is invaluable and a "must read". I had forgotten that one can physically move a unit who has seen a target to another unit to pass along that info via voice, sight or radio: The distance information can be shared vertically (chain of command). Voice C2: Up to six action spots, approximately 48 meters. Close Visual (eyeball) C2: Up to 12 action spots, approximately 96 meters. Distant Visual C2: As far as the unit’s line of sight. (In the experiment I had units sharing information vertically with Distant Visual at 40 action spots, approximately 480 meters before I stopped.) Radio C2: Entire map. (In the WWII titles If a unit is moving on foot they will drop out of radio C2 during the movement) The distance information can be shared horizontally (directly between teams). Up to four action spots, approximately 32 meters. (Sometimes a team had to move to within 3 action spots) Can information be shared horizontally between teams from different battalions? Yes Can information be shared between to different HQs that do not have a common higher HQ? Vertically: No (With no common higher HQ there is no bridge for the information to pass over) Horizontally: Yes Additional useful information on the topic: Game manual 3.01 page 62 Command & Control. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/113787-can-somebody-answer-some-questions-on-information-sharing/

"...riflemen abandoned their defensive positions inside of houses, running out into the open and being cut down by subsequent shells. I've observed other cases of Infantry bailing from foxholes and/or trenches when they clearly should have stayed in place." That's not ideal... The AI should give troops an experience or morale boost when they are in good defensive positions in addition to a defensive bonus.

"I started at a position that was behind a building I had already captured in the first mission on that map. Needless to say it totally killed it for me and I didn't play the rest of it." I can understand the frustration... But, could that situation not be rationalized (in the briefing) by an order between missions to pull back and regroup/rearm - even though that meant abandoning a perfectly good position you had bought with blood. That seemed to not be an uncommon situation.

"I'd be willing to buy it in chunks, as I have with CM:BN.....I'm just not interested in other games any more..." +1 I used to buy maybe 20 board wargames each year, then in the 90's, maybe 10 computer wargames each year (that usually stayed on my HD for a few weeks after which they became boring). After CM1 came out in 1998/9(?), I have bought a total of maybe 5 or 6 other games in the last almost 20 years. In other words I have SAVED a huge amount of money thanks to BF and the CM series. I guestimated the value of each CM1 game at about $300 back then. If each CM2 title with modules and updates comes to an average of about $100 - that comes to about $400 for everything. An extraordinary good value...

Yes, it was great when CMSF released the Brit module. There seems to be a much larger difference in how the Brits fight vs the US in CMSF vs the WW2 games. Very entertaining new challenges. When the Brit Army cuts result in an army with a dozen tanks and a couple score troops, then it will get even more entertaining... Re "Into The Green" it seems like around the half way point the Brits have cut through the enemy ambushes, repelled some half hearted uncon attacks with relative ease, and things get a bit "quiet" as one approaches the first objective... maybe "too quiet"... In CM2 the biggest challenge is not getting complacent and over-confident/impatient. That's usually when I suddenly lose something valuable.

Yes, plz gimme a chance to finish "Into The Green"... Am feeling the pressure...

Radio control in CM2 is one of the great confusing mysteries of our era. But in the due course of humanity, science will eventually reveal all... Basically, yes, any unit with a radio should be able to communicate indirect fire orders... (until you find a situation where it doesn't).

Um no... "On May 9, 1864, Union Maj. Gen. John Sedg- wick was overseeing his troops prior to the Battle of Spotsylvania. Sedgwick became annoyed by what he considered his men’s excessive bobbing and weaving in the face of enemy fire. “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance,” Sedgwick grumbled to his staff. A few minutes later, a bullet crashed into Sedg- wick’s face below the left eye, simultaneously contradicting his recent statement and ending his life. Ever since, jokesters have shortened the general’s prosaic last words to the more gruesomely comic, “They couldn’t hit an ele- phant at this dist—.” Such, perhaps, is the price of fame."

It's dependent on the situation, but generally it seems that the 60mm and under are best used in a direct fire mode - ie: close to the front lines. But if the player is not careful with them, they are easily targeted and killed. Larger like 81mm are best used indirect.

At least they haven't started calling the versions "Vista" or "XP" etc...

Latymer?

Yup, that's what some of my teachers were like...

The French film "Neither Heaven Nor Earth" about troops in Afghanistan is also good: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4426656/

Nah, it's just a boring English guy. I had teachers who droned on just like that.

About 1h 20m into the mission. Just reached Objective 1. Well-designed scenario as one can see goo tactics getting rewarded, One seems to have more than enuff force to accomplish goals. The real objective is to take 0 or minimal casualties, and also conserve ammo - can only use up to 25% ammo without penalty. Really enjoyable challenge as it forces one to really think about whether to fire at an enemy and what with.

Nice site... Thanks

I appreciate the skittishness of troops in 4.0 as more "realistic" behavior. Previously the games featured too many heroes who would stand, fight to the last, and die.

Good to see your critique as I was considering buying Steel Armor games as I like tanked sims like "M1 Tank Platoon" but I found the original "Steel Beasts" rather hard going.