Erwin

I think many of us are in agreement there.

Hey wot you got against AZ, Michael? Am in AZ right now and it's great! Can't beat the sunshine. Anyone having lived thru the weather in the UK for decades, knows why I have a Lawrence of Arabia desert, heat & blue-skies weather addiction.

It's understandable that the AI may be designed for a certain length, and therefore the scenario "breaks down" over a certain time limit. However, the main rationale for a way to extend a scenario is that there may be an interesting engagement going on in a small part of the battlefield that you want to see to its conclusion. Good for training and for experience. It doesn't matter that the AI plan breaks down. That's not the point.

Hmm... Imagining Michael lusting after women who have lost mobility...

Thanks. I realized that I already had it in my "MOD SETS" folder. I just haven't had time to play the Clipper campaign. I do wonder if there is an ideal set of nVidia settings to give best results.

What Michael said re "we have to take that hill at all cost if it cost us 90% of our men" is that was very very rare. Troops have been known to rebel if pushed too far (esp in western armies).

It's like what we've been talking about on other forums tongue in cheek: Technology makes it possible that the next wars will be fought by women, children (re fast FPS responses) and the elderly (expendable - have already had a long life, can't live forever). Young healthy males will be relegated to simply carrying heavier weights (cheaper than using robots on inhospitable terrain).

Ah... Yes, I found it and I have the mods. Just haven''t played the campaign yet. What did you adjust your NVidia settings to? Or, are these only good for still pics?

The issue is that one likes to have the satisfaction of finishing a complex assault mission that took a long time to set up... and abruptly the mission ends. Even when it's a victory that can be frustrating as it's good to be able to see how one's plans work out as a way to train and get experience. Not having enuff time to complete a mission without rushing and taking high casualties is a related but different issue.

Am seeing a movie with our aging action stars like Stallone, Van Damm, Schwarzenegger, and those blokes from StarWars etc. The goofy "kid" and comedic relief character would be played by Dwayne Johnson.

I prefer the large scenarios and can't imagine being able to play larger scenarios using any mode than WEGO. Looking forward to your new effort. BTW: I would have thought that many designers would jump on the current Mosul op for a scenario or campaign. Is there some issue?

Hi snake-eye. Enjoyed your scenarios. Must replay "UK Helluva Road Opening". I recall killing the Red counterattack at the cost of the US airborne, but then lost many Brit vehicles to enemy air. I need to figure out how to protect the vehicles. Hope you do more...

Check out CMMODS.com for mods. They are up to your personal preference. The AI is pretty good.

Not sure that I have "Clipper" mod. What is that (and where to d/l)?

This was interesting. Good to learn that 75 yards was the min separation between tanks on the move, and how a platoon of 5 made their covered arcs. Of course this was more relevant to CM1 where we often had 8K x4K maps and one would often have to move a Km or two just to get into action. You can watch the tree branches and leaves and how they move to see if the speed of the film was speeded up for effect. They seemed to do that a couple of times.

Pictures #1 & #3 look extraordinarily good - somewhere between a photo and a painting. What mods and what else did you do to get these effects?

Players have noted that to get a more realistic behavior of troops under fire they should all be Conscript or Green at best. Of course that's not as much fun... and this is a game...

Am wondering that in general do CM2 scenarios not provide the Brits with the artillery that they really need? Monty's slow but steady advance technique was based on his own WW1 experience of smashing the enemy with HE first. That was his success at El Alamein. It wouldn't be surprising if Monty tried to emulate this successful tactic in his future battles. So, does SC starve the Brits of arty, or was that historically accurate in this operation?

Yeah, we've argued that point here b4. I agree that over 5%-10% is excessive and would result in a combat ineffective unit. But, others feel that combat troops (ie ignoring the 90% of a formation who were rear echelon support troops) did take a lot of casualties in combat.

Yes, playing the Brits is frustrating after the US or Germans. Need to really mass the MG's and LMG's for support fire and use a lot of arty seemed to be the Brit doctrine.

Yes, I was responding to "Hmmm....a nice use of a TRP? One TRP near the firing location means it's a surveyed firing location? Another TRP near the target location and you've got much faster response and better accuracy? ".

Am assuming that you did a few dozen tests? If so, that is very interesting and very helpful. Will save (me) a LOT of time not making all those SLOW waypoints. My only surprise is that the vehicle using SLOW to cross the walls received any track damage at all. I have usually experienced no damage to vehicles when using SLOW over a couple of obstacles. Altho, usually that is bushes or fences. Can't recall the last time going over a wall. It also looks as if the SLOW WP vehicle gets to the endpoint at the same time as the all FAST mover. So, the FAST vehicle automatically changes to same speed as SLOW?

My experience has been that if I don't change the order to SLOW when crossing destructible terrain there is a higher chance of track damage. It makes sense that a vehicle on FAST would automatically slow when crossing destructible terrain - but am certain (subjective I know) that damage is less likely to occur when one manually issues a SLOW order. I very rarely see track damage when using SLOW in these circumstances. Perhaps the automatic deceleration you are referring to is still faster than SLOW.

All CM2 titles have same interface. That's what great - one can go from CMSF to CMA to CMBS and it's all the same. Obviously one's tactics need revising, but that is the fun part.

However, if one starts with deployed mortars on-map in set-up turn, that at least should be defined as "surveyed". I rarely feel the need to move on-map mortars from set-up since the CM2 maps are smallish. IIRC in CM1 on-map arty like mortars did not require individual spotting when fired as a battery. A TRP at the target location already provides the fast response and accuracy of a prepped plan/surveyed location - can't see the need of a 2nd TRP near the firing unit.