Erwin

R u certain about that? I may be mistaken, but I was pretty sure that I have seen units with some ammo replaced between missions, but not either 100% or 0%. (I have never dared to mess around in the editor.)

"Ok based on what I am looking at in the editor the TUM WMIK doesnt seem to have a GL. So I have added the Jackal GMG which gives you the same dismount ability. You will still have some Jackal HMG also. I may be missing something on the TUM but going with the Jackal." I loaded up the "UK Mud Marines" and TUM WMIK vehicles (NOT Jackals) with L134A1 40mm grenade launchers definitely exist in the CMSF game with UK module. Would you like me to send you the "UK Mud Marines" scenario so you can check for yourself? Maybe you can "reverse engineer" it and find where the TUMS with L134A1 40mm grenade launchers are hiding in the editor. (Send me PM with your address.)

Moving SLOW for vehicles and being careful with infantry (alternating QUICK etc.) is the most satisfying. However, many times the time limit of a scenario forces one to move at a "dangerous" speed - faster than what I see from modern docs on recent or current war ops.

I thought that a designer can set a certain % for replacement and also a desired % for resupply between missions of a campaign.

The current CM2 game itself is pretty good as is. My #1 hope is that CM v3 will address the huge irritating LOS issues that players have complained about since CM2 came out. Also, that a more streamlined UI is created that simplifies the process of issuing commands eg: Allowing ACQUIRE from adjacent units; "one click" 180 degree arcs like we had in CM1 (for those who play with a lot of turreted AFV's which require many different covered arcs at various waypoint to cover many directions) etc...

Agreed. Definitely more penalty points for friendly casualties. But, then you have to give the Brits and US enuff firepower to kill the enemy at range more easily so that the Allied player can realistically expect to take very few (if any) casualties. (Of course if the casualty rate in minimal, then the campaign doesn't need such a high replacement rate.) Combatintman says that getting massacred by IED's and mines is not "realistic" based on his RL experience in theatre. My "wargamer" POV is that since the player can't do anything about mines and IED's, it's very frustrating and makes the mission less fun to play. Any mission could still have mines and IED's, but then the mission needs to take that into account. In addition to warning the player in the briefing, that would mean allowing a lot more time - so that the player could very carefully search for enemy IED trigger men and move more slowly - thus less likely to trigger mines. To summarize my feedback: 1) More penalties for friendly casualties. 2) Add a Sniper unit, (Crack or Elite). 3) More firepower: Grenade launching TUM WMIK vehicles (NOT Jackals) with L134A1 40mm grenade launchers (+ mortars and/or air to justify the FO.). 4) More time to move more carefully. (Time to sit for a few minutes in order to detect enemy lurkers.) 5) Stronger warning in briefing re need for all-around defense since enemy can pop up in rear, plus possibility of mines/IED's (assuming you want to keep these features).

Plz excuse my stressed out brain. I totally forgot...

ATR is only useful vs lightly armored vehicles. I don't think they are much good vs unarmored vehicles like trucks. They may suppress inf. I don't recall getting inf kills with an ATR. Snipers are good used at longer ranges (500m+) vs exposed AFV commanders and inf. One can use em for scouting, but given their specialist ability I would prefer to lose a dedicated scout team or inf scout team rather than a sniper team. Snipers are particularly useful with higher experience levels (Crack or Elite).

I don't see this as a scripted set of missions, other than there is an attempt at balance. Dragonwyn who was there has pointed out the unrealistic aspects. Realism is extremely boring, and CM is sold as an entertainment product. Perhaps there is more than one constituency here. However, playing CM for entertainment and R&R is the primary market. If you want more realism you have to play one of the multi-zillion dollar DoD simulations. (They are extremely boring - and also scripted.)

Thank you. What is the difference between "heavy" and "heavycas"? The readme doesn't say.

Very good looking. Thanks.

To encourage low friendly casualties you may want to consider reducing the replacement rate to lower than 90% between missions.

Since you were there Combatintman, those are fascinating insights. Wish you'd get your own campaigns ready for d/l. All my feedback is purely from the perspective of what makes a "good and entertaining" mission. "Realism" is hard to achieve and is nearly always either boring or frustrating. Verisimilitude is what gamers really want - the illusion of reality. See this simple explanation: http://www.sol.com.au/kor/11_01.htm

I remember this scenario well. Very good one.

We've missed you, Vinnart.

The problem is that in most situations neither you nor the AI is able to get LOS by "moving a little". The issue is particularly annoying with HMG's. The 3rd ammo bearer can see the enemy and fire at him. But, the HMG gunner cannot and he/the AI also cannot move itself, nor can you move it a couple of inches so that the HMG gets LOS. A large part of playing CM2 is fighting these sorts of issues. We can only hope that CM3 will finally address these sorts of important issues.

Hope Vinnart is still around... this is one of those simple but invaluable mods. It's a PITA that a new version has to be created every time there is an update or mod.

Are you using the snipers at under 400m? Snipers should probably be used at ranges like 500m-600m+. Then carbines are useless and won't be used.

That's great. Your campaign looks like it has xnt potential of being very good. However, I hate replaying, so would prefer to wait until the updates are made. What I will do is Cease Fire my way thru the campaign and briefly examine all the missions and give you my assessment re what I think of the initial forces and if the unit mix and time limit seem reasonable. Firstly, I congratulate you on your briefings - very succinct and to the point. No rambling on with tons of unnecessary information that is of little use in the game. Well done! Mission 2: I take your point about ammo limitation. As mentioned b4, make the snipers one experience level higher - Crack or Elite, and give us 2 hours and heavily penalize friendly casualties. Otherwise looks good. Mission 3: Looks interesting. The urgency seems to make the 1 hour limit appropriate. I noticed that the inf seem to have full ammo loads. If the Brits have been fighting, you might want to reduce that. They have the AFV full of ammo if a resupply is needed (assuming the IFV can survive of course). Also, I had the impression that the Taliban do not start close, but seem to arrive as reinforcements. I would have thought that the Brits would come under fire immediately from enemy unit already in place. (BTW: I CF'd in turn 2, and won a victory.) Mission 4: Again, I like the look of this joint operation between Brits and US. I note that only the US has a JTAC - maybe that is deliberate. Also, I would make the snipers at least one level more experienced. I.5 hours seems very short for such a large map. To do this carefully and keep friendly casualties to a minimum, I would think that 2 to 3 hours would be needed. Again, you decided to have no ammo resupply vehicles - maybe ok... Mission 5: Another interesting map and situation. So far, you have done a good job with every mission being different. I again question if the time limit is reasonable - it feels more like a 2-3 hours mission is one is to be careful and avoid friendly casualties. We are attacking a village, but no demo charges are available? Also, no snipers. I thought that our forces would always have snipers. But, maybe I am wrong about that. (PS: I got a minor victory when I CF'd.) Mission 6: Another good looking one. My favorite Jackals are back with some light armored support. I wonder if some TUMS with their grenade launchers would be a good addition since it is night. Also, snipers should have higher experience. Personally, I would always make any specialized trained unit like Recon or Engineers have higher experience than the regular grunt. And again, at night everything takes more time, so again add an hour or so to the time limit. That was the end and I won a major victory by doing nothing and just using CF all the way thru. That is a problem with the CM2 victory calculation system. Not much the designer can do. Overall, other than mission 1 and 3, the missions need more time if one is to minimize friendly casualties. Friendly casualties should be penalized heavily. I would make specialized troops like snipers have more experience. Other issues are minor. Hope this all helps. Am looking forward to playing this after you make adjustments.

************** SPOILERS *************** BTW: For the 2nd mission I noticed there are no vehicles for ammo resupply. That always makes me nervous - esp since it's essentially an urban assault. Also, I can't believe that a force would be put in danger of running out of demo charges in RL for example. I would expect a lot more breach units or engineers maxed out with demo charges. (Also need lots of units with smoke, since we cannot resupply smoke.) Also, to enable players to minimize friendly casualties, one needs to allow generous time limits. The 1.5 hour time limit for mission #1 is probably ok. Mission 1 is a relatively simple mission. But, 1 hour for mission #2 which is much more complex and potentially deadly, is way too little. I would make it closer to 2 hours so that the player can be careful and minimize casualties. Re Snipers, I find them little more effective than regular inf unless you make them more experienced. They will also run out of ammo quick. Since they are dedicated sniper units, make them Elite or Crack at least.

********** SPOILERS ****************** Taliban auto-surrendered with 25 mins to go. I didn't attain the final high ground objective, but killed enuff. UK Result: 13KIA; 13 WIA; 4 VEH KIA; 34 OK; TALIBAN: 57 KIA; 30 WIA; 11 OK I lost my entire Command unit of 4 men to an IED, and maybe another 6 guys to mines. Not much one can do about that, so very frustrating, but probably realistic. My sense is that the Taliban won this one due to the high UK casualties. I think that the UK needs to attain a much higher kill ratio to make it a win. But, they really should have had some arty and/or air (esp since they have an FO) and grenade launchers would be good. Maybe UK would still lose 10 to IED and mines, but there isn't a good reason for the other esp all those WIA. The 4 vehicles were taken out by the rear ambush - I shoulda kept the HQ elements in the rear to cover that possibility. Nice small scenario. The 2nd mission also looks very interesting. But, I think that the allies need to be penalized more for casualties - and therefore need more firepower - esp when the US are involved. I hope you can adjust the campaign missions based on above comments and I would be happy to replay from the start.

Check out UK MUD MARINES. At 2 hours 30 mins to go, the UK gets vehicular reinforcements including TUM WMIK vehicles (NOT Jackals) with L134A1 40mm grenade launchers. The best part is that if you BAIL OUT the vehicle, they take the L134A1 40mm grenade launcher with them and can deploy it as an inf support weapon. They also get TUM vehicles with 50 cal and 7.62mm. If you BAIL OUT the 50 cal TUMS, they take their 7.62mm MG with them and can deploy that! I love this capability. Am not sure if any other allied (US etc.) vehicles do this. So, yes, CMSF with UK module does offer this. Let me know when you have added this plus snipers and light arty (and/or airpower) of some kind. I'd like to play this first mission again with these assets. Right now, I think in RL my operation would be abandoned as I have lost too much - half at least to mines and the ambush. I do agree that the ambush is very realistic re Taliban tactics and acceptable. Perhaps warn players in the briefing that "Previous patrols have reported the need to be aware that the enemy can pop back even in areas one thinks has been cleared".

The trick will be to guarantee a certain minimum number of sales per new nationality featured.

*************** SPOILERS ****************** Down to about 26 minutes to go... Secured the left flank village and wiped out the enemy between the village and mosque (including one mosque sniper) - but at the cost of one vehicle and 2 men. Wiped out the enemy on the right flank and have taken the village and occupied the road junction - but with 4-5 casualties. Had a nasty surprise when Islamic Terrorists appeared in my rear around 45 minutes to go in left flank areas that had been cleared. Suffered two Landrovers KIA and another 3-4 casualties. No doubt this is realistic and horribly frustrating in RL - it certainly is in this game. One has to train oneself to keep a force in the rear to watch for this sort of ambush. But, it's hard to prevent friendly WIA and KIA when enemy pops up in one's rear. Probably in RL after taking over a dozen casualties the mission would be abandoned(?). The problem with mines, IED's and these sorts of "pop up in the rear" ambushes, is that there is nothing one can do about em except accept casualties. While simulating frustration is "realistic" it is one of those features that one doesn't want to experience much in a game. Again, it's recommended that the Brits are given some arty. A mortar or two would do a treat since once one spots enemy units one would think that the obvious weapon for any allied force to use would be mortars or airpower. The 50 cals on the vehicles are fun. But, it takes a lot of work to kill with only those support weapons.

We may have to wait for CM3 for the many irritating LOS issues to be addressed. I just hope that they do get addressed as the LOS issues gets more and more irritating the more one plays.