Erwin

You are a glutton for punishment as I though the scenario I tested was ready for release. I have "1a - Taking it to the People (v5).btt" dated May 12 and "firstattempt.btt" dated May 14. Have sent you both files. ...And immediately got this: Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Subject: gamefiles Sent: 7/9/2016 2:48 AM The following recipient(s) cannot be reached: 'squarehead666@yahoo.co.uk.' on 7/9/2016 2:48 AM Server error: 'Invalid recipient'

Also, interesting that average gunfire range in Western Europe was 800 yards - larger than most CM2 maps.

Yes, very cool pic.

Ooops. Ok... Got the d/l. Thank you... Took a quick look. Question: Why did you name both the inf and the eng HQ's exactly the same: "Bravo HQ". A bit confusing.

Really hope you keep up the quality of the maps and missions and have the stamina to complete this. Was going through a periodic CM2 burn-out phase. But I really enjoyed your first scenario.

New CMSF content is always welcome. PS: Can't you make the destination for the convoy an exit area? Then they can get VP's. Even if you put the exit point elsewhere than the historic end point, it would help gameplay if the convoy has that motivation to move.

Sounds like one of those LOS phenomenon where the AI is able to find a "pixel-wide" hole in a building or woods to make an "impossible" shot. The human player can't see it. It would be lovely if we could get down to ground level to eyeball terrain to get accurate LOS, but it's common that it doesn't work out...

Heh... The fried tankers were the best "most authentic" part of any war movie I have ever seen. But, it looked as if two completely different movies were spliced together. Or, some political twerp with an agenda got his hands on it half way thru production. "Fury" btw... (Not bad movie, but definitely coulda done with "fried tankers" to make it grittier.)

I hope the maps can be large enuff so that the long range guns like the German 88mm can have a proper role - firing at 2KM ranges etc. So far it seems like all the CM2 titles feature very short range combat - which makes all the current titles feel rather similar - just different looking terrain, but basically all point blank combat with the same LOS issues.

All good advice above. Small items in case there was confusion: In UK, Ground Floor = 1st Floor in US If you suspect enemy in a building but they are not visible (sound contacts etc.) you will have to "Area Fire" at the building. (Someone wrote "never Area Fire" and usually one has to Area Fire.) IIRC one needs to be under about 25m from the building and "full fire" to get troops to use grenades (when area firing) just b4 entry into the building. Perhaps things have changed with patches, but the building assault technique I recall reading on these forums years ago was: a) Area fire with everything with LOS for a few minutes to suppress the occupants - (usually twice as many minutes as you thought would be required) b ) While everyone else fires LIGHT (so you don't suppress your assault element), close in adjacent to the building with the assault element with a PAUSE of 5-10 seconds outside the building during which the assault element will area FULL FIRE (enabling use of grenades) c) Finally, QUICK or FAST MOVE the assault element into the building with a short arc at the final waypoint to stop the assault element's full area fire and enable them to clear the room Doesn't always end up without friendly casualties, but the above was the recommended tactic. Re SCOUTING: I find this often frustrating as you would think that dedicated and presumably specially trained SCOUT teams would be better at scouting (ie: spotting enemy units) it than a two man scout split off from a regular inf unit. However, I have not noticed any advantage when one has dedicated SCOUT TEAMS with similar experience. It makes more sense for designers to give specialist troops like scouts, spotters, snipers, engineers etc a higher experience rating than all the other regular inf so that it makes sense to use these specialist troops for their specialist roles and not just as interchangeable with regular inf.

It was also nice to see a whole company of what looked like genuine T34/85's in action as well as what looked like a battery of SU122'S and what could have been SU152's. The ending is bizarre as it addresses the ever-present danger of Europe as it always will desire to destroy Russia - to paraphrase a chat that Hitler seems to have with a dark chap at the end. So, if this is a new film it's a bit of propaganda to whip up distrust. maybe even hatred of Europe as an evil entity that seeks Russia's destruction. Hmm....

Interesting to see a British Matilda in the opening scene. The movie itself is not great. But, the weathering of the beat-up tanks and uniforms are wonderful. Modders should take a look for that aspect alone.

...And RUN man, RUN!! Love this pic.

I have been in the team that cried out for more very large CM2 scenarios - similar to what was commonplace in CM1. However, the greater granularity/detail of CM2 requires much more mental work and time commitment (for comparable size scenarios) than CM1. These days, even a rabid "huge scenario" fan like me finds them daunting. I still love CM2 missions of huge scope and scale - but I tend to burn out halfway through and often have to take a long break b4 continuing. Am not sure if that's because of the size, or because the scenarios can be so hard that the degree of mental focus required for a large scenario is exhausting. A campaign made up of smaller missions would be interesting. But, it could be that it's the difficulty level that is the primary challenge, not just the size.

Good points by Steve re "bunching" and casualties. So, when we see inf bunching up, does the game "see" them as a bunched group of inf., or are casualties calculated as if the inf are spread out? Same question when we see an inf unit trying to fit into foxholes, and it looks like some are in and some are out. Are they calculated as if they are all in a foxhole?

It may be an age thing. When I was younger in the cardboard WW2 wargame era you practically had to bribe an oppo to play the Allies. Everyone wanted to play the Axis. It seems that the Germans had all the best toys. The Allies - esp the Soviets - seemed to be represented as anonymous cookie cutter units. It was a surprise when CMBN came out that, presumably younger, players preferred the Allies, esp the US. Perhaps the hardcore BF fans are older and we are seeing a resurgence of the traditional preference to play the Germans. I have started all of the FB campaigns. But 1) My play time has been severely restricted over the last couple of years, and 2) I find most CM2 missions to be frustratingly hard, and I get discouraged and burned out (absolutely HATE having to replay missions to progress in a campaign). Am not sure if that is because the missions are too hard (I was able to complete the infamous "Courage and Fortitude" campaign so am an experienced player), or the result of a lack of spare mental energy due to RL issues. In addition, given how popular the Ardennes is as a game topic, am surprised that these FB forums are relatively quiet.

Yes... However, has there been an update that changed small arms effects. I am certain that we used to be told that anything under 50 cal will not hurt friendlies. It can suppress but not wound or kill. has that changed?

Thank you, Koh!

Some of us have been quietly requesting that adjacent units be able to ACQUIRE ammo from each other. That would solve the WEGO challenge where one has to 1) split a squad, so that 2) multiple teams can board a vehicle, and then next turn 3) they ACQUIRE, and debark and 4) locate and run to their squad comrades, and then 5) recombine to share ammo. (Multiple teams are needed as otherwise usually only one squad at a time can board a vehicle.) The current ACQUIRE system makes this complex game process an unnecessary time wasting exercise There should probably be a time penalty (of inaction) to simulate the time taken for ACQUIRING ammo. Also, perhaps stricter limits on how much ammo a squad can carry. Currently, a team can load up a ridiculously huge amount of small arms ammo.

The LOS issues continue to be one of the most frustrating issues left with the CM2 engine. This was supposed to be WYSIWYG, but the reality is that it is actually very hard to figure out what a unit can or cannot see, until the unit is in position. Yes, a player can get down and eyeball the terrain for LOS from any position. Yes, the player can put a waypoint at that spot and double check LOS. However, a frustrating high % of the time, when you get a unit to that location/waypoint - that unit cannot see what you just wasted time checking and double-checking. A related issue is the phenomenon with support weapons where perhaps the 3rd ammo loader can see the target, but the main weapon gunner cannot. There is no way to have that gunner move his (say) MG a few inches so he can get LOS.

This discussion re ammo loads is very interesting. However, as he says, Jammers concepts are rather US-based. Red forces seem to depend more on shooting with everything at everything. Also, the ideas are modern combat based. It seems that these days, infantry (US at least) are there to spot for air and arty or HE throwers who do the killing. In a WW2 scenario, higher ammo loads are more important. Units burn through SMG ammo very fast and I very often run out of SMG ammo. I also wonder if our concepts are skewed by the fact that in all CM2 titles (other than CMSF and maybe CMA), the maps are designed with relatively short LOS and therefore combat is at rather short ranges. So, longer range weapons like MG's are not so useful in most CM2 games. (This is an aspect where I liked CM1. CM1 scenarios often offer LOS of 500m-800m+ so longer range weapons are more historically useful.)

One of the most interesting points was that it wasn't "wet" storage that reduced burning, but at the same time ammo storage was put at the bottom of the tank - and that was the effective aspect.

"... victory or defeat determined by reaching the main objectives for the mission or not. Then casualties should be one of several other factors that determine if it's a total victory or a smaller win." I didn't mean reaching objectives should be unimportant. Simply wanted to agree that we players should be "encouraged" by casualty penalty calculations to treat our pixeltruppen as real people, not expendable fodder.

Yes, really enjoying this campaign.

Yes, CMMODS is best by far. I was agreeing that a d/l should include the "whole package". It's a nightmare going back a few weeks, let alone months, to figure out what mods one might need with a scenario if several mods require separate d/l's (especially if they don't include the scenario).