Erwin

Obviously, every utterly brilliant idea has toothing issues lol. It has been mentioned b4 that cardboard game developers have long floated game concepts and solicited pre-orders to decide which concept to actually develop. Their customers have to commit to paying via CC for a new game that they "voted on". However, their CC's are not charged unless the game is actually produced and shipped. That way the company already knows it has a revenue of "x" before committing to a particular game. In my experience, these cardboard game companies have less resources than even BFC. But, it appears to be a successful model. Of course, it costs a LOT more to develop any computer software and hence a potential flaw. But, I wuz thinking that this way we could reduce by 90%+ the arguments etc on these forums re what BFC should be doing next. (Although, maybe that's part of the game's entertainment value... Hmm.)

From video I have seen from that era, they did have a very eclectic assortment of weapons. And CIA etc were also supplying them. They had Stingers etc.

That's interesting, but all I am concerned about is whether I am playing the Soviets using their realistic doctrine for this period of the war. The info/feedback so far is that it is appropriate and "realistic" to use the Soviets pretty much as one would the Germans or WAllies, with the sole exception of ensuring that the Soviet platoon HQ is always nearby so they don't suffer the reduced morale effects of splitting the squads.

Maybe BF could organize a "bidding system" where we bid what we're willing to pay for a particular feature or upgrade or new game, and they can analyze the bids to decide what would be the most cost-effective new "project" to do next.

"...morale penalty on Soviet split teams. This split team penalty only applies to teams that are out of close visual and/or voice C2 with their Plt. HQ, so you don't have to worry about it if you keep the teams close to the HQ." Thank you YD that was very useful. I didn't realize that the penalty could be negated in that way. Also, if the Soviets had stopped their mass/costly attacks and were using similar tactics as the Germans by 1944, that solves my playing with "realistic doctrine" dilemma. (Being able to confidently split the Russian squads and do more scouting will also make minefields less deadly.)

I hope Jason's ideas are practicable. On the whole the CM2 system is very good, and I would vote for more emphasis now on making the game easier and quicker to play ie: better UI and reduce the number of clicks it takes to perform certain actions like if you want 180 degree arcs in a particular direction (like we were able to do in CM1), and selectable waypoints/lines etc. The AI pathing/minefield issue is half an ergonomic issue since the alternative to intelligent pathing is having to make dozens of waypoints to persuade a unit to go exactly where you want - and even that isn't 100% effective.

Currently, if you lose the platoon leader the whole platoon is out of command. Despite reading several long explanations I too am confused about what actually happens then. Am unsure if a Co CO or XO can take over a platoon if in close proximity. (I don't recall seeing that ever happen in any of my games.) I think the company XO can replace a KIA company CO, but it doesn't happen immediately so not sure if it take some amount of time, or... The whole issue is so complex and vague that I find myself mostly ignoring the whole C2 matter - which is a shame, since it must have taken a lot of work to program something like that into the game and have hardly anyone (nobody?) understand it.

"By 1944, the Red Army was VERY good at infiltration tactics..." That's an interesting point. Are you saying that by 1944 small unit tactics was basically the same for the Soviets, the Germans and the WAllies? ie: We should be playing all the above nationalities essentially the same way... So, playing the Soviets in CMRT should feel the same as playing the Germans - just that the uniforms are different? If that is true, then that answers my concerns - I certainly do feel that currently one has to play the Soviets in the same careful way one plays the Germans or WAllies. I was expecting that playing the Soviets would feel significantly different as the cliché is that they always used massed steamroller tactics and had plenty of replacements. As it is, currently only the CMFI Italians with their inability to split squads have a significantly different "feel" of play and require different tactics.

Look, players can play any way they want and no one is suggesting that one mode or another is removed. But, I can't resist responding to a discussion about "realism". What is realistic about seeing something happen, immediately pausing real life, and issuing commands to every single unit on the map instantly? The most modern hi-tech military doesn't have that capability. If you play RT and NEVER pause, then I would concede the point as by definition you are restricted in how many orders you can issue per second. If you play RT and never pause then my hat is off to you. I tried it... I can't respond fast enuff. But, I would think that that does tend to limit one to smaller scale scenarios. But, if you PAUSE in RT that makes things way easier and imo unrealistic than WEGO where you have to live with the consequences of your dumb decisions - at least for a minute. (Then again, I am also one the folks who miss the orders delay system of CM1 as that at least made it possible to simulate the greater incompetence of Greens and Conscripts vs Vets and Cracks.) What is still TBD with the CM2 system is a better AI that can simulate what troops actually do when arty strikes or when the first guy in your platoon blows himself up in a minefield.

"It's a game dude! Play how you like." I completely agree. If you actually read the thread you would understand I was commenting on kuri's point re: "...having similar limitations as i would have in real life is appealing..." and pointing out that playing RT and pausing whenever you want is the same as removing all limitations. Of course you can play any way you want.

Jeez GAZ, couldn't you have asked for something like CMSF2 while Steve was in such a giving mood??!!

+1 re Phil's idea. Surely we all have plotted moves thru what appeared to be passable terrain only to find that our vehicles or troops use some daft AI-inspired route that leads em into a minefield, or ambush that we were trying to avoid. This is obviously a huge problem if you play WEGO.

Don't the leader characteristics/bonuses (in the bottom window UI) change?

The best argument vs animal transport is the same as for trucks. They had no business being near the front lines where CM2 action takes place. Unless the scenario is a rear area ambush on a supply column, or until we have massive maps where rear area ops can be simulated, I suspect that even trucks should not be present. I always thought we had trucks as one needed supply dumps (which of course we now have).

The reason I brought this up is that I find the mines in CMRT to be more of a PITA than in other game families. This is because I have been trying to follow (what I thought was) Soviet doctrine which is to keep squads and platoons together, unsplit - also use steamroller tactics that are supposed to overwhelm the defenders quickly regardless of casualties. That inevitably means a lot of guys wander or run into a minefield and just keep following the blown up leader like lemmings. Now, this may indeed have happened in RL as the Soviets pushed on regardless of casualties. Unfortunately, in most of the CMRT scenarios I have played, one rarely is given sufficient cannon-fodder troops to follow this doctrine. A quick fix is for designers to restrict use of mines (mostly to marked minefields) in CMRT. Otherwise, I find myself having to fight using Soviets as if they were Germans or WAllied forces - ie: keep all squads split up into small teams, and scout, scout, scout... More of this when I do an AAR on Railyard at Pitrovsk (which I am enjoying btw).

Obviously some folks really enjoy RT. But given that CM2 is supposed to lean towards being a "realistic" sim rather than a wrist twitcher how can a serious sim player justify stopping time every time something happens and instantly changing the orders for every unit on the map - a capability that even the most modern hi-tech military cannot do. I concede that if you can play thru an entire scenario without any pauses, that would be somewhat realistic cos one only would have time to give orders to very few units in one area of the battlefield while one would have no idea what was going on elsewhere. I can also see that RT being practical if you only had about one platoon in one area. But, if you play RT and pause, RT becomes much, much easier than WEGO. What I like about CM2 is that it is starting to enable larger maps and scenarios with battalion sized battlegroups.

Yes, a big improvement. The "doors" are wonderful! Downloaded and will install asap.

He said "Afghan" stuff. I don't care if it's for CMSF or CMA, new stuff is always welcome.

I tend to d/l everything re CMSF but if this is new stuff then it would be most welcome. There seems to be a dedicated CMSF group here.

Been playing several scenarios where minefields are an important part (and are not marked). It has gotten increasingly frustrating to watch an intact squad (or even a platoon if you try to use Soviet doctrine and keep your squads together) and watch in WEGO one guy getting blown up and the rest of his comrades blindly follow him in and take maybe 50% casualties WIA and KIA. I hope that BF can some day program in something so that when the first guy gets blown up, everyone within a certain radius has their movement orders cancelled and they hit the dirt. (Until then, perhaps designers could refrain from too many unmarked minefields.)

Thanks, that's a relief to know I can't permanently screw things up requiring a full reinstall of the game so long as I don't touch the default brz files. However, am I the only one who mixes and matches downloaded mod files? That's where things get complex when there is a problem. (Looking forward to updated vinnarts animated text.)

xnt b/w pic!

I thought that installing an update or patch when you have a Z folder full of mods actually alters the default mods or the new mods in some way. So one would need to do a complete reinstall of the game to get it looking correct again. Are you 100% certain that when you experience mod problems after an install, that simply moving the Z folder and restarting and putting the Z folder back is all that is required?

Generally German doctrine emphasized maneuver/mobility. That's how they overcame the much heavier armored early war Allied (French) and Soviet behemoths. ie: Flank shots. The problem with most current CM2 maps is that most of them are still small and that hampers maneuverability. I would say that nearly all CM2 scenarios I have played feature terrain that is very unsuitable for armored warfare. (IIRC CM2 was originally designed as an small unit infantry game with occasional armor support.) As maps get larger, the opportunities for maneuver warfare will improve.

I would start with CMRT cos it's (currently) the only game "family" with flamethrowers and tankriding (= fun).