Erwin

You still have to convince me that a single enemy soldier hiding in a cellar vs a company or battalion or even larger occupying the town would nullify the concept of "control/secure the town" in RL.

Given the historical wargamer affection for Bulge wargames, a family of its own would seem a good choice.

This probably explains the reluctance of BF to do the much requested CM: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE family of games.

Well, if in doubt, simply rename the sound file (or any mod file) that you want with a "z" in front of it so hat it loads last and will therefore appear in the game. My question is whether it is sufficient to rename a FOLDER with a "Z" in front of its name and then ALL the mod files in that folder will load last and appear in the game? Or, does the system choose each file based on its name, regardless of the folder it is in?

"Right now you can only own it if you take the VL, clear it and make sure not a single scout sneaks back in. Works for me." I don't get that argument. It actually encourages gamey play where you can make a major change to the victory level by "sneaking in a single scout" that in RL would make no difference.

AFAIK If you have a mod "package" that doesn't have a particular mod, then the game uses the default "vanilla" mod. So, when you create your own personalized mod package you can select whatever you want from wherever you want (so long as there are not two mod files named exactly the same in the same folder). If there happen to exist two mod files with exactly the same name in your main mod folder (Z) the system will select the one that has a name that starts later in the alphabet. So, "z-mod" will overwrite or be selected instead of "a-mod". Hope that helps...

Got through it till last 10 minutes. As soon as RL is done, I will complete it.

Yes, it is an interesting experiment.

CM1 seemed to have a better/more satisfying method of calculating levels of victory and also of calculating who holds the VL or if it's contested. In CM2 I regularly find that levels of victory can change radically eg: from Major Defeat to Total Victory on the basis of a couple of guys KIA. It's frustrating and unsatisfying. In CM1 the result changed slowly based on casualties or VL points and it made more sense. I don't recall the above issues occurring that much.

If it's vs the AI I would be happy to help out. Doing 1:1 sounds original and interesting.

"...loading up my old CMBB in order to cherry pick scenarios from it to convert to CMRT". Yes. Now we can have CM2 maps and scenarios similar in size to the huge ones in CM1. I am looking forward to larger scope missions in which transport/mobility is important, as is the necessity for recon, mobile reserves, and the ability for motorized flanking maneuvers to take advantage of breakthroughs etc. CM1 was able to handle (sort of) operational-level scenarios. However, to date, the majority of CM2 scenarios tend to be straight ahead tactical assaults/attacks with little/no opportunity for significant motorized maneuver.

Thanks, snake_eye... I don't think I have ever seen a scenario with a Nashorn, so should be interesting. Am still looking forward to completing Blood on the Tracks. RL unfortunately is taking up too much time. BTW: One major reason that one can use ATG's in keyhole or flank position is that CM maps are very hilly or have other terrain that blocks long LOS and not flat compared to most pics I have seen of East Front which show a lot of flat long LOS terrain. Frontal defenses with powerful guns like the 88mm would work better in RL. (Of course the short LOS range of CM2 maps due to LOS blocking terrain are what makes the scenarios interesting and fun.)

It would be very helpful to have the "one disk to install and get up to date". We all have to get new machines eventually, and I dread having to install half a dozen families of CM2 games with all the upgrades and patches that each now has in exactly the right order or you have to install it all again. What do you think of BF selling an updated disk (at a nominal price) to those of use who already have the games and modules? Actually, even a download of the latest version with all upgrades and patches in place would be much appreciated.

Kieme: It's really great that you are keen to improve CMSF. But, am not convinced that the horizon work or the desaturation of the M1 is necessarily an improvement. (One can get a similar effect on the M1 simply by messing with the videocard color controls.) You said it was a lot or work and I would be concerned that you did a lot of work to achieve minimal if any improvements. I know others may vehemently disagree, but just imo.

He's posted pics at WeBoB forums.

As soon as you know what the enemy is going to do or his set-up, the fun is spoiled. So "no do-overs" is good. However, there are numerous instances when one's own side's AI screws up - especially silly pathing issues that cause massive casualties - doors to buildings that are not usable etc. In those instances I think that a do-over of the offending turn(s) is acceptable.

Re carrying tons of extra ammo... I can't recall if actual tests have been published here, but we have been told that units laden with ammo etc either move slower or tire faster (I forget which). However, like many other aspects the difference is so subtle it's hardly noticeable. In addition to revamping the ACQUIRE order it would be good (and more realistic) to increase the penalty for carrying tons of ammo/extra weapons. It's hard to imagine a two man team carrying the thousands of rounds our pixeltruppen ubermen are able to with hardly any problem.

Yes, IIRC the Iraqis have M1 Abrams and other US equipment. Not sure what armor the ISIS folks have captured.

That was very good. Very cinematic and a good tutorial on how to mount an inf attack with ltd armor support. Very nice map. Looked large with lost of room to maneuver. Or, was that simply the way you shot it? Shame about the Moire(?) lines we see at certain times and places.

Zawiya Uprising campaign would be a good base to start from. You have a mixture of conventional and irregular forces fighting a similar enemy. (Actually, I think the more interesting campaign take would be to play ISIS forces fighting the Iraq forces and any others that try to intervene, like the Kurds, Iran etc.)

Dam that's impressive that kid has been able to create that...

Jon: I keep saying: "...you can have a TIME DELAY during the proposed adjacent ACQUIRE process, and you can limit how much ammo or what weapons are able to be ACQUIRED or TRANSFERRED between units. But, there is no reason to force players into a clickfest for no reason."

"I would also like to be able to type the amount of ammo acquired, or at least always provide the ability to grab just 50 rounds at a time." Yes, definitely this.

The main reason to overhaul the ACQUIRE function is to speed up gameplay. It is a timewasting PITA to have to 1) split squads in order to have a team 2) embark, then 3) acquire, then 4) disembark, and then 5) recombine, just to resupply a squad - esp in WEGO. The other silly feature to avoid is a crowd of squads waiting at a vehicle so each can do the above in turn. Of course you can have a time delay during the proposed adjacent ACQUIRE process, and you can limit how much ammo or what weapons are able to be ACQUIRED or TRANSFERRED between units. But, there is no reason to force players into a clickfest for no reason. CM appropriately abstracts capturing POW's and attending to the WIA. But, the current ACQUIRE process is ultra granular for no gameplay advantage.

Got it. Hope to play it later this week.