Erwin

One plea I have scenario for designers... if you are going to include specialized troops like snipers, recon, engineers etc, please consider making them Crack or at least one level better experience than all the other troops to reflect the specialists' additional training etc.

Lovely. Thank you...

I didn't mean to come off snotty, Luke. I should've known you play the game. But, I do wonder about some other folks.

AFAIK, there is no way to order a disembark in CM2 anyplace other than at the end of all movement. (Hope someone else can confirm/disconfirm.) Maybe start asking BF to make it like CM1 when units would disembark if the transport slowed enuff, eg: when it slowed to do a sharp turn.

"What about power ups? :-)" Yeah, I also miss respawning points as well. Hopefully, BF will get around to those features in CM:WTF.

"my i7 quad core" IIRC all the CM series of games only benefit from single core, so that's not going to help. Or, have I got that wrong? Am getting ready for a new machine, so it's not just an academic question.

<Sigh> yeah I try to do tha...t but nowadays there are SO MANY great mods like your to choose from. It gets to be that one spends more time selecting and mixing and matching mods than playing lol.

As noted previously, if you set a "long range" waypoint on a huge map in CM1, the next turn, you would see the exact path that the Ai had plotted. It was relatively easy to adjust waypoints where necessary and reduced the micromanagement a great deal. Would be great to have that feature in CM2, along with selectable waypoints/lines.

I was away for two months and although I spent the last few days(!) downloading mods including yours Oddball, I have yet to install em. So, plz forgive me...

Have always found that the larger battles are preferable imo cos one error usually doesn't cost you the game like it can with smaller scenarios. What I enjoyed about the regiment-equivalent per side of CM1 on huge maps is that there was a reason for harboring reserves and having a transport reserve to move inf and guns around the large maps as Fire Brigades.

Are those vein's flames, or...?

Interesting clarification as many of us probably wondered abut this. Thanks.

With different graphics COH could be a sci fi game. COH is an entertainment product, the CM series is more a simulation aimed at military and history grogs who value realism. Very little overlap.

Maybe try playing the game itself???

AFAIK you can't drop off passengers at a waypoint in any CM2 game. In CM1, IIRC, if a vehicle slowed at a corner (say) then passengers could jump off if they had a nearby waypoint.

Company of Heroes is a mass-market game for the RT wrist twitch crowd. Historical accuracy and simulation takes a big back seat to entertainment. with different graphics, COH could just as easily be a sci fi game. The CM series is much more for WW2 grogs who really appreciate the attention to historical and RL accuracy. And AFAIK, BF is the only company still producing these kinds of specialized games/sims for our small hard core military sim enthusiast market.

Great video. I have yet to get to use my flamers. My inf get the job done too well on their own. At least now I can actually see it in action. What is your sound mod? The screaming was very blood curdling.

The CMBO demo. The day all WW2 miniatures and xnt cardboard tactical game like PanzerBlitz etc became obsolete.

"You would not send them first on an ordinary infantry probe it daylight, because it would be a waste. If the mission is a infantry probe in daylight, they would either screen an inactive sector, thinly, or form a reserve." I agree 100%. And anyone who plays CM2 knows that we are routinely forced to use recon units in exactly the way you describe. So, my plea is to have scenarios designed so that recon units are Crack or at least better experienced that the other units in a scenario so as to reflect what you said.

Ok, so it does NOT work like in CM1? IIRC in CM1 if you recombined an ok A team with a broken B team, you got an OK squad which could be split next turn into two OK teams (A and once again. It was a fast way to have a broken unit recover.

Mike and Jason... YES. "...rifle recon was a separate arm within their force, and a specialist one." But, in CM2 they are NOT specialists. In CM2, "Recon Units" behave and have the same capabilities like any other infantry unit. In CM2 Recon units are as poor/good at recon as any other non-specialist infantry grunt. That's my point. Ideally, any specialist unit (sniper, FO, Recon, Engineer etc) should have special capabilities. (IIRC FO's can "see" a little further than ordinary units... or is that only onmap mortars - I forget). If it's too hard programming-wise to give them enhanced specialized abilities, then at least designers should make them at least one level more experienced so we can use them as valuable assets. Otherwise, in the game, Recon units are no better than regular infantry. And if that is intended, then why have dedicated Recon units in CM2 at all? In the example I gave of the Russian Campaign... since we are instructed to not let Recon unit take casualties. It makes tactical sense to keep the recon units in the rear and use expendable grunt infantry for recon since they get replaced almost 100% between every mission. But, as I said, that feels gamey and wrong. Does that clarify what I said earlier? Has anyone actually played the Soviet Campaign so they understand the issue?

Every now and then someone has posted about the possibility of seeing the AI plotted moves so one could see where the AI was planning to drive our tanks (or any unit). I think we had that in CM1... although IIRC you didn't see the plotted path until the next turn. However, at that time it was easy to move the waypoints to a more desired path (or cancel and start all over). Would be a useful feature as this movement frustration issue has come up repeatedly ever since CM2 came out (with CMSF).

But, then why have dedicated scout platoons? As I mentioned, in the Soviet Campaign we are told to not lose too many scouts as they are not easily replaceable. If scouts are simply regular infantry "told to go first", then expendability should not be an issue. The briefing seems to imply that the scouts have a greater value than the regular infantry. But, in game terms they appear to have no advantage. Hence my concern that the logical tactic, would be to keep the valuable scout/infantry safe in the rear while the expendable regular inf does the scouting and dying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Simply making the scouts more experienced would at least give them some useful advantage. Ideally, in the game they should have better spotting or somesuch abilities that would justify their existence and they added value. Otherwise, why bother with scout units in the game at all?

Have been doing all my CMRT downloads in the last two days(!). So, "Kieme Industrialization Mod" was already unavailable (and I don't have to worry about it)?

Re scout units, it's surprising that apparently they have no special scout/spotting abilities. In the Russian campaign one is told to not attrite the scout units as they don't get replaced (easily) as opposed to the "expendable" regular infantry which get replaced close to 100% between missions. Trying to play "realistically" I used my scouts as... well... scouts. However, usually the way they discover an enemy unit is when a scout is shot. So, it's hard to keep the scouts intact. Logically, in the game, it makes more sense to use split infantry squads and use their expendable two and three man teams for scouting and save the actual scout units and their valuable SMG's for assaults or close range support. But, that just feels wrong/gamey. Wouldn't it be more realistic to give scout units some spotting advantage in the game so that they had a real value as scouts? An easy fix is to make all specialized units like scouts, engineers, snipers etc at least one experience level better than the regular infantry. That would given them a little advantage to represent the additional training they would have.