Erwin

The thing is that there are some REALLY good mods out there. But it's become very complicated sorting out which are working with the latest version of the game.

I pretty much disagree with everything you said. The point is that there are plenty of game out there with great graphics, but their gameplay is superficial (or just plain silly). What makes BF unique amongst game developers is that they have focused on realistic gameplay first, and graphics second. Your example of the explosions in AOM may look "good" as in "Hollywood" movie explosions, but if you look at documentaries, the vast majority of RL explosions don't look like that at all. And you would have to pay me to play AOM.

I KNOW... And it's a total PITA! Even with CM1, there were times I was spending more time looking at mod bmp's trying to figure out which ones I liked more. CM2 is more complex in that regard as they keep getting obsolete and I have no idea what is working now. I just pile all the mods in and let God sort em out lol. If I could pay for a complete set of mods that were presorted to reflect my preferences, so I could spend all my time playing instead of tinkering...

Let's not get pedantic here. What I was trying to say is that once a bunker is "neutralized" it's rarely (if ever) of any use to one's own side and I am not going to let it get reoccupied by the enemy, so it's "out of action" regardless whether destroyed or just unoccupied. If the issue is whether small arms can actually kill a bunker, I think that was the case. But, I am not 100% sure. Actually, if it's a big deal for you I think I may have saved game from that mission I can check.

I think SOHK it's a very good scenario. But, for experienced players who understand the game and what to do. Maybe it should have a warning label to that effect. I thought it an xnt training scenario for when you think you've become a good player. It can give you a shock. I won the 2nd time thru after I realized that I could not win using my usual "lazy" approach. You really have to study the terrain and have a good plan, and commit to it all the way.

Beautiful last shot. I know it's the crater, but it almost looks like the tracks have unraveled.

Re the Hiroshima book, if you actually read it you will find that the US is regularly demonized as the villains in the affair. It's part of the well-known revisionist history that the Japs are propagating. eg: The Japanese were "tricked" into WW2 by the US. They go on to justify their atrocities (or completely whitewash them) in all sorts of ways. It got my goat as I read that stuff. (And I am from the UK.) At least the Germans have acknowledged their past and made significant efforts to apologize. Go ask the Chinese what they still think of the Japanese.

My take on it is you bought the car so take it for a spin as in "you bought the game so PLAY it". Many of us here do not want to tinker with any "engine". I appreciate that there are those who love doing that sort of thing and apparently they cannot understand why the rest of us prefer to "ask a mechanic" when they have an issue.

Ah... wish I could remember if the bunker was actually KO'd or just abandoned. I tend to make no distinction since the effect is the same.

Thanks for extracting the scenarios from all those campaigns.

I am happy to hear that Childress, as it means that the US settlers were nowhere in the same league as the Nazis. Moral relativity is a seemingly interesting academic discussion. But, when your family has direct experience of it, it's takes one a completely different hue. My family was from Poland and Estonia, so they got "atrocified" by both sides and I may be in the unique position of being able to can comprehend both arguments here. The main difference to me is that the Soviets were primarily inhumanely brutal to their own population with the rationale that national survival was at stake. The Nazis were inhumanely brutal to other countries' populations, cos they wanted slave labor and planned the extermination of Poles, Gypsies, unhealthy people, Slavs, Jews, Gays, and anyone else who may have disagreed with them. (And I see the Japs in a similar light as well. When I visited, I was happy to write in their "weepy" Hiroshima memorial book the reasons why nuking them was entirely justified.)

I understand Luke's point. But, that's like saying "you just bought this new car, why not start tinkering with it so you understand it better". That's not what many of us enjoy doing or want to spend our valuable play time doing... especially when you consider there are many players here who seem to enjoy the tinkering part better than actually playing. It makes perfect sense when one has a question to ask the super grogs here about it, since it's almost certain that someone has figured it out years ago.

One can easily KO a concrete bunker from the front with concentrated small-arms fire... I put several teams that also had LMG's in a building and they just poured on the fire. I think it took about 3-4 turns before the crew abandoned the bunker. Seemed a bit too easy, actually. I was expecting to only suppress it so that the bazookas or demo charges could get close enuff to be used. Will have to see if the same technique works elsewhere - like if one's units have poorer cover.

Childress: The American Indians were given disease infested blankets deliberately. Early example of biological warfare by the invaders. That's why I mentioned it. It was their "holocaust". (BTW: Meant the opposite of saying it's all "okey dokey" now.) Maybe I misread, but I thought this thread started on about the "positive" aspects of the Nazis. I find that sort of thinking disturbing. But, these sorts of academic discussions seem fine and can flourish when talking about far away countries and events that don't touch one personally. So, closer to home, what about the positive aspects of what the Anglos brought to the US by eliminating the natives?

HELLUVA ROAD OPENING and UK HELLUVA TAKEOVER are two new-ish good ones. CIMIC HOUSE is also a very good mission re accomplishing a mission with minimal casualties.

It's definitely not a big problem, agreed.

It's a shame that Steve Wozniak has become this bored.

There is ethnic cleansing and purging going on right now - esp in Africa, and very few people (in our parts of the world) seem to care that much. Pre-WW2, what you did in your own country was pretty much unassailable. Big difference when someone invades your homeland and starts eliminating you and your population, or seriously planning to turn them into animal-like serfs who can only count up to ten and grunt yes or no. Elimination happened to the American Indians of course, but other than that, the US has no idea what that horror is like.

TARGET BRIEFLY has certainly helped in this regard. But, I would say almost always, once the AI decides to fire through an obstruction at the start of a WEGO turn, it keeps firing and wasting ammo for the full 60 seconds. Sometimes there is enuff HE to degrade the obstruction. But, in the majority of cases it's just a waste of ammo. Again, I have become used to all of these sorts of phenomena, and it doesn't spoil my enjoyment too much any more. It is fine for an entertainment product. But, this and the other LOS issues raised are hardly "realistic" (if that is still the goal). Re the urban road LOS issue. I read that if the player can see the target then so should the units involved. But, that is just not so - and most noticeable in long urban roads. I most recently noticed that in the Cambienne scenario.

Thank you. Always welcome to get new CMAF campaigns. And currently, there seem to be more user-made campaigns being made for CMSF than for the WW2 versions of CM2.

The thing about what you see is what you get is not really true. One can usually see all the way down a road - esp in urban settings. But, nothing can fire down that road for no apparent reason. Conversely, if a gun can see that there is foliage/trucks in the way, why does the AI keep firing valuable shells that detonate in said trees. You would think that the AI would be simulating the role of the gun commander or gunner who cannot see a clear target vs the "3rd ammo bearer" who can. I can understand that it's impractical to fix this issue. And in the game, it's irritating, but one gets used to it. But, it's certainly not "realistic" if that is the ultimate goal.

Well, that provides evidence that a 500lb bomb only a few meters way doesn't necessarily do much to well-protected troops, pressure wave included.

Yes. Great to see those Soviet beasts in action.

That sort of decision should be up to the player. If you don't want the unit to find a way to engage the enemy, then do nothing. However, there should be an order that enables the AI to move the unit a short distance so that it can fire at the target. The issue with MG's is most critical/irritating where the 3rd ammo carrier sees a target, but it is impossible to get the crew to move the MG a couple of inches so that it can fire at the target. If you give a fire order, that should automatically happen. Similarly with ATG's and vehicles. However, I can see that would be more complicated if the ATG has to dissemble and set up again. Not sure if an ATG can be manhandled a few inches without that sort of time delay. I suppose it depends on size and weight. However, enough people are commenting on this LOS/LOF issue that it should get on the TBD list at BF.

"I'd say that the Nazis were the more positive force minus the genocidal impulses." There speaks an ignoramus who didn't lose most of family in the war thanks to the Nazis.