Erwin

Wow. great AAR.

PT: As you know I have been a HUGE fan of your campaigns from CMSF days and have actually played every one - am trying to complete the last one, ROAD TO DINAS right now. But, after playing IIRC the 13th scenario about 10 times and losing - which gets one kicked out of the campaign - I have resorted to repeated CF's to ascertain what important enemy assets need to be destroyed before I can get a win. And even then(!) I am struggling to complete it. Having played through just about every other CMSF campaign ever created, I think I am at least a reasonably good player. But, sometimes... And as I said I would describe your designs as some of the very best. BTW: The strange "early surrender" issue I mentioned is one where the game system gives up even when a perusal of the battlefield indicate that they could fight on effectively. I don't recall this being a problem issue in CM1, so it's a vagary of CM2 and the "unstable" CM2 victory calculations. By that I mean that one can play two scenarios, each one can feel like one is doing very badly or very well, and yet the Victory Window can show widely different results from a big victory to a big loss. I started Primasole Bridge campaign scenario #2 and thought I had a disaster on my hands and got a Tactical Victory. In the Corridor I thought I had done ok, and got a huge loss. Again, I don't recall having such an unpredictable set of results in CM1. And while we're at it, I do believe that specialized units like scouts, snipers, FO's, engineers etc should function at a higher level that regular troops. I agree that they can be improved in the Editor if they do not have inherent advantages. ie: They should be Cracks or Elites most of the time. And IIRC, FO's, mortars and snipers do in fact have the ability to fire/see further through terrain than regular troops. If they can, my suggestions is that scouts would also have enhanced abilities due to their training.

Just to confirm, firing an HMG on TARGET LIGHT does decrease the ROF and save ammo. And Zooks? That is their main weapon but there's not much point in using their rifles just as with mortars. Snipers?

The above makes for a fairly complex operational level. Many of us would be happy with the sort of abstracted operational level like in the CLOSE COMBAT series. My sense is that at the operational level one is at a 2 star+ general officer level and simply ordering such and such division(s) to a location is all one needs to know.

Quick: 2-4 rounds Short: 6-12 Medium: 12-18 Long: 20-28 Maximum: all available ammunition This is a very useful guide. However, be aware that IIRC that is for EACH BARREL. So, if you have 4 barrels each firing SHORT, you could inadvertently use as many as 48 shells. The obvious solution is to reduce the number of barrels firing. But, in a discussion about this back in CMSF days, we were told that in RL, ALL tubes are fired and that one doesn't get to request one or two tubes only. However, am hoping that someone more knowledgeable can illuminate us about this.

Sorry, I meant Android, not iPhone. The frustration I feel is that after 12 years of CM1 and 5(?) years of CM2, it feels like I am becoming a worse player. As much as I appreciate the huge amount of work that goes into scenario design, I find myself enjoying the latest modules/families less and less. I only hope that by the time East Front is released we'll have some of the LOS and UI issues resolved so that gameplay becomes more efficient and the engine will be optimized so we can enjoy the sort of large-huge maps that we can have in CM1. I really miss the maneuver games we used to have. Head on assaults on small maps with little or no chance of speedy maneuver around flanks have become very repetitive.

I encounter the similar situation as Agusto. There have been battles in the middle of a campaign that I have replayed several times using what are sensible tactics, and finally I give up and start looking at the enemy dispositions because it seems impossible to win and progress unless one knows the "tricks" employed by the designer. I don't play CM to become frustrated and stressed. I don't want to spend months on replaying battles just to win and get to "the next level" like an RPS game. This is supposed to be fun (for my tastes at least). I generally only play campaigns and since there are so few available, stopping and coming back to the game weeks later is not a satisfactory solution. I just want to have a few hours fun when I have time is all. And some of the scenarios are simply not enjoyable, so one wants to just "get it over with" so one can advance to what will hopefully be a more fun scenario. Why does one have to take a game that seriously, that it takes months of replaying to win? I am starting to find that most of the scenario and campaign offerings in each successive release are increasingly in this "hard work" vein. The game seems to become more complex and detailed with every release - and that is not the same as becoming more realistic, just more frustrating and hard work. I suppose if some see this as training then good for them. I would rather play on the DoD's multi-zillion dollar systems for training. Eg: Currently I have tried the GL campaign THE CORRIDOR and am dismayed at the 45 minute time allotted (at least for the first 2 battles). I find it impossible to play these battles at this speed. There is no time to accomplish things in a way that satisfies me and that is fun. Even if I win, it's not a fun experience. I don't know if these short battles are for the iPhone crowd, and is an attempt to create a stressed out wrist twitch experience. But, it's certainly not a direction for CM2 that I am happy with. And this is why folks like me still play more CM1 tournaments where one has more options than the CM2 repetitive straight ahead assault/ME engagements with tiny formations on ludicrously small maps. I still play more CMSF and CMA than the WW2 games for the same reason.

I thought that the default with guns/support weapons is TARGET LIGHT for small arms and TARGET fires the main weapon. So just to clarify, TARGET LIGHT fires the mortar but with less intensity, but both TARGET and TARGET LIGHT enable the mortar crew to fire their small arms(?). Is this only for mortars or ditto for guns and MG's?

The pic also seems to show them carrying via a 4-legged base rather than a tripod(??).

Thanks Vanir. That 32 meters info is valuable. Am impressed that BF models short distance moves that don't require packing up. So, it's definitely only for these 3 MG's: MG 34 and 42 and US 1919A4? No Italian or Brit?

It is understandable that the hulldown target is harder to see in the first place. But, Womble made the interesting point that at the short ranges of the CM2 smallish maps it's equally easy for an enemy to hit the turret as they can the body. So, once spotted, it doesn't matter if you're hulldown or not?

Who knew that hair tinting was so popular amongst brit troops?

sburke: Yes, I didn't mean to demean the hard-working scenario designers. But, I have noticed that there appear to be fewer and fewer scenarios and campaigns being produced. And the few GL ones I have tried have been "very hard" to win using reasonably good/realistic tactics without multiple replays. And as I'm one of those who hates replaying, I just abandon the scenarios and don't look forward to playing the next ones as much. I don't recall having these issues with CMSF or CMBN... I get the sense from these forums that most people are now playing vicariously through reading the fun AAR's and fewer are actually playing the game.

"ALWAYS go hulldown." Would be useful to get a conclusion re whether Bil or Womble is correct.

Remind us how many meters can an HMG be moved in the game without having to dissemble. Thanks.

But, we really need to discourage "tricky" scenarios which one almost has to replay in order to discover the "key" to winning. Scenarios should be winnable by using reasonably sensible tactics the first time through. While I agree that replaying is useful for when you are learning, speaking as an experienced player who has played through every available CMBN campaign, I now absolutely hate being forced to replay scenarios just to find the trick to winning. My concern is that "tricky" scenarios are being used to substitute for the paucity of new scenarios and campaigns that have been produced for each succeeding CM2 game module/family (whatever the hell they are called...).

Education helps the young become wise. Possible reason why the education systems of so many countries have been sabotaged to breed a generation of quite ignorant kids... units of production and consumption, and eager to fight like at a soccer match.

"I only save to resume playing where I left off, I never reload a save game if things go poorly. I think losing is part of the game, and one should learn from the mistakes as well as the successes. We don't learn to be better game players by stacking the odds in our favor." Agreed. But then, what do you do when you've gotten most of the way through a hard campaign and you just can't win a scenario to move forwards?

Back OT re what should the penalty be for non-radio vehicles (particularly for the Soviets). I think CM1 had it about right - a large time penalty before the unit can be ordered to do anything.

CM1 had the useful "FOLLOW" command where an inf unit would target a vehicle (and follow it if it moved) trying to throw AT munitions at it. I killed many enemy armor that way esp in built-up/wooded areas. Maybe that would be worth bringing back.

Brilliant - thanks. (IS this for ALL faces or only Brit??)

I agree PT. I said if one doesn't use PAUSE I can see that RT play may be more realistic - but perhaps verging on the impossible if you have a large (Battalion+ per side) scenario. Personally I play for fun and don't need the stress. The challenge of issuing orders that have to be good for at least 60 seconds is also a form of realism - except in RL, those orders need to be good for a lot longer - unless you are only at Platoon level. And many of us like having a Battalion or more to command. (This is a reason why CM1 is still way more fun and playable when one has a large scenario.) And BTW am still struggling on mission 13 (I think) of DINAS where the air support is massacring my guys before they get to the bridge and hotel objectives!! Am being forced to (unrealistically) CF and look at enemy dispositions and restart just to get through the ^%$^^ scenario so I can get to the next scenario in the campaign. Overall a great Red on Red campaign you made, but this scenario is a bastid!!

Glad they are making such a big deal of D-Day this year. I guess next year it will be WW1's 100th year anniversary.

It was a while ago, but I played and won this scenario (and IIRC the whole campaign) using WEGO Warrior. But, I was very impressed that you managed with so few casualties. However, I tend to use TARGET LIGHT most of the time as I read in the manual that that is aimed fire. I got the impression that TARGET at longer ranges would be very inaccurate, and hence not so good for suppression at distance.

Thank you umlaut. When it is ready, just ensure you explain to us whether we are to delete all earlier pic sets and install your new one, or if the new one is only to add on.