Erwin

It's always polite to ask the designer. But, from what I recall from my IP legal days, it's all in the public domain and free to use unless the "author" has put a copyright symbol on his work.

Very useful. Thanks...

Let us know how PE (Special Edition?) works these days. I still remember it as a great WW2 armor game. But, very buggy., Spent more time getting patches and mods and fixes to get it to run than in actual playing, and it would still crash regularly.

+1 re SLR's points... Loved those same scenarios as well.

Wow. A huge amount of wonderful work. Thank you.

Just got back from a trip with no computer... PT: If you reread my original post, I was referring to CMFI/GL's The Corridor campaign, and NOT any problem with your CMBN Scottish Corridor campaign(!).

Much appreciated. Thank you.

Wow. I am really aghast/stunned at your attitude PT since I have played just about all your designs and have enjoyed 95%+ of them, and have been one of your biggest fans and vocal in my enthusiasms for your work. So, people have to worship everything you do otherwise you throw a snit fit? Really? Speaking as someone who has been paid to review cardboard and computer wargames and spent 10 years designing "realistic" DoD sims, I learned to appreciate and value very harsh critiques as that made me better at my job. Perhaps I don't have the extensive professional experience at creating wargames and scenarios that you do. However, in my time in the biz, I learned that to take negative comments personally is immature. I am genuinely dismayed.

Hi Aris: It was noted over at CMBN forums that Sexton, Sherman I and Firefly Ic never got your modding attention. Is there any chance you'll eventually do those?

Am curious... how did you avoid the enemy airpower? That chewed up my tanks and a lot of inf even when they seemed hidden in woods.

A near future Korean War would be very interesting (as would Israeli wars) but highly unlikely due to political correctness etc. The historical situation would be great for an operational game (since airpower was such a huge part) but seemed a very unpleasant experience tactically on the ground.

Marco Bergman did a mod for all small arms and vehicles as well.

I think I have all Aris mods and I count 97 Aris vehicle and gun mods for CMBN and I see Priest, but no Sexton.

FWIW: I did tests in CMSF re rates of arty fire and the effects. The results were that LIGHT/HARASS for longer periods caused more casualties than intense bombardment with the same number of shells.

Thanks for doing those tests YankeeDog. Useful info. I was surprised that Steve is so sure that TARGET LIGHT for HMG's would result in a lower ROF if your tests are correct. I agree that it's usually best to leave snipers alone and on arcs. But, in the context of figuring out how the game system allocates ROF I was curious what happens with TARGET and TARGET LIGHT with snipers (and AT teams for that matter) since there is usually another sniper team member with a smg. Ideally you want the units to act with "common sense" depending on the situation. But, that of course is the AI challenge.

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?