Erwin

Aris: If I rename one of the 57mm to "57mmmk1 2.bmp" will both versions show up in a game randomly - like AFV and uniform variants do?

Yes, what is this fetish with making the CM2 manuals so opaque and useless about so many rather important gameplay issues? I presume this was thought about and discussed. Am just curious.

They are gorgeous. Perfect for sunnier theatres, Libya, Tunisia, perhaps Italy etc.

I never noticed the 37mm in CMBN to be honest... Obviously, folks would use the CMFI 57mm in CMBN if it works and is a superior mod. The mods are all so good that I often find it hard to tell which mod is better. (Or, is it just different for the different theatre?)

+1 for a rules addendum. Players really need to know this stuff.

I would hate to lose the smoke. +1 to Baneman's suggestion. More eye candy clutter would be great. Dead cattle, wrecks, crashed aircraft... It would make the wonderful terrain graphics even more interesting as one's forward units round a road bend or walk through woods and come across such things...

That is really nice of you to do the extra work. Thank you. BTW: In my case, only the "distinct" uniform mod had the "too long" problems.

I agree. The OT (I think) was whether these new systems should be in a CM type game. I think not, as it would be like doing a Napoleonic game and saying "let's add fast firing AA guns".

I recall also reading "The Devils' Guard" - both very interesting books - something like 45 years ago(!!). I wouldn't be surprised if I have em mixed up in my head now.

Thanks for the idea, Badger. I tried putting it on my "Desktop" and even "Admin", but it's still too long.

Good analysis. One needs to think in those sorts of realpolitik concepts in order to understand why each side does what it does.

The USAF, which has the reputation of being the most advanced technologically of any of the services, has invested in researching non-kinetic weapons. But, in game terms the weapon effect would be no different than an instantaneous missile hit. It's more about knocking out ICBM's and enemy satellites. But, yes, also any aircraft or rocket. Another weapon could also microwave troops and crews in their tanks. I suppose we could watch them explode in the game.

Drive on Pyongyang for Foreign Policy Magazine: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/08/woe_to_the_imperialists To bypass FP reg wall, Google "Woe to the Imperialists" and click on link. I think that gets you in without registration.

"Try the scenario again, and see if you can hit the victory conditions..." That is precisely what I do NOT want to do. First time through is enuff to spoil 90%+ scenarios. If I wanted to replay scenarios, I would be a RTS player lol. My point was that in CM1 the scoring system almost always made sense and was easy to comprehend. There was a gradation in CM1 results depending on VL's won and casualties. In CM2, it often feels like you take or inflict a couple of casualties and the game runs off a victory scoring cliff.

Many thanks for all your work. I could not however copy about 30 files from the "Distinct Units" folder to my Z folder. Something about the "filename is too long for the destination"?

"The evade button creates a FAST move order that will ignore all but the worst pinning" That is useful to know if confirmed. (Where is that in the rulebook?) I thought if it's the same as a FAST MOVE order, then it's a pointless order (unless in the fast pace of a RT game).

The very weird/complex CM2 scoring system and final victory calculations are one reason I have hesitated to play vs human. The vast majority of times I play I get big victories when I expect/deserve a loss. Other times, I get a loss, when logic/common sense/lack of friendly casualties etc. would seem to indicate I won a good victory. In addition, I have experimented by CF-ing frequently, sometimes every turn to see how the scoring is going in a battle. It has been shocking/surprising to find that many times, the loss of a single unit or a few units will turn a solid defeat into a solid victory and vice versa. My conclusion is that the CM2 victory calculations system is extremely sensitive/unstable. CM2 is like a modern jet that is so sensitive it can only be controlled by computers vs an old CM1- style piston engine aircraft that can glide along on a predictable path that makes sense. There are many other issues that need to be fixed that are more important regarding gameplay enjoyment, so this isn't a big problem (for me at least). But, a player has to be aware of the problem. My way of dealing with it is to ignore whatever the game says, and figure out my own evaluation of how well I have done. Of course that mitigates against human vs human play, and doesn't help with campaigns.

I haven't used EVADE in years. My recollection was that it often made the unit run to someplace I didn't want. Does EVADE actually make the unit run AWAY from danger - or simply to cover (which if they are already in cover may lead to odd results)?

IIRC 1980's Warsaw Pact or similar is what CMSF2 will simulate. But, I agree, we're losing a huge opportunity by ignoring Arab-Israeli (especially). Of course I can understand the political delicacy.

"dealing with casualties on the battlefield is a very real and immersive element and adds a unique factor to this series that should mean something tangible in all battles. I sincerely hope that a future patch or in CMx3 that BFC add a core point reflection for this as standard." Yeah, Buddy Aid is one of the greatest advances over CM1 and should be given points weight in all scenarios. IIRC, there is no advantage even in campaigns other than collecting better weapons for the next scenario. If I am wrong please point me to the relevant section in the rulebook as it should be a very important feature.

"we could have a mirrored ME final or something." imo those are really boring (maps), you know what the other guy has if it's the same as yours, and it's still impossible to get absolute balance.

This is one of my pet peeves every time someone brings it up. The issue is that it is utterly pointless for the AI to give us the LOS to the target of the third ammo bearer/gun layer when in order to play the GAME we need to know if the GUN/GUNNER has LOS and can shoot at the target. I can understand that it's hard to move a 40 ton tank a couple of inches to the side to get LOS for the gunner. But, when it happens for a MG it's plain ridiculous. Either the LOS system needs to be addressed and revamped, or the AI should be able to move a MG (at least) so as to be able to shoot what the guy immediately to your side can plainly see.

Yes, it's like saying the deadly British archers at Crecy or Agincourt were much more effective than WW1 artillery.

You could use the model established by "Birthday Bash" tournies at weBoB: http://webandofbrothers.yuku.com/forums/104/Birthday-Bash-10 They work really well. One is competing against players on one's own side, so balance is not an issue.

Maybe what you are really saying is more opportunity for balanced scenarios where the western allies aren't using high tech to beat up on a bunch of crappy enemy units and the real victory conditions are to win with no or virtually no friendly casualties. Hopefully NATO vs the Ukraine/Russia in CMSF2 may do the trick.