Erwin

Well yeah, peeking around corners would be great. However, I do think that one of the aspects of CM2 that can get overwhelming are the number of separate clicks needed to have units do what you want them to do. For example: Crawling "SLOW" quite a ways along a hedgerow/wall to stay hidden while outflanking an enemy position is quite common. Currently, it takes a lot of waypoints and pauses to enable that unit to do that without getting exhausted. If one could give one simple order and know that it's gonna take several turns for the unit to get into position, you could focus on other stuff in the meantime. Doing this for one unit may not be such a hardship. But, when you have to do similar dances with large numbers of units the frustration level rises exponentially. CM2 is very flexible in that one can do so much. But, it takes a lot of time in large scenarios. Greater efficiency in the UI would be very helpful in aiding gameplay.

I don't recall seeing this happen in CMBN altho' not 100% sure. But, it seems strange that the spotting rounds started 3 or 4 minutes early followed by the barrage, each being about 3 minutes earlier than the clock. I don't think I have seen this with an FO, only when using an HQ with much longer spotting round arrival times listed. I can save game turns to show this... or is it the general consensus that this is just another example of realistic randomness built in?

In a CMFI game I noticed that my spotting HQ would require 7 minutes to bring down mortar fire. Once plotted the clock showed 7 then 6 minutes next turn... Then on the 3rd turn (minute) suddenly spotting rounds were falling and around the 4 or 5 minute mark, the barrage arrived. Is there an accelerated clock bug?

FAST gets anyone tired quickly. But, I think units tire a bit too quickly on SLOW. If you want them to SLOW move a distance I think they would should have a subroutine to rest themselves periodically, so they don't TIRED (or certainly not EXHAUSTED). In WEGO it takes time to put enuff waypoints with pauses for the pure reason of rest. I would love to have the default being "Units will move FAST/QUICK/MOVE/SLOW etc. until TIRING, then rest before moving further" with a second optional add-on command "Units will continue movement until exhaustion" for those times when you really, really need em to get to a location asap at all costs.

Useful info. Thanks... (Wish this sort of stuff was in a CM1-like game window at least as an approx guide.)

Your new plan sounds good. Have fun with the game.

That was fun. But is it just me, or was his "Russian" accent slipping in a few places? Also, afterwards on the same UTube page: Isn't it illegal to shoot bears?

Am pretty sure I have seen CMBN troops recover from tiring/tired during a long walk I gave them. The other issue is how much you make your guys run. Generally, I run em only for short periods with rest stops... They all run at the same speed regardless of load and my heavily laden guys never got tired either using this method.

Never mind...

Well, am hoping that BF has more important stuff to worry about than links that simply illustrate a point someone is trying to make. Let's face it, the CM series has no competitors to worry about.

CM1 and CM2 games look similar with similar UI's etc. But, new players should approach CM2 as a new game system not an evolution of CM1, or great frustration may result. Tactics that worked in CM1 often don't work in CM2 and vice versa. CM1 is armor-centric and great for combined arms maneuver scenarios, CM2 is more infantry-centric, and its scenarios seem to depict frontal assaults more often on maps that don't allow for speedy maneuver. Hence one can still enjoy both game systems for different reasons.

"It's a good thing to do most of your ammo acquiring in the setup phase when you can move everything around to your heart's content." This was something we learned to do all the time in CMSF due to the high ammo burn rate with all those automatic weapons. But, it always bothered me that there was no discernible movement penalty for loading up troops to the max. Even tho' I am more of a verisimilitude-oriented player than worried about actual "realism" it bothered me enuff that I now discipline myself to take on only what extra ammo seems reasonable, sometimes no extra at all. (And in WEGO it's often a real PITA to have to go back to a jeep and ACQUIRE as described above.)

It's a boardgame, Mike.

There are already many cardboard wargames and a few computer wargames on subjects like a war between N and S Korea with Chinese and/or US intervention, NATO vs resurgent Russia, China vs Japan and US, and at least one or two Iraq Invasion games were rushed out just prior to the RL Iraq Invasion. There were no fall-outs at all. Surely you are not saying that you would have nixed the CMSF concept cos someone in Syria (large CM customer base?) would have been offended. Modern reality is that these days one can't breathe without someone somewhere being offended. To eliminate "what if" scenarios from wargaming sounds completely silly since most wargaming (or any gaming really) are about depicting "what if's". Sure if there are tons of BF customers in India and China that's an issue... But, I somehow doubt that.

I have yet to play that scenario, but as frustrating as it sounds, I figure it's really the only way to simulate a really nasty ambush. Experienced players will scout/recon and would never/rarely get a major part of their forces ambushed otherwise.

Well, if N. Korea and China are a major customer... However, I would suggest that the market for the CM game series is so minuscule and specialized compared to the shooters like COD etc. the thought that it could offend a major nation plays into a rather overstated sense of self-importance (that true enuff, some threads on these forums betray).

John: I had a fit some months ago when I put an AT gun in foxholes and they did nothing to protect the gun. I was advised that one needs to have a gun something like 1.5 action squares inside the edge of trees to get good cover/concealment. This sort of stuff bothers me as it's completely counterintuitive. However, one good suggestion I received was plot a waypoint outside the trees and the you can see how far into the trees an enemy can see.

Interesting diagram. No wonder we're seeing serious problems with veteran and in-field suicides after being in repeated tours of combat for 10+ years.

Welcome back Fuser/Aris... Yes, I was rather concerned since you'd made comments earlier about burn-out. I started to think you'd gone terminal burn-out and we'd never hear from you again (or see any more of your amazing mods). So, very happy you are still with us!

Did anyone say "Political Correctness?" While LLF's political analysis is probably correct, we are talking about an entertainment product game here, not a tool of foreign poicy sanctioned by the US (or any) Govt - and we all know there have been other games that posited a Sino-US or Russo-NATO/US conflict and the sky did not fall in. Popular first person shooters have the Russkies, Chinese, N. Koreans etc etc as the bad guys. I also understand the commercial realities as to why every game tends to have the US as the primary player role. However, I would love to see India vs China - that is the most likely scenario imo since they are competing (or soon will be) for the same resources and geopolitical areas. One of "W"'s only decent foreign policy decisions was helping India with nuke technology so they could better counter the emerging China threat (as an expendable US surrogate "aircraft carrier" as the UK was during the Cold War).

Black Prince, yes, a lot of folks do like that sort of detail. I was referring to the sameness of most of the assault scenarios. One can often do more or less the same thing every time, and it gets repetitive. eg: "seem to follow the format of 'locate the enemy AT assets and destroy them with artillery then have a free hand to shell the hell out of the enemies' remaining units with your tanks'." Exactly what happened re ATGM's in CMSF as well. Actually, I would say that when you are attacking with armor or combined forces, it's pretty much always exactly the same tactic: "Locate and kill the stuff that can kill the tanks, then romp over everything else with the armor." For this reason it always seems like the inf has to do scouting in the first half, mortars/arty kill the ATG's, and the armor rarely does much till the 2nd half. Leastways, I can't recall EVER commanding a mobile attack led by armor in ANY version of CM.

Some of my favorite scenarios/campaigns were on longer maps where one had to overcome a series of obstacles. The challenge was to overcome each with minimal casualties so you could carry on to the end. Some of the scenarios in CMBN (I haven't played enuff CMFI yet) seemed more hard work than fun. In the interests of full disclosure, I play for fun and relaxation, and am far less interested in whether it's a "realistic miserable bloodbath slog" as I would characterize some scenarios. And btw I DID enjoy and win the infamous COURAGE AND FORTITUDE campaign. But, I'd prefer if that experience was more of a 10% of scenarios experience rather than to 50%+ they seem to be.

The old "race to the flag" gambit. CM1 nostalgia...

Well good job, Bimmer. Am still amazed at the very realistic balcony detail modeling. Kudos to whomever was responsible for that.

Probably not realistic to have troops improve in a matter of a day or two. But, time in a CM campaign can be very elastic. A designer could easily suppose that battles were weeks or longer apart. In terms of gameplay it would be fun to have troops change quality in later battles. Experience could get worse if you lose too many men, or better if you won with few casualties. Did anyone else enjoy games like the SILENT HUNTER series, where the player had the opportunity to promote his men and award medals?