Erwin

Tables outside the cafe; some cars parked here and there; sleeping dogs and cats... Also, in a pristine new-looking town you'd expect people. If the town now gets the benefit of massive bombardment with debris in the streets and burned out buildings etc. that would look really impressive.

I recall using ATGM vehicles (probably a Red vs Red scenario) and trying to just have the mast or missiles exposed, but those units died so fast because, as I afterwards realized that the game does not seem to allow them a hull-down advantage. Either that or it's virtually impossible to get them into hull-down positions since it's hard to tell in CM2. I remember saving and trying over and over again to get those missile launchers to be deadly (2K-3K meter range) and they just got picked off. It may have had something to do with the phenomenon that moving vehicles seem to have a spotting advantage over stationary in cover (or is that only in CMBN/CMFI?). When a unit that should be deadly is that useless/inadequately modeled, there is probably no point even having it in the game. It gives rise to expectations which turn into frustration. The lack of modeling of masts or roof equipment doesn't spoil the game for me. But, I did read the manual (which was not helpful) and I wondered why did I have to waste so much time discovering flaws like this when I could have been enjoying my leisure time on the next scenario.

That is beautiful... Having played the Ramadi scenario in CMSF however, I realized it is very tough to design a fun game dealing with urban combat.

I find it strange that one has to depend on the God's eye picture to play effectively after all the effort has been made to make the game more realistic. What sburke described above is an attempt to game the system rather than do anything realistic. In RL, why would the ambushers stand up to shoot after the attackers have just gone to ground, and then move away from their xnt defensive location to get shot down? What I see above is a failed ambush thanks to the system not allowing a sensible ambush to be executed. In RT, maybe the above would work cos one can immediately PAUSE and adjust. But, in WEGO one has to fight the system and throw RL concepts away. I have absolutely no problem with that cos I have always known that the CM series is a great entertainment product not a great simulation. So, I don't expect a high level of realism. But, given that it is a game, the ambushes I still spring in CM1 tournaments (which are going great btw) are more satisfying and effective than the convoluted process described above which imo resulted in a more "unrealistic" outcome than in CM1. But, I emphasize, I love the game even with its many flaws.

The issue is that knowledge of RL capabilties is a hindrance in this instance. I can't recall how many "mast-equipped" ATGM and FO vehicles etc I lost cos I had no idea that the safety (and added visibility over obstructions) of the mast wasn't modeled. An example of the schizophrenic nature of CM2. Of course one learns to adapt and still enjoy the GAME. But, it gets real tired fast listening to wonks going on and on about how "realistic" a sim it is.

+1 to that. Ambush in WEGO using the HIDE command and a short arc is usually suicide. Just cos you have someone on overwatch does nothing if you can't stop the clock to UNHIDE. The CM1 method was much more "satisfactory". I use that word as maybe it wasn't "realistic" per milpro/grog standards. But, it had verisimilitude, and CM1 ambushes actually worked.

From mil group discussion: "What is DoD's ability to simulate the current Syrian civil War? My guess is that any halfway-decent simulation is going to be a plain ol' BOGSAT. But what about computer sims or models? I know NPS, NDU and everyone else are working on this and that. But as a standalone sim or technology-enhanced roleplaying, what do we have right now that meaningfully applies to Syria?" http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/syria-intervention-and-the-limits-of-wargaming/

Great idea... If only there was some way that that troops could improve between successful missions (like in Silent Hunter for example). Then you'd have the real satisfaction of training your men. I suppose with branching operational scenarios, the WIN branch could have better quality after each win, while the lose branch gets worse (or better still doesn't improve as quickly).

That's why HMG stands for Horrific Market Garden(?)

Speaking of how the Koreans were pressed into service in the Imperial Jap Army, go see if you can rent MY WAY. It's a an awesome war film that covers the Jap war in China, then the Eastern Front vs the Nazis and finally Normandy - all from the perspective of a couple of unlucky Koreans - apparently based on a true story. The battle scenes are larger, more numerous, and imo more intense than Saving Private Ryan, Stalingrad etc.

I suspect it actually would have been a bitch to program or they would have done it. We're looking at the same thing with the absence of flamethrowers etc etc in CMBN/CMFI now.

There were some pretty intense scenarios and operations in which one had to use "all the kit". I especially liked some of the Red vs Red ops as a great trainer for Red capabilities and how to handle Blue forces.

I love them Bil. Using em now. Thanks...

Looks amazing LLF...

According to BF, troops that are hiding are really hiding - head in the dirt, not looking around or seeing anything, and that is why one should NEVER use HIDE if one is trying to make an ambush - the enemy could just walk all over your hiding guys and kill em where they lie. My understanding from reading all the posts on this matter since CMBN came out, is that putting a covered arc on HIDING troops does very little - unless for some reason they UNHIDE on their own (AI) initiative and you want to make sure they don't start shooting at anything outside that covered arc. ie: A CM2 HIDE command with covered arc does NOT work like it did in CM1 (and that's a pity actually).

The problem is not the abstraction - which in games we have to accept since they are games and not DoD simulations. But, you are correct... the manuals pretend to be packed full of info, but 90% of it is data that does not help play the game and in instances such as this are plain misleading thus leading to frustration. I think it's cos some milpro/grogs really want to delude themselves that they are playing "the real thing" and that being good at this game somehow "means" something in the real world, and that its not just a really good fun, entertainment product.

"...not a war where you are forced to keep Blue's casualties low." I will be surprised if that requirement changes. It's been that way since after Vietnam.

I do this a lot with SMG squads. One rarely needs 450 points of firepower, and they tend to go overboard and use more than is required. So, using them as teams with the "back-up" team able to top up ammo works beautifully.

It's been a long time since I read the manual, but AFAIR they do not ever recover what they lost.

amazing footage. thanks...

Lovely. Thanks. Good for CMBN as well???

Any ETA on the AI version?

It's the short term patch at the cost of a long term solution. It smacks of either desperation or an implosion of some kind and is very reminiscent of the cutbacks and other events that took place as Britain's global power came to an end. Worrying re the future considering how belligerent China is being in the China Sea.

The guy with the pistol would usually have a bazooka/shrek, but IIRC sometimes it's not shown. So, you may have 3 shrek rounds and 2 AT rifle grenades. (But then, I think I read somewhere that there are no shreks in CMFI??)) In which case the previous posters may be correct. (I read the dam manual again about this, and of course as usual no help there.)

I thought units could acquire binoculars from fallen comrades in CMBN. Was I hallucinating (again)? What about radios?