Erwin

I don't really have an argument re that Jon. I was simply pointing out that "auftragstaktik" is not a tactic, but a philosophy. So, it should not be blamed for the Axis losing when it was clearly misapplied. I am sure there were plenty of Germans of all ranks who figured out that the Allies had figured out that the Germans would immediately counterattack and therefore set a trap... I'll bet they were overruled by senior CO's who had become hidebound with rigid rules - like the Allies were at the start of the war. My take is that to some extent the Axis and Allies sorta reversed roles.

+1. If we're going to have feathers for Bersegliari... At least make a mod possible.

+1 to Vinnart's idea re a covered arc that can be adjusted by simply clicking on and moving with the mouse, instead of having to redo it everytime. Actually, there is little need for that whole yellow 180 degree graphical overlay at all for an arc that is simply trying to direct attention in a particular direction - an arrow or similar pointing graphic would be sufficient. The only reason to have the yellow arc overlay is when you are defining a very specific area to control/limit what the unit will fire at.

This is the closest you will get to an early war mod for a long time if ever: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105086

This is awesome. Heading over to CMMODS to d/l now. Will take a while to try em out though. Am in BB10 tourny and still have to do setup for scenario 3, and so many other games to complete, plus I'll be traveling till end of July. But, this is really appreciated and I look forward to some SeaLion (and early war) games when I get back! PS: I know that when you split a CM1 squad during a game they take a morale hit. However, do they take a morale hit if they are split in the editor? Do they take a morale hit if you split squads during the initial set-up turn?

"Auftragstaktik" as a concept should not be confused with a tactic (immediate counterattack) that worked for the Germans at the start and then stopped working later in the war. That "Subordinates should be kept aware of the intentions of their superiors so that if circumstances change they can adapt their conduct to them -- even if that means altering, or in extreme cases ignoring, their superior's orders, and that in the absence of orders subordinates should try to act in accordance with said superior's intentions." is not a tactic. The fact that the Allies learned to use the German SOP of immediate counterattack against them, and the Germans kept on making the same error could be explained by their increasingly slavish "obedience to orders" that became ever more prevalent as the war continued and the troops became less experienced due to attrition of the initially highly trained troops. I see no argument in the above article or comments against the concept of "Auftragstaktik".

+1 to Ranger's comments. The addition of the Brits and NATO makes it even more fun, especially the scenarios where you have a mixture of those units as they have widely varying capabilities.

I know that when you split a squad during a game they take a morale hit. However, do they take a morale hit if they are split in the editor? Do they take a morale hit if you split squads during the initial set-up turn?

The above may be true as I notice how ever since CMSF all HQ's tend to have the same attributes. In CM1, you have a much wider mix. You'd have HQ's who gave +2 morale (great for assaults; +2 Command (great for recon); +2 for fighting etc... It really made a difference that was easy to see. Even the squads could be armed with different weapons that could be more or less effective. I was hoping that designers would do the same for CM2. Instead, nrearly all scenarios tend to feature cookie counter units and HQ's which results in a lot less variety (or no variety at all) and that is less fun. Is it harder in CM2 to create squads or HQ's with different ledership values or weaponry (even simply ammo load-out)?

People report on these forums, however, that the small circular arc (or any short range arc) used for the purposes of creating an ambush, does not appear to work as enemy have reportedly walked right up to them and killed em while your guys are still holding fire. If this is accurate, it is a puzzle, since the arc/ambush method worked very well in CM1.

Maybe it's just I had to learn how to handle squads with no HQ due to the no HQ replacements bug after the massacres in the School of Hard Knocks scenario etc. But, vs the AI at least, I had little or no problems. So, I guess tactics that mitigate the loss of an HQ can be improvised.

I pretty much followed your proposed plan as outlined above except for one big exception: I conducted the road clearing as completely separate from the RHS village assault and clearing. I didn't see any reason to wait for the village clearing b4 advancing to Hill 54. (You could put down to impatience since the road troops would have done little else but sit and wait for an hour while the village was cleared. And I found the Taliban arty to be quite deadly if they could see me. Re sending inf over the bridge, it seemed to me that I could have taken a lot more casualties if they had come on a minefield, gotten barraged by the quite effective enemy arty, or got blown up by an IED that for all I knew was at the end of the bridge. Seems to me you are using your designer knowledge of where the minefields and IED's were placed to come up with your "ideal plan". I would have put IED's/mines at either end of the bridge so they were impossible to avoid. I think that the loss of a vehicle or significant inf (since the ANA squads cannot be broken down into smaller teams) is unavoidable (other than by luck) since a player has no idea where minefields and IED's are located. So most initial ANA losses were from arty. Then I lost a couple entering the Hill 54 building since a couple enemy were in the bottom floor. More ANA losses incl one BTR came from a regular firefight with enemy both blocking the way to the Hassan Hamlet as well as from the left of the road. Then I thought I had done well advancing an ANA platoon on the left of the road almost to the ridge, when the Taliban attack came out of the canyon, surprised and killed my German Recon team which was sent there just to see if there was anything there. (They did their job. Not sure how I would have found out about that attack had they not gone in harm's way.) Surprisingly, even with the Marders, 50 cal and other heavy fire, the Taliban seemed able to fire back accurately and inflict maybe 10 casualties including the 2nd BTR on my left of road platoon at 200-300 meters range. Seemed like the Taliban were rather elite or something. After that, I sent the Germans over to the left of the road and the Taliban attack was massacred as I reported earlier with no loss to the Germans. Of course I want to continue despite my current Tactical Win. I have to decide how to winkle out the last surviving members of that attack without suffering any more friendly casualties. Then I can get on top of the ridge where the Taliban FO was KO'd. And hopefully spot and kill anything else around the Hamlet and Farm. Since I had no idea if the ford I can use after clearing the RHS village has mines/IED's, plus the trees/orchard has irrigation trenches that could hide anything, it seems that it is taking at least another 30-45 minutes to make sure there are no enemy hiding there. Quite scary and dangerous operation. If I had waited for the Strykers and inf to get past the orchard and start up towards Hill 54, before getting across the bridge, I would be almost 2 hours into the scenario. As a scenario that is fun to play, it is hard to have 2/3 to 3/4 of ones force just sitting around behind the initial hills (need to do that cos of the enemy arty) doing nothing until the right flank is secure. (It is pretty easy to suppress/KO the HMG on Hill 54, but after that, there is nothing to do other than try and get across the bridge, and deal with the ambushers in the irrigation ditches to the left of the bridge. I think I am still not experienced enuff in handling AK-equipped ANA troops as the Taliban seem to be better shots than the ANA.

These youngsters never do, lol...

Biimey. I don't even recall an "Ambush" command in CMBB. And am playing a CMBB tournament right now, so will need to check it out.

I see your point re that. I was thinking more that in CM1 it was fun to KNOW that one had an outstanding platoon cos of its HQ that could be used for the most perilous missions. In CM2 generally, (I have found that in the game) all the units have become a lot more similar regardless of leadership. I liked the "diversity" of CM1 (including the fact that CM1 offered so many inf units that were armed in significantly different ways).

PT: I d/l all your scenarios as I know they will be xnt. But, maybe it's the fragmentation issue we're startig to talk about, but I have so many other games ongoing in CM1, CMSF, CMA as well as CMBN, I am too overwhelmed to start anything new. And all those games will probably go on the back burner when CMFI comes out... Am realizing that with the increased rate of proliferation of CM product I have to create a CM playing "policy" regarding what I will play and why and when. The folks here who say that they plan to hold off playing any new "family" of CM games until that family is fully patched, updated and all the mods are available so that they can enjoy the fully developed experience, rather than getting bored during the incremental improvements phase(s), are starting to make sense to me.

Also, what is the perceived difference between a squad with a good leadership rating vs being in command of an HQ with a similar rating? If you cannot perceive a diference, then it probably doesn't matter in most game situations. The example of having two squads just battling it out head to head I find extremely rare (in my games at least)... in fact to be avoided if at all possible in favor of fire and maneuver. As some of us noted when we lost HQ's in campaigns, there was no noticeable difference in the squads' performance in subsequent battles. Perhaps there is a statistical difference, but for a GAME, if you don't NOTICE a difference the feature is too subtle. HQ effects in CM1 was less subtle and hence the importance of HQ's was much more noticeable and therefore fun to manipulate in play.

Doesn't the upcoming upgrade include armor covered arcs as it was in the CM1 ancient days? So, this problem should be solved by that.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/07/starcraft-game-added-to-officer-training-curriculum-offers-realistic-leadership-simulation/

I miss the accurcy of cntrl left click to take one accurately anywhere on the battlefield. I find that in CM2 the accuracy is terrible so you pretty much always get taken where you don't want to go and it takes a lot longer to get to a desired location.

Yes, Michael, that's what I was trying to suggest. I am already going back and enjoying CMSF a lot as I know it's in its final form. And if it was made clear how we could contribute to Aris... Have contributed happily to others who volunteered their time to help improve the CM experience in the past. But as sb said, Aris graciously refused... (I hope Aris guy is on vacation. Makes me nervous that he vanished after the CMFI announcement.)

BF already in negotiations with the Beeb for the rights to CM: DALEK INVASION.

Just d/l'd it. Thanks...

Am pretty sure it was shot in the Brecon Beacons in Somerset as a cheaper stand in for Sicily. I recognize the stone wall...

I have always estimated that the various CM games have saved me thousands in games that I didn't bother buying cos CM was so much fun. Internally, I figure each game is worth around $250-$500 in equivalent value. When CM1 started and through the start of CMBN it's always felt like an intimate club where we overlook a lot of issues cos we know that BFC is a tiny publisher with limited capabilties, the cost of the games was well below their value, and no one else was publishing anything comparable. Most of us didn't mind being beta testers as we waited for the improvements to happen and make releases like CMSF to get debugged and finally become a terrific game. Now that we're facing "familes" of games each with upgrades/modules/updates that we will be paying for on a regular basis, the cost of each new game will probably approach their real value ($250-$500). However, once that happens, BFC should expect to be judged more critically on what comes out of the box, rather than on how wonderful the product will be in a year or two after volunteer modders have done their amazing work for free, and after the patches and upgrades etc are finally produced. I have always pre-ordered and have been happy to give BFC my money. But, from an enjoyment POV, I start to see logic in waiting till a "family" is complete and patched and all the mods are available. It would be great to enjoy the full experience, instead of being fed marginal improvement tidbits over a long period, so that by the time the game is in its final polished state and fully modded, one has gotten bored by it. BF has a good biz model so long as the milpro grogs are in sufficient number to sustain the company finacially, as I wonder re the staying power of players who are simply looking for entertainment.