Erwin

This a repost of the one yesterday?

Is this an updated version of the one posted a couple days ago?

If one can do a Muj mod for blue forces, couldn't it also be done for Red? In CMA as well?

I am not a techie, but compatibility of maps has been ok in the past re CMSF modules.

Some power users have reported problems and some with lesser machines seem fine. So, it could be another issue. Component quality/compatibility? Settings?

Been many threads re using the otherwise mostly useless XO's and Support HQ's and 2IC teams as medics. Since medics are far more used than the above HQ units (I don't recall ever seeing an XO take over command of a leaderless platoon in any of my games), it may have been better to have them designated as medics.

ok, thanks...

I vaguely recall a Muj mod for CMSF. But, it's a few years(!) ago now.

Nice, but wish there was more detail/folds in the black tunic.

Nicely detailed. Thanks.

Nicely worn. Thanks.

I like the faded worn treatment you have done here.

Thanks again.

Gorgeous. Thanks.

Looks kinda like early war motorbike troops(?) Where was it used in Normandy?

Just curious if this is historical. I thought only the Marines had camo helmet covers.

Looks really good LLF.

And of course it depends on what you define as "challenging." Keeping your guys alive, minimizing casualties and ammo expenditure is very challenging especially in campaigns.

They do exist. You have to look in Repository.

Or an app... lol

Re the color blind issue, it is clear we will ALWAYS need a mod option for that.

The ease of being spotted and short life expectancy of ATG's has been often mentioned. Apparently, they get no cover from foxholes or trenches. We're supposed to place em further back in woods so that they can't be spotted so easily but can still see out. But, these exposes the "vagueness" of CM2 regarding exactly what terrain is a unit actually in, and indeed what can be seen. In CM1 we had charts that showed exactly how far into and out of cover LOS would extend. The "hide the ATG in woods" approach means that we again need that sort of info to be able to play CM2 well. And the the game system is designed to deny us that info. Another frustrating LOS example: An enemy tank had LOS to, and killed, one of my vehicles after seeing it across 500 meters of terrain that had trees in it (somewhere), through bocage with NO gaps (I checked), across a road, and through a 2nd bocage (this time with an inf gap) and then into yet more more trees where my vehicle was situated. My vehicle also saw this enemy tank and was attempting to fire back through the same arduous terrain. Ok you say, these sorts of fluke LOS situations happen and at least both vehicles could see each other. The problem is that the PLAYER (me) could not see any LOS after checking very carefully. If the PLAYER cannot see gaps in bocage and see any clear LOS when the computer can, this is very frustrating...

+2 for Vinnart's concept.

It depends on what kind of game experience you enjoy. An action-packed "Call of Duty" version or a slower experience in which keeping casualties low and therefore a lot of patience and care is paramount.

I always read that Tigers had "very slow" turrets compared to the Shermans. So, is the game portrayal accurate?