Erwin

They probably didn't bother making alt graphics for the new tanks - leaving that to modders like Aris. The Shermans probably use the same alt graphics as in the base game.

Is that what CM:"CW" really stands for?

Appreciate the work. However, the front camo version makes the helmet a strange shape - almost like StarWars rebels' helmets.

Your mod is as important to the UI as Aris' vehicles and guns are to the look. Thanks for all your work.

Yes, I am still seeing this issue in CW games. Definitely with the Gemans, can't recall if I saw it with CW troops. Try it...

If the section HQ AND the platoon HQ have no radios (as I think is the case in KG Engel) then all members of the chain have to be in visual or shouting range of the next link? Or, is it a question of (say) placing the KG CO Engel who does have a radio (or the halftrack) with the mortars and then using one of the HQ's that does have a radio and can spot as a remote FO.

And don't forget that one of the best features is the variable ending. I think it's still similar to CM1 where if you have a close game you get extra turns. Hard endings can be gamed.

When you split squads into AT teams, you may get a two-man AT team (with the AT weapon) that has the regular inf symbol, and a larger 5-6 man support team (with no AT weapon), that has the AT symbol. I think this happens with the larger 9-11 man squads - not with the smaller squads.

Thanks... My example was from the German KG Engel campaign, and there is only one vehicle radio (in the halftrack). And that halftrack is towing the ATG, so it can't be sitting next to the mortars and HQ all day. Any idea if that was a deliberate limitation? I note that the Hvy weapons platoon section HQ has no radio either. So, am confused as to what you mean by "normal chaiin of command?" Does that mean that only HQ's with radios can spot for the on-map mortars, and only so long as the halftrack is close to the mortars? (Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but the C2 issues in CMBN are overly complex.)

Recon is an enjoyable and important part of the CM game. However, we now have a controversy over time limits, since to do recon well, you need more time than is usually allowed in CM scenarios. I can only assume that it's the RT players who believe that some scenarios are too easy when the time limits are longer. But, for us WEGO players the new CW campaign missions in particular seem a bit too short.

Yes, I agree with Peter P. I also like the accentuations. Thanks Aris! PS: Any chance you may have time to do the larger guns in CMBN base - eg: the German 76mm and 88mm series?

THE GAMERS cardboard games were a terrific group of series. They had a similar philosophy to BF. Re time limits, I wonder if the players who do well with the time limits are playing RT. As someone noted, WEGO is a lot tougher. Nothing wrong with that. But, how about the game description telling us if it was primarily tested in RT or WEGO so that the player knows what to expect (is better mentally prepared).

I thought by now, I understood it. But, why are my 81mm mortars that are sitting next to their heavy platoon HQ not in C2? Yes, the section HQ is far away and no C2 to or from him since he has no radio. But, shouldn't the senior HQ be able to give C2 to the mortars if he's on top of them? The symbols for visual and voice contact are present.

CMC was a CM1 project anyhow...

"What's the obsession with winning every single mission?" That's a good point PT and I agree with you there. It's probably a habit we get into playing computer games, esp shooters as you HAVE to win every mission to move forward. The great thing about CM is that one can have branches so that even if you lose, you can go on. It's great that it makes it possible to have a campaign where if you lose you get to play against greener/easier enemy, and if you win, the enemy gets (or stays) tougher. That has always been a Holy Grail of gaming. However, I think that all game descriptions should include telling the player if the scenario/campaign was designed/tested "primarily" for WEGO or RT as that also can make a huge difference. Same thing when players post their results/AAR's here. I suspect that the time constraint issue may be less of a problem in RT. But, in WEGO it can be really tough. It would be helpful to know what to expect, so one would be (mentally) prepared for a tougher fight in WEGO. One of the issues I had with Scottish Corridor is that if you lose your tanks in scenario 1, it appears impossible to continue too far. I may be wrong. But, I didn't want to play through several scenarios only to find that out and have to restart scenario 1. Has anyone lost their armor in scenario 1 and been able to continue and win the campaign?

I hope there won't be time limits and that it's not too hard... (Just kidding...) +1 to a German campaign from PT. I don't know why, but I find them a lot more fun.

"Battles are much MUCH slower than people think." That is absolute balderdash! Has it not been proven in every CMBN scenario that battles are only between 1-2 hours at most! Silly man...

Ok, yes, I do recall now that the crews had the same camo as the engineers. But, since the crews are mostly hidden doesn't that at least help ID the engineers for you - which I thought was the point.

It used to be that when you reverse a transport into an impassible bocage, the passengers may dismount on the far side of the bocage. (Haven't tried this on walls yet.) Was that fixed?

I am not sure how I did it with the mods, but I found all my engineers had a special mottled uniform, while my regular Wehrmacht guys had a mixture of SS and regular. So, it is possible to give the engineers specific uniforms, but I'd have to do a lot of checking to figure out why and how. It's possible that in the numbering of uniform alternatives, a certain number(s) applies to the engineers.

All well and good LLF... (And you know I love your work.) I think the issues arise from the designer's "style" of design. I suspect that the time problems arise in the first 25% of the time allowed. Some designers set nasty ambushes that will spring when your units move the first few meters. It goes all the way to the other extreme where the player has to move halfway across the map before encountering the enemy. In the first instance, a fast recon can lead to nasty casualties very quickly. In the second, a careful recon can take up 25%+ of the time before you see anything... and then there's a mad rush to complete the game in the time allowed. I think that is what is being experienced here, and what is behind the frustrations behind time limits. Sometimes briefings try and persuade you that you must "move quickly" for whatever reason. But, having been fooled many times before by misleading briefings, I am in the camp that expects an ambush in the first few meters and therefore tend to move slowly and cautiously from the start. If it was my life on the line, that's what I would do, and I treat my pixeltruppen with as much care as if it were me and my mother and beloved cat (especially the cat) on the map (usually). So, in my case, it seems that my initial caution and recon efforts are taking too much time, as you seem to be the sort of designer that keeps the enemy way back and one can take greater chances at moving quickly at the start. The odd thing is that I have never before experienced time problems with your previous designs PT. So, not sure what has changed with your CMBN works of art.

Ah... the famous "fail upwards" tactic lol.

Awesome work. ETA?

I was hoping you'd take the friendly hint to check out p195 for yourself.

I get a bit concerned when I see campaigns that resupply 100% or close between missions. Ammo conservation should be a critical element, and I think there is a tendency to create campaigns using the US tactic of shooting at everything, every contact etc. I wonder if that is what the players who manage to play within the time constraints do? I rarely get anywhere close to running out of ammo, and usually have tons left as my habit is to conserve ammo and I love the campaigns that do NOT resupply a lot. I also think that reflects the Brit and other nationalities' frugality. The German CW campaign says that ammo resupply is not a problem and you'll get 100% every battle. This worries me a lot as it is so ahistorical - the German lack of supply is legendary. Having so much ammo surely encourages the "shoot at every bush" mentality that was not a realistic tactic for the Germans or Brits (and at Norrnandy maybe not even the US) due to logistics problems (no port etc). If that is how one gets to win within the time constraints that I don't think that's a good design.