Erwin

I love the scenarios and maps PT. The first 2 missions I played seem eminently winnable with good tactics and being careful. But, as I mentioned, it's the time constraints that are the primary challenge. I hate replaying scenarios just to get through, so it's great that one doesn't have to. But, it's still frustrating to feel that one is being beaten by the clock rather than the enemy. There is no sense of urgency in the briefings, so a sensible CO would go slow and careful since preserving men was a primary consideration for the Brits who were running out of inf reserves (having already been decimated by WW1). I think the Brits need to be played like Allied forces in CMSF. The US was "famous" for being more profligate with casualties. The Brit scenarios should reflect that difference. I do not recall having a similar time crunch when playing the US in CMBN base. I think you may have the national "characteristics" the wrong way round. Otherwise I really appreciate all your work, PT!

Am enjoying the Brits, but it hasn't made a significant difference to the game other than graphically (and of course the tech improvements are very welcome). I don't experience the differences from the US as much as you seem to. One gets used to playing with depleted US squads, so in terms of firepower it's not a discernable difference. CW simply adds some different looking tanks and APC's. Having flamethrowers and the abillity to ride on tanks would have been "a significant improvement." Maybe the Enfield has a longer accurate range than the Garand so the Brits could stay back further? Not that useful in the relatively short ranges we see in CMBN.

I have to say... the installation of CM2 is now SO much easier than before. Thanks BF! And also for the ability to use 4GB Ram. Finally we can play larger scenarios easier.

Would appreciate help re a C2 issue that just cropped up in the CW German Campaign re 81mm on-map mortars. The mortars have a section HQ and the section HQ has a Heavy Weapons platoon HQ. At first I moved the section HQ to a spotting position while the Platoon HQ sat beside the mortars. However, after several minutes I noticed that the mortars had no C2 to the platoon HQ a couple meters away even though one sees the symbols for sight and voice contact. The Section HQ which was with the frontline troops had no connection to the mortars at all, so can't use em. Next I swapped the HQ's positions, so the section HQ is now right next to the mortars while the platoon HQ ran to the frontline. After a couple minutes of sitting in position, the platoon HQ still has no contact to the mortars. (I think there is is now C2 between the mortars and the Section HQ.) If it's a connection issue, how long do I have to wait for the platoon HQ to have C2 to the mortars. If it's something else, what is going on and how does one get C2 to the mortars? Presumably, I should not have to move the mortars close to the frontline, just to maintain C2(?).

The only way to be sure you're getting the "best/your favorite" sounds is to use the Rezexplode tool and manually compare em one by one. They are all named, so it's easy... but very time consuming.

Please complete the scenario PT... If you don't, the terrorists win... If people don't want to watch a certain TV show or movie... then plz DON'T... Let the rest of us live our own lives. Thanks...

I think I understand how the C2 system is supposed to work. And it's a great idea "in principle". My question is what is the POINT of knowing that my Co HQ is in C2 with Bn HQ, when all I really care about is the C2 status of my combat troops (or their HQ's ability to get arty)? It's the same frustrating detail as having the third loader seeing the target, but not the gun itself being able to shoot at the target. Who cares about the third loader? If the gun/tank/whatever automatically moved to get to a firing position thanks to the third loader's spotting ability THAT would be useful. What useful game functions do these esoteric details serve? Otherwise, they are merely details for detail's sake, but with no gameplay enjoyment enhancement.

Very good advice. But, I agree that (for any nationality) any AT asset should be split off and kept relatively safe a few dozen meters back with the platoon HQ and 2" mortar until either are needed. Also, (for any nationality attacking) I'll split off a recon team from a third to two thirds of my squads for recon. 2 guys are harder to spot and can hide easier. And you want a bunch of teams to spot enemy assets asap. And of course always split into Assault and Support teams and move em separately supporting each other. And always beg designers to put in more time. They test their own scenarios and 3rd party testers often know the designer's tricks... So, it's not surprising that they can accomplish goals in shorter time limits. The fact is you never know if the scenario has been designed by someone who has an ambush planned if you move more than a few meters from set up positions, or if you'll have to cover half the map to find an enemy. So, that means you have to be cautious right from the start - regardless if the briefing tells you to "move quickly" to do whatever... Take pity on the disabled non-psychic players. Beg for MORE TIME...

"When I played this mission, I had plenty of time to do a quick and dirty recon before launching my attack and I usually got a surrender well within the official time limit." Um... you wouldn't be the scenario designer would you? (Cos that could be described as "a conflict of interest" lol.) I don't remember Hasrabit anymore, but Dinas was and is wonderful. Am stuck at "Where Farmers Dare" as for some reason I started to get weird text descriptions of the units - just like what was happening in CMBN until the "Animated Text" mod was updated. I have to try and get rid of the Animated Text mod from CMSF and see if that solves the problem. What is strange is that when I restarted the previous CMSF scenario to check if I had inadvertently buggered up my Z folder before starting "Farmers", there was no problem. The problem seems to be specifically with the "Farmers" scenario. Was that map/scenario designed with a different version of CMSF I wonder? Coming back to the CW campaign: I have learned that sometimes you can move a few meters and get ambushed and sometimes, you can move halfway across the map before encountering the enemy. It depends on the designer. The other annoying item are briefings that tell you to "Move swiftly..." to do whatever. Yeah right... How many of us have found that "moving swiftly" just runs us into nasty enemy ATG's? I do not trust briefings that tell me to move fast, or that "the enemy has no tanks and is demoralized and have all but given up, all you need to do is run an unarmored jeep into the victory location to win" or similar instructions... We have all been burned by that nonsense. While YOU may be an honorable honest designer who doesn't give false info in the briefings, unfortunately there have been enuff (esp CM1) designers who deliberately mislead. And I think that the commander in the field, unless he is a green incompetent moron would also be more careful with the lives of his men than to do what the briefings sometimes tell one to do. The problem is that to be "smart" you have to assume that the enemy has keyholed ambush positions a few meters ahead of your units (as I recall in dismay in the otherwise fun CMA "The Road of All Fears"). But, that means a lot of cautious movement with scouts. And that takes time. And I still have the CMSF philosophy of minimal casualties - even though sometimes in CMBN it doesn't seem possible... With the smaller maps and closer ranges it's easy to lose a lot of units very fast with one error. (And that error may not even be the player's fault, but the game system screwing with you, like weird pathing that doesn't make sense etc.) Hence caution is ALWAYS called for. And hence my plea for more time, please...

When you're up against sniper types, 45 mins is way too short for this scenario. One needs time to do recon and spot the enemy. Instead, in both scenarios 1 and 2 one is forced to play almost like a wrist twitch game. Maybe this campaign is designed more for RT play? That's fine, but if one wants more of a simulation experience...

Is this updated from the one yesterday. The posted text looks identical so not sure if worth d/l as well.

Your sentiments and sensitivity are admirable. But, I think that barn door has long been opened. Look at all the other "shooters" that cover the same or similar subjects. Call of Duty, Arma and many others come to mind. CMSF was created prior to any Syrian problems. It isn't cashing in on a tragedy. It doesn't feature civilian contractors. And it's bloody hard to kill civilians in the game (we've all tried). There are those who would say that simulating WW2 is also in bad taste and many think there is something wrong with wargamers such as are found on these forums. (And yes, we know there is something wrong with a few lol.) For the above reasons I can't be in your camp on this. Next we'll want to not simulate or make movies about Vietnam which was a lot more bloody, and a lot more civilians got killed. Mogadishu?

The problem I found is the 2nd mission if you lose the use of the tanks and have beat up inf. I had one Churchill left that had a damaged MG and no HE shells. So was effectively useless. A bit surprised that the game system even gives one a tank like that. Also was disappointed to be thwarted by the game system. At one point I was certain there was a gap in a hedge to get to a building from a covered direction. But, instead my 7-8 guys ran around the house and of course all KIA (natch). Even if one knows what to do tactically, this trying to figure out if there is a gap or not in hedges is not entertaining and serves no purpose other than frustration. Also, it seems that 2 beat up platoons of inf are no match for a few SS troops. Lost 4-5 guys from snipers I never even saw in the first few turns. Now, I LOVE that finally we have snipers that are good. But, just feels like the Brits/Scots really do not have enuff to carry on, unless one can complete Mission 1 with both tanks intact and HE and MG's functioning, and/or minimal inf casualties. Even though I won Mission 1, I really don't feel like replaying it just to get an even better result. Life's too short. Hope the German campaign is a bit more fun.

Saw thos at BoB and can't believe this hasn't already been posted here, but just in case... https://sites.google.com/site/cmx2tankvtanktests/

Great video... our tax dollars at work lol. Now I understand why we're not doing too well in Af'stan.

Have been asking for cattle and hookers as well. Sadly... At least how about a red light brothel? That would be a scenario worthwhile to fight on surely...

I have PC. Every time the Churchill fired the turret returned to align with the hull (to reload I guess). Then it turns the turret to the target to shoot etc...

I bin knocking out bunkers fine as well... Haven't experienced the above problem at all. Must be a tactical issue.

It's unclear to me which is v2 as there have been a couple threads about this mod and they are not labelled. Can you indicate which d/l is the correct one plz.

excellent...

I had something nasty a couple weeks ago. The worst part is that you think you're better... and then it hits you again. So, if you have whatever that was, take care when you "feel better."

Did they say "Fire For Effect" in WW2 anyway?

In most situations my SOP is to break 2/3 of the squads so each has a scout team and send the scouts out like ants to find important enemy positions. Although it sound like a good idea to keep the rest of the squads close enough behind for backup and C2, I now believe this to be a tactical error. So many times the enemy may spot your scouts and as you bring up the rest of the platoon, they walk into an arty barrage. So, I now believe that in the GAME, it is better to let the 2 man scout units wander off way ahead of your main force - maybe keep em in pairs, so if one scout team suddenly dies, the other team may be a witness. I rarely worry about C2. The effects are so subtle (as with "snipers" etc) that I do not perceive any discernible advantage most of the time. I do make an effort to keep my main assault force in C2 as they need every advantage they can have - but it is very possible to handle leaderless platoons quite well.

After the Churchill fires, the turret rotates back to align with its hull, and then rotates again to shoot. I also think I saw that the turret does not rotate towards the covered arc the way it should as the tank moves.

Assault is "Fast". Hunt is moving carefully.