Erwin

Well clearly the west had an agenda in Libya, not so much in Syria. Couldn't be something to do with our oil that somehow got under Libya's sands?

So long as you don't split up full-strength squads, but use depleted ones. Esp if they have only rifles left.

I stand corrected. However, I think route viability depends on one's experience of bogging and immobilization. Since I experienced 30% of my tanks going out of action every scenario even when moving SLOW on roads, that definitely encouraged me to choose what seemed the shortest route with the least cross-country travel.

Excellent. What 's left? A few US guns and something I forget... Have to check the dealerships.

"Turkey sends forces into the border area of Syria..." Um, that IS an attack, so NATO treaty would not apply. Or, alternatively, Syria calls for Jihad vs the west and Iran, Sudan, Afghan, Egypt, even Jordan (the moderate govt falls) jihadists flood the area making the US invasion or Iraq and Afghanistan look like a walk in the park, not to mention a huge increase in terrorist acts vs the (very) vulnerable US and Allied interests around the world. Some people (think "W" and cronies) never learn...

Finally, a use for the excess plethora of "XO's" and "HQ Support" units... (and beat up squads).

I have noticed that Vulture has found almost the exact same attack plans as I used when I played these scenarios. That's a a bit of a shame as it implies only one logical course of action - and that limits replayability. Note to designers: Try and create scenarios where there are at least two equally possible attack plans.

Part of the problem is the dense trees and foliage. It's almost impossible to play without frequently turning trees off, and I wish we could also turns undergrowth off like in CM1 as it's often hard to see units (esp WIA) in the bocage as well. While I haven't experienced serious problems with the current system, there are several retrograde steps compared to the elegant CM1 abstractions and I do agree it does seem to pander to masochists who mistake "added difficulty of play mechanisms" for "added realism."

Did you make charts showing how many rounds/how long a barrage had what effect etc? That would be very useful.

Very Useful. Thanks.

If only I could get my terrain to look as good as the vehicles.

I think I am slow and methodical as well, but by using a lot of recon. So, nearly all my games follow a similar pattern, 66% slow recon to identify the enemy's key assets/dispositions, with all the action in the last 33% of the time available. I often feel I will run out of time, but usually I can win with time to spare. Sometimes it's rather boring when one wants action, but I have learned from the early days of CM1 never to rush into a mission.

Yes, love the game, but now so many other things to do...

I agree, the shell count is one of the more minor issues, and not hard to get to grips with...

Would still love to see what some of you have re video card color as well as 3D settings - esp nVidia.

I am finding that since there are so many variations (15 and 16) and they are assigned randomly that it's rare to see any two alike - at least not in the same platoon. So putting them together as 31 versions, one would be even more unlikely to see dupes.

I also get the sense that one sees less chance of damage when moving SLOW across obstacles - as it should be.

Trying to make things "perfect" like in RL is near impossible unless you have a gazillion dollar DoD project with dozens/hundreds of well-paid techies operating the simulation. This philosophy of "if we can't make it perfect we'll leave it out" is baffling for an entertainment game product. I can't think of a single poster here over the last years who said "I don't want flamethrowers unless the physics are exactly correct.")

That's the issue, I have that mod installed. But, I have so many possible nVidia settings I wonder if I just have the settings poorly optimized.

Excellent as always. Hope BFC hire you in some way. You deserve some filthy lucre for all this work.

The nice thing is, Mord, that one can mix and match faces from the Germans with the US to get the "look" one wants. So, very useful. Actually, not quite sure why you did two separate mods as opposed to "Dirty and Grimy Faces for either US or Germans." Is there some national difference? Also, I noticed that in CM1 we'd have mods that gave troops glasses. Is that possible in CM2?

Well, your unfiltered pic STILL looks better than my screen images. Either my grass and trees are too green or the vehicles look washed out, or it's too contrasty or it's all too bland and washed out... So, what settings do you use? (I have nVidia btw.)

Oh that's a cheat... Am disappointed as that is the look I really was hoping for in my games.

"...and "light intensity" (my quotes) so that if I destroyed the target with my first shots I could cancel the mission." That's a good idea I think I shall use in future. It is frustrating to have to order multiple Quick or even Short missions because the target is not hit or destroyed by the first mission, and then another time have it destroyed almost immediately while you watch another 20 rounds wasted (a problem esp in WEGO).

For what it's worth nearly all my boggings/immobilizations of tracked vehicles took place while I was moving them SLOW on roads. To have 20% of your tanks out of action in this way in each scenario of a campaign seems over the top. Hence my frustration. People say that they have fewer immobilizations by moving tanks QUICK or FAST offroad, but that doesn't seem right.