Erwin

I found the 81mm mortars to be ineffective in killing ATG's. Most need to be killed through direct fire. Setting up that situation - ie making sure the gun is pointing away from your tanks is the trick.

The other issue is that as in the first scenario there seems only one reasonable plan to follow. I used engineers to blast vehicular holes in the bocage on the right flank and sent a couple Co platoons and 2 Panther and 2 MkIV's towards the large buildings to the right - expecting them to be defended. They were surprisingly not. (I suggest placing at least an MG, sniper, AT team or squad in those large buildings if only to slow down the German player.) But once again, only having one clearly superior axis of advance limits replayability. I did send my recon units to check out the left flank approach and as I feared it was easily covered by an AT gun which promptly KO'd a Puma. Two or three 81 mortar attacks on the gun failed to KO it which wasted time and shells - most irritating even when shells were landing a few feet away from the gun. So, in the end, direct tank fire accounted for all 3 of the guns. After that I was able to move a Panther and PzIV supported by a squad along the left flank simply to deal with the enemy mortars behind the church and infantry in that area. Lost maybe 10 casualties and a Puma vs 50+ US plus 3 ATG's and a couple mortars. Given the fact that I didn't not use Co 2 at all, I wonder if I should have chosen the SPLIT forces option earlier. BTW: "The suspicion was that while 'slow' gave you fewer boggings and immobilisations per turn that 'fast', you actually ended up with more boggings per unit distance travelled, and so to get from A to B, a fast move would actually give you the greatest chance of getting there unbogged." I find this untenable as a simulation of RL since tracked vehicles were created largely to move through the mud etc where wheeled vehicles bogged regularly.

Pretty good Peckinpah movie for its time. One of the first to show real T-34's (shot in some eastern Soviet country).

(WEGO Warrior) Completed the 2nd scenario and it was as much fun as the first, and quite different. Game auto ended with a few turns left. Won a Tactical Victory, but I thought I did better and have no idea what the US did to get a 500 point bonus. Issues: I chose earlier to concentrate my forces and go for the village rather than the woods scenario. However, the 2nd inf company was wasted. While I used all the armor for support, the 2nd company was basically left sitting in the rear while 1 Co did the entire job. I don't think the map is large enuff for 2 companies of inf and I would have probably suffered unnecessary casualties just cos there would be so many extra targets for the US. It may be wiser to split ones forces when one is asked. However, due to excessive bogging of the armor, it would be a lot harder to win with half the number of tanks. Re Bogging... Caution: One can QUICK move wheeled vehicles all over the place in wet conditions and I don't recall ever seeing one bog. Tanks, esp German on the other hand, bog and get immobilized so often that you would think that nations would have abandoned tracked vehicle designs and converted everything to wheeled vehicles since in CMBN they can safely speed anywhere in any wet condition. I use SLOW almost all the time now with armor, and there still seems to be a 30% chance of bogging/immobilization in any damp/wet conditions even on roads.

What is interesting is that Vulture's plan is almost exactly what mine was as well. This may unfortunately indicate that there is only one obviously sensible plan for this scenario - and that limits replayability. As a general feedback note to all designers, it would enhance your scenarios if there there appear to be at least two potentially good avenues of attack to take.

It's understandable. However, this probably explains why so many of us with "super-computers" bitch about CM2 performance. If we'd known... So, from your perspective what is wrong/inadvisable about using the utilities mentioned in the initial post here?

It's also a question of time. Every click is a piece of time. So if the default were what one wanted, in this case to auto-deploy, one would save all the time one spends ordering "deploy." In the scenario I am playing now I have 4 HMG's and moving them around and then ordering deploy is just one more piece of unnecessary irritation.

1) If you know there are inf there and you have arty, use that first. 2) Try recon with a couple of guys. It's harder for the enemy to spot 2 guys than a squad, so they may be able to sneak up. 3) If distances re not great try using SLOW with frequent waypoints and PAUSE commands each for 20 secs to a minute to see if you get a generic enemy icon at least. 4) Try to locate the end of his line so you can concentrate forces to roll up his defense along the line/flank rather than towards it. (But, then you are a an experienced player, so you probably do all that.)

I hope so, Phil. Being able to fully utilize the power of our systems is pretty important as CM2 continues to be a resource hog. I am still in shock at the news that Ram over 2GB is basically useless with CM games. That is really true is it?

Lessons (I) learned: 1) If an AT gun starts shooting at any tank, no matter how powerful, best to reverse it out of enemy LOS. Even those US 57mm can be deadly vs a Panther mantle (doesn't seem like it should, but...) 2) I found the 81mm barrage to be ineffective in killing the AT gun in the foxhole. Bit, of a shock as I had the spotter only a couple dozen yards away in the trees, and the fire was pretty accurate.

If all this does is enable more that 2 GB ram to be accessed when using 64 bit Win 7, can that be doing harm to CM? I was shocked to realize that CM can't utilize my 6GB. So, all those players who talk about their 8+GB ram are getting no benefit over 2GB??!!

Other designers have dummy scenarios in which you have to move the single unit on a small map to one of two nearby zones (A or and then ceasefire as a way of choosing plan A or B.

I learned in this and the subsequent scenario that with damp/wet ground one has to move tanks SLOW to lessen bogging chances - even on roads. It's weird that I have yet to see a wheeled vehicle going QUICK across country bogging, but it happens to tanks frequently. Isn't it supposed to be the other way round - as in that's why tanks have treads and not wheels??!

Are we certain that the game system does not calculate things as if all the men were in the foxholes? What we see could be simply a graphical abstraction.

Hope you saved the previous turn. Then you could go back and see what would happen if you drive at top speed thru the building - maybe the momentum will carry the tank thru(?)

I also like Phantom's idea of using scripted scenarios with choices to locate a hidden base. It would have to be very well written, however. For example, one would gain varying levels of intelligence depending on the outcome of each scenario, and that would inform your choice re what to do next. eg: Am liking the Hoffnung campaign script as not only does one have to decide which direction to go at the end of some scenarios, but also whether to split forces or stay concentrated. I don't think the concept of using CMBN's ability to provide campaign choices at the end of a scenario has been done before so would take a lot of planning and testing.

For what it's worth I use a Truck mod (I think from Aris) that includes a red cross version graphic. It's fun.

Tried it, and yes it seems that a 2nd CMBN game won't load on my machine either. Maybe install a 2nd game elsewhere on your HD and try?

I would also add to an "exercises in frustration" list the complexity of a LOS tool that often does not tell you what your gun can fire at, only what ammo bearer #3 may be able to see. What's the game purpose of that sort of useless info when all one really cares about is whether your gun can shoot at the target right in front of it?

I can run CMSF and CMBN at the same time. Haven't tried two CMBN's I have to admit.

I agree with winkelried on this one. Firstly, in CM1 it was very easy to create and play large scale scenarios on huge maps (I think 4000m x 8000m was the max). My oppos and I almost exclusively played with multiple battalions of inf plus a company or two of armored vehicles on each side. Recon vehicles had an important role. (And if you want to try that size, Band of Brothers still runs CM1 tournies that cater to large engagements.) BF wanted to go in another direction and design CM2 for smaller engagements. And that's fine. However, many of us never liked infantry-centric scenarios even in CM1. So, for those of us who loved the huge scenarios of CM1 with lots of room for maneuver and mobile/armored battles, CM2 is not as much fun. CM1 is still unsurpassed as a large scale maneuever/armor-centric game, while CM2 is magnificent as a small-scale urban/MOUT and infantry-centric game. Thank goodness we have both to choose from as there is something for everyone.

It's possible that your system cannot handle two CMBN programs running at the same time? CM2 is a LOT more of a resource hog than CM1.

Totally agree. One needs far larger maps (without too much cover) to use recon vehicles properly.

At that point a huge alien spaceship descended, crushing the 351st SStrudel Field Kitchen unit that had just set up in the field. "Damn", said Steiner, "I was looking forward to their special Bratwurst and Saurkraut for lunch. War is hell." Then he noticed the huge Swastika on the alien craft. The door opened and Herr Professor Wanker (designer of the famous Wanker engine) strode purposefully out...

Having completed scenario 1, I agree. This seems to be the most sensible route of attack. I also agree that one the smallish (compared to CM1) maps in CMBN, recon vehicles are a liability so close to enemy positions. They may be useful later as support when the inf have cleared any AT assets. Designers should provide inf recon teams instead. ***SPOILER ALERT*** I dismounted the two 234/1's and used the crew as foot recon. One team along the central woods/road route (found an AT gun) but lost 2 crew, and even though they reoccupied their vehicle that 234/1 was missing in the 2nd scenario, so there is a risk when using dismounted crews. The 2nd crew went along the side of the factory near the map edge and located some enemy there that my inf plus HMG's were able to deal with. With the Panthers covering the central area, I sent a couple Pz IV's south of the factory and that helped clear out those buildings with maybe 6 or so inf casualties.