Erwin

Thanks for all the lovely work. BTW: Do the buildings gradually degrade after being shot at? Also, the only other thing that I still notice is the unrealistically straight and clean line where the building base meets the ground. Is there any way to make that rougher to hide that line?

I agree. I think casualties is a better indicator of how well you are doing/have done than any Victory Level as well. I figure < 5% friendly casualties is good, >10% friendlies and you have effectively destroyed your own formation for future action (based on what I recall re historical stats).

The counter argument addresses the inherent gaminess of being able to coordinate an entire battlefield essentially instantly as if everyone is a perfect robot with no confusion, nobody misunderstanding orders, and none of the other variables of RL combat. In this respect many of us believe that having to plan at least 60 seconds ahead is one way to compensate for "God-like" powers.

In response: 1) It seemed like the stream of US reinforcements slowed/stopped in the last 5-8 minutes and I was able to get everyone thru then. However, since the briefing says avoid combat it's odd that points are awarded for killing US units. I thought this scenario was not that interesting as it involves waiting for most of the scenario. 2) I saved almost every turn, so if someone wants to see what I experienced... 3) Sounds like a good idea. 4) Haven't tried the robbery scenario, so can't comment. But, if an AT gun is needed, your rationale seems good. Not sure why you'd remove a squad. 5) I would put more landmarks on all your maps (except for hidden objectives). It makes it a lot easier to understand the briefings and to explain to other people what one is doing. 6) I did exactly the same thing and felt I was "cheating." Winning by hugging the map edge to avoid the enemy is not that much fun. Hope you can make improvements as this campaign has potential. It's quick to play cos there are so few units, but one has to be very careful as there are so few of Gerber's men. I still suggest they be made Crack so it's a bit easier for them to use good tactics to win and overcome the enemy with fewer casualties.

Glad you have forsaken the darkness and returned to the light, grasshopper...

If you HAVE to get a laptop even tho' the video cards etc are NOT as powerful as the equivalent desktop hardware (nVidia adds an "M" to the end of their vid cards to differentiate the slower laptop versions from the desktop version with teh exact same number): I have an intel core i7-2720QM @2.2GHz (3 point something running as single core), 8GB RAM, 64 bit, 295M card and 240GB SSD. The SSD is important as it runs software appreciably faster than a conventional HD. Seems to run CMBN about as well as my desktop.

Wodin: I would research that first. I read that over 1GB of Video Ram can be a waste (depending on the exact software etc) and that it's largely a marketing ploy.

Ok, thanks...

CMBN simulates material being stolen for sale on the black market. Friggin amazing level of detail!

So, this issue is also related to the problem that neither Co and Bn HQ's, nor their XO's will "take over" and provide C2 when a platoon HQ is KIA (in the campaign I played at least)? Is this phenomenon only in campaigns? (I can't recall losing any HQ's in scenarios yet.) It doesn't spoil the game for me, as am learning how to fight effectively and win without C2.

Interesting. Will these work with CMBN (or CMA)?

"All those pesky people. I can think of quite a few poeple the world would be better off without. Maybe we could corral them all somewhere useless, then nuke them all in one go." Careful... That's probably what our beloved superrich top 1% are thinking about the rest of us 99%.

Am now playing a 2nd campaign in which a platoon leader is KIA (the other 2 guys in the HQ are fine), but in the next battles, the HQ unit (which received no replacements so still with 2 guys) does not provide any C2 to its platoon. It doesn't stop me completing and winning battles, but my understanding is that in subsequent battles of a campaign, the HQ unit should once again be able to provide C2. Is this an issue with campaigns, or my system, or...?

However, not quite in the same league as Vark. Please try again. Practice makes purrfect.

The problem is (if you read some other threads) is that becasue CMBN is such a resource hog compared to CM1, anything larger than what would be a medium sized map and scenario in CM1 gives most players' machines problems. (See "Fire brigade" and "Omaha Beach".) CMBN seems designed to depict smaller scale engagements than CM1. And it is a lot better at depicting urban warfare. However, many of us miss the largescale armor and maneuver-dominated engagements of CM1 so it's certain that CM1 will be with us for a loooong time.

I suspect that the rocking comes from a tank braking hard after running FAST - I've seen plenty of video of that. Perhaps BFC did not change the effect for a slow moving vehicle. However, I would hate to think that some other feature that would have enhanced gameplay was cut just to get this eye candy effect. Great graphics and eye-candy are wonderful for PR and marketing. But, after a short time playing they become irrelevant as gameplay value and enjoyment become the critical issues.

I think you got it right. The larger CM1 maps enabled much larger scenarios that allowed for a lot more maneuver. Most CMBN scenarios are small by comparison and feel like straight up assaults where you cannot do much flanking. Arty is a lot more deadly in that situation.

If you also run XP rather than Vista or Win 7 that would help. With the newer OS's one really needs 4+ GB Ram.

Played the (strange) scenario 4. It's pretty easy to wait until there are a few minutes free of enemy units and race under the bridge to safety. And it's rather boring - not worth the small amount of effort to get Gerber's units to safety. I only got a Minor Victory. The briefing is pretty clear about avoiding combat as one would be soon overwhelmed. However, there are points awarded for killing the enemy convoy, so rather contradictory... The inf run under thr bridge fine, but it's disconcerting to see the vehicles pop up on top of the bridge momentarily as they run underneath. This is a scenario in which knowledge of enemy LOS capabilities is important, and therefore one is playing the game system more than using good tactics. So I did not like this scenario in its current form. I think this would be better if it were part of a larger scenario in which one does have to do a bit of fighting to get to the exit. Maybe a fighting retreat/delaying action so that the majority of Gerber's foce escapes? At the start of Battle 4 I found the briefing to be confusing as several locations mentioned in the briefing are not named on the map. The briefing also says that the tanks will arrive in 5 mins. But, all Gerber's units including the tanks were already on the map. Given how how few inf I have left not sure that I want to play on until improvements are made. Hope this all helps.

That's what I figured. Thank you...

Looking forward to trying this out. Thank you.

Ok, thanks. If anyone has "Punitive Express" please let us know... Maybe they could make it available.

Like Wodin I am also not familiar with CM2 QB's. Are these QB's good vs the AI, or are scenarios better? Is the only diffference between a scenario and a QB that you have to purchase units for the QB?

I missed the earlier posts on this and I couldn't get the d/l links to work. Where are these scenarios available now? Thanks...

If CM modeled kickboxing, we'd be arguing about whether one side was using the correct style for their school of martial arts, so plz no...