Erwin

Ok thanks. I already use it and really like it - helps with the immersion. Thank you for all your work!

Thought this was available some time ago. Is this a new version?

And for you serious guys out there, maybe this would be interesting: http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/ndu-roundtable-on-strategic-gaming-245/ NDU Roundtable on Strategic Gaming (May 24) The National Defense University’s Center for Applied Strategic Learning (CASL) is pleased to announce the seventh in its quarterly series of discussions with gaming practitioners on May 24. The Roundtable on Strategic Gaming will be held at the beautiful new United States Institute of Peace building at 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The CASL roundtable brings together gamers from the research, policy, defense, and academic communities in order to generate a professional dialogue in our field about issues relating to game design, the use of games for analytical and teaching purposes, and interesting projects in the field. Each roundtable invites a few speakers to present short, informal talks on some aspect of strategic-level games to spark discussion among the group. In the forthcoming session, speakers will discuss some of the ways in which gaming has been applied to peace and conflict issues. Peace and conflict studies often address areas (such as counterinsurgency, post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, humanitarian intervention, and crisis management) that are persistent challenges in the defense world as well. Given that, there will be something of interest/use to everyone in the gaming community in the presentations and the discussion that follows. In addition, we hope to use the roundtable discussion to gather input on what elements would be important to include in an introductory book on the development of games on peace and conflict issues. The book will be a project of USIP Press and represents a collaboration between USIP, NDU, and McGill University. Whether you are a longtime gamer or a newcomer to the field, your input on the book project will be extremely helpful. Please note that attendance is by invitation only, and limited to those with professional interest in the issues to be explored. Email me for an invitation ------------------------------------------------- Rex Brynen Professor Department of Political Science McGill University 855 Sherbrooke Street Montreal (Quebec) H3A 2T7 office: (514) 398-5075 home/office: (514) 457-9756 cell: (514) 575-7721 fax: (514) 457-8109 Skype: RexBrynen department webpage: http://www.mcgill.ca/politicalscience/faculty/brynen/ ICAMES: http://www.mcgill.ca/icames PRRN: http://www.prrn.org (Palestinian refugees) PaxSims: http://paxsims.wordpress.com (conflict simulations)

Interesting insight in how you move your guys Vinnart. (Also interesting is the additional role you found for Recon units.) In the game or RL, I always thought it best to leave the MG's in the rear for support, not on point. I worry that (assuming they are not Crack or Elite) that they'd spot the enemy at the same time they are spotted and they are not going to give a good account of themselves. But, since you find your tactic works (in CMSF at least) will try it...

That's an interesting idea... having 3 or more levels of intel or briefing details. Thanks for your summary of RL intel ops. However, as we all agree CMSF simply wasn't designed to simulate that aspect. Per your comments it's almost as if there really is no real world place in CMSF at all for Recon or Sniper units. The point I am trying to make is for the portion of players who want to have the most interesting and entertaining GAME that uses all the features of the CM2 system, it would help to have specialized units have special skills that are actually useful - hence my request to designers to make Recon, Sniper and possibly Engineer units have higher quality than the regular inf. It simply "feels" right to have one's Recon and Sniper units be able to spot the enemy first and take appropriate action first. My comments have little to do with the way RL is, cos 99% of the time we all know RL is boring, and this is an entertainment product. That does not mean to say that CMSF could not have useful training potential in very defined situations under instructor supervision. There are at least two distinct markets here: MilPro and entertainment. Obviously they won't be in agreement. But, so what? It's just a matter of taste and there should be plenty of scenarios for each.

US mirror working fine at this time.

+ 1 to that. "I take issue with the claim of some that CM1 some how better simulates combat than CMSF." +1 to that as well. I keep emphasizing that I am looking at CM1 and CM2 as GAMES and not as accurate portrayals of RL. CM1 had much more variety of units and within unit categories than CM2 and that makes it a more fun GAME for me (and many other fans who still play it a lot). What interests me is VERISIMILITUDE - the ILLUSION that one is playing a "realistic" game. So, I do like it to be "realistic." But, when I see an opportunity to make a game more ENTERTAINING while maintaining verisimilitude, my policy is to say "to hell with realism at that point." There are at least 2 major POV's represented in these forums who are big fans of the game. We will never agree on the above, but there is plenty of room for alternative scenarios that make both audiences happy - obviously just not the same version of a scenario at the same time. Group hug?

Yes, I am of course thinking about how CMSF could be more entertaining while maintaining its veneer of "realism" (verisimilitude) which is what CM1 did so brilliantly. Trying to make certain units stand out rather than all units seeming to be interchangeable is what I am getting at. I presume that in the armed forces they want units to be interchangeable for obvious reasons, but that is boring in a game. Like I said, 99% of the scenarios use cookie counter units. The ones I have loved the most gave an interesting mix which included making certain units crack or elite. I know this offends the milpro purists, but there should be room for other concepts. Making scenarios where Recon, Snipers and possibly Engineers are one or two levels better than everyone else would provide an enhanced gaming experience for many of us. Dietrich: Yes, in those cases it's not possible. But, your examples are a tiny minority of scenarios.

My assumption has been that an Elite® unit will see a lesser experienced unit first, enabling it to take appropriate action first. As a confirmed WEGO player this is really important as I don't have the luxury of "making a unit elite" through my own (hopefully) "elite level" reactions. And yes, I am primarily talking about Sniper and Recon units. Engineers are a gray area as they can't do their RL stuff in the game. But, they do have much better training so... maybe should be better for assaulting positions?? The fact that unless you cleverly position their BLAST waypoint so they stay outside of whatever they just breached, they will rush in thru the breach first. It's annoying to see them get mowed down when they do that. You'd think they would have better performance if that is their SOP.

You'll be happy to know that 99% of scenarios do that for you stikky. I only hope to encourage scenario designers to provide a few more that enable us to use those specialized units in a more interesting way. I love CM1 for its huge variety of inf units (all its units actually). CMSF has a cookie cutter feel to it. All units are the same (usually). By making Recon, Snipers and Engineers of higher caliber training/abilities I don't see what harm that does. But, in the very few scenarios where I have had a few Crack or Elite units, it's a lot of fun using them for specialized tasks. Ok, it's not realistic in the small tactical level of CM2. But as a lover of the operational feel of large CM1 scenarios, making these specialilzed teams Crack or Elite is one of the very few ways we can open up CMSF, and maybe get an "operational level feel ." Esp, if your goal is zero or minimal casualties - which imo is how CMSF should be played - which is a huge contrast to the almost unavoidable bloodbaths we experienced in CM1.

Oh, and I almost forgot, Steve. I will be on the road with a laptop that can't run CM2 until June. So, could you plz delay release till then. Thank you much.

drtechno - what time do you go to bed? It will be released just after that. (Best to not sleep for the next few weeks.)

Man, this sucks for you guys in Europe. I just got back a couple weeks ago and I would have been happy, well, not happy, but willing to take a couple suitcases of games over there to distribute just to avoid this ridiculous tax piled on tax. Maybe other folks are doing trips in the near future to EEC???

"It is also important to remember that we're not releasing "the perfect wargame", or even "the perfect game". There are no such things, therefore by definition there will be issues to raise here on this Forum. It's important to keep this in mind as we start in with the discussions that dissect and reduce a massive game down to a few bits and pieces for a particular topic of discussion. It's all too easy to get so wrapped up with the minutia and have that detract from enjoying the fullness of what the game has to offer. In all cases let's remember to keep criticism constructive, respectful, and within reason. It's important because that sort of feedback opens the door to improvements, while the opposite is harmful." Steve, I love you guys at BF. But, the time to downplay expectations was back in September 2010 when people went ballistic expecting imminent release. 2nd only to the entertainment value of the game itself (which I am certain will be up to BF's xnt standards), will be reading the apoplectic complaint posts regarding some tiny minutiae you got wrong (according to some obscure book no one ever heard of). I feel for you and hope you guys still have a good sense of humor and easily ride out the storm. I highly recommend a cruise to Tahiti or somesuch for the first couple weeks after release to allow for the heart attacks and brain aneurisms to degrade the loudest critics.

It sounds great. I am bummed that I will be on the road for a several weeks and can't play CM2 on my laptop.

Same thing with the Brits, but I find that to be part of the challenge. I agree that it's not fun to ALWAYS have a very tough time. I like campaigns that give the player an "enjoyable/easier" scenario or two along the way. Variety is the key. The one bridge to cross covered by IED's I already played so I think that is an earlier scenario in the Canadian campaign?? I may be getting confused. The scenarios do all start to feel the same/similar after a while. Which btw is a major reason I appreciate designers like you who take the time to create really unique and interesting scenarios with many decisions/options re how to proceed. Cookie-cuttter is death. (Please enjoy my ass-kissing while it lasts. I am usually known for the opposite, heh.) PS: You'll probably hate the idea... but as a matter of principle I am asking scenario designers wherever I post, that specialized units, esp Recon, Snipers, maybe Engineers as well, be given higher experience levels (to Crack) to simulate their higher training. I know CMSF isn't designed to sim the recon aspect of war per RL, but we still need to do it in the CMSF game scenarios, and these teams should be able to spot and either run and hide or get the first shots off b4 they are spotted. For those who hate this concept, fine, 99% of the current scenarios don't give these teams any enhancement - so be happy. But, I don't believe I am alone in envisaging making specialized teams actually special in this way as a means to increase the entertainment value of this wonderful game.

Yes, also currently it's time consuming and irritating to have to do 180 degree arcs. While the 360 degree arc is interesting, I find the 180 degree arc is needed far more times, and it was great in CM1 to be able to create those so quickly. I also wish the arc wasn't so bright yellow. It often obscures the terrain and acts as comouflage. I frequently have to turn the arc on and off to check what is in it. Another time-consuming and irritating chore.

Yes, I agree with you. But, unless they are given some bonus for training, the difference between specialized teams and regular troops is too subtle in CMSF (and CMA) imo. Hence my request of all scenario designers to make sniper, recon and even engineers have higher experience values, make em Crack even, so that at least the have a better chance of spotting (or doing whatever their mission is) before they themselves are spotted. (I appreciate... from the days when I used to hang out on bases and talk with vets... that there appears to be a bias in the orthodox thinking against spec ops and specialized troops. The chain of command just didn't like snipers and spec ops etc. I assumed it upset the quaint notion of the military being this bunch of unstoppable armored things charging along like Custer used to do. Maybe it's disturbing that a small team of guys eg: with IR guidance for nasty airborne munitions, or a sniper to kill your senior officers, could ruin the RL "game".) Now that I think about it, we in the west exhibit some similar characteristics to a colonial army-type power. We only dare go up against 3rd world nations who don't have our sophisticated toys. The equivalent of how the colonial powers would mow down the natives from aircraft. Or, I guess cannon vs plains indians etc. A bit off topic I know... my elderly brain wonders all too often these days.

It's been said many times that in CMSF there is no place for real recon and their specializations (and ditto for sniper teams). But as a game, it is FUN to use recon and sniper troops to check out a large map to find enemy locations, and I feel it reasonable that the recon and sniper units be better at that than regular troops. So giving them (at least) one extra experience level gives recon and sniper troops a special mission ability. Otherwise they end up just like weak regular inf and you may as well use reg infantry for recon. Having "specialists" in the game makes it more interesting. So, I repeat my appeal to designers who like players to actually have fun with their scenarios to make the snipers, recon and probably engineers at least a level better than the other troops - ideally, make the former two units Crack. (Until BF games come complete with a 50 gallon oil drum that you sit inside trying to play the game while it's beaten with iron bars and CS gas dumped on you, I really don't want to hear about "realism.")

You play fast if you're already on scenario 5 of Canadian campaign. I am still about 50 mins to go in 4th scenario and entering the towns, only 2 friendly KIA and 2 WIA so far. One Hamster (or whatever those big armed trucks are called) immobilized, but I didn't see why since all seems functional. Maybe the ground.) Very frustrated that I cannot access the extra ammo and esp the rockets in the recon COYOTE's.

+1 to above.

We are told that there is no design for scouting in CMSF, but using scout techniques to locate enemy units is a critical part of the game when on a large map. I enjoy it. One appeal to scenario designers: please make scout and sniper units AT LEAST one level better than the ordinary troops to sim greater training. (imo, scouts and snipers should always be CRACK or ELITE.)

Good idea. There is a FACE command but that also rotates the whole vehicle which is often undesirable.

Well, if you select any unit in CM1 and click ENTER, you will get all that very useful data for friendly as well as identified enemy tanks. You can also go into the editor and and buy units you are interested in for both sides and just use a plain map and you can examine each units data in this way. Many of us wish CMSF had this feature.

500 is too small imo. It usually means that one error, eg: losing the one decent asset you have will cost you the game. Recommend 1000-2000 points.