Erwin

Yes, the 360 degree arc is rarely useful (altho' the command is the ONLY way to get 360 degrees). But, I use 180 degrees all the time, and it is time consuming to have to change this for many units every time you change the direction of an advance. I hope we get the easy 180 degree arc command back. And yes, one needs to differentiate between inf and armor.

And the CM2 AI seems way better than in CM1. I switched to PBEM vs a human within a year or so in CM1, but after 3 years on CM2, I find playing the AI is still very satisfying. Considering how time-consuming, frustrating and expensive it is to create good AI, am grateful that BFC hasn't gone the way of other developers who don't want to spend what it takes and announce that the game is RT multiplayer to cover up the fact that their AI sucks.

I found the machine grenade launchers are very effective. The manual says that the original under barrel launcher ammo has a range of 150m. The manual also states that the MGL's use the same ammo. However, in "From Dawn to Setting Sun" I had to set covered arcs of 500m for the Marines, and the auto grenade launchers were surprisingly accurate at 500m+ ranges. Is that an accurate depiction of RL? Also, if personal weapons are only for self-protection, does that mean one shouldn't waste ammo by setting covered arcs of over 150m, but let the crew served weapons or vehicles do all else?

I thought armor would be solely armor piercing and relatively useless vs soft targets like inf. I know one needs armor to punch through the building roofs. but then HE to damage the occupants, so I use "General." At least that is common sense and (I thought) realistic. Or, is this another abstraction where arty doesn't work as in RL in the game?

LLF: The most important thing is to make sure that the game works regardless of what the blue player does. The red AI can't assume that all players will use your plan. I have virtually no idea what happened historically, so I will create my own plan and the red AI needs to be able to cope with whatever crazy dumbass plan I implement.

Looks really pretty, but a bit "new just off the rack." Been watching man, many hours of WW2 docs on mil channel including quite a lot of rare color footage. There's a worn, grubby quality in the RL footage that I always hope to see in the game. Hopefully, modders will dirty and wear everything down.

If you simply release the scenario you will receive comments just as fast as if you test it. So, you can always adjust. (You have tested it yourself, so the question will be if there is a "trick" to accomplish the mission with appropriate casualties that only you know or have assumed.) Hopefully there will be many ways to accomplish the goals and hopefully we may find a way to best your result. That's the fun of it.

Ok, so do what would the approx rule of thumb for small arms range % to have point ahead? (I tend to do what Eagle does - 25m-75m max depending on terrain.)

Thanks Eagle. That's what I was curious about. I also thought gibson's point about no further than half the range of the weapon was interesting - altho' I generally keep the supporting units rather closer than that. Assuming 300m-400m effective small arms, 150m-200m seems an awful long way for point to be ahead.

Good points. I tried TOW twice and each time got fed up quick cos too much was happening and I would lose situational awareness fast in RL. A WEGO feature for one minute turns and the ability to look at the battlefield, see what was going on, (and have time to enjoy the really nice graphics too), would get me to try TOW again.

It would be a more convincing test if you set up a situation where the AI COULD spot the enemy, and THEN retry with human-human and see if the human-controlled unit could or could not spot. Your current test could simply be too "hard" for the AI under any condition.

Congrats on the promotion! abneo: I usually have very restricted arcs on all my point and recon units so that they stop and hide. Generally, I find them more useful as spotters to ID the enemy than to shoot at them. Once ID'd it's much easier to destroy em. I didn't post a screenshot as I don't have a specific example - just a general question (so any Generals out there, plz respond heh). I believe that CM is quite amenable to a one size fits all approach - and certainly when it comes to reconning a road. I was curious what other folks do. To be specific, how much distance do you guys like to keep between point and immediate (squad) support in (1) Forest, (2) Urban, (3) Light-Moderate cover?

Brilliant. This interface improvement is so useful. Many thanks to you as well as Vein! (I got confused earlier thinking you were the same person.)

I think the SS interest in generational. Back in the day you practically had to PAY someone to play the Allies. EVERYONE wanted to play the big bad Germans esp the SS.

I don't think an in-game tutorial is required. But a better manual that explains what the game can and cannot do/simulate would be helpful. All that data in the current CM2 manuals is not that useful in helping learn how to play the game well. Eg: A simple description of what the in-game sniper can and cannot do (cf RL), also how artillery works/doesn't work like RL. Currently one can waste months of time figuring out issues and making dozens of posts here, that get in the way of enjoying the game. That's ok for grognards and milpros. But, that must limit the accessibility of the game outside of our niche group.

Boy, am surprised at all the replies here. Yes, I was talking about when you kinda HAVE to move down a road (or close to it) with vehicles cos of urban or other restrictive terrain. I tend to send out a team on each side of the road with support following. But, I rarely do "overwatch" by having the support team catch up before sending the point teams onward again. I just let them all HUNT forward in formation until something happens. Is there a good reason to have the point team wait for the support to catch up vs my technique? Either way one question is how much of a gap is ideal between the point team and the support team? 30m? 50m? 2nd question: Is it better to split one squad into two teams and have each team go on either side of the road (with other squad(s) in support), OR, is it better to split two squads and use the lighter team of each split squad be the point teams, with the rest of the squad acting as support of their respective teammates on their respective side of the road? (Does it even matter which, maybe not?)

I very much appreciate your approach Vein. I wish more visual modders also created more realistic graphics as well. I still think the vehicles and uniforms look too clean and unworn. But, these seemingly simple and obvious interface mods you created are excellent and finally I actually notice what my guys are up to. How can we persuade BFC to adjust the weapons symbols to show WIA/KIA like in your mock up? That would be SO useful.

I got through scenario 5 and am glad you told me it was 5 missions as when it ended again I was wondering if I had taken too many casualties and been kicked out. I really liked the campaign. It was like a series of advanced tutorials. It forced me to learn new tricks re keeping casualties low by having to invent/learn new techniques for assaulting buildings etc. As entertainment it was probably too tough. (I normally HATE having to save and replay just to get through a game. But, as a learning experience that's fine.) Also, it was an anticlimax that it didn't end with a final scenario with the whole company. Hope you consider adding such a final scenario, and/or making a slightly easier version (less stringent casualty parameters) as a training experience for newbies.

(In the game) I like using HUNT with lots of waypoints each with 10-30 sec delays (depending on how tired they may get). The units are also better at spotting ambushes when stopped. But, it is slow when covering a lot of ground. I never use FAST for inf as they get tired too fast. QUICK seems almost as fast and units can jog for long distances it seems. However, my vehicles use FAST quite often. I must be a cautious player as bounding overwatch when there is enemy about seems like a recipe for disaster (in the game). Generally, I find the best thing (in the game) when having to cross open terrain that you suspect is covered by the enemy is to saturate the edge (of hopefully covered terrain) with units and let them stay there watching while the smallest/least critical unit available HUNTS into harm's way. Once the enemy reveals itself, one can then saturate it with fire. So, it's rarely necessary to send much force into the open before the enemy is severely depleted. Many CMSF scenarios are basically "Hunt and Kill the ATGM's" and the rest is easy. (Which is a big reason am looking forward to a return to WW2 technology.) Re my original question, I just wondered if there was an optimal tactic for advancing along a restricted path, a road etc. My sense from the comments is that it's best to send the smallest units and keep most in reserve which is generally what I do. But, I did wonder (in the game) if sending a squad or even a platoon (if you have a company plus) on each side of the road would be sufficient to fight one's way through - as opposed to simply have more guys massacred when the inevitable ambush occurs.

Just to be sure: The new "Animated Text" brz file completely replaces the old "Casualty Cross" brz file which can be deleted?

First, I am assuming vehicles that for some reason need to use a road that one assumes will eventually come under fire. I find I tend in 90% of scenarios which require me to move up a road whether in urban or rural that I will send units out on both sides of the road to locate enemy ambushes (with whatever overwatch I can safely organize). If it were CM1, they would detect daisy chain mines, as well as trigger anti-personnel mines. My question was whether it's better to use a larger force on each side of the road (ie one squad on each side with one squad in reserve), or divide one squad and send the minimum up on each side of the road. Each team however, could be backed up by a full squad maybe 50m behind. Abneo said "the actual "action force" so it should be as large as possible." So, in the majority of cases that would suggest the 2nd option with as little committed forward as possible. And since there are only so many RL tactics one can use successfully in CM, I am talking about the best game tactic.

Do we need to remove the earlier "Casualty Cross" mod? Also, will this work in CMA?

Ok, once more into the breach... <sigh>

I generally split one squad to advance up both side of the road keeping two other squads in reserve. However, I wondered if it's better to put one squad each on either side of the road and only have one squad in reserve? Any doctrine or ideas?

Well, I did the scenario again and the Syrians surrendered 15 mins before the end - almost all their units were panicked. I think I only took 4 or 5 casualties. But, it was a DRAW! Got the congrats screen and the campaign ended.