Erwin

Ok, so the summary answer to all of the above is "nobody knows(?)"

The ACQUIRE command is NOT available for the Coyote crews. That's what I mean by all the weapons and ammo carried by the Coyote is "lost." No unit can access it. I can't believe this is deliberate, so it must be a bug. But, I don't see any comment re this anyplace.

God, this is awesome. So much better than CMSF! When will it be released??

Am confused about "targeting the IED to destroy it." I thought they were invisible until either they explode or until the end of the game when you see all enemy units.

And it's known that even when the Coyote is bailed out, no other inf unit however small can enter the Coyote to acquire any of its ammo? All that ammo is basically "lost" in the game. Is that correct?

If you want to focus their attention in a direction but not have them fire, what I do is shorten the "range" of the arc to a few meters. They won't fire at anything out of the range of the arc, but will be focused in that direction. (I hope it works that way.) I am curious re the differences between the effect of covered arc in CM2 compared to CM1. I get the impression there is a subtle difference... In CM1 I thought that using an arc was important ALL THE TIME as it made a big difference to the unit spotting an enemy fast due to attention being focused in the arc's direction. I read someplace in these forums that in CM2, units spot rather well and fire WITHOUT any arc. So, in CM2 one uses an arc mainly to STOP it firing at things outside the arc (and also to have a unit rotate its turret in a certain direction). Anyone have a definitive answer?

However, the era I am talking about after Vietnam. But, that theater never had the interest that WW2 had. (Neither did Korea btw. Very few games made on that war due to lack of interest even 5+ years ago.) 1st Gulf War inspired very few games. So, something else has changed.

Completed 2nd mission with a surprise Total Victory(!) with about 25 minutes on the clock. Was happy with this as I had left all the AFV's on the west(?) bank of the river to avoid the IED's the briefing warned about. So, the inf did all the work helped by copious air support and long range 25mm HE from the LAV's. Lovely scenario. One problem is that the scenario finished too early. I always feel a bit cheated enjoyment-wise when it looks like the enemy still has intact forces that could put up a nasty fight/ambush. I understand that this early end phenomenon can be mitigated by putting in reinforcements that would never arrive - ie they are set to arrive AFTER the scenario's max game turns. Apparently, the AI thinks that it has more forces than it has, so fights on a bit longer. So, this is an appeal to scenario designers to please use this technique to avoid early surrender. And thanks for all your work!

(Assuming a scenario where you get points for not damaging houses in an area. I like this feature btw.) After blowing up one wall and using quite a bit of 25mm HE, plus "Light" "Personnel" air support and even "Personnel" mortars, I checked with cease fire to find I had not lost any bonus. After blowing up a couple of walls with engineers (no buildings destroyed) I see that my bonus is reduced from 25 to 12 points. Very nice. I am glad that (in my game at least) one can do some damage without losing bonuses. However, is there a setting when creating a scenario that sets how much damage can be inflicted before a bonus is lost? ie: Could a game be made in which any damage however minor causes bonus loss?

I'm sure this may have been discussed b4 but I got the NATO game a few weeks after release... I cannot figure out how to acquire the ammo and rockets in the Canadian Coyotes. The crews can't acquire them, and no other inf squad no matter how small can mount a Coyote (after the crew bails). It's frustrating as the Coyotes are the only AFV's which carry the LASM and LAW type rockets (in mission 2 of Canadian campaign).

Sergei: Yes, thank you for the smoke solution. It's so obvious (after you said it). (duh!)

The only issue I have with IED's is when the briefing tells you "the only bridge over the river" has IED's, and there is no other way through. (As in mission #2 in Canadian Campaign.) Ordering some poor schmo to drive across just to get blown up and remove the IED just doesn't seem right gamewize or in RL of course. Now, in the Canuck Campaign I was able to get my inf across and they seem to be doing ok accomplishing the objectives. (25+ minutes to go and I have a "Draw" already.) But in a game where you have no IED/mine clearing equipment, it's not right.

And of course this is why female soldiers are now encouraged due to increased ammo storage space.

We seem to be in love with the concept of a few high tech warriors beating up on the unwashed masses type warrior. 15+ years ago it was bad biz to produce a (cardboard) game from the Allied POV. But, it's an interesting shift in the demographics of wargamers that now people want to play Allies. I wonder why that is? Younger players less aware of the history?

For what it's worth, I am an immigrant and from immigrant/displaced parents. I know first hand the struggles when you arrive with nothing. But, as said earlier, when you have such a large number of people with alien cultural ideas to enter so quickly, it is easier for them to stay in their ghetto-ized communities and not integrate. I see this when I go back to the UK to visit my mother who lives in an area now dominated by Islamic types. Quite normal to see women in the streets wearing full cover, shop signs in languages I don't understand... I ride public transport and it's not pleasant to feel like the foreigner. It's not a London that I recognize from my youth. I am not sure what is the difference between this and invasion. And seen the same thing help bankrupt Southern California now. Well, anyway... rant over. Not appropriate discussion for here I am sure. Don't mean to offend anyone here.

Ok... Thanks... Wire – shortest distance (about 100m), 10% failure chance Radio – medium distance (about 300m), requires line of sight, 20% failure rate Cell phone – long distance (about 600m), 10% failure chance Unless the guy is hiding close to the bridge, he must have been in the town with a cell phone.

This is really helpful to see how others plan tactics - especially for newbies, who I think have a hard time getting started (and for me too heh). Thanks for all your work!

It's very interesting to see the change in wargamers' demographics over the last decades. As an old-time boardgamer b4 computers could do all this cool stuff, I swear it used to be hard to get anyone to play the Allies. EVERYONE wanted to play the Axis as they were the FUN side(!). 95%+ of the wargamers would drool over the cool white on black SS counters and typical conversation by wargamers was of the nature of "Just wait till I unleash my 10-4 SS Leibstandarte Division on your units hehe..." It still amazes me that now people actually want to play the WAllies in WW2.

You can also put about 45 rounds up your a**. (Em... or so I am told.)

If the western powers can't control being overrun by Islamic immigrants and getting Sharia law in their systems, I doubt they'll have the moral strength to go to war over tiny countries like Estonia, Latvia etc. The NATO forces cannot logistically support themselves that far away. It's bankrupting us fighting stone-age hill-billies in Afghanistan. Going up against Russia???

Can anyone confirm that the triggerman only has to have LOS to the IED and that he doesn't have to be "close" which I define as within 100m.

Never played Solid Gear Metal whatever. Was it any good?

"but they won't risk all out warfare for three marginal states..." Well, would we? We didn't for Poland in WW2 either. These places are too far away re logistics and only a hundred miles or so across. Russia could literally walk to the Baltic in a few days. Would Russia risk war with the US if we created a revolution in a Central or South American state to install a friendly government? Oh, wait, we already did that. There is the real issue of the massive Russian population that has settled in the Baltics. A political situation could arise where a large % of the pop of these tiny countries appeal to Russia for help etc. I am not saying this is likely, but certainly my relatives have a real fear of this.

Glad you said that. Yes, some of the early briefings in CMSF were very hard to understand as they were filled with masses of info of no real value to playing the game (kinda like the manuals).

Well, I accidentally demolished a wall of a building in the "green zone" and after saving and cease-firing to see what the result was I STILL got the bonus points for no damage to the protected zone buildings. Is this a sensitivity thing that a designer can select? Jonny: It may be that when there are a LOT of buildings, getting one wall demolished may not be a critical thing???