Erwin

Never noticed that.  Be sure that there isn't a live one hidden among the dead bodies.  The AI is better at spotting them than the human eye.

It would be great to toggle grid lines. I hate seeing them all the time as it spoils the look of the game. But, sometimes they would be valuable.

That's actually my normal work position...

Also, recall that using the Elite JTAC and Elite drone, the FFE on a Point Target was very disappointing - arriving all over the place in a large diameter like a wide area target.  Precision Strikes using the Elite JTAC/Drone combo were better, but it often took two Precision missions to get close enuff to kill.

In RL they seem to be successful if TV footage is to be believed(?).  But in CM2, after spending hundreds of hours testing MOS's TOC scenario, have found drones to be useless in spotting infantry or moving vehicles.  (These were Elite Drones with Elite JTACS!)   In CM2, drones are only good at spotting stationary vehicles.

Yes.  Thank you...

I appreciate your points, but we have to agree to disagree.  I have spend literally thousands of man-hours actually playing the CM2 games including hundreds of hours playtesting for designers, and know how the CM1 and CM2 games work as well as anyone.  That is what I enjoy and this is how I choose to spend my leisure time.  That's why I am often asked to playtest new designs.  Along the way I have discovered many bugs and phenomena that may require improvement - items that the average player may not even notice. 
On the other hand, one gets the impression that designers and modders do not spend nearly that amount of time actually playing.  They enjoy designing and modding as a part of their leisure activities.  I have attempted to design and I hate the process, and do not have talent or the hundreds of hours it takes to become proficient at design.  Am happy to pay BF for professionally produced content.
Just because a person loves doing one thing, it's incredibly self-centered to expect others to love the same thing.  It would be arrogant to expect everyone to play thousands of hours of CM2 like I do before they are allowed to make comments.  No one here should be told to keep their mouths shut about suggestions or improvements, just cos someone else doesn't like what is being said.  If anyone does not like my suggestions or comments then they are perfectly free to ignore them or simply put me on their IGNORE list.  No offence taken.  What should stop are personal attacks on people just cos you don't like what they say.
New members on these forums may not know that only a few months ago it was possible to mark people DOWN for the comments (as opposed to LIKE).  At that time, a gang of bullies (who AFAIK still infest these forums) marked down another member to something like MINUS 200!! in an effort to embarrass and humiliate that member and shut him up. 
These cowardly bullies never owned up to who they were.  However, the "mark down" feature was removed, and those childish schoolyard asswipes slunk back to whatever dank hole in the ground they slimed out of.  Meanwhile the rest of us marked up the bullied member with "Likes" so he is now back in positive territory and continues to be a contributing member. 
In summary, it's disappointing that we still have this lingering need for some to shut others up cos they don't like being what is being said.  One would have hoped that we could have confidence that the mature folks on these forums are able to make their own minds up re whether they agree or not with posted comments and not feel the need to make personal attacks on a members credibility in order to discredit what is being said. 
 
 
 

I appreciate your points, but we have to agree to disagree.  I have spend literally thousands of man-hours actually playing the CM2 games including hundreds of hours playtesting for designers, and know how the CM1 and CM2 games work as well as anyone.  That is what I enjoy and this is how I choose to spend my leisure time.  That's why I am often asked to playtest new designs.  Along the way I have discovered many bugs and phenomena that may require improvement - items that the average player may not even notice. 
On the other hand, one gets the impression that designers and modders do not spend nearly that amount of time actually playing.  They enjoy designing and modding as a part of their leisure activities.  I have attempted to design and I hate the process, and do not have talent or the hundreds of hours it takes to become proficient at design.  Am happy to pay BF for professionally produced content.
Just because a person loves doing one thing, it's incredibly self-centered to expect others to love the same thing.  It would be arrogant to expect everyone to play thousands of hours of CM2 like I do before they are allowed to make comments.  No one here should be told to keep their mouths shut about suggestions or improvements, just cos someone else doesn't like what is being said.  If anyone does not like my suggestions or comments then they are perfectly free to ignore them or simply put me on their IGNORE list.  No offence taken.  What should stop are personal attacks on people just cos you don't like what they say.
New members on these forums may not know that only a few months ago it was possible to mark people DOWN for the comments (as opposed to LIKE).  At that time, a gang of bullies (who AFAIK still infest these forums) marked down another member to something like MINUS 200!! in an effort to embarrass and humiliate that member and shut him up. 
These cowardly bullies never owned up to who they were.  However, the "mark down" feature was removed, and those childish schoolyard asswipes slunk back to whatever dank hole in the ground they slimed out of.  Meanwhile the rest of us marked up the bullied member with "Likes" so he is now back in positive territory and continues to be a contributing member. 
In summary, it's disappointing that we still have this lingering need for some to shut others up cos they don't like being what is being said.  One would have hoped that we could have confidence that the mature folks on these forums are able to make their own minds up re whether they agree or not with posted comments and not feel the need to make personal attacks on a members credibility in order to discredit what is being said. 
 
 
 

That's actually my normal work position...

That's actually my normal work position...

That's the reason why I don't play meeting engagements and prefer clear attack/defend roles. I don't think that meeting engagements make plausible CM scenarios, as they're something for the operational, not the tactical level. 
Yes, there are certainly more and less interesting slices of real terrain when it comes to gameplay. Which brings me back to my question what makes a good map. Like Bulletpoint said, it's about creating meaningfull decisions for the player. Obviously,  the compartialisation (does this word even exist?) of a map, i.e. its break-up into several smaller "theaters" or compartments, plays a major role here as it forces the player to make decisions: Which one of the small theaters will he choose for his advance, how many troops to assign to each of the smaller theaters, Will it be easy to shift troops/reinforcements from one theater to the other once the battle has started, etc.
The obvious way to achieve compartialissation is to separate theaters by using line-of-sight-blocking terrain features.  On the other hand, one could argue that the limits on effective weapon ranges can also create (fluid) theaters. If you position this unit over here, it will not be effective over there. This kind of compartialisation by unit or weapon systems rather than by map is something that players can rarely experience in CM because the maps/compartments are not large enough. It turns the "approach" into a distinct phase of the battle, dominated by MGs, artillery and other long range fires.
Also, compartialisation by terrain does automatically tell us anything about the size of the individual compartments. A single compartment can be 100x200m or 400x800m. And the size of compartments will play a major role on how the engagements play out, especially on their intensity and lethality (also: chance to withdraw) and the usefullness of different weapon systems. Unless we’re speaking about special regions like mountains, cities or extended woods or marshes, the “compartments” of your standard european countryside landscape are of course very variable, but generally speaking relatively large. That's why I've started this map-experiment. To create a map with (neccessarily fewer, as I want to finish the map at some point) but larger compartments, simply because I think that such maps are blatantly underrepresented in CM. I think it might even open up some new decisions for players, or at least put more emphasis on them: At which (of the many) targets to fire? How many units should fire? At what range should they open fire? 
And on a more general note, I also think that larger compartments are a bit easier on the players' minds. Small compartments put a lot of stress on the players (and the pixeltruppen, of course). It's the typical Combat Mission anxiety, claustrophobia or paranoia: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133561-bit-of-a-ramble-on-how-cm-works-on-the-mind/ . At short ranges, any wrong step (or bad luck at spotting) is instantly lethal. If longer ranges are involved, the game is a bit less about ambushing. In more generously scaled compartments in the more typical, gently rolling countryside, the number of keyhole positions that can overwatch at short ranges should is a bit smaller. At least that's my conviction after driving through the Luxemburg countryside for a few hours on google maps streetview, measuring distances.  Obviously for infantry it's easier to create ambush situations - simply because it can hide much better even in otherwise relatively open terrain than vehicles, But here, concealment (low to the ground, not blocking LOS at other parts of the map) is sufficient. 
 

+1 Thank you...

Exactly. 
The only issue is that the 9 man US squads can only be split into 2 teams.  So, if 2 guys are in one team, that leaves an unwieldy 7-man team.  I suppose if this reflects RL, that's ok.  But, it doesn't make much sense. 
In CMBS the 7 man Ukr squads can be split into 3 teams (2+2+3) and that makes them tactically much more useful than the US - which again is counterintuitive.

This would explain what we're observing.  However, this makes things "complex" as one often wants TARGET LIGHT vs buildings that are being assaulted by friendly infantry.  The 25mm will kill em.
 
 

Beyond the short timescale of CM scenarios.   

Hopefully CMSF2 will feature the larger maps that are needed to properly feature modern accurate long range weapons systems.  In WW2 games it's not so bad to have 500m-1000m ranges.  For modern games one needs 2Km+ to do what the weapons are designed to do.  Otherwise there is little point in having RL weapons systems designed to kill at 3Km-4Km ranges.
 

Bloody brilliant, mate!! 

As someone pointed out if it takes hundreds of hours to make a good scenario and even more man-hours for a good campaign, it's really only the professionals and fanatics (bless em all) amongst us who have the time and motivation to get to be really good with the editor.  Some great designers do have that time and motivation.  But, for the average player, no...
Personally, am happy to pay for professionally developed product.  I have spent hundreds of man-hours play-testing designs for other folks.  But, have no desire to design or mod.  It's wonderful that some folks love modding and designing.  I suspect those folks have little time for playing.  One can't expect others to share enthusiasm for all aspects of the hobby.

I enjoyed playing it and won every mission in the campaign.  But be aware that there are different branching missions if one loses missions - and those extra missions are a lot of fun as well.  I recommend that you try and lose missions and get to the "Final Stand" mission (which if you lose ends the campaign). 
Fighting back to victory from that Final Stand mission is like playing a new campaign. 
 

I spend more time trying to avoid signing up to receive ads from some of the sites you link to than viewing the site. 

Hope I am back up and running for your new scenario or campaign or whatever you are doing...

Just makes me ache for a North Africa mod or game.   Coupled with the CMSF2 desert terrain, most everything one needs already exists.

Just makes me ache for a North Africa mod or game.   Coupled with the CMSF2 desert terrain, most everything one needs already exists.

Beyond the short timescale of CM scenarios.   

Replace "Tiger" with most modern weapons systems and one sees much the same doctrine still in place.