Erwin

That's a lovely concept, Holien...  But, when that means you have garbage cans cluttering one's tiny front doorstep and refuse rotting outside your front door for 2+ weeks cos there is no weekly pick up due to budget cuts - there is something going "bad" literally.  The EU rationale/excuse is that it's about saving the planet.  The reality is that it's just about cutting costs or making bigger corporate profits from colored bin sales etc since these days most people (in the area of London that I stay in anyway) just shove everything into whatever bin has space available while the rest spews out onto the pavement (creating pollution and a health hazard) - and have seen different bins being emptied into same truck.
The intent is wonderful.  But, the implementation (that I have witness in London) is counter-productive.

In the past (20+ years ago) one practically had to pay someone to play the Russians.  Everyone wanted to play the Germans and with their cool black and white SS counters.  One reluctantly played the WAllies.
Something changed in the late 90's so that when CMBO came out that seemed to marked the start of an era where people wanted to play the "good guys" mostly the US, and shockingly to some of us, even the Russians.
It might make a decent PhD thesis regarding trends in wargame design and their relationship to generations, or perhaps economic and social trends in society.

Was wondering about the use of the two Recon teams in this scenario.  When I played the demo my instinct was to leave the recon teams where they were first placed and move the inf through them into assault positions - so the recon teams would not be involved in any assault.  As am restarting in the full game am wondering how other players used the recon.  eg:  Did you have the same SOP for recon, or did you move the inf to take their place so that the recon teams could move ahead to spot enemy positions?
Am not sure if, in the game, recon has any special attributes that would make them more useful in a forward observation role, or if they would join the inf in a combat role (since all units are ready for the assault at the start of the scenario).  Or, is it more appropriate to leave recon teams in the rear during the assault - perhaps to aid WIA etc?

So the Bundeswehr would concur with the way scouting vehicles survive (or rather don't survive if actually used for scouting) in CM2?    

Quite... 
Note that in the game however, when intensively playtesting MOS' TOC scenario, we found the UAV's (even Elite with Elite JTAC controllers) did not do a good job of spotting infantry or even moving vehicles.  It took a few WEGO turns/minutes for an Elite UAV "team" to spot stationary vehicles in the open.  I can't recall ever spotting any enemy infantry - altho the inf would have been in woods.
(BTW: My comments are based on my experience re what works/doesn't work in the game - not trying to make any points about RL.)
 

That is what is so great about your TOC scenario. If developed as a campaign with branching storylines the play value would be even more addictive.

Sorry didn't understand.  Probably an English as a 2nd language issue.  No worries...

Are we not saying the same thing?  Yes, in the game my experience has been that it has been suicide in modern era games for vehicles to be used in a scouting role.  Reading AAR's it seems that many players generally accept that the role of the vehicular scout is to locate enemies by getting blown up.  
My SOP in a CM game is different.  I cannot think of a single modern era game I have played where I have not led with inf to locate enemy assets with armor being kept in safe locations - perhaps keyholed to reduce the change that an ATGM can see or fire at them.  
in the WW2 era games, one can afford different tactics (which is the point of the thread) as some tanks are relatively impervious to enemy fire - or at least can withstand a hit or two without being badly hurt.  This all relates to the game btw.  Not commenting on RL tactics.  
Of course a typical game designer will ensure balance of forces.  So, if you have (say) a King Tiger, the enemy will almost always be provided with a counter.  So in the game, yes, I also try to lead with inf as I know there is a high probability that my Tiger will be facing something that can kill it.

In the game it nearly always seems like a bad idea to move tanks ahead of inf no matter what.  I qualified that... But thinking about it, my experience is that in the game it is ALWAYS a bad idea.
However, am not so sure that is true in RL as one may have much longer range LOS in RL.  In the game nearly all our battles are essentially short range knife fights where you know for sure that enemy inf is lurking a couple hundred meters away (at most).

In WW2 era one could be fairly confident that the first one or two shots would miss and even then there was a reasonable chance of survival.  The fact that modern warfare has a "one-shot kills" environment demands that one has to adjust tactics.  
Good example (at least in the game).  One has to move a lot faster now as well as be stealthier due to better enemy optics.  
In the game at least, (actually in all CM titles regardless of era) have found that one nearly always benefits from pushing inf ahead as spotters and holding back armor until you pretty much know/can guess where most of the enemy assets are - and hitting them with arty.  Only then can armor be unleashed with confidence.  

lol - my sense is that it's the AI that needs the help.  It can't resupply for one.

Gamewise that makes sense.  But we discussed elsewhere what is a realistic load out (if one cares about realism of course) and it seemed that while 210 rounds is normal loadout, troops would load up maybe 400 rounds total/man plus extra if there is a MG in the squad plus a couple ATR's.  More than that load should affect mobility a lot more than what we experience in the game.

No they're not.
In modern warfare we have weapons that can kill at several Km range.  We rarely have that sort of LOS outside of CMSF which usually features the best long range features.  But it's rare to see long range (2Km-3Km+) LOS in scenarios from the European titles.  

This gives other outfits, from ancient history to ISIS, justification to destroy statues of any culture that they find offensive. 
We are appalled by ancient societies who wiped out their enemies' cultural heritage as a way of destroying their societies forever, (in more recent history that's what Hitler was trying to do in the east).   
What's next?  Destroying statues and monuments to the Pilgrims cos of what they did the Indians etc?  As said above, we can go back to the dam Assyrians and who knows who came b4 - their statues were probably wiped out.

Well, plz just tell us the myths that are being demolished and save us a lot of time.   

That's probably just her food supply for the week.

I have the mod thank you.  I thought maybe you modified the mod to "tone it down".  But, you are simply using the mod less - is that what you mean?  (Good job with the scenario btw.  Played it a long time ago and it was fun.

When folks say things that are off topic and one responds maybe you should address your concerns to the first poster:  "In a fire-fight, atheist's and rivalries in foxholes, don't exist."
If you want to be a good and respected hall monitor maybe address the hundreds of posts that seem to be off-topic made all over these forums.  

It's like IED's.  They can ruin a scenario unless the designer has calculated in the possibility that the player can lose a squad in one bang.

+1   Good job, guys.

Pessimist.   100 is the new 65...

You guys have made some very smart decisions over the years.  It's a tribute that BF is one of the very few hardcore wargame sim developers still in business.  And the others are doing much less ambitions/interesting/compelling products.  Have always internally calculated the value of each CM game family to be in the approx $300 range and with all the modules etc. available that's about right.
My concern would be that at the current rate of production it will take a very long time to get to the early war.  In the meanwhile, the play experience difference between a 1944 era game and a 1943 era game (ie: a one year difference) is not that appreciable. 
One of the great features of CM1 was the ability to fight Barbarossa one day and a 1945 scenario the next.  It kept things fresh.  Of course we all understand that while CM1 was unbelievably fabulous value for customers it is not a commercially viable biz model for BF.  The dream has been that one day we would have 1941 to 1945 products all available at the same time.  If the CM2 engine is still viable 5+ years from now maybe we'll get there.  But, it could take a lot longer than 5 years.
Currently, CM2 is effectively 2007 era graphics and despite all the wonderful engine improvements (to me at least) the system offers essentially the same gameplay experience.  Now that the CM2 system is 12 years old one has to wonder how many more years can it keep satisfying customers.  We all agree that graphics is not what motivates our interest in the CM system.  But, at the same time not many of us are playing classic games like "pong" or the 1990's simulations.  
Am certain that BF has given much thought as to what the next evolution (CM3) will be and when it may be developed.  So, there is nothing in what I have said that will be news to you guys.  Just wanted to congratulate you on the success of the system but also voice my concern that things have to evolve well before your customer base gets bored.
 

You guys have made some very smart decisions over the years.  It's a tribute that BF is one of the very few hardcore wargame sim developers still in business.  And the others are doing much less ambitions/interesting/compelling products.  Have always internally calculated the value of each CM game family to be in the approx $300 range and with all the modules etc. available that's about right.
My concern would be that at the current rate of production it will take a very long time to get to the early war.  In the meanwhile, the play experience difference between a 1944 era game and a 1943 era game (ie: a one year difference) is not that appreciable. 
One of the great features of CM1 was the ability to fight Barbarossa one day and a 1945 scenario the next.  It kept things fresh.  Of course we all understand that while CM1 was unbelievably fabulous value for customers it is not a commercially viable biz model for BF.  The dream has been that one day we would have 1941 to 1945 products all available at the same time.  If the CM2 engine is still viable 5+ years from now maybe we'll get there.  But, it could take a lot longer than 5 years.
Currently, CM2 is effectively 2007 era graphics and despite all the wonderful engine improvements (to me at least) the system offers essentially the same gameplay experience.  Now that the CM2 system is 12 years old one has to wonder how many more years can it keep satisfying customers.  We all agree that graphics is not what motivates our interest in the CM system.  But, at the same time not many of us are playing classic games like "pong" or the 1990's simulations.  
Am certain that BF has given much thought as to what the next evolution (CM3) will be and when it may be developed.  So, there is nothing in what I have said that will be news to you guys.  Just wanted to congratulate you on the success of the system but also voice my concern that things have to evolve well before your customer base gets bored.
 

+1   Very cool screenshot.  Looks like a RL photo. 

Thanks Olek.  Always appreciate the new mods from you.