Erwin

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.

I found a comprehensive chart of German arty stats in my old CMBN files dated November 2011. 
 
 
 
 
 
GERMAN LIGHT/MEDIUM ARTILLERY
81mm Mortar
120mm Mortar
75mm Inf Gun
150mm Inf Gun
75mm Howitzer
105mm Howitzer
150mm Howitzer
Barrels
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
HE Rounds
100
60
70
50
140
140
120
Smoke Rounds
8
0
20
10
40
40
40
FAO Response Time (mins)
Normal
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
TRP
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
HQ Response Time (mins)
Normal
8
8
13
13
13
13
13
TRP
4
4
8
8
9
9
9
Mission
Harassrnds/min
p/Barrel
3.3
2.1
1.8
0.9
1.8
1.3
0.9
p/Unit
6.7
4.1
3.6
1.8
7.2
5.4
3.6
Max
15min
15min
20min
18min
20min
26min
34min
Shortrnds/min
p/Barrel
10.0
4.0
2.7
1.4
2.7
2.0
1.3
p/Unit
20.0
8.0
5.4
2.7
10.8
8.1
5.4
Max
5min
8min
13min
19min
13min
17min
22min
Mediumrnds/min
p/Barrel
20.0
5.0
4.4
2.2
4.4
3.2
2.1
p/Unit
40.0
10.0
8.8
4.3
17.5
12.7
8.4
Max
2.5mins
5mins
8min
12min
8min
11min
14min
Heavyrnds/min
p/Barrel
25.0
5.0
4.4
2.2
4.4
3.2
2.1
p/Unit
50.0
10.0
8.8
4.3
17.5
12.7
8.4
Max
2min
5min
8min
12min
8min
11min
14min
Duration
Quick
p/barrel
4-7
3-4
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
Short
p/barrel
11-16
8-11
5-10
5-8
5-10
5-10
5-8
Medium
p/barrel
27-32
14-17
11-16
8-11
11-16
9-14
8-11
Long
p/barrel
41-53
23-30
20-28
15-18
22-28
19-24
15-18
Maximum
p/barrel
100
60
70
50
140
140
120
                    GERMAN HEAVY ARTILLERY
210mm Howitzer
170mm Gun
159mm Nbwfr
215mm Nbwfr
280mm Nbwfr
301mm Nbwfr
88mm Flak
Barrels
4
4
6x6
6x5
6x5
6x5
4
HE Rounds
80
100
180
150
108
108
80
Smoke Rounds
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
FAO Response Time (mins)
Normal
21
12
12
12
12
12
12
TRP
17
9
9
9
9
9
9
HQ Response Time (mins)
Normal
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TRP
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mission
Harassrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
p/Unit
0.9
1.6
5.8
4.5
3.6
3.6
4.2
Max
89min
62min
31min
33min
30min
30min
19min
Shortrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.3
0.6
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.6
p/Unit
1.4
2.4
8.8
6.8
5.4
5.4
6.3
Max
59min
41min
21min
22min
20min
20min
13min
Mediumrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.6
1.3
4.4
3.4
2.7
2.7
3.0
p/Unit
2.5
5.1
26.3
20.5
16.2
16.2
11.9
Max
32min
20min
7min
7min
7min
7min
7min
Heavyrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.6
1.3
4.4
3.4
2.7
2.7
3.0
p/Unit
2.5
5.1
26.3
20.5
16.2
16.2
11.9
Max
32min
20min
7min
7min
7min
7min
7min
Duration
Quick
p/barrel
1
1
6
6
6
6
2
Short
p/barrel
    36
        Medium
p/barrel
    36-72
        Long
p/barrel
    72
        Maximum
p/barrel
80
100
180
150
108
108
80
NOTES:
MISSION = RATE OF FIRE
· p/barrel = rounds fired per min per single barrel at selected rate of fire i.e. Harass
· p/unit = rounds fired per complete unit i.e. all barrels in action
· Max = time to expend all rounds when firing all barrels at selected rate of fire
· Apart from 81mm Mortar then all other weapons appear to have the same rate of fire for Medium and Heavy... Maybe further testing needed
DURATION = TOTAL ROUNDS PER MISSION
· p/barrel = rounds fired per barrel over duration of mission. Nebelwerfers fire by multiples of its salvo.
 
Here is a much briefer US Arty chart dated the same:
CMBN US Artillery Characteristics
Rate of fire is 1 round per x seconds.
Duration is in rounds, or minutes if m suffix.
 
US 60mm M2 mortar onmap
Mission:             Harass     |     Light      |     Medium     |     Heavy
Rate of fire:          18       |       6        |       3        |       2
Duration:         Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M  
Rounds:           6    7    7m  |  3    20   30  |  3    19   24  |  3    16
 
US 81mm M1 mortar onmap
Mission:             Harass     |     Light      |     Medium     |     Heavy
Rate of fire:          18       |       6        |       3        |       2
Duration:         Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M  
Rounds:           5    10   15  |  6    10   28  |  3    10   25  |  6    12   22+
 
US 105mm M2A1 Howitzer
Mission:             Harass     |     Light      |     Medium     |     Heavy
Rate of fire:        46-48      |     28-32      |     16-19      |     10-12
Duration:         Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M  
Rounds:           3    6    14  |  2    7    12  |  3    6    12  |  2    6    12

The concept of concentrating firepower is correct.   But, if one does move in large formations it is much more likely that one enemy with a MG can cause a lot of casualties as one has provided a "target rich environment".   In the game, the men group up way too tightly.  Most experienced players always split their units but move them in a way that they are able to be mutually supporting.  Yes, that does require micromanagement.  
 

Clearly a propaganda pic showing no food shortage in German Army.

+1   The CM series has saved me literally thousands of $ that I would have spent on other lesser games that used to last maybe a week or two b4 I got bored with them and deleted from my HD.  15 plus years ago when average game cost was about $30,  I calculated that each CM title was worth at least $350+ when you looked at the value for money.
As pointed out earlier many/most people these days are obsessed with "cheap and disposable" and do not seem to understand/appreciate the concept of "value for money" when amortized over many years.
 
 

+1   The CM series has saved me literally thousands of $ that I would have spent on other lesser games that used to last maybe a week or two b4 I got bored with them and deleted from my HD.  15 plus years ago when average game cost was about $30,  I calculated that each CM title was worth at least $350+ when you looked at the value for money.
As pointed out earlier many/most people these days are obsessed with "cheap and disposable" and do not seem to understand/appreciate the concept of "value for money" when amortized over many years.
 
 

This temptation is understandable.  But, my experience is that one learns more and faster by overcoming one's shock, readjusting one's plans and keeping on going with what forces one still has - like one would have to do in RL.  
Generally I save every 5 turns and restart the previous save when the game system does something really dumb/unrealistic and one loses something cos of "design/system error" rather that one's own mistakes - eg when a doorway turns out to not work and the unit runs out to the street to be massacred instead...
 

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.

Me 2...  After CM1, CMSF1 was terrific training in how to win with minimal if any casualties. 
The WW2 titles were hard as one had to accept many more casualties.  And CMBS is horribly bloody.
Not sure if CMSF2 will also be much more bloody than the original.  Hope it keeps to the same philosophy of giving Blue enuff power to win with hardly any friendly casualties.  ie: One loses if one suffers more than a couple WIA/KIA.  It is very satisfying to win in that way.

One rarely has enuff ammo to level every building just to see  what is on the other side.  And what if there are "Preserve" points on those buildings?  My point is that this is one of the areas where the CM2 system breaks down.  In RL, most small arms and certainly 50 cal and larger would penetrate a couple of walls and hit or suppress enemy behind the 2nd wall, making that sort of ambush less or non-effective.  In the game, hiding inf behind the 2nd wall of a building is a deadly ambush tactic.

LukeFF,
Have been on the CM Forums since January 2000, during which there have been all manner of discussions NOT on the GDF about various military and civilian people, not to mention multiple threads and a fair number of OPs regarding military books. Yet there is only one person being singled out by you for posting such, and that's me. This is twice in one week, and I'm tired of it! The GDF is, by Forum activity standards, practically dead, so it makes sense to put posts where they will be read. I deliberately made this post to what I felt was the best Forum for it that WASN'T the CM GDF, but you're still on me about it. Face it, you want me gone. Only then will you be truly at peace, yet I am NOT the one causing an uproar on the Forums. You are. You're the one acting like negative vibe Moriarty here, not me. This is harassment under color of authority you do NOT have. Stop!

Regards,
John Kettler

Well said.  That's the main reason I have been so enthusiastic about MOS's Tactical Ops Center scenario. TOC is an outstanding example of Ithikial's design philosophy and I highly recommend TOC if anyone hasn't yet played it. 

The challenge for designers is that in RL recon would have occurred and the attacker would have some idea of what enemy positions were ahead and how manned.  It's rare to advance into complete unknown.  But if one did, human attackers would be very cautious.  This takes time in RL.
However, in the game, we already KNOW that there is a significant enemy short distance in front and that combat is imminent,  But, rarely do players have info re strong point locations or how the defenses are designed.  Also, most players are quite ruthless with the lives of their pixeltruppen. 
If one roleplays as if every man is precious one would need maybe twice as long as one is (usually) given.  But, for the average casual player, that would be way too long as many want to rush in and have a big shoot-out...  
That's a major reason well-designed campaigns (in which one has to be concerned with force and ammo preservation) are the best way to play.  However, some scenarios, like MOS's xnt TOC scenario give one a lot of time (4 hours in TOC) in which one does have plenty of time to be careful and friendly casualties are heavily penalized.

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...