Erwin

i dont know, excellent point! i agree with alot of the points you make.

This is clearly the definitive one...
 
 

Before one can consider what may or may not be a good idea, the question is how many employees/programmers does DCS have?  Then compare that to BF and their respective budgets.

I actually used the Campaign Decompile tool and modified the opening mission of Hammer's Flank. It was some months ago that I did this and I did a playthrough but didn't store it. I'll be doing one again as an AAR sometime to illustrate how much better that mission can be with some simple fixes in player support and mission timing. I didn't even, but should, fix the objective scoring too. 
I'm also a long time customer of Battlefront and war games and a post count is not a good measure for determining the value of a community member. So it's difficult to see exactly how you can frame a comment like that a "right" way at all. It's a forum and feedback is what it's for. My experience with these forums is that they frequently end up as echo chambers for a select minority of pig headed bullies who want to lobby the developers to make products for them that confirm their narrow ideas. I am eager to be proven wrong. 
Gate keeping is a good way to prove me right. The values you have named are the hallmarks of an honest community, not a toxic one. Which will the CM forums be I wonder? 
Many are not. Their work will speak for itself more frequently than I should the scenarios "speak" in ways that imply anything but knowledge. 
Quite, but the German campaign in that game was much more consistent in its design and played better. I have never felt it required editing of any kind. Was it designed by the same team? 
I'm working on Fortress Grosshau in Final Blitz right now. Kari Salo's scenarios don't usually need editing though, often being really fun and playable right off. I'm rebalancing that scenario mostly for fun and not really function anyway so next time i'm in the mood to play Red Thunder and see what I changed i'll make an AAR or something. It'll happen sometime, I don't know when but since i'm not looking to prove some kind of silly grognard cred to the community and don't much care what they think of me I don't know when that will be. 
Where? What part of the line? When? If you're pursuing a background in law of some kind I suggest you save the money and drop out of school. It isn't working. What i'm talking about is when I try to play a scenario only to find that the exits from all of my deploy points are covered by planned fires and that I cannot maneuver around  because of impassable terrain like thick forests or creeks. 
Take objective B, the back of a 2000 meter long map with 3 companies of rifle infantry, their under supplied mortars which will arrive late, and 4 Shermans/SU-76s. If it's supposed to be believable that recce missed the number of Germans comprising the defense or the heavy guns they've got sighted over meticulously thought out lines of sight, or the large craters that were left by what was clearly Corp guns trying to plink the recce, it's not. When I hit "cease fire - total defeat" because all 4 of my tanks were knocked out by bogging, mines, the Pak40s and I took over 100 casualties and see that not even 500m behind my deploy is an entrenched, reinforced company of infantry supported by what must be their *entire* Regiment's mortars (fully supplied!!!!), mines, bad weather, TRPs, and a whole battery of Pak40s I think we have a problem here. The mission briefing might make some excuses like  "you don't have any artillery because it was busy suppressing the enemy's guns or firing all day" but it sure doesn't look like that, if the scenario designer even bothered to explain why an asset you could normally expect per those lovely ToEs he cites isn't here today because hell with it. That's what i'm talking about. 

My only deep desire is for a CM:Afrika Korps game.  I know BF has been disinterested in that idea.  But, it always seemed to be a very popular topic with the wargamers I used to know.   
And much of the work re models and uniforms may already be done for CMFI and its modules.  We already have CMSF's desert terrain and buildings.

+1     Am concerned about this as well.  Most CM2 scenarios are basically repetitive variations on a common theme.   I was getting quite burned out on CM2 until I started testing TOC for MOS.  It was a re-energizing experience.   MOS has raised the bar to a great height.  Just hope that other designers are similarly inspired.
 

Agreed.  The reality is that we cannot afford to win that kind of exchange without bankruptcy.  Fighting the "small" Boer War vs a bunch of Uncons in Saffa is generally regarded as what almost bankrupted the British empire and led to its implosion in the decades afterwards (even before WW1). 
The west's creditable and humane "high value of life" philosophy is unfortunately also our Achilles heel.  This is where the original concept for the French Foreign Legion would work.  A bunch of foreign (seeking citizenship or refuge) or criminal types to be used as expendable troops in foreign wars.  Hard to see how else one can fight an enemy who loves to die - unless one simply does a nuke or biochem attack and wipe out the region.  (Biochem would be better as it would not hard infrastructure or historic monuments, art etc.)  Not going to argue the moral aspects of that.  But, either we have to accept that our troops' lives are not valuable any more, or... what other options are there?  
 

My only deep desire is for a CM:Afrika Korps game.  I know BF has been disinterested in that idea.  But, it always seemed to be a very popular topic with the wargamers I used to know.   
And much of the work re models and uniforms may already be done for CMFI and its modules.  We already have CMSF's desert terrain and buildings.

"So they go, hop in, grab the items."
Except in game terms there should be no need to "hop in" in order to ACQUIRE other than eye candy (unless one wants the unit(s) to actually embark for transport elsewhere).
ACQUIRE to and from adjacent units is what we're talking about.  This would eliminate the wasted time and irritation of clicking in order to split units, embark units, disembark units and have them recombine... merely in order to resupply a number of units simultaneously.  
 

Could have taken advantage of his privileged position and political contacts to get released as POW early but refused to leave his comrades.  Heroic.

I could be wrong but is that not maybe missing the point. I do not believe Erwins stating that such things are not possible (other than the engineers blasting through). Rather that such things are possible but the amount in user interface actions required to accomplish those tasks is maybe excessive. They are taking numerous turns/clicks to carry out when with an more streamlined user interface that could be halved.
An shoot and scoot is kind of possible as you state. But consider how many key presses and clicks you need to do to accomplish the task. And even then that can end up just being an scoot and scoot instead (when unit sees enemy too late during the pause), and leaving you needing to try and repeat the manoeuvre again. Or leaves them waiting to die as Erwin describes (when unit sees an enemy too soon during the pause). But with an command for the purpose and the fixed degree cover arcs that Erwin also mentions consider how much that would cut down your workload to accomplish the task.
  The selecting the group then placing the arc is not quite an solution to Erwin's example. As that would set them to the same arc. And he states setting them to different arcs. So take four vehicles moving down an road, and first need to cover front, second left, third right, fourth rear. Again consider how many key presses and clicks are needed to set just four vehicles each their own individual arc. Where as if an arc could be set with an single key press with your cursor on the terrain consider how much that would take to do the same.
  Adjacent units from the same group share ammo. Adjacent units from different groups cannot. So 1 Platoon cannot share with 2 Platoon etc.
  I use the same method when wanting to resupply my sections also. And I believe from what Erwin states in the quote above he does too. You suggested the same thing as he stated it needs at the moment basically. But again look at how many user actions you need to carry out over how many turns to accomplish that. And you need to do the same procedure when that sections been moved to the reserve and is right next to the ammo source already. And then compare it to if acquire was just an move command, to make the order would only take an single turn and much fewer user actions to accomplish. I took his post to be able saving time and making actions easier rather than stating such things are not possible in any manner at the moment.

I play WEGO as well.  Obviously it's harder than RT.  That's why real men play WEGO.    I am halfway thru Stoumont.  Was doing good so long as I kept the armor in front.  As soon as the inf has to go in there is that inevitable drip drip of casualties - no matter how careful one is - even if it's only one or two per turn it adds up.  Most annoying is the frequent friendly fire incidents.  Almost all due to guns firing HE thru woods and nearly always exploding on a tree one cannot see.  Guns that insist on firing many rounds thru the same tree is an aspect of CM2 that's increasingly irritating. 
So far I love this campaign and am very impressed with the maps and situations.  The problem with all campaigns is that one doesn't know exactly which units are going to have to fight again in later missions.  (Or is that in the briefing?  If so that info was buried.)  It's too easy to have one or two platoons take a lot of casualties, while others are mostly intact...  it's frustrating when one gets the beat up platoons to fight with in the next missions, and it's often impossible to get a win.  One would think that in RL, the better shape platoons would be used for important combat missions and the beat up ones would be sent to the rear for security work.

+1
Have long argued that CM is now very good as a game.  What development should now focus on is a streamlined UI so that less time is wasted trying to accomplish exactly what Bulletpoint outlined.  Just a few other examples that would speed up gameplay and enable player to focus on the fun parts of playing rather than UI:  
"Shoot and scoot" for AT teams so they can fire and run, not sit around waiting to die after firing.  Engineers who blast a wall but do NOT run thru it.  (Currently we have to time it out so they blast right at the end of a turn.)  One click 180 degree covered arcs (like we had in CM1!) so one doesn't have to waste so much time performing dozens of clicks just to get a company of turreted armor moving from waypoint to waypoint with guns pointed in different directions.  A new ACQUIRE system that allows adjacent units to exchange (reasonable amounts of) ammo (with time penalties).   Right now in order to resupply a platoon or larger efficiently one has to: 1) split teams; 2) order teams to board vehicle; 3) ACQUIRE; 4) Disembark; 5) move to their respective squads for recombination. There are many other examples that would benefit from a streamlined UI.

Using MOS's concepts pioneered in TOC, it could work.  In TOC, one acquires intel from different sources and in different ways and this gives the player (hard) choices as to what priority actions to take next and which are less urgent - ie: have to triage.  (have to deal with lots of "hit & run" events.)  These decisions/choices in turn can lead to different outcomes etc.  It's perfect for COIN and while TOC is not a MOUT game, it could be.
In related news of Sgt Chapman getting MOH for actions during Op Anaconda in Afghanistan - highly recommend reading "Not a Good Day To Die" by Sean Naylor about the fiasco of that operation.  Chapman's story is a significant and memorable part of the book.
The many diverse moving parts of Anaconda would make an xnt fictionalized scenario or campaign as they involved battling Taliban and Al Qaeda on the Pakistan border with Afghan Army as well as many different spec ops forces including SEALs, Delta, 10th Mountain plus CIA units.  The 101 airborne were also considered but kept home for other emergencies. But, in a scenario or campaign they would be appropriate.
 

HerrTom:  B4 you go about changing thing, try and get other testers to play your scenario.  Until others come up with the same imbalance conclusion you can't be certain that your tactics were optimal.  

+1
Have long argued that CM is now very good as a game.  What development should now focus on is a streamlined UI so that less time is wasted trying to accomplish exactly what Bulletpoint outlined.  Just a few other examples that would speed up gameplay and enable player to focus on the fun parts of playing rather than UI:  
"Shoot and scoot" for AT teams so they can fire and run, not sit around waiting to die after firing.  Engineers who blast a wall but do NOT run thru it.  (Currently we have to time it out so they blast right at the end of a turn.)  One click 180 degree covered arcs (like we had in CM1!) so one doesn't have to waste so much time performing dozens of clicks just to get a company of turreted armor moving from waypoint to waypoint with guns pointed in different directions.  A new ACQUIRE system that allows adjacent units to exchange (reasonable amounts of) ammo (with time penalties).   Right now in order to resupply a platoon or larger efficiently one has to: 1) split teams; 2) order teams to board vehicle; 3) ACQUIRE; 4) Disembark; 5) move to their respective squads for recombination. There are many other examples that would benefit from a streamlined UI.

+1.  Altho the writing will be backwards and will say something like "Paul is dead" or somesuch.
Seriously tho' I cannot say that the black hood against the flag has improved.  Either the hood graphics need to be crisper (if possible) or maybe make the hood more dark gray than black and then give it a dark black outline like women's mascara to pop it out from the flag.  Or vice versa... make the flag lighter than the hood (since it's in the BG).

+2 re TOC.
The best scenario I have played - incorporates brilliant concepts by MOS that turns CMBS into a new game experience.  Hope to see the ideas emulated in other CM2 families esp for COIN ops.

When asked by my manager at work why I laughed so much, I told her "You need to act your shoe size instead of your age. You'll have a lot more fun!" It still applies.🤓

ie God-like and deserving of worship and human sacrifice...  

ie God-like and deserving of worship and human sacrifice...  

What about:  http://www.the-scenario-depot.com/scenario_lists.html
Seems to have many CM1 scenarios and campaigns.
FWIW I no longer have CMBO installed.  But, I found a CMBO Scenarios folder with 121 scenarios and campaigns.  Am pretty sure they are mixed together as IIRC there was no separate folder for campaigns.
 

Good find, General...  Sad that this now has to be taught to modern emasculated youngsters to help make em proud of their heritage.
Serious issues.

Not really...  Those of us who have been fans of BF for 20 years know that this is the way things are with a small company... and as Chris said... "I personally prefer nebulous shipping dates with quality products released rather than firm shipping dates with buggy releases requiring endless patches.".

Not really...  Those of us who have been fans of BF for 20 years know that this is the way things are with a small company... and as Chris said... "I personally prefer nebulous shipping dates with quality products released rather than firm shipping dates with buggy releases requiring endless patches.".