landser

Bootie's got it!
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battle-for-normandy-campaigns/devils-descent/
 

I still play it occasionally. But far from regularly.
CMx2 is better in most ways, but there a few things about CMBB that still stand out
Command delay is nice feature and gives the forces a certain dissimilarity that I like
Operations are a great concept that didn't quite live up to the potential in my view.
Full war OOB, that we will never have for Red Thunder (Prove me wrong Battlefront)
Hunt works the way I want it to
Indirect fire can be directed to locations without LOS. Like they have maps and can do geometry. Crazy concept I know.
Combined Arms force selection in QB, still better than any in CMx2
 
But it does show its age, and is missing the improvements that came with gen 2. It's still a great wargame. 20 years ago it was the bee's knees. One of my all timers

I don't have any suggestions for single scenarios, I don't play them.
But for campaigns there are a number of good choices for Normandy.
 
Task Force Raff Honestly I would recommend starting with Task Force Raff, the tutorial campaign .It's an ideal primer for CMBN, as the player commands a combined arms force, attacks and defends, has access to off-board arty and there is also some bocage. It's not so restricted as other bocage campaign maps, but it presents the player with some of the unique challenges of fighting in bocage country. The force strength advantage allows for mistakes without losing momentum so it's relatively forgiving making it a perfect choice for a first go at a campaign, but it's still fun for veterans too.
Devil's Descent. This one places the player in command of a 82nd Airborne paratrooper company (C Company, 1st Battalion, 508th PIR) near Sainte-Mére-Èglise on June 6th. For me, company sized forces are the sweet spot for Combat Mission. Not so large as to be cumbersome, but big enough to allow some maneuver and tactical leeway. And paras are just hard as nails, so lots of fun to fight with. Hard to suppress, hard to kill, and stone cold killas. The opening mission is wonderful, reflecting the scattered nature of the drops. Your mission is to capture a farm at night with about a platoon of troopers as they trickle in over the course of the battle. As the campaign continues, your force grows to company strength as the misdrops march to the sound of the fighting and link up with the company. Several missions have decisions to make, for example after one battle you are asked if you want to leave a platoon behind in town, or to take the whole company with you. There are four mission branches that will result in different battles depending on your choices.
Kampfgruppe Engel Over the years I've played many Combat Mission campaigns, but none have been more innovative or memorable than Kampfgruppe Engel. I rate it as hard, and it is. The player is given command of a mixed armor kampfgruppe in summer of 1944 in the Falaise Pocket. Of course we all know what happened here, so you have to reckon that playing a German campaign set then and there would be difficult right? Your task is to act as the German's fire brigade, trying to keep the pocket open so your kamaraden can escape.The missions are diverse and interesting, though one or two I didn't care for. My favorite sort of campaign is one with persistent core forces. Some campaigns, like Road to Montebourg, feature various battles involving separate but related forces. In this one, you get a core force, that grows a bit over time. It's another one where you'll know the names of your tank commanders and squad leaders. But it's vital to keep casualties and losses to a minimum, as the intensity doesn't let up and you need every boot and barrel in the line. At times the player faces huge odds, 20-30+ enemy tanks on the map at once. Careful positioning and terrain analysis are also vital.
The Outlaws Another para campaign for CMBN, the Outlaws is similar to Devil's Descent as it starts small, reflecting the scattered nature of the drops, and the player commands an increasingly larger force through the course of the campaign. The majority of the campaign is played leading a platoon sized element of Company B, 1st Battalion, 506th PIR, with the final missions much larger as the paratroopers link up with forces coming off the beach. Missions are diverse, maps are very good. The briefings are of a different sort. Essentially, the briefings feature excerpts from an interview of the company commander as he recounts his experiences on D-Day. The briefings contain no tactical information, no intel, aside from what was recalled in the interview. It makes for a nice narrative, as you're given a framework and then fill in the blanks in the battle. But useful info for the battle ahead is minimal.
Road to Montebourg One of the most ambitious Combat Mission campaigns, Road to Montebourg places the player in command of various American units during the fighting on D-Day and beyond. At sixteen missions long, RtM is a beast. Missions are highly varied, and some are on the difficult side. Created by Paper Tiger, this campaign utilizes some interesting mechanics. He makes extensive use of AI plans, with I think four for each mission. While Combat Mission is far from dynamic, including a number of AI plans promises some replayability as a subsequent run could see some alteration for enemy unit placement and movement. Of course you could get the same one again too. This campaign also features what might be called branching difficulty. As I understand it, the player's performance affects how hard or easy later missions are. Do well, and it gets harder. Do poorly and you're cut some breaks. In theory this sounds OK. I suppose it allows players of all skill levels to get through it, while maintaining the challenge for the best players. But I think I'd prefer the opposite. If I do well, I'd like to gain some edge. If I do poorly, find myself at a disadvantage.

The campaign opens with an infantry attack over a huge expanse of open ground. At the far side of the map a small German force with pillboxes awaits, hemmed in by mines and supported by artillery. When I first saw the map I thought 'no way'. No way I'm getting across this ground without massive casualties. But this mission is a showcase for suppression in Combat Mission. Combined with tactical use of smoke, machine gun and mortar fire I was able to do it with surprisingly light losses. Find, fix, destroy.

I think it's the second mission that puts the player in command of a combined arms force for an attack on a town called Ecoqueneuville deep in bocage country. When I played it I used a beautiful three-pronged attack, sending engineers the long way 'round the left flank, blowing gaps in hedgerow after hedgerow to hit the final objective from the flank while my main body converged through town. It all went splendidly until the final hurdle. At the last objective, the German company commander went nuts with his MP 40, defiantly mowing down my troops despite the deluge of fire directed his way. Quite disheartening to have such a well-executed plan devolve in to chaos with the finish line in sight, especially when a single maniac wielding a machine pistol holds off a company of well-equipped troops.. But it also makes it memorable. I wish I remembered his name. Respect Herr Hauptmann, respect.

I don't have any suggestions for single scenarios, I don't play them.
But for campaigns there are a number of good choices for Normandy.
 
Task Force Raff Honestly I would recommend starting with Task Force Raff, the tutorial campaign .It's an ideal primer for CMBN, as the player commands a combined arms force, attacks and defends, has access to off-board arty and there is also some bocage. It's not so restricted as other bocage campaign maps, but it presents the player with some of the unique challenges of fighting in bocage country. The force strength advantage allows for mistakes without losing momentum so it's relatively forgiving making it a perfect choice for a first go at a campaign, but it's still fun for veterans too.
Devil's Descent. This one places the player in command of a 82nd Airborne paratrooper company (C Company, 1st Battalion, 508th PIR) near Sainte-Mére-Èglise on June 6th. For me, company sized forces are the sweet spot for Combat Mission. Not so large as to be cumbersome, but big enough to allow some maneuver and tactical leeway. And paras are just hard as nails, so lots of fun to fight with. Hard to suppress, hard to kill, and stone cold killas. The opening mission is wonderful, reflecting the scattered nature of the drops. Your mission is to capture a farm at night with about a platoon of troopers as they trickle in over the course of the battle. As the campaign continues, your force grows to company strength as the misdrops march to the sound of the fighting and link up with the company. Several missions have decisions to make, for example after one battle you are asked if you want to leave a platoon behind in town, or to take the whole company with you. There are four mission branches that will result in different battles depending on your choices.
Kampfgruppe Engel Over the years I've played many Combat Mission campaigns, but none have been more innovative or memorable than Kampfgruppe Engel. I rate it as hard, and it is. The player is given command of a mixed armor kampfgruppe in summer of 1944 in the Falaise Pocket. Of course we all know what happened here, so you have to reckon that playing a German campaign set then and there would be difficult right? Your task is to act as the German's fire brigade, trying to keep the pocket open so your kamaraden can escape.The missions are diverse and interesting, though one or two I didn't care for. My favorite sort of campaign is one with persistent core forces. Some campaigns, like Road to Montebourg, feature various battles involving separate but related forces. In this one, you get a core force, that grows a bit over time. It's another one where you'll know the names of your tank commanders and squad leaders. But it's vital to keep casualties and losses to a minimum, as the intensity doesn't let up and you need every boot and barrel in the line. At times the player faces huge odds, 20-30+ enemy tanks on the map at once. Careful positioning and terrain analysis are also vital.
The Outlaws Another para campaign for CMBN, the Outlaws is similar to Devil's Descent as it starts small, reflecting the scattered nature of the drops, and the player commands an increasingly larger force through the course of the campaign. The majority of the campaign is played leading a platoon sized element of Company B, 1st Battalion, 506th PIR, with the final missions much larger as the paratroopers link up with forces coming off the beach. Missions are diverse, maps are very good. The briefings are of a different sort. Essentially, the briefings feature excerpts from an interview of the company commander as he recounts his experiences on D-Day. The briefings contain no tactical information, no intel, aside from what was recalled in the interview. It makes for a nice narrative, as you're given a framework and then fill in the blanks in the battle. But useful info for the battle ahead is minimal.
Road to Montebourg One of the most ambitious Combat Mission campaigns, Road to Montebourg places the player in command of various American units during the fighting on D-Day and beyond. At sixteen missions long, RtM is a beast. Missions are highly varied, and some are on the difficult side. Created by Paper Tiger, this campaign utilizes some interesting mechanics. He makes extensive use of AI plans, with I think four for each mission. While Combat Mission is far from dynamic, including a number of AI plans promises some replayability as a subsequent run could see some alteration for enemy unit placement and movement. Of course you could get the same one again too. This campaign also features what might be called branching difficulty. As I understand it, the player's performance affects how hard or easy later missions are. Do well, and it gets harder. Do poorly and you're cut some breaks. In theory this sounds OK. I suppose it allows players of all skill levels to get through it, while maintaining the challenge for the best players. But I think I'd prefer the opposite. If I do well, I'd like to gain some edge. If I do poorly, find myself at a disadvantage.

The campaign opens with an infantry attack over a huge expanse of open ground. At the far side of the map a small German force with pillboxes awaits, hemmed in by mines and supported by artillery. When I first saw the map I thought 'no way'. No way I'm getting across this ground without massive casualties. But this mission is a showcase for suppression in Combat Mission. Combined with tactical use of smoke, machine gun and mortar fire I was able to do it with surprisingly light losses. Find, fix, destroy.

I think it's the second mission that puts the player in command of a combined arms force for an attack on a town called Ecoqueneuville deep in bocage country. When I played it I used a beautiful three-pronged attack, sending engineers the long way 'round the left flank, blowing gaps in hedgerow after hedgerow to hit the final objective from the flank while my main body converged through town. It all went splendidly until the final hurdle. At the last objective, the German company commander went nuts with his MP 40, defiantly mowing down my troops despite the deluge of fire directed his way. Quite disheartening to have such a well-executed plan devolve in to chaos with the finish line in sight, especially when a single maniac wielding a machine pistol holds off a company of well-equipped troops.. But it also makes it memorable. I wish I remembered his name. Respect Herr Hauptmann, respect.

I don't have any suggestions for single scenarios, I don't play them.
But for campaigns there are a number of good choices for Normandy.
 
Task Force Raff Honestly I would recommend starting with Task Force Raff, the tutorial campaign .It's an ideal primer for CMBN, as the player commands a combined arms force, attacks and defends, has access to off-board arty and there is also some bocage. It's not so restricted as other bocage campaign maps, but it presents the player with some of the unique challenges of fighting in bocage country. The force strength advantage allows for mistakes without losing momentum so it's relatively forgiving making it a perfect choice for a first go at a campaign, but it's still fun for veterans too.
Devil's Descent. This one places the player in command of a 82nd Airborne paratrooper company (C Company, 1st Battalion, 508th PIR) near Sainte-Mére-Èglise on June 6th. For me, company sized forces are the sweet spot for Combat Mission. Not so large as to be cumbersome, but big enough to allow some maneuver and tactical leeway. And paras are just hard as nails, so lots of fun to fight with. Hard to suppress, hard to kill, and stone cold killas. The opening mission is wonderful, reflecting the scattered nature of the drops. Your mission is to capture a farm at night with about a platoon of troopers as they trickle in over the course of the battle. As the campaign continues, your force grows to company strength as the misdrops march to the sound of the fighting and link up with the company. Several missions have decisions to make, for example after one battle you are asked if you want to leave a platoon behind in town, or to take the whole company with you. There are four mission branches that will result in different battles depending on your choices.
Kampfgruppe Engel Over the years I've played many Combat Mission campaigns, but none have been more innovative or memorable than Kampfgruppe Engel. I rate it as hard, and it is. The player is given command of a mixed armor kampfgruppe in summer of 1944 in the Falaise Pocket. Of course we all know what happened here, so you have to reckon that playing a German campaign set then and there would be difficult right? Your task is to act as the German's fire brigade, trying to keep the pocket open so your kamaraden can escape.The missions are diverse and interesting, though one or two I didn't care for. My favorite sort of campaign is one with persistent core forces. Some campaigns, like Road to Montebourg, feature various battles involving separate but related forces. In this one, you get a core force, that grows a bit over time. It's another one where you'll know the names of your tank commanders and squad leaders. But it's vital to keep casualties and losses to a minimum, as the intensity doesn't let up and you need every boot and barrel in the line. At times the player faces huge odds, 20-30+ enemy tanks on the map at once. Careful positioning and terrain analysis are also vital.
The Outlaws Another para campaign for CMBN, the Outlaws is similar to Devil's Descent as it starts small, reflecting the scattered nature of the drops, and the player commands an increasingly larger force through the course of the campaign. The majority of the campaign is played leading a platoon sized element of Company B, 1st Battalion, 506th PIR, with the final missions much larger as the paratroopers link up with forces coming off the beach. Missions are diverse, maps are very good. The briefings are of a different sort. Essentially, the briefings feature excerpts from an interview of the company commander as he recounts his experiences on D-Day. The briefings contain no tactical information, no intel, aside from what was recalled in the interview. It makes for a nice narrative, as you're given a framework and then fill in the blanks in the battle. But useful info for the battle ahead is minimal.
Road to Montebourg One of the most ambitious Combat Mission campaigns, Road to Montebourg places the player in command of various American units during the fighting on D-Day and beyond. At sixteen missions long, RtM is a beast. Missions are highly varied, and some are on the difficult side. Created by Paper Tiger, this campaign utilizes some interesting mechanics. He makes extensive use of AI plans, with I think four for each mission. While Combat Mission is far from dynamic, including a number of AI plans promises some replayability as a subsequent run could see some alteration for enemy unit placement and movement. Of course you could get the same one again too. This campaign also features what might be called branching difficulty. As I understand it, the player's performance affects how hard or easy later missions are. Do well, and it gets harder. Do poorly and you're cut some breaks. In theory this sounds OK. I suppose it allows players of all skill levels to get through it, while maintaining the challenge for the best players. But I think I'd prefer the opposite. If I do well, I'd like to gain some edge. If I do poorly, find myself at a disadvantage.

The campaign opens with an infantry attack over a huge expanse of open ground. At the far side of the map a small German force with pillboxes awaits, hemmed in by mines and supported by artillery. When I first saw the map I thought 'no way'. No way I'm getting across this ground without massive casualties. But this mission is a showcase for suppression in Combat Mission. Combined with tactical use of smoke, machine gun and mortar fire I was able to do it with surprisingly light losses. Find, fix, destroy.

I think it's the second mission that puts the player in command of a combined arms force for an attack on a town called Ecoqueneuville deep in bocage country. When I played it I used a beautiful three-pronged attack, sending engineers the long way 'round the left flank, blowing gaps in hedgerow after hedgerow to hit the final objective from the flank while my main body converged through town. It all went splendidly until the final hurdle. At the last objective, the German company commander went nuts with his MP 40, defiantly mowing down my troops despite the deluge of fire directed his way. Quite disheartening to have such a well-executed plan devolve in to chaos with the finish line in sight, especially when a single maniac wielding a machine pistol holds off a company of well-equipped troops.. But it also makes it memorable. I wish I remembered his name. Respect Herr Hauptmann, respect.

Dude, c’Mon.  There are a lot of factual errors here.  Afghanistan in the 80s?  You mean support to the mujahideen?  Ok, technically I guess.  A lot of these were proxy actions during the Cold War against Soviet influence (would like to see that list with the same very liberal metrics).  Some of these like Iraq ‘91 were UN coalition operations.  I mean I like US-bashing day as much as the next guy but this is not credible research.  It is starting with a premise and then working back to try and shape facts to prove it.
Yugoslavia in 99-00?  It wasn’t even a country by then, it was a bunch of fracture states.  Serbia, maybe, because the world was a so much better place with Milosevic in power?

Drone video/interview with subtitles from a soldier who was shot 3 times during an assault on a Russian trench near Bakhmut
 
 
 

In respect to the OP, me too.
Not content to simply lament the state of campaign play in CMx2 games, I got all proactive about it
Bought CMBB and CMAK for the operations. I played CMBB religiously through about 2008, but for whatever reason I had skipped CMAK. Having a discussion about it on another board the thought struck me that maybe, just maybe, CMAK has operations too! Not sure why it took me 15 years to realize this, but I am now one happy campaigner with all of these new (to me) operations to play.
I got the GOG versions, and technically they are sound, as I was worried I could run in to issues. So far so good though. Sure, there are things missed from the newer games (relative spotting and mouse wheel camera elevation at the top of the list for me), but no problem to look past it's datedness and just enjoy it for what it is. The wave of nostalgia rolled over me when I hit the main menu screen, but it's deeper than that.  These games are simpler, but retain the tactical appeal and stand the test of time, and far better than just about any other games from their era, aside from Falcon 4 perhaps
Plus, they have Combined Arms setting in QMB!
Eventually I will be seeking new campaigns and operations to try, but with all that are included in the base game I'm set for some time to come.

In case anyone is wondering, according to the O.E.D.
Geed - To get and read correspondence, normally of a pleasing nature. 

Some of you may have noticed that I've poked my head up again after a very long absence. I've just been very busy with real life and wanted to spend some time playing games rather than designing content. But this game is a bit like crack for me, it's just so addictive and watching Usually Hapless play this campaign on Youtube got me back into it. (Yes, it's ALL your fault Hapless  )
I've done a bit of work fixing things and now want to turn my attention to my first campaign for CMBN, the Montebourg campaign. It's the oldest and was made using v1.0 of the engine meaning that there are only 8 AI groups and no air support. There have also been a number of changes to the game which mean that I can experiment with some of the new stuff while reworking this one.
It's not going to be a total overhaul but it will no longer work for players with only the CMBN base game so it's a Repository jobbie. I'll let you guys know what you'll need but it will probably require the full Monty as I want flamethrowers in it. It's also worth saying that anything new in it will be historically accurate and not just added in for the laughs. So no SS with JgPZIVs. Pity.
So, I'll keep you up to date with my progress on this. I'm not looking to do a LOT of work. It's mainly to reacquaint myself with the scenario designer and writing AI plans.
 
Mission 1
I have no plans to change anything at all about the opening mission at all. It's fine as is.
Mission 2
There is a 'new' short 'Brecourt' mission. It's not really new though as it was in the revised version on the Repository. I'll need to tweak this one as the game seems to have become more lethal since I last played it but otherwise, it's good to go.
Mission 3
The first mission to get a full rework is Turnbull's Stand. I'm reworking the AI attack as there were only two AI plans and they were terrible. I've made a number of revisions to the map itself to reflect the reality of the day so it's a bit more open with less bocage and more hedges.
I've spent pretty much all morning and most of the afternoon learning how to script an AI attack using the new tools and the first AI plan is almost done. I want a second one with an entirely different focus but it should be much faster to do as I'm not 'learning' anymore. Then, I'll mix it up so that there's four attack plans.
 
And that's where I'm up to. There's no timetable on this. I'm not in any hurry but by posting about it here, I've kind of declared my intentions and am far more likely to stick with it.

I'm sorry ! but that just not true. Very few people around here demand that you should exclusivly concentrate on adding features or fixing bugs that they personally considder to be the most important. 
That comment is getting pretty tiersome and old.
What frustrates some people around here is that pretty much NO ONE has gotten what they want...almost NONE of the suggestions/request that have been put forward here have seen much progress in the last couple of years.
Combine that with BFCs own stated goals that meets with delay after delay and problem after problem you have to be able to understand that some people gets frustrated about the slow progress in recent years.
They are not only not getting what they personally want the most...They are seeing pretty much no progress at all. That's whats frustrating and dissapointing.
Hopefully that will change with this annonced shift in priorities.
 
 

Assault on enemy positions by `3rd separate assault brigade` (Azov)  in Bakhmut.
 

Indeed, I have not objected to, nor supported, any viewpoint on foreign politics because I realize that all I would bring would be a distorted American perspective. I have no basis for getting into those discussions...either pro or con or trying to tamp them down to prevent spiraling off-topic.
 
I see a lot of blame put on former President Trump for this invasion. Funny how Putin only invaded AFTER President Trump left office...
1. The Russian Hoax has been explicitly proven to be a forgery created by the Hillary Clinton campaign. All the "Russia Russia Russia" hysteria in the US media has been conclusively shown to be a political ploy by the DNC, supported by the Mainstream Media.
2. President Biden is on tape bragging about corrupting Ukraine to protect his son, Hunter, from a criminal investigation by the authorities in Ukraine. He used his position as vice president under President Obama to wield a $1 Billion dollar stick over Ukraine. This is on tape.
3. The debacle of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan occurred under President Biden. Whether that withdrawal was warranted or not is immaterial: the process of the withdrawal was a total fustercluck. How much weakness did this signal to Putin?
China...by sending wealth to the Biden family via Hunter...has shown the world what the Biden family cares about.
Putin obviously thought that Biden was weak and would not involve the US in this invasion. (Due to corruption, lack of leadership, and international weakness.)
Whoever in the US administration began leaking Russian invasion plans was trying to stop this...but it was too late. These things have a certain momentum or inertia. Putin thought he had the measure of Biden.
So...does President Biden have a share of the blame in "allowing" (<- via the signaling I mentioned above) Russia to think they could get away with this? Or, is it all Trump?
 
 
Again, I will stay away from any opinions on foreign domestic politics. I will say that I am heavily disappointed in the lack of support Germany is providing. Is that due to Scholtz? I have no idea...it could be far more complex and nuanced than "that guy is a Stasi wannabe" or whatever the complaints are against him.
Ditto Switzerland blocking ammo supplies. Is it one of cantons that is doing that? Shrug. All I know is that Switzerland thinks it is safe behind the mountains and that any future armament purchasers better think about how they will source their ammo and other logistics.
Should Macron be praised for the Ceasars? I don't know, but FRANCE is sending some good equipment.
If you look at my posts, I am very careful to point to the COUNTRY involved, not any individual. (Zelensky excepted, because, damn, talk about the right man at the right time.)  I have tried to do the same with the US.

I do this too from time to time. There are things I prefer in CMx1. Not enough to elevate those games over CMx2, but enough to get me to fire them up from time to time.
I like the concept of Operations (more than the execution) and have fun with those.
I prefer the way the Hunt command works.
I like the command delay mechanic
I like the full-war scope of CMBB
Little things like that. Keep on keepin' on

Yes, exactly so. You ID’d yourself at SimHQ. As originally mentioned, have been there since before Thomas Edison. Or thereabouts. Had to re-register at some point when my computer at the time dissolved into scrap or something else caused my original one to disappear. As Discord has flourished, SimHQ has gotten a bit threadbare. But Discord’s privacy policy is so terrifyingly in your face bad I’ll stick with SimHQ. And continue to read your reports.

Maybe you're talking about Delphi, which is where many new members had come from if I recall anything from 25 years ago.
Frugals. Those were the days.  Yeah I talked a lot about the campaigns, that was my jam. Flame wars all around but gotta keep the focus haha.
Well good to see you again.

I do this too from time to time. There are things I prefer in CMx1. Not enough to elevate those games over CMx2, but enough to get me to fire them up from time to time.
I like the concept of Operations (more than the execution) and have fun with those.
I prefer the way the Hunt command works.
I like the command delay mechanic
I like the full-war scope of CMBB
Little things like that. Keep on keepin' on

I'm fully capable of boneheaded moves, but I struggle to think of this stuff in relation to Combat Mission. Maybe it's not boneheaded, but it made me feel that way.
In the CMRT campaign Blunting the Spear, I was playing the fourth mission, an attack on Cimene. After a duel with the assault guns at the far end of the map, losing a couple of Mark IVs, we attacked our main right-side objective, the Brickworks, with four infantry platoons, a platoon of Mark IVs and a host of halftracks supported by artillery. With plenty of time on the clock, I was in no hurry, and using all of my assets, including smoke and recon-by-fire, we took the complex with no losses. It had been held by a single sapper platoon, who are dangerous at close range with a number of SMGs and satchels. In and among the buildings at the site they could have done some damage. But the recon-by-fire made 'em mad enough to shoot back, and the battle dominoed from there. Before long they tried to pull back, but I had shifted my armor on to the flanks in anticipation of this and cut them down.

The armor in the open ground on the left side of the map made progress after the assault gun duel until they came up against well-concealed anti-tank guns. One Mark IV was hit, the commander incapacitated, and the crew abandoned the tank. I halted my armor, unwilling to send more in front of the gun. Instead, artillery, mortar, machine gun, howitzer and tank fire lashed through the copse of woods. After ten minutes of this I had remounted the tank and attempted to reverse it to safety and the AT gun came to life and knocked it out. Dammit.
The weight of fire dropping on, and lashing through, that stand of woods should have left nothing alive. When I finally thought it safe because there was no sign of life coming out of it, I remounted the crew and boom! Dead tank. Felt like a sucker. As if that AT crew was just sitting there waiting for it. They must have had good holes.
 

 
I do AARs of all this stuff it seems and I found a shot depicting the scene, which I have not edited for clarity. Apologies. The crew in question can be seen center-left, with the crew icon showing them outside the tank icon, which remains because the tank is abandoned, not destroyed, with the remainder of the platoon halted a little further to the left. The crafty AT gun is the faded icon center-right just below the Cimene N marker. You can see a spotting round just hit to the left of this patch of woods. This was shortly before I ordered the crew to remount their tank.
So yeah, maybe not boneheaded exactly, but I felt like I got suckered, and you need to keep every barrel in the line in that campaign to see it through to the end.
 

I'm fully capable of boneheaded moves, but I struggle to think of this stuff in relation to Combat Mission. Maybe it's not boneheaded, but it made me feel that way.
In the CMRT campaign Blunting the Spear, I was playing the fourth mission, an attack on Cimene. After a duel with the assault guns at the far end of the map, losing a couple of Mark IVs, we attacked our main right-side objective, the Brickworks, with four infantry platoons, a platoon of Mark IVs and a host of halftracks supported by artillery. With plenty of time on the clock, I was in no hurry, and using all of my assets, including smoke and recon-by-fire, we took the complex with no losses. It had been held by a single sapper platoon, who are dangerous at close range with a number of SMGs and satchels. In and among the buildings at the site they could have done some damage. But the recon-by-fire made 'em mad enough to shoot back, and the battle dominoed from there. Before long they tried to pull back, but I had shifted my armor on to the flanks in anticipation of this and cut them down.

The armor in the open ground on the left side of the map made progress after the assault gun duel until they came up against well-concealed anti-tank guns. One Mark IV was hit, the commander incapacitated, and the crew abandoned the tank. I halted my armor, unwilling to send more in front of the gun. Instead, artillery, mortar, machine gun, howitzer and tank fire lashed through the copse of woods. After ten minutes of this I had remounted the tank and attempted to reverse it to safety and the AT gun came to life and knocked it out. Dammit.
The weight of fire dropping on, and lashing through, that stand of woods should have left nothing alive. When I finally thought it safe because there was no sign of life coming out of it, I remounted the crew and boom! Dead tank. Felt like a sucker. As if that AT crew was just sitting there waiting for it. They must have had good holes.
 

 
I do AARs of all this stuff it seems and I found a shot depicting the scene, which I have not edited for clarity. Apologies. The crew in question can be seen center-left, with the crew icon showing them outside the tank icon, which remains because the tank is abandoned, not destroyed, with the remainder of the platoon halted a little further to the left. The crafty AT gun is the faded icon center-right just below the Cimene N marker. You can see a spotting round just hit to the left of this patch of woods. This was shortly before I ordered the crew to remount their tank.
So yeah, maybe not boneheaded exactly, but I felt like I got suckered, and you need to keep every barrel in the line in that campaign to see it through to the end.
 

Nice AAR, well-written and illustrated.

She won't be able to with all this flipping nonsense that is going on right now.
How can't people have something better to do than to stand for several hours just to have a look at the coffin the dead old woman is in? It's also just incredible how the news media can spend so much time reporting what Charles and his sons have been doing every day.
I have avoided to buy any newspaper since she died because of this. Poor me will most likely have to wait another three or four weeks.

I've read through everything you have posted and this seems like a great game. I only know a few commanders, like Kluge and Halder. It will be satisfying to find out where they were historically. Thanks for everything you've posted

I was replying on mobile, so to do that in the first place is a huge hassle. I'm interested in troop locations, when they were formed (Tank armies formed in 1942) etc. A game like this will help put the war into better perspective for me. Being able to play it is another plus.
I laughed out loud when you said you replaced Halder as your first move. Brilliant stuff.

War in the East is an epic grand strategy game. I've done quite a few of the grand campaigns, for both sides and different point targets.
Perhaps grand operational game is more accurate.
It's a great what-if generator, allowing the player to pursue alternate-history paths. I only wish the player could opt to set the starting state instead of being limited to the historical start. I'd love to see what I could do if I were to mass AGC south of the marshes for example.
It impresses me with how complex it is while at the same  time hiding this complexity beneath the surface. Every shot fired in a battle phase is calculated.  Yet it does this under-the-hood stuff nearly instantly. Yeah, it's old and we should expect it to run well on modern hardware, but it's still tight design that distills massively complex calculations down to such minimal presentation.
The logistics and supply model is probably my favorite in any game of the sort. It's rather brilliant in my view. How it drives home the shoestring Barbarossa actually was, how essential railheads are to an army, how important headquarters units and their proximity are and, the effects of raputista, blizzards, partisans on supplying your front line units. You are even required to manage the rail conversion, hex by hex using far too few resources. Now, decide on which rail lines get the attention, and hope you didn't choose wrong! In one of my runs, the whole of Army Group South, and later Army Groups A and B, were dependent on a single rail line for supply. If partisans cut this at any spot along it's hundreds of miles the front line stops dead in its tracks.
Do not even think about this game unless you embrace the micro. In the grand campaign, every turn you are considering hundreds of counters. I remember the reorganization I undertook when Army Group South splits upon reaching Rostov. One of the game's mechanics is command overload, where HQ units suffer penalties if they have too many subordinate units. When this split occurred I saw an opportunity to reorganize and hopefully fix this command deficiency since we gained a new Army Group. Here's what I wrote in my AAR about this process, which some will never even have the chance to do. But it highlights the micro demands the game places on a thorough player
War in the East also shines in the operational sense, the massive encirclements you can pull off from concept to execution. Tying the noose around several enemy armies at once is heady stuff indeed.
On the other hand, it's not without its weaknesses as I see it. And top among these for me is the fact that the German side is strictly tethered to history. Only units present in the war are available, and departures and arrivals occur on a strict timeline to reflect actual history. But the Russian player has no such constraints, he can build new units, armies, air fleets and, well, everything. The German player can build nothing, not even a lousy HQ and this disparity in the rules is the biggest drawback in this game for me. Both sides should play by the same rules, even if the underlying resources and potential varies.
That's a long post but just skims the surface of what is one of the grandest war games of all. Every semi-serious wargamer should play it, but steer clear if you don't embrace micromanagement on a colossal scale.
The AAR can be seen here
https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4454240/1

To add a little more to my post earlier... Although I am clearly warning potential players about the massive micromanagement involved in War in the East -- and most Grigsby games it must be said -- there are a number of alternative primer scenarios that are far less involved. The 'Road to' options like Smolensk, Minsk, Kiev and Leningrad. These are short scenarios lasting just a few turns that serve as tutorial campaigns so you can quickly (relatively) run out some different plans to crack them.
The grand campaign, even with the shorter 260-point option, is a massive beast compared to these bite-sized scenarios. So if you think the game would interest you, but are hesitant to dive in to conducting the entire war, there are a number of easily manageable scenarios to play. In my case I did Road to Minsk, then, using what I learned, stepped it up to Road to Smolensk. I played this one several times until I had a solid plan and scored a decisive victory which took several attempts as I learned the rules and finer points.
What it did was give me multiple shots at the obvious double-envelopment in AGC's sector of the front. So that when I started the grand campaign I was able to get off to a good start. I resisted playing the others like Kiev and Leningrad so that these operations were novel to me and I would have to work it out on the fly with no practice in the GC.
Of course we have War in the East 2 now, so I don't expect many will be keen to give the original a go. But it's well worth your time if you like these grand operational/strategy games, or if you have a keen interest in the war in Russia. At the sale price it's a good deal on a fantastic war game.