landser

I agree with the others, avoid those sorts of apps. That said, if ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't update drivers because there is a new one. Only when some sort of issue crops up that is driver related. But the only real reason I will do it is if I get a new game that doesn't run well on the old ones.
This is becoming ever more rare. Back in the day it was common. A new WHQL came out for the video card? Get it. But back then we also managed swap files, ran defrag before we installed everything, and did annual reformats of the hard drives just to keep it all ticking along and playing nicely.
Now? Hardly ever needed unless there's an issue with how a program is running. If it runs fine, no need to risk it
 
I see now the necro, but the advice still stands...

I'll go against the grain and say I'm not looking forward to this module, but whichever one follows with 1941 and 1942.
Late war hardware doesn't light my fire. There will be a lot of very cool vehicles and formations in the module I'm sure. But as lethality goes up, compelling gameplay goes down, at least for me. And I am not a fan of urban fighting in Combat Mission, and I guess that will be a focus of the new module and associated campaigns? And rightly so if it is. All of which means this really isn't the one for me, and I am a big fan of Red Thunder.  Maybe I'll pick it up down the road, I'll wait and see it through the posts folks here make after release and make the call then.
We've waited seven years for this expansion, and if I recall correctly, Battlefront once said that the plan would be to do 1945, then 1943, 1942 and 1941, working in reverse. If each of those was a separate module with similar development time, 1941 would arrive 21 years from now and the chances of me still being around and able to conduct a proper battle will have gone way down.
So maybe I buy this one as my last shot

Yeah, fair one Umlaut. I did not stick to the spirit of the OP. That indeed is for CMx3.

#1 would be dynamic campaigns. Even something simple like the way the Close Combat series does it would be nice. I think it's the biggest thing missing by far.
 
"Nice to have" would be something like a replay feature that lets the player watch the whole battle once it is finished.
 
Better vehicle dismount/mount rules for interactions between infantry and vehicles.

I want exactly what we have now, with a redesigned, modern UI and a completely new campaign system.
Untether me from the supply pipeline and allow me to generate endless campaigns tailored to my tastes.
So yeah, what Commanderski said
Oh, and a modular approach with Combat Mission as a base, where each module plugs in, allowing all content from all modules to be freely used in any scenario, regardless of 'historical accuracy' concerns.
 
This could go on all day, but one more thing. Bring back the ability to direct indirect fires without LOS.

Campaign generator.

@landser thank you very much for your work and this reference. this is exactly the kind of campaign review i had wished for, and it does indeed exist. 

I agree, nice write-ups and good screenshots.  Makes me think that instead of just jumping in I should have researched stuff like this, oh well 😉.

Actually, it’s a great read, just not one I’d want to interrupt with my comments. Not sure if you played more campaigns, but you should really go on if you have. 

I wrote a campaign review thread at SimHQ. It died off since there was no interest or comments. But I covered several CMBN campaigns. Maybe you can take something from it, though I did not consider engine 4 in the commentary.
https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490340/combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4490340

Yes, you are correct. I am wrong.
The 1660 uses GDDR5, but they went with GDDR6 on the Super version (which I somehow missed in the OP, my mistake). This places the Super in between the 1660 and the 1660Ti, and I reckon makes it the best solution between the three if budget is a factor. If it isn't, the Ti is still the (slightly) better card. But the difference is so minor it probably wouldn't be noticed, and especially in a game like Combat Mission.  You could save a few bones and get similar performance with the Super.

Maybe that's because it isn't what was written. The author is saying that it is confusing because certain content requires certain other content. The direct quote
"To make matters even more convoluted nearly all the DLC/expansion modules have different prerequisites (these have all been listed below). Some DLC requires you to also purchase the engine upgrades in order to function. Others require that you own other DLC modules. Consequently, not only are things confusing but things now cost more than you may have initially thought."
I happen to think that Battlefront's upgrade and patching methods are the most archaic of any game I still play. I like Combat Mission, and own most of the titles, but it can be considered behind the times for some of us. And certainly for me.
 
 

I advise a 1660 Ti over the 1660. Same Turing architecture, but the Ti version uses faster memory, GDDR6 vs GDDR5 and has more cores.
It may not make much difference in Combat Mission, but for a small premium you'll get a better card. For what it's worth I have a 1660Ti in my box and it plays everything I throw at it at 1080 on top settings, and this includes many of the more recent AAA titles. Great bang for the buck, but be aware it has no ray tracing. Not an issue if CM is all you'll play.

Maybe that's because it isn't what was written. The author is saying that it is confusing because certain content requires certain other content. The direct quote
"To make matters even more convoluted nearly all the DLC/expansion modules have different prerequisites (these have all been listed below). Some DLC requires you to also purchase the engine upgrades in order to function. Others require that you own other DLC modules. Consequently, not only are things confusing but things now cost more than you may have initially thought."
I happen to think that Battlefront's upgrade and patching methods are the most archaic of any game I still play. I like Combat Mission, and own most of the titles, but it can be considered behind the times for some of us. And certainly for me.
 
 

I wrote a campaign review thread at SimHQ. It died off since there was no interest or comments. But I covered several CMBN campaigns. Maybe you can take something from it, though I did not consider engine 4 in the commentary.
https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490340/combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4490340

I've played them all.  
Agree with your comments by and large though.....Especially about the first scenario in 'Road To Montebourg', that scenario taught me a lot about fire and maneuver in CM. 

I wrote a campaign review thread at SimHQ. It died off since there was no interest or comments. But I covered several CMBN campaigns. Maybe you can take something from it, though I did not consider engine 4 in the commentary.
https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490340/combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4490340

CMRT, East front? How to pick just one right? But I will anyway, and suggest Bidermann's In Deadly Combat. a company-level memoir from soon after Barbarossa, through Sevastopol, and the retreats to the Kurland pocket. A great read.
 
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Combat-Soldiers-Eastern-Studies/dp/0700611223

More of a wish-list sort of thing, and not really in step with the OP, but I'd love to see more robust statistics tracked by Combat Mission and displayed for the player. Aside from win/loss ratio like the OP wants, more detail about the combat that took place in the debrief, and perhaps a cumulative page showing aggregate totals throughout the players 'career'.
For example
Rounds fired for each weapon type
Accuracy percentage for each weapon type
Most lethal weapon system
Distance traveled
Longest range kill
Average range kill
Penetration/deflection/partial penetration numbers
A complex rating that shows hit or kill percentage modified by shot difficulty (with range, target visibility, ordnance suitability, etc factored in)
Average play time per battle
Casualty percentage
And so on and whatnot. Combat Mission to me is so perfectly suited for statistical analysis, but we need the statistics. I'd love to see this sort of thing implemented in future versions of Combat Mission. It's something I've wanted for many years. Doesn't hurt to bring it up, even if it is unlikely to happen. I eat this stuff up and would pore over the numbers after every battle. 
 
 
 

More of a wish-list sort of thing, and not really in step with the OP, but I'd love to see more robust statistics tracked by Combat Mission and displayed for the player. Aside from win/loss ratio like the OP wants, more detail about the combat that took place in the debrief, and perhaps a cumulative page showing aggregate totals throughout the players 'career'.
For example
Rounds fired for each weapon type
Accuracy percentage for each weapon type
Most lethal weapon system
Distance traveled
Longest range kill
Average range kill
Penetration/deflection/partial penetration numbers
A complex rating that shows hit or kill percentage modified by shot difficulty (with range, target visibility, ordnance suitability, etc factored in)
Average play time per battle
Casualty percentage
And so on and whatnot. Combat Mission to me is so perfectly suited for statistical analysis, but we need the statistics. I'd love to see this sort of thing implemented in future versions of Combat Mission. It's something I've wanted for many years. Doesn't hurt to bring it up, even if it is unlikely to happen. I eat this stuff up and would pore over the numbers after every battle. 
 
 
 

I had the exact same experience this year, while looking for mushrooms.
But did the bull weigh 44 tonnes, and was it running on tracks powered by a 690 hp Maybach V12 engine? Were you actually looking for such bulls? If no, then I don't think the comparison really adds anything to the discussion.

Nice AAR. I played this one last November and it's a tough one. I made a brief report about it here
https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4495837/re-combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4495837
I noted in that post that I suffered my first M1 losses of the campaign in this mission, scored a tactical defeat. The map is a ATGM trap of the first order, with the terrain being ever so devious, especially on the left. Because you must exit the map on the far side you have to cross it which exposes your armor's flanks to those elevated positions in the upper left. Quite difficult, and combined with the 'ambush' at the start it's quite a challenge. This was the fifteenth mission of this campaign for me and the first really dangerous one as shown by my first battle tank losses. Until this mission you're able to use your superior firepower, frontal armor and range, but the terrain here partially negates this as the hill screening the left side falls away as you reach the center, leaving me feeling quite vulnerable. Good mission. And good hunting commander!

Nice AAR!
I remember that mission and got stuffed on my first try similar to you. IIRC i moved infantry on the buildings on the hill and they got slaughtered while M1s were taking AT-14s to the face. I retreated and didn't came back yet lol.
Definitely one of the harger battles against the AI in CMSF2! 

I thought I'd try a little recap of my 2nd attempt at this map. The first did not go well and I decided to give it another go. Fresh of my success with 'Dagger Fight' which ended in a Total Victory when the computer surprisingly threw in the towel, I thought this would be a nice change of pace. First, the briefing:

Generally, CM2 briefings have a lot of hidden clues. This one is vague and really once you start this mission you'll want to punch the intelligence officer. The map is anything but clear. Combined with the fact you have a Coy of tanks you know things are about to get spicy. The farm is merely one of many locations with ENY activity, so yes, it's one of those. The scenario 'ATGM Ambush' is good training for this mission.  This is essentially the same thing on a much bigger scale.
The map, and some general ideas about strategy, with a caveat:
1st Attempt:
My original strategy was to dismount my mech inf platoon, get them up the hill and occupy the buildings circled in yellow. I did achieve this, but at quite high losses to one of the squads. I mistakenly - stupidly - thought I would have some arty assets later as there is an FO, and my plan was to get him in that building which could observe the map exit where there would no doubt be plenty of ENY units.
I did not count on a couple of things:
How hard it would be to dislodge the few infantry in that building, occupied by apparenlty the world's toughest ATGM crew. The whole northern portion of the map being lousy with ENY. Mutual support for ENY in this hilltop complex from the high ground to the N and NE. ATGMs as a close-support-weapon (devastating, and new to me) One syrian ATGM squad displaced about 80m to a nearby field and started pounding the building with missiles. I lost a whole squad to ATGM fire when the building collapsed, and the others only survived when I hid them deep in the complex, which rendered them ineffective. I rushed a bradley up the hill but left it's right flank just momentarily exposed and it got deaded by ATGM fire from the NE. I decided to push the tanks forward and they got so beat up mid-way through I decided to think about it and try again. No shame in admitting you get it wrong occasionally.
If at first you don't succeed...
I thought my general idea of clearing the nearby hilltop was fairly sound, especially if my inf had javelins (they did!) they could use against the Northern ATGM teams. I needed to be very careful to keep them in defilade once they were up there. I was really missing some LMG support too. They would have been very handy.
v

The 'suspicious activity' reported by the lead tank (as per the brief) is just out of the frame on the right, a small farm complex. Now,  bit of a moan from me; I do not like missions that have your units starting in danger. The farm is ~250m away, which puts the lead elements easily in range even from RPG fire.
Like most players I like to do a little 'walk' around the map at truppen level, you can see that at 3x magnification two of my M1s are easily visible at their start line from a rooftop just down the road:

Starting T1  I sent my infantry up the hill, classic two up, one back formation with a Bradley watching over them. I was well used to CMBN where scrub and woodland usually held small units waiting along avenues of approach:

My lead M1s immediately (and somewhat predictably) picked up targets in the farm complex and further north - ATGM teams - and engaged them effectively.

Although potentially vulnerable in this position, I think they were generally out of harm's way and did not want to move them just yet. They also took out a lone sniper on the nearby hilltop that was near my infantry but had no LOS to them.
 
More to come!
 

I often find myself having an inner debate about these sorts of things. And something like the quote above is one. Due to a combination of the scale (both time and area), the AI and how things work in Combat Mission generally, there is no prospect of forcing a tactical withdrawal. A strong point in actual warfare is a key defensive position, and there will be times the enemy will hold at all costs, but in the main, even these sorts of positions will be abandoned when a penetration occurs elsewhere along the line and the troops on the strong point are threatened with envelopment. I suppose a scenario designer can trigger this sort of behavior if enemy troops reach a certain line on the map? But in general this sort of thing doesn't occur in Combat Mission. There's little in the way of tactical fluidity, of reinforcements sealing a penetration, of withdrawals or exploiting a breakthrough if it occurs other than perhaps where a designer foresaw it. So in Combat Mission we must assault that position, come hell or high water, because they're not going anywhere and it's a victory location after all. There is little to 'unhinge' a defensive position and force it's retreat.
I try to make it a point not to criticize a game for what it is not. In most cases it isn't fair. You don't buy a coupe and complain it's not a convertible after all. But at the end of my inner debates I find myself hoping that these are the areas where the next steps in Combat Mission's evolution occur. That we eventually see a computer opponent that is able to think on its feet, to react and exploit, or to save its hide or push for victory through prudent recognition of the ebb and flow of a tactical battlefield. I sometimes feel like we have all the tools aside from any sense we are playing a human opponent because the computer is so rigid in its conduct. And AI that could at least approximate this would go far in making Combat Mission's single player a much better experience than it already is.
in terms of the topic this sort of withdrawal could go a long way to preserving force strength, but then again it would simply push them toward the back edge of the map as there's no escape, where it would likely be even easier to rack up high kill counts, away from suitable terrain and prepared positions. Perhaps there could be a retreat off map option for the computer opponent, but maybe the game loses some appeal as it's not so compelling if you force the enemy in to a pell-mell race for the exits. It might come down to the player's expectations, as some would see this as a realistic reaction to a disintegrating defense and some would lament the loss of the drama or challenge they expect from a given scenario. "All I did was drive my tank platoon through the gap and ten minutes later the scenario ended".
I don't know what the right answer is, and what I want out of the game is not what the next man wants. Until it can be worked out though we'll continue to see casualty percentages far in excess of what would be tolerable to a battalion commander. Stand and die is not all that rare in history as well all know, but in Combat Mission there really isn't any alternative.