Rokossovski

Keep the muzzle flashes. The ARE cool.

Another nice new feature is being able to give the "hide" order while units are still moving, and having them hide after they arrive at their destination. It sounds small, but it greatly cuts down on the need for micromanaging in RT, and is even more important in WEGO. Overall, I'm very very pleased with 1.06. Many small improvements with a collectively large impact. Top item on my wish list for 1.07: -- Dynamic enemy AI which calls in artillery fire. --

The first notable improvements I've noticed are that squads stick together better and foliage seems to provide better concealment. The concealment issue is particularly pleasing, and it feels more like CM1 in that respect. Before 1.06 I was frequently surprised by how many trees units were spotting and firing through. Now it seems "right."

Wow! I've been toying with scenario ideas involving the Ethiopian/Eritrean conflict, or Libyan forces in Chad. (Or any number of other conflicts in Africa). What a great mod!

I prefer to think of myself as a Refresh "Primate," or perhaps as a Refresh "Ape." It seems more evolved.

The vigil continues . . .

I've read that in recent years the stuff is a lot more potent than it used to be. Now I know why -- modders.

It seems to me that revising the AI to make semi-intelligent use of artillery assets should be a high priority. Now that I have made my pronouncement on the subject, I assume the developers will scurry to carry out my will.

Please consider posting some of the maps on cmmods separately from the campaign. They look really great.

Great stuff! I've been looking for something like this. I didn't expect to find it available for free download. Frenchy, thank you for calling attention to MILSketch.

KGB50: Perhaps, but my problem was the rocket strike would never arrive (not even the first volley) even after waiting for over an hour. I have no problem with rocket artillery being slow to reload, or with being inaccurate. My concern has been that the game may not permit rocket artillery to fire AT ALL (except prepatory fires or unspotted "emergency" fires) no matter how long the scenario, and no matter long how long the player waits.

Missinginreality's water tile mod is now up and available at cmmods.com.

Missinginreality: If you send me a copy I'll try to upload it to cmmods.

Shells would leave a crater in the "water." Similarly, the shell hit would look like flying dirt rather than a nice watery splash. Those are probably two among several technical hurdles that led the Battlefront team to leave off providing proper water tiles. That said, water obstacles are a very important feature in many battlefields (even in our hypothetical Syrian war) and so even an imperfect water tile option is far better than none.

Hats off to Battlefront for adding a red v. red and blue v. blue option. This is a huge plus for me, and is second only to the excellent map/scenario editor among my favorite features of CMSF. I'm also happy see Battlefront is planning to keep this feature as CM2 moves into WWII.

Any luck? (*bump*)

Superb! Thanks Missinginreality! I'd love to put that mod to use.

Item number one on my wish list of map features would be the ability to place water tiles. Presently, when I place rivers or lakes on CMSF maps I draw a ring of "marsh" around the borders of the water (to make it impassable) and then use a flat ground texture, usually "dirt lot" (not "dirt") to represent the water itself. I use "dirt lot" because its flat texture looks a bit more like standing water than "marsh," which has prominent plants sticking up out of it. Although "dirt lot" is, of course, traversable by units, the presence of a ring of "marsh" around the tiles posing as water prevents units from reaching it. If someone would be so kind as to create a "dirt lot" Mod that can pass for water, it would give us access to aesthetically pleasing water tiles. I would do so myself, but I lack the necessary skills.

I haven't been able to get the Syrian rocket artillery to function. It will bring fire down in "emergency" mode, (which is wildly inaccurate, as it should be) but not spotted fire (in "immediate" mode or otherwise). Even if the forward observer keeps the target point under observation for over an hour, the rockets never arrive. I'm not suggesting the problem is getting the rounds on target -- I'm unable to get rockets to fire AT ALL except uncorrected fires in "emergency" mode. Am I doing something wrong? Can other people get Syrian off-map rockets to fire?

Still waiting . . .

Drat, I'm still waiting out here in Idaho. I wish I had a better internet connection so I could use the download option. I was really hoping it would come today. [sound of pitiful whining]

I am so fond of the existing map editor that I hesitate recommend changes -- I'm afraid that monkeying with it could produce something far less desirable. I agree with Andreas that making elevation changes easier to represent in urban areas would be great. I am very much opposed to changing the scale of CM, or of going to 5m squares. An equal sized map would require exponentially more work to create. GETTING TO MY POINT... While I agree that the editor is better suited to portray American urban areas (gridded) than typical european ones, I suspect this has nothing to do with some sort of bias or ignorance on the part of the developers, and is instead a product of the limitations of the game engine. I have read that the game can only handle a small number of possible game tiles. When some are added (say vineyards) some must be removed (for example tall grass). Properly modeling the chaotic patterns of european urban areas would have required a galaxy of possible terrain tiles. It was much easier to instead model the much more limited options necessary for a grid. This in turn presumably freed up space for other sorts of tiles (wheatfields, scattered trees etc) that add more to our game experience. Just a guess. I'd like to see if the developers were making the same kind of cost-benefit analysis I suspect they were when creating our current terrain editor.

Allow me say a few words in defense of the approach advocated by dieseltaylor. (Although the preponderance of contrary opinion from veteran players makes me a bit hesitant to stick my neck out.) I like to seize victory flags. (I feel like I am in a 12-step program. "Uh, hello. My name is Rokossovski, and I am a victory flagoholic. It has been three weeks since my last victory flag." Seriously, the lovely thing about holding victory flags is that it forces the enemy to come to you. As Sun Tzu pointed out, the greatest victory is the battle won but never fought. There is no real reason to go looking for a fight if you can win without one. Naturally in a CM battle the opponent is unlikely concede before a shot has been fired, but it you occupy the victory flags then he is going to have to carry the burden of attack. If this is a meeting engagment, he is going to have to carry that burden without the advantage of superior forces. "But Rokossovski" you say sternly, "you court disaster! Parking all your troops on victory flags will only get them killed! The enemy will pound the victory locations with artillery! They will defeat you in detail as they sweep your divided forces from their flimsy lodgements!" To which I respond, "Stop shouting!" (Just kidding.) Here is how I tend to approach a meeting engagement: I look at the victory locations. I estimate whether I can seize all or most of them before my opponent can. Then, I determine what my defensive plan will be once they have been taken. The idea is to take the flags, and then switch to the defensive, and so various other bits of terrain and the general lay of the land become critical to how my defensive line(s) is structured. To summarize: (1) Take the flags. (2) Set up defenses (generally elsewhere) to cover them. (3) Wait. This converts a meeting engagment to an attack/defend battle. The terrain does not alway suit this type of strategy, and if it does not, I do not attempt it. IMPORTANT NOTE: "Taking the flags" should not be taken to mean "clustering all of your units on top of the victory locations with a big red banner saying 'shell me.'" The actual occupation of the victory area may be only notional, say a maxim gun or a half squad. Just enough to let me know if I still own it. The real firepower is deployed to cover the approaches to the victory locations. (Or maybe even the approaches to the approaches.) Concentration of force is my favorite priciple of war, but concentration shouldn't mean the geographical concentratation of one's own force, but rather their ability to concentrate firepower on some unlucky spot in the enemy line. Having the flags requires the enemy to attack. Probably not with the explicit goal of taking the flags, but still he must attack. The flagholder may plot ambushes as he pleases. CAVEAT: In "attack" scenarios (if I am the attacker) I do not concern myself much with flags. Setting up defenses and waiting for the enemy is not a practical strategy there. The above was written in relation to meeting engagments.

Jason C's comment on creating flexible plans reminded me of a remark by Wellington about his opponent in Spain -- at that time Marshal Massena. Messena, according to Wellington, constructed his campaigns like a fine set of harness which answered very well until something broke. "Now I," said the Duke, "made my campaigns of rope: when anything broke I tied a knot; and went on." British doctrine, if I understand correctly, contain Ten Principles of War that I have attempted to put into practice in my years as a wargamer, to the extent practical. Although these are somewhat more theoretical than the more practical (and perhaps more useful) advice given by Jason C and others, they have been of use to me and so I will offer them now. These are: 1. Selection and Maintenance of the Aim. 2. Surprise. 3. Offensive Action. 4. Concentration of Force. 5. Economy of Effort. 6. Mobility. 7. Flexibility. 8. Cooperation. 9. Administration. 10. Maintenance of Morale.

Allow me to also pile on praise for "Dragons at War." Although it covers other ground, it is the best explaination/description of "friction" I have ever read. You come away with a viseral feel for the difficulties of coordinating men in action. -- Rokossovski