DavidFields

Squallion, my understanding is that LOS is calculated about every 7 seconds or so, and my understanding is that doing it more frequently would tax the abilities of current computers to handle the complex calculations. That is immersive breaking most with AFVs. It is one thing to perhaps not see a person, but when a Panther roles around the corner of a building, and your men can't initially see it--when they are "looking right at it"-people get frustrated. (In general, I think CM2's engine does infantry and non-urban simulations most immersively) This is a glass half-full thing. For those of us of ASL vintage, or earlier, the ability to have this type of simulation, with such detail (and without mind-numbing rolls of the dice) is almost miraculous. As to AT guns, there has been a spirited debate in the forum about there effectiveness, or lack of, in CM2 compared to reality. --in general, if you are using them they seem too ineffective, and if you are fighting against them they seem to effective ). I think it one of the larger unsettled issues, but I have no expertise in the area. (For what it is worth, which is likely zero, they seem less effective than I am used to in previous genre games. Or, rather, as a "counter" to tanks I more often rely on infantry AT assets than AT guns, but that could also be because 1941-42 is more my area of interest)

Yes....I am probably optimistic about my taking only 15 minutes for a turn.... On the one hand, I am trying to move faster, otherwise those 1 1/2 hour plus battles take an enormous number of nights....but my efforts at speeding up my turns is counterbalanced by the time I take to take a walk, or do something else, while still thinking about the battles. Still, the point is, the amount of content in CM2, as far as playing time, is enormous--almost staggering as far as thinking about actually playing it all--indeed, almost unrealistic. (I know some people will now write in that they have played everything--but it has to be rare.)

If one did all the scenarios and campaigns, and played at 15minutes a turn, I did a rough estimate that there was about 1000 hours of play time in the series, without any Repository material and without the issue of QBs, and that was before CMRT came out. That is half a standard work year. And that is if one only played a scenario/campaign once, and many seem to be designed to need several attempts before obtaining a victory. Maybe you can do faster than 15 minutes a turn. But I also probably put several hours of (pleasurable) thought and analysis prior to starting a battle, and periodically the same amount of time at points during the battle. The down side to that is that, in effect, very few people are actually playing the same CM2 game. I tried to start a scenario-specific thread for comments, but, except with some notable exceptions, most CM2 players are not going to be playing, or even have played, the same content. Add in the periodic engine version upgrades, and the variation in experience among players is amplified.

Any of them work if you make QBs, and trim the forces on both sides to whatever level you feel comfortable with. Search my posts for some ideas on some very tiny ("First few rungs of the ladder"--something like that) but, I think, fun situations one can arrange--excellent for RT play.

The Road to Montebourg is more reasonable. (Though, its author, Paper Tiger has made, I understand, an upgrade to it because, as he wrote on these boards, he thought it might be too easy. Initially, the CMBN mortars were incredibly accurate. That, I think has changed. Certainly in CMRT I am, truly, enjoying the artillery "spread"--seems much more realistic. What Wombie said--his is exactly my SOP also. Every platoon is broken into 2-3 squads. Keeping most of my men back, so that they did not receive collateral casualties, was probably the hardest lesson for me to learn in CMBN. I wanted to increase mass, to get that firepower advantage. But bringing the right 2-4 men, "the right knife" is what is important in CMBN. I find it interesting that you did the Soviet campaign in CMRT evidently without splitting every squad. That actually might make it more likely that I will play that campaign. And, wow, Squallion, you sure have played a lot of CM2, and quickly.

Just watched the trailer. I thought you all were kidding about Brad Pitt....but...no. I might see it. It does not seem to have the "Saving Private Ryan" realism to its gore--more "Band of Brothers". In some ways that is good, since I almost had to strap myself into my chair to watch "Saving Private Ryan", and still have images from that movie which haunt me--necessary for me to watch, I think, but not something I want to do frequently. Things that generally bother me with WW2 war movies: In order to get everything into the picture frame, they bunch people/tanks. There is a scene in trailer with "300 German" soldiers coming down the road--marching like it was a parade. Can anyone comment on if the internal tank sequences in the trailer look realistic. Clearly the distances are wrong--the camera seems as though it is 10 feet away. But does anything look realistic? And I think the trailer has one of the only war scenes I have seen were the tank's bow MG has an important role. For non-warbuffs, even its existence may be a surprise.

This has probably been my favorite CM2 scenario. 1. The AI plans seem excellent. The low visibility allows the enemy units to move more easily, and the conditions give the AI builder a strong idea of where the Germans will be at any point in the scenario. 2. "Dead Cow Paddocks": that is the spirit of fun! 3. The "High Grounds" to receive points appear to be different locations from the Germans versus the Soviets. This is the kind of thing that drives new players crazy. But once one understands that the "other" high point is the enemies objective things become easier. 4. So. Second try: Minor defeat 249/399. 5. Third try. Secure a "location" on the left flank. Spend 10 turns or so softening up Ganger's Hut (that is a significant difference with CM1--double or triple the time to execute an objective) 6. I very much like both the artillery and the MG models--the artillery is less accurate, and the MGs have a better spread. 7. Result: 405/200 tactical German victory. Hard to do better with the likely 200 points the Soviets get from holding Granger's Hut. ----No----German casualties.

I suggest you go to the CMBN thread, search Courage and Fortitude--there has even been a recent thread there.

CMBO: graphics are too poor. And I am not a huge fan of that theatre--too limiting as far as equipment. (neat explosive waves out of the firing AFVs, IIRC, though) CMBB: a classic. Probably still gives PTSD to BFC with regard to what they actually did. I don't play it--want to move forward--but miss it. CMAK: better graphics, and the desert. Loved it. Classic German paradrop onto Crete campaign. The gaming trade-offs with CM1, because of the lower computer graphics were "less realistic" in a technical sense than CM2. But...despite enormously better computers, for example, the U.S. still has not sent a human to the moon again in decades [yes, what a stretch for an analogy]. Sometimes there is just an extraordinary time--and I think CMBB/CMAK were it. Can CM2 get there? I would say, "not yet". I don't think the issue is technical, I think it is conceptual, and am optimistic.

Edward_the_Surly, By the number of posts, you may be knew to CM2. So, some warning: The second Courage and Fortitude battle (School of Hard Knocks, IIRC) is very, very, tough. As a practical matter, it may be for you unwinnable, or not worth trying to win. I just don't want you to become discouraged with the entire series just from the experience of that one battle. Search the Boards for that campaign, or that battle, for further info. I suspect this battle received more comments than about any other CM2 battle ever released.

Were you able to get the < 25% casualty 100 VP? That seems to me crucial--though if your did get it, and still lost, I would think about the importance or getting VP elsewhere.

I am surprised no one mentioned--unless I missed it--the Strategic Command WW1 simulation from Battlefront. I have enjoyed it immensely. And when the odd little other wars are added to it--Balkans front, Russian Civil War--I think it is a gem.

I don't think he will find the Soviet Campaign as "a few units". Try "Dead of the Night"--with or without reading the guide I just posted. It truly has only a few units.

I am reading "Lawrence of Arabia: Deceit, Imperial Folly, and the Making of the Modern Middle East." On the Kindle, there are no maps situated along with the text. But by playing the relevant SC scenario some time ago, I was able to mentally reconstruct where Medina was, for example, and the applicable geography. The book and the scenario complemented each other, such that I enjoyed them both more. Thanks.

Spoiler alert, of course, but this post is actually to make the scenario more interesting for those, for example, who are frustrated, confused, or enjoy seeing some analysis about a scenario before playing it, or who want to compare analyses. This is a Gamer's analysis, not a military or tactical analysis. German/attacker. Situation: In this elegant, and low unit density scenario, the Germans have a couple of squads to probe a lightly held Soviet position. In a time-honored scenario technique, it is night-time and raining, thus dropping the visibility down to about 120 meters. This will induce board-wide forest like knife-fight situation, without the forests. Not only will the attacker not be able to have long-range fire assets, a blundering attacker is often likely to be seen first and suffer the first casualties in any encounter. It also complicates indirect fire (see note below). The briefing is interesting and accurate (not deceptive). I think the scenario is most interesting once you know the victory conditions. The German ones are given to you. You can get the Soviet ones by either playing through the scenario the first time--mazel tov to you if you win it right off. Or, you can get the Soviet victory conditions by cease firing immediately after set up, but not looking at the "Review Map", so that you don't see the AI positions. There are two particularly notable victory conditions. First, the Soviets get 200 points for holding Granger's Hut (and 100 for the High Ground). Since the Germans must exit by the end of the scenario, and the AI, if there are units left, falls back onto Granger's Hut, that means the Soviets likely have a base of 200 victory points. Given that all the touch objectives together give the Germans only 200 points, that is a substantial Soviet likely minimum. Second, the Germans receive 100 points for < 25% casualties. I count 22 German soldiers, so that means 5 or fewer casualties. Wow. Tough. But entirely consistent with the briefing. Possible paths to German Victory: 1. Kill them all! This scenario is not set as a search and destroy mission, but technically, if one destroyed all the Soviet units, they could not receive points for holding any terrain. I think this would be a tough path, and likely only something one would do by default, particularly if the Germans exceeded the <25% casualty threshold. An option would then exist to through everything at, say, the Ganger's Hut, hope the AI reinforces it piecemeal, and grind up the entire force. My first attempt at the scenario somewhat, inadvertently, went like this, but was significantly unsuccessful. 2. Touch all the objectives other than Ganger's Hut. That would be 90 points, and combined with low casualties would give a total of 190 points. The balance would then have to be made up with casualties inflicted compared to casualties received. Do you feel lucky? Or are things going your way? This is a possibility. One problem, though, is that other than the likelihood that there are units a Ganger's Hut, you are blind to where the enemy units are, or if there are enough of them to inflict sufficient casualties. But, in the right circumstances, I can see this as a possible path. Also, you would have to push any Soviet units off of the High Ground, and hope they do not return. The Soviets having 300 objective points would be too much to overcome. 3. Avoid most contact, hit Ganger's Hut hard and get the touch points, and then withdraw. This, I think is most consistent with the briefing. Hit hard enough, the AI may be lured to bring units from elsewhere, like the High Ground, to assist the Ganger Hut units. Also, if the Ganger's Hut has the HQ unit, as the briefing suggests, eliminating that would make the remaining Soviet units more vulnerable. As long as one stayed below 5 casualties, one could risk being more assertive to pick up more points. The challenge would be to sustain only 5 casualties. A huge challenge, and interesting, challenge, I think. As a practical matter, I think this would mean either swinging far left and then back to the hut(most likely), or straight a bit, and then swinging right before hitting the hut from the right side. I don't know all the possible AI dispositions, so the choice is a bit random. An advantage to this approach is that one would likely pick up another 20 touch points, going either right or left. Note: the Germans have a mortar, with 10 shells. If not given orders on turn one, a HQ will have to be within 120 meters to call it in indirectly. Since the Germans are generally not looking for a protracted fire fight, that means it would be used on the Ganger's Hut (or, less likely, the High Ground). In that case, just order it on the appropriate target turn 1--you can put a delay, if you want to be clever. (I did not understand this point on my first run through). Again, this post can be available for anyone searching on this scenario in the future, and, hopefully, will be helpful or invite discussion. I want to minimize players having unnecessary frustrations with the game, and maximize the appreciation for the thought gone into designing the scenarios.

BTW, I think this is the most succinct, well-written paragraph in the post. In some manner, one could drop this right into someplace in the manual.

Yes. This and what ME and YankeeDog provide below (in addition to others) is very helpful. Indeed, given the OP concern, I was essentially baiting you all to provide that information. I did not realize, JasonC, the relative scarcity of Radios in the German army in 1944. I had picked them as an example (rather than the Soviets) thinking they were more like the US at that time. But, of course, cart transport was still significant for the Germans in 1944, so I should have been more savvy--also, as noted below, there seem to be more radios than you describe in-game--I did not realize the design decisions had been involved in this area. Also, the ability to find a vehicle that has a radio, and put your unit in/near it, amplifies the radio abilities of units. To be completely fair to BFC, the CMBN manual has the sentence, "many German formations only possess a radio for the main Company HQ,..." Still...I wonder if CM2 would benefit from a section at the front of the manual like "design notes", or "warning", or "setting the times of WW2". This would be to try to minimize having a situation like the initial post and people thinking "the game is broke".

[Well...I just brought my wife over to the computer to read the nice comments. She has no idea what she is reading, but she can tell I am, unaccountably, pleased] So let me ask a super-grog type of question as to real life. Situation: It is 1944. A small German infantry force, with three attached MkIVs are to assault a building complex. You are the squad closest to the friendly armor, which is about 200-400 meters away. Things are not going exactly to plan, or, you want the armor to fire at specific enemy location. By good fortune, both your squad and the friendly armor has a radio. Do you?: A: Go over to the tanks, trying not to get shot in the process, and talk to them, or use hand signals? Sub-question: Do you send a low level enlisted person to do this--I doubt that--or send a leader, with the radio or not? B: Radio your platoon commander, who, there or up the chain further, crosses over to the armor formation communication network and gets information down to the armor unit--per the OPs issue, this seems to be the way CM2 handles this. Given the BFC penchant for accuracy, that either means it is historically correct, or done to give the correct "feeling" for battle. C: Hey, I have a radio, they have a radio, let's call each other up! This seems to be the issue with the OP's post. But I can think of, and would like to be corrected if incorrect, that this direct communication might not happen because 1. They radios are on different frequencies, indeed almost certainly are. Finding, or being given, the frequencies of other units might not be done. 2. Chattering in the open air might not be considered acceptable, for security reasons. or 3. A squad calling up a local armor unit and telling them what to do was "just not done"--there are orders to be obeyed, and many issues need to be resolved at an appropriate, higher level. Note that in game terms, there are always going to be trade-offs. I think, for example, a scout squad which sees an enemy unit, and is sitting right next to a tank, is not going to be able in CM2 help with the tanks enemy unit spotting unless they are in the same chain of command at some point. Purists would argue that some tanks had external phones the infantry could call the crew with, or if the tank was unbuttoned there should communication available, but I can see why excluding those situations could, overall, make for a better, more realistic feeling simulation. But, for someone new to CM2, this issue could cause some perplexity.

[Well...I just brought my wife over to the computer to read the nice comments. She has no idea what she is reading, but she can tell I am, unaccountably, pleased] So let me ask a super-grog type of question as to real life. Situation: It is 1944. A small German infantry force, with three attached MkIVs are to assault a building complex. You are the squad closest to the friendly armor, which is about 200-400 meters away. Things are not going exactly to plan, or, you want the armor to fire at specific enemy location. By good fortune, both your squad and the friendly armor has a radio. Do you?: A: Go over to the tanks, trying not to get shot in the process, and talk to them, or use hand signals? Sub-question: Do you send a low level enlisted person to do this--I doubt that--or send a leader, with the radio or not? B: Radio your platoon commander, who, there or up the chain further, crosses over to the armor formation communication network and gets information down to the armor unit--per the OPs issue, this seems to be the way CM2 handles this. Given the BFC penchant for accuracy, that either means it is historically correct, or done to give the correct "feeling" for battle. C: Hey, I have a radio, they have a radio, let's call each other up! This seems to be the issue with the OP's post. But I can think of, and would like to be corrected if incorrect, that this direct communication might not happen because 1. They radios are on different frequencies, indeed almost certainly are. Finding, or being given, the frequencies of other units might not be done. 2. Chattering in the open air might not be considered acceptable, for security reasons. or 3. a squad calling up a local armor unit and telling them what to do was "just not done"--there are orders to be obeyed, and many issues need to be resolved at an appropriate, higher level. Note that in game terms, there are always going to be trade-offs. I think, for example, a scout squad which sees an enemy unit, and is sitting right next to a tank, is not going to be able in CM2 help with the tanks enemy unit spotting unless they are in the same chain of command at some point. Purists would argue that some tanks had external phones the infantry could call the crew with, or if the tank was unbuttoned there should communication available, but I can see why excluding those situations could, overall, make for a better, more realistic feeling simulation. But, for someone new to CM2, this issue could cause some perplexity.

My understanding is this: The scout can share the spotting with your tanks IF it is connected by C2 to the units above it, and if the tanks by C2 to the units above it, and one of those higher level units are the same. The spotting information goes up the chain of command from the scout, and then down to the tank. There is a time delay in passing that spotting information. A radio can help keep those communication links. (as in: Radios don't pass spotting information, people do, and sometimes the radio helps) But, at the risk of stepping into the military experts area, in the time frame of CMRT, it was unusual for armor and infantry to be tightly integrated at the scale of the battles we see in CM2. Often the armor is "attached" to the infantry, temporarily. Hence, the armor is in a different, non-connecting, chain of command than the infantry. This causes, realistic to the time, difficulty with co-ordination between the infantry and the armor. This is a game feature, not a bug. Of course, this being a game, there is still some artificialness about the situation. Since your scouts see the enemy armor, you know exactly were it is, and can guide your armor accordingly (unbuttoned to increase the spotting chances?--it can be a tough decision). Nevertheless, it gives a hint of the difficulties of communication and coordination in battle--and it is hard to go back to "all-seeing" tactical games after seeing CM2. Indeed, I think I won't be contradicted when I say that the actual battlefield conditions were much, much, much, more confusing in real life than what we see in CM2. The situation you describe is about as frustrating as most gamers will bear--even then I am sure it causes some rage-quits. [Not to trivialize it, but remember going to a shopping mall, or setting up any meeting before cell phones? Get the place or time slightly wrong.....annoying and time consuming, and potentially very difficult to straighten out.] Maybe Modern Warfare has fewer communications problems. That is why I think there is a large conceptual leap between CMSF and CM2. And it will also be why, when they develop modules earlier in the war, it will require, I imagine, even more conceptual thinking on getting "the feeling right"--particularly for the Soviets.

Search on my posts to learn about some very small, fun, battles. By editing the QB forces, eliminating almost everything, you can do things like take a squad or two, with an HQ, and go against an MG or two, with a HQ. With the AI placing the enemy units in different places each time, or by using different maps, the replayability is high. Throw in a flamethrower unit, say, or a sniper team, for fun. You get a real "hunter/hunted" type feel as you try to locate the few enemy units, and then try to eliminate them. The turns go much faster, and mistakes are less painful--because you have not had to endure hours of movement/clicks only to find out you made some basic initial decision incorrectly. Too small?-- just add more units. The key is to make your own victory conditions, edit, edit, edit, to keep the forces small, yet keep it challenging enough to be fun.

As with many replays of the Normandy campaign, the link-up of the two beaches, so vital in real life, can be hard to do. I speculate that this is because the German "player" has a lot better sense of what is the strategic situation versus the German command at the time. I think that emphasizes what a close call the success of the invasion was, and that the confusion for the Germans caused by the paradrops was an important component of the invasion plan. [The situation on the eastern side of Sword looks particularly interesting. Someone is potentially surrounded and at risk for being completely destroyed--but which side is actually going to suffer that fate?]

I have a pathetic piece of paper next to my computer, which is a chart from Martin Krejcirik, to the response of a thread in CMBN, Duration of artillery missions. It gives me data on the US 60mm, 81mm, and 105mm. That should be able to search for, and it gives me some idea about the different weapons systems. This thread has now given me info on the Russian artillery, which I have printed out. But it is unclear to me why this should be hidden. I don't understand the FOW considerations with this issue.

And though memories are fallible, I still think the lack of living soldiers can worsen the intent of verisimilitude [sorry, non-English speakers for the word] in simulations like CM2. I suggest that WW2 "felt" a certain way--such as to understand what it means that horses were used as transportation by some of the major combatants throughout the war, such as to understand that event the term "C2" is, I believe, anachronistic, and thus brings a horde of conceptual shadings which are...maybe.... a bit off, or, again, anachronistic being a better word. I have mentioned this before: I wish BFC had a "Board" of WW2 vets to just look at least some of the CM2 action--to comment on it-- maybe this has been done, but it is likely too late, the vets too elderly, and memories too distant to any longer be much effective.

I play Veteran level. I used to play Warrior, but I just found it more fun to go to Veteran level. Posters on the forum are not, I hope, a cross-section of their market-- for BFC's sake, that would make for a very small market. I think the number of levels they have are well thought out and, from what I can see, well done.