Baneman

Off topic, but I'm so glad to find I'm not the only one with a book addiction.

As much as I like the Pacific theater, I would be all over Fulda Gap in the 80's or 90''s.  Its the main reason I stick with Steel Beasts.

However, Battlefront games last for years in terms of whether you get tired of playing them.
Many of us here have been playing CMBN since it came out and are still playing it. ( and all the others as well ). Which adds up to some serious value for money.
If in any doubt, download some of the demos  

Er... disagree.
Many of us have lost squadmembers to dropped grenades.

Well we all have preferences. I am obviously concerned about the current engine MOUT limitations and agree I doubt we.ll see major enough changes to really really see it done right until Stalingrad several years from now.  And even though I prefer end of war fighting I actually agree with you Baneman and wish they.d wrap RT up with modules to fill out the Ost Front summer 44 and change their minds and work 41 onwards. It.d give them more time to work on MOUT and play more to the engines strengths until Stalingrad. Though of course end of war Germany isnt simply just one battle in urban sprawl after another. As vicious as the fighting in Berlin was by the time the Red Army entered Berlin what was considered the true battle for the city had already occurred at the Seelow Heights.
Theres still lots that could be done and hopefully in the future engine updates can be fitted back onto the Berlin game...
Yeah Duckman on the one hand I could make a strong case why there would be Romanians, they did Italians and if a game covers fighting in their home country how could you not model say arrowcross units. OTOH Steve has mentioned before that as much as he liked doing the whole East Front and all the minor nations it was a big marketing mistake. fwiw.

I'm in almost exactly the opposite camp
I'd prefer BFC to ignore the End-of-the-war Eastern Front ( very little that's new and Berlin fighting would be difficult with the current engine as mentioned ) and move immediately the 1943 period ( obviously I'd prefer Barbarossa even more, but their system is based on 1 year at a time, which I can understand ). Much more interesting matchups on both sides.

Very little is more terrifying than a T34 breaking into your lines loaded with guys with SMG's blazing away !
It's over very quickly, one way or the other.

Yep, ignore that Stummel at your peril.
A couple of HEAT rounds from a Stummel has saved my bacon on more than one occasion in PBEM's
And there's more than a couple of deadly AC's too, on both sides.

Spend 75% of your QB points on JagdTiger.
Take a Gun Hit in the first 5 minutes.

Yeah, you can get all specific about it, but I find ( in general ), the game works best if you don't overthink it.
 
I too, come from a tabletop wargaming background and CMx1 only reinforced that, but over time, I've come to the following approach with CMx2 - Do what you think is right. Most of the time it works more or less as expected. ( the trees added cover, the bushes added concealment etc. ).
Also, I try not to stay static for too long with my troops. Thus, unlike CM1 where you might hog a piece of fine cover terrain for a long period ( the benefit was specific and unchanging ), in CM2, I find that sitting too long in one place is asking to get blasted by "something bigger" your opponent brought up to eliminate the hard-cases. So you've moving from cover to cover, it's constantly changing, you'll go mad trying to evaluate every little piece.
Bottom line - if it looks like a viable spot for your purposes, it probably is ... for a while anyway. This game rewards dynamic play

That's where it starts. "Why can't we have hit decals?" It's a simple question, and the answer is just as simple, "Because it's stupid."
Personally I never understood why we need vehicle hit decals either. What's the point of having black circle holes showing where your tank got shot? Your tank is already dead, and all the postmortem analysis in the world isn't going to change that fact. The same goes for infantry: why does it matter WHERE your Pixeltruppen get shot? Dead troops are dead troops, and all of the hit decals in the world won't change the fact that when you get hit by bullets, you usually die.
The origins for having a visual feedback when an entity gets hit with weapons traces all the way back to the original DOOM. Whether it be hit decals, or fully rendered 3D 'Blood and Guts', visual feedback has long been the domain of the first person shooter. This feedback is intended to be a reward to the player to congratulate them for nailing that 'Sweet Headshot', or landing a grenade perfectly at their opponents feet.
In tactics games however, there is no practical need for that type of feedback. The player is not personally shooting the enemy troops, he is commanding AI troops to do that for him. There are a few exceptions, such as the Men of War series, which allow the player to take direct control of vehicles and troops, but those games are hardly realistic.
Combat Mission is a tactical wargame, it's meant to exercise your brain to defeat your opponent. No one who takes this game seriously is asking for blood and gore to be added, because in the end, it doesn't matter that your sniper got a sweet headshot, it matters that he is effectively inflicting casualties. You might as well ask the guys playing the Silent Hunter series, "Why can't I see drowned, dismembered bodies when I sink a ship? It's more realistic!"
It's because that's not what the game is about.

"reversing through bocage" was a known bug and I'm pretty certain it was fixed, but I can't remember which version fixed it.

Wait, a minute ago $55 was too expensive, now you say $55 is ok if it's on Steam ?
Well, it's not going to be on Steam in the near future anyway. There are a lot of locked threads on that topic.
But just because it's not on steam is no reason to deny yourself an enjoyable and absorbing game. Is it ?
Hmmm, occasionally spotting "anomalies" are raised here. I've even raised a thread or two on the topic myself. But it's not "bad". The system generates some outliers that sometimes seem strange and once or twice, a bug has been found which the developers squashed. But a lot of the time, it works more or less as you'd expect it to.
No idea what you're talking about with respect to removal of "lines of sight". The game wouldn't work without lines of sight
Don't know who is saying on social media that they refuse to buy CM products, but it's just possible that they have an axe to grind ? There are a couple of people out there who don't get along with BFC...
Anyway, why let someone else make your mind up ? I suggest you try the demo of one of the titles ( Red Thunder, I think, has the most up to date version of the engine in the demo ).
If you like it, $55 is cheap for the enjoyment you'll get. If you don't, it isn't.

Would never work for me because MY men are much worse shots than my opponents' men ...

Wait, a minute ago $55 was too expensive, now you say $55 is ok if it's on Steam ?
Well, it's not going to be on Steam in the near future anyway. There are a lot of locked threads on that topic.
But just because it's not on steam is no reason to deny yourself an enjoyable and absorbing game. Is it ?
Hmmm, occasionally spotting "anomalies" are raised here. I've even raised a thread or two on the topic myself. But it's not "bad". The system generates some outliers that sometimes seem strange and once or twice, a bug has been found which the developers squashed. But a lot of the time, it works more or less as you'd expect it to.
No idea what you're talking about with respect to removal of "lines of sight". The game wouldn't work without lines of sight
Don't know who is saying on social media that they refuse to buy CM products, but it's just possible that they have an axe to grind ? There are a couple of people out there who don't get along with BFC...
Anyway, why let someone else make your mind up ? I suggest you try the demo of one of the titles ( Red Thunder, I think, has the most up to date version of the engine in the demo ).
If you like it, $55 is cheap for the enjoyment you'll get. If you don't, it isn't.

Very little is more terrifying than a T34 breaking into your lines loaded with guys with SMG's blazing away !
It's over very quickly, one way or the other.

I believe something simple, in bronze, something tasteful, no more than three stories high, no more than eight Bradleys and four Abrams is appropriate. Lights, of course, at night.
I would prefer to forego a plinth and have a small park, perhaps six acres, no more than ten, with a football grid, a baseball diamond and some basic concession stands.
Out of respect for the dead, the concession stands should be closed during the Saturday night fireworks displays.

You can share ammo, acquire ammo and buddy aid ammo.
 
Ammo sharing distance is two action spots.  The units must be in the same platoon / section (both highlight when you click on one).
 
Below is an example of a two man scout team going to an ammo dump in a building, using the Acquire command to obtain ammo and then returning to the squad to distribute the ammo.  
 

 
 

Except, of course, the price of the game *isn't* high. Steam is a parasite company. Why do people keep suggesting BFC attach a parasite to its neck just to suck its profits? BFC prefers to keep its own profits for itself.

Well, it certainly makes a difference - the accentuation of shadows is very marked.
 
Here are some before and after shots :
 

 

Converting from CMx1 to CMx2 games is not a easy task.

But the first thing to remember is not to compare.

There is many differences besides how you give commands or control the camera.

I Found I had to re-address how to use my units and what type of commands to give them also.

But the truth is, the CMX2 game plays much more realistically than the older games.

Just be patient and remember to do proper things and the game will be rewarding. With time you will not think about the interface and how you have to use it, all that stuff becomes second nature with time.

I don't even think about how I control the camera anymore, its just second nature.

Since some time I am reading this forum with much interest and play CM since the CMBO days. This is the most informative thread so far and I have deep respect for the knowledge displayed here. Thank you all.

Concerning terrain VL I think, that a scenario can be set up and played like a chess game (CMFI has some), but for me, there is much more fun, when a good briefing gives it an operational context and a PURPOSE and that perfectly fits to a terrain objective.

Imagine, your battalion has the order to block a road to close a huge pocket filled with enemy forces. The objective is not to neutralize the last enemy formation between you and the road, rather to find a bypass or an efficient way through this formation.

The objective is the road in operational context. I enjoy objectives with purpose.

Henning

Well, I've done a few test games with friends and the conclusion was really that in a QB, with the points differential between Attacker and Defender in Attack or Assault battles, the Defender will almost always be overwhelmed.
Regarding a Probe battle as an "attack" gives some chance to the Defender to pull off a heroic defence.
 
The exception may be if you give the Attacker serious time pressure.
 
That's opinion of course, but I and many of the people I game against have sort of adopted Probes as Attacks.

Agreed - CM is so good sometimes at depicting the battlefield that we forget that it is a wargame and as such, the "player as god" issue cannot be eliminated without removing almost all the player's control which makes it not-fun ( or at least, not a wargame ).
 
When you're playing another human PBEM, you are both capable of the same somewhat unrealistic behaviour and that at least, keeps the field level. Against the AI the human has an advantage, but then you always will against AI ( at least until Skynet  )

Agreed - CM is so good sometimes at depicting the battlefield that we forget that it is a wargame and as such, the "player as god" issue cannot be eliminated without removing almost all the player's control which makes it not-fun ( or at least, not a wargame ).
 
When you're playing another human PBEM, you are both capable of the same somewhat unrealistic behaviour and that at least, keeps the field level. Against the AI the human has an advantage, but then you always will against AI ( at least until Skynet  )