Baneman

"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  )

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  )

Note that understanding Jason does not mean that I agree with him. Nor that I completely disagree with him. If terrain objectives are to be taken, it's much easier to do that if you've swept the enemy away with your lead broom. But you still have to take them, and to do that you have to know where they are, which implies paying some attention to the assigned objectives. Because if you forget to occupy an occupy VL and your human opponent refuses to Surrender, you're not going to collect the VPs for that VL.
 
Because this is a game we're playing, the scenario has to provide the operational context, and if that says you can't afford the losses it'll take to whup your opponent, you'd better not spend too much effort on the beat-down. But where VCs are simplistic and force matchups putatively "even", beating the tar out of the other guy is absolutely a way of achieving your objectives.

Combat Missions's scenarios aren't designed for textbook applications of tactics. They're designed to be challenging. In that light terrain objectives and short mission timers make perfect sense. I could see QB essentially being the place to go for a by-the-numbers approach. The scenarios, campaigns, etc should not be so easy.

This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. 
 
The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would be to have it played like a first person shooter, with players issuing orders to other units and then those human units carrying them out, each unit only seeing what he can see from where he is at. 
 
In combat mission, we already have the most realistic approach you can probably get in a RTS, and it still be a RTS. WEGO. Wego limits specific orders to only occurring every minute, which in my opinion is a decent way to make C2 more realistic, as it makes it less possible for you to instantly micro units. If you want something else, then you wont get that from a strategy game, period. They are by nature exercises in theory, not C2 simulations. 
 
With that said, it is totally unfair to single out the "area fire" mechanic and claim it being abused. If you wanted to alter this in some physically unrealistic way to ostensibly reflect some C2 conundrum, you would still be left with a imperfect solution (as you said). But worse, you would have altered one specific mechanic unevenly when there are loads of other things you do in this game that benefit from the nature of the players abilities. If we tried to alter all mechanics like this, pretty soon there wouldn't be much for the player to do anymore, except watch the battle unfold. 

Really ? That's what you got from this informative thread about how the Germans used their forces differently to other armies ( and with useful CM-applicable tutorial ) ?
 
See here for the Soviet fanboism then : http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120450-russian-doctrine-in-cmrt/

Really ? That's what you got from this informative thread about how the Germans used their forces differently to other armies ( and with useful CM-applicable tutorial ) ?
 
See here for the Soviet fanboism then : http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120450-russian-doctrine-in-cmrt/

If you use HUNT for the unit that can see the Target, even if you forget it, they will ignore it instantly as they are the ones who can see the enemy unit

Personally I still prefer Elite - mostly because when watching playback, every time I select a unit to follow, I have to remember to unclick it in order to see the context in which it's operating ( surrounding units etc. ).
This becomes a chore and eventually irritates me.
C2 I can evaluate when selecting a unit or turning on the command lines ( which, incidentally, I find a bit odd in Iron with lines extending to ... blankness ).
 
Each to their own though.

Personally I still prefer Elite - mostly because when watching playback, every time I select a unit to follow, I have to remember to unclick it in order to see the context in which it's operating ( surrounding units etc. ).
This becomes a chore and eventually irritates me.
C2 I can evaluate when selecting a unit or turning on the command lines ( which, incidentally, I find a bit odd in Iron with lines extending to ... blankness ).
 
Each to their own though.

Although, when the Bulge game comes out, you're supposed to have traffic-jams !