sburke

who is we? This is a long thread and very little of it has anything about the actual subsystems - I assume you are referring to the optics on a recon vehicle. The OP never said a word about recon per se but more the scope of maneuver and scale of combat. You keep very narrowly defining a specific item and then submit that because I can't have a recon vehicle sneaking around the backroads and occasionally peeking over a hill in what would likely be one of the most boring scenarios ever created that CM can 't properly represent recon. I did suggest watching Generation Kill and I don't think there is a single combat situation in that movie that can't be replicated in CM. In fact you can create a map that is 3 x 6 km in CM and do exactly what you are suggesting but I simply don't think you will find anyone willing to create a scenario like that. CM even has a point value system for it (spot). If someone wanted to create a scenario that had a recon section maneuvering to see if it could obtain information on enemy units while not being observed over a very large map they most certainly can. That those scenarios do not exist is not because the engine can't create them.

just a guess, but I expect that by getting the module you effectively converted the game so your answer is yes and your module license key should allow BF to verify your purchase. You would not have gotten that through Paradox.

No not really. Recon vehicles are vehicles because they are intended to cover distance, however they don't have to go 10 feet if the position they are doing recon of is just beyond the hill 10' ahead. So now you have a tactical situation where the recon vehicles has covered the approach to get to the town they were ordered to reconnoiter or the bridge they were ordered to seize and now have a combat situation. You are far too strict in how you define the situations a recon force would find itself in based on the objective it was assigned. For example the article below was based on some research that was initiated for the granddaughter of a sergeant in the 2nd cavalry reconnaissance group. Any portion of the battles below could be done on a far smaller map. There are combat situations described for both this unit and the German Recon Bn 115. For a more modern setting- watch Generation Kill. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/luneville.aspx The First Battle for Luneville: 15-16 September 1944 At this time, XII Corps’s attention was focused on liberating the city of Nancy, securing its positions across the Moselle River and preparing for a drive to the Rhine. The town of Luneville was not at first a priority for XII Corps. Yet in the coming days, Luneville would come to play a pivotal role in XII Corps operations. Luneville was located to the south-east of Nancy on the confluence of the Muerthe and Vezouze Rivers. To the east were two large forests: the Foret de Parroy and the Foret de Mondom. Also in the vicinity were a number of smaller villages, including Jolivet to the north and Deuxville to the north-west.[10] In its drive to encircle and isolate Nancy, the 4th Armored Division had sent its Combat Command B near Luneville but at first had not made any efforts to liberate the town. Instead it fell upon the 2nd Cavalry Group to secure the town. As part of its efforts to screen XII Corps’s right flank, the 2nd Cavalry Group had its 42nd Squadron attack Luneville. Elements of the 15th PanzerGrenadier Division’s Reconnaissance Battalion 115 were then holding the town.[11] On 15 September, two troops of the 42nd Squadron attacked from the south. T/4 Eugene Fehr was the radio operator in one of the M8 armored cars. During the fighting, his armored car was struck by an 88mm anti-tank shell which knocked off the right front wheel. Fehr and his crewmates dismounted to survey the damage, then immediately sought cover. Seconds later another 88mm shell struck the center of the M8 and destroyed it. Unable to overcome the German resistance, the 2nd Cavalry troopers pulled back and re-grouped.[12] 42nd Squadron was reinforced by elements of Colonel Wendell Blanchard’s Reserve Command (CCR), 4th Armored Division. Blanchard had with him the 696th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, part of the 489th Anti-aircraft Artillery (Automatic Weapons) Battalion, part of the 35th Tank Battalion, part of the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion and Headquarters and B Companies of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion. The next day, the combined force launched a three-prong attack on Luneville. The Squadron’s C Troop attacked from the west while B Troop attacked from the south-east and CCR attacked from the northwest. B Company of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion covered CCR’s left flank north-west of the city.[13] In this fight for Luneville, the 35th Tank Battalion was operating without its B and C Companies which had been detached for service elsewhere. The battalion was positioned initially in the village of Deuxville then moved to occupy some high ground northwest of the city. Though the 35th Tank Battalion force did not participate in the liberation of the city, it did repel a German counter-attack. They destroyed two German half-tracks and three anti-tank guns at a cost of one M4 Sherman medium tank, two men killed and fifteen wounded.[14] While most of B Troop, 42nd Squadron was engaged in the Luneville fight, Sgt James Hart’s section of 1st Platoon was sent to the west side of the Muerthe River to set up an outpost on a road leading to Luneville. At one point, a column of German panzers and infantry advanced up the road. Sgt Hart’s men opened fired at close range, killing a number of Germans and a tank commander. The Germans withdrew. But it would be another four days before his section were reunited with their parent troop.[15] The Americans pushed the Germans out of Luneville by late afternoon and Reserve Command assumed responsibility for the city. The Germans had 75 men killed and another 18 taken prisoner. The following day, the 2nd Cavalry Group assembled in the vicinity of the Foret de Mondon, with its A Troop, 42nd Squadron screening in the forest to the south-east and B Troop covering the southern approaches to Luneville.[16] Also on 17 September 1944, the 35th Tank Battalion endeavoured to clear German forces from the vicinity of Jolivet and the Foret de Parroy. One platoon of A Company attacked Jolivet and knocked out two anti-tank guns at a cost of one medium tank. Meanwhile, D Company conducted a sweep which accounted for one anti-tank gun and a half-track. They also captured fifteen prisoners from the Reconnaissance Battalion 115. Altogether, German casualties in this sector were three anti-tank guns and one half-track destroyed, 75 killed and 81 prisoners taken with another half-track probably knocked out. In return, the Americans suffered two killed, fifteen wounded and a M4 tank knocked out.[17] But the Germans were not done with Luneville yet. Over the next day or so, they managed to infiltrate a large number of troops back into the city. By the night of 17 September, there were enough Germans in Luneville to create the mistaken impression amongst the German commanders that they had in fact recaptured the city.[18]

really? you don't look a day older than 350!

absolutely true! Though the drafts they pour here are pretty remarkable... https://slainteoakland.com/

your module key should help at least a bit though.

Funny thing about scenario design is you can't really make assumptions about the design in one play through (unless of course you can open in the editor and find there is only one plan and it doesn't really account for your actions). In testing a scenario recently I did one play through and was discussing my experience with the designer and he'd graciously offered me the opportunity to tweak it and see if I could improve it. It had two additional slots available, but did have 3 AI plans which I casually looked at but not in depth. <- note to self not to repeat that mistake. Now in my first play though I had been very aggressive seizing defensive positions that allowed me to trash the AI as it attempted to attack. It was exciting, but my casualties were very very minor. So I tweak it altering some minor items but nothing substantial initially. Then I launched the scenario and applied my uber effective aggressive plan...…. turns out I got a different AI plan this time. In 60 seconds I lost 13 men including my platoon commander, was unable to get my men into almost any of the positions I'd hoped for and ended up with a leaderless, rattled force that was practically overrun before my reinforcements arrived to stabilize the situation. I promptly told the designer I think I didn't need to touch his design.... then I crawled back into my corner and curled up into a ball cowering like so many of my men.

"alternative" information as we say these days

Really... coincidence? And we are just supposed to accept that?

ahh yes I miss a good regicide. Hasn't been one in a while that shows any real panache

palette grog.

ha ha yeah. I think in one run through my guys were right on the spawn point. Man what a wild party.

It isn't an "upgrade" in the sense it will take your existing game and magically make it 4.0. It is really a new game and a new install. Your license will indicate to them what you own and therefore what pricing option you have. You can open a ticket and see if they can access your account info to validate.

That option only works if you aren’t sitting at the spawn point

This is where it pays to be mostly interested in infantry combat. a 2 km sq map is HUGE. I am testing out on a 500 by 300 meter map. I have a platoon of infantry engaged with another joining up. I am in heavy combat struggling to establish a perimeter that is simply too much ground to cover. (The area I am trying to actually defend is maybe 130 x 130 meters). I am concerned about ammo usage as my transport is too vulnerable to bring forward so I will have to break off teams to fetch more further weakening my line. As Ken would say - GLORIOUS!!!!

Been reading Quotations from Chairman Ken as well eh? One thing to beware of is ammo usage. I am messing with @George MC's Circle the wagons and have watched 2 teams burn through about 1000 rounds of ammo in 15 minutes. Granted it is a heavy urban fight, but modern automatic weapons will have you looking for resupply pretty darn fast. correction- that was 2000 rounds.... 8 guys.... maybe 13-14 minutes of actual fighting.

Is there more than 1 version of Radzy Award (CMRT right)? I can open but it is only 2.7 x 2.3 km (says version 1)

Hey I resent that ! this thread did look like it had calmed down so whatever you might think of previous posts tossing in troll comments now isn’t going to make things any better. (This isn’t specific for you Rinaldi, but I did have to respond to the geriatrics comment, get off my damn lawn hippy)

I don’t seem to be able to do those dimensions. Best I could get was 5.5 x 3.3. I’ll play around a bit. Even if I can though, opening a scenario with a map that size may be a completely different issue.

No problem. For what it is worth I do agree with some of your sentiments. As much as I know I have been tagged as a “fanboi” there are things I don’t particularly like in certain implementations. For example drones. Interestingly conceptually but problematic for me as to how it is done. Air support in general. I could list a couple more, but the point is no I am not going to say CM is unblemished. I just adapt as frankly there isn’t anything else that even comes close for me. And I frankly love CMSF2. While I like CMBS a lot, it is the beginning of a curve where technology is altering combat just a bit much for me. I guess the same way some folks feel about CMSF who are hardcore WW2 players. CMSF for me is still a grunt’s battle. Insurgents can still take out an M1 (probably better than in real life statistically speaking) and tanks are not doing instant auto response to ATGMs. You are disappoimted as you hoped CMSF2 would somehow advance the engine beyond current 4.0 issues. I was just happy to see CMSF2 start sharing 4.0 issues and not be forever stuck in the 2007 version of CM2 Just a different starting point.

Depending on circumstances. Iraq is not the same as Ukraine in terrain for example so yes it can happen at longer ranges, but it isn’t necessarily true it always will. (I noted your profile and am not about to get into a losing discussion about what folks train for for example. I know my limits ). However as a broad brush statement I think it is a very slanted view in terms of types of engagements. For example I have been doing some testing of the CMSF scenario USMC circle the wagons. It is a relatively small map, urban terrain and a gem of a scenario. Engagement ranges are the width of a street frequently. Combat in Iraq for the vast majority of engagements was not armor vs armor at 4km and up. Nor has combat in Ukraine. Can it be? Certainly I expect many of the NTC training scenarios may involve longer range engagements (though that is purely a guess on my part). all that is pointless though. As Steve noted the engine that provides the basis of what we like in our tactical sim is getting stretched the greater the map size. Sure we could give up the engine for bigger maps, but then what would be the point? We’d have big maps and we’d be complaining about how crappy the actual play was. In regard to your response to my earlier post I think you misunderstood. When I said we were pushing the envelope I meant the capabilities of the engine not the engagement ranges for an M1. CM is a tactical game that shines in the small to medium battle range. Folks who have pushed for much much bigger maps and larger forces (i’m Looking at you Ian with your 20,000 point battle) are really straining the games ability to process an enormous amount of data.

Just for some clarity about some of the issues you have noted to be factually correct there is not a 4 km limitation. You can actually make a map 3km x 6km. The 4km comes from people tending to make square maps. Whether that matters in most real world situations that you would necessarily have a 4km line of sight is a whole other issue. It is a tactical game not an operational one. We push the envelope, but it isn’t what CM is meant to be nor what the code will support The graphics for CMBS are the same as for every other current CM title so why you are only disappointed in CMBS is confusing comparing other games on the market and only rating CM based on the graphics is kind of like saying my truck is nowhere near as fast as a Ferrari and therefore is not as good a vehicle. It doesn’t work so well when the main reason you bought the truck was to haul lumber. Fegardless it is is what it is. We all want more out of the game. We may eventually get more. For now we settle for what it is because the alternative is those other games with nice graphics that frankly suck compared to CM. Someday maybe we will get the best of both worlds., but in terms of the OP any expectations you had were never supported by anything BF has ever said about CMSF2 . We have been aware of that ever since they announced they would be upgrading the title. In other words, don’t rain on our parade

Repeating what you said but just hoping to make sure Bob is clear. The entire upgrade package only applies to the modules you already own. Any modules you do not already own have to be purchased as new. So in Bobs case the full upgrade would give him the base game and the two modules he already owns. He would still need to purchase the NATO module as a new module. So $35 to upgrade everything he already owns plus the cost of the CMSF2 NATO module if he so desires. Clear as mud?

I did see in previous posts @Apocalypse 31that you were disappointed in CM graphics. I don’t think anyone here would disagree in the sense of always wanting something more, but the reality is compromise is a part of life. Given the size of BF to expect it to produce a tactical sim at the level of CM and beat any other graphics out there is maybe a bit much to expect. Yeah I’d love to see some more stuff like treads breaking when hitting an AT mine. Parts flying off and better wrecks on the battlefield etc etc. However 1 I think CM graphics are still pretty darn good and 2 I wouldn’t sacrifice anything on the sim side for better graphics. It is all subjective on what we value and expect but I’d have to disagree with the opinion you have expressed that somehow BF graphics are extremely substandard.

Overheard recently at my neighbors daughters birthday party. “I am so excited I am squealing like a CMSF fan upon hearing that CMSF2 is almost out!”