Childress

Neither have I. Maybe it's more noticeable on your map due to that unusually long and straight paved road.

Greyhounds in the Two Bridges scenario: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1304651#post1304651 On a paved road and no convoy.

Interesting, Umlaut. That infantry platoon that arrives as a replacement was truly precious. An oddity with one particular road that I noticed: no matter how closely you space the waypoints along the route the Greyhounds negotiate the second half weaving off-road as if the drivers were tripping on LSD. I doubt this is related to your design, but something of which BFC should probably be made aware.

I agree. What I meant was that if you set cover arc/ambush from within a building a Hide order isn't necessary. The enemy doesn't seem, in my limited experience, to spot them.

You're not giving up! So provide us with your test scenario and prove us wrong. Or download mine and tell me how flawed it is.

Did you run my test?

4- An elevation indicator in meters.

My tests showed that troops in bldgs are rather more resilient than your experience indicates. http://www.mediafire.com/?fhx5ai9534lrf2q The defenders tend to show a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage in casualties. This is with 'modular' buildings. The key, I found, is that defenders should utilize the windows and avoid oblique facings which inhibits fire diffusion. Thus, troops in the open have the advantage if they're area spraying a floor, scoring penetration and shrapnel effects, while the defenders are constrained to a single window. For the most part you only need one team per floor. One senses that two shooters per window is the best you can get. Also, I believe Hiding is a waste of time. Troops in structures disclose their location by firing.

Swales? Inevitably, Michael Emrys has contributed le mot juste. (I think...)

Graphically, CMBN works for me. Maybe this is a "I'm from Mars, you're from Venus" kind of preference thing. Personally, I'd hate to see the return of command lines, fire lines or balloon-headed truppen that can be scaled to Brobdingnagian proportions. Aesthetics matter. It's not only the mechanics.

Really? I find that nine time out of ten the scores are exactly the same.

The ability to split squads up into teams adds a lot of subtlety and flexibility to the game. Love the new Scout team. But is there a downside? Greater fragility, slower responsiveness? The manual's mum on the subject. In other words, I don't want to feel compelled to use teams on a continuous basis. Because of the busy work and resulting micro-management. It's clear what the player gains by using teams but what's the trade-off? I hope there is one.

A bit early to judge, but I suspect that the new system with its 1:1 representation and massaged spotting and morale parameters has turned CM into a game where the defence is at a distinct advantage. Even the ease with which squads can split into various teams and the much more flexible artillery options favour, I believe, the defending side. Unfortunately, the relative odds- numerical and otherwise- faced by the attacker has retained the same ratio since CM1. Hence the 'unforgiving' or 'punitive' complaints about CMBN heard on the forum. This has been exacerbated by the rash of brutally challenging scenarios that have popped up after release. Just a theory.

Hehe, you mean like this one? http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99664

I opened up the scenario Last Defence in the editor for the purpose of adding earth tiles to the gaps in the long line of low bocage guarding- oddly- the first row of houses facing the assaulting Germans. I then discovered that there were NO gaps in the bocage, effectively channelling the demo charge lacking Germs into two implausible kill sacks. In the next version the maker/adapter might consider turning the bocage into hedge tiles.

Can these be softened to a less aggressive palette? Or removed by a hotkey? Really, they make things difficult. Besides needlessly complicating troop deployment they make you feel you're on a bad acid trip.

Uh, Bridges for the 82nd? 'Look at them, troll mother said. Look at my sons! You won't find more beautiful trolls on this side of the moon.'

IMO, it's even more of a ****buster than C&F. The Germans, out-numbered and out-gunned, are quixotically tasked to seize a town behind a river. Covered approach? Smoke? Fuggedaboutit....

The other bridges seem to work OK. This one has a ravenous appetite for shreck teams.

It seems that certain of the scenarios/campaigns that are bundled with the game and, more particularly, some of the new user created ones pride themselves on being fiendishly difficult, or 'evil', requiring a perfect approach and multiple restarts. This could be putting off new players. Of course, it may be that I suck, but I was able to master most of the battles in the CM1 series.

Did a QB yesterday- Small- the defending Germs got six AT guns. Thought this was fixed. Also, what's with the rocket batteries? I'm seeing these every other game and rarity is on Normal.

I fired up a Small QB on Mixed the other day and ended up with a platoon of Marders, which constituted the bulk of my force. On an Open map. Wonky, yes, but also challenging. I had to dismount crews* to spot. *- The scout detachment for squads is a great addition to the game. How about, in future versions, something similar for AFVs? Like an option to send out the commander to reconnoiter, leaving the rest of them in the vehicle.

Artillery in the game isn't already dominant enough?

For what it's worth, the LOS from hiding soldiers behind low walls is 30m. Just checked.

That appears to be the case. But should it? The game allows the prone soldiers to project a cover arc beyond a barrier. It also shows LOS. Also, at a certain distance, for the sake of argument 50 meters out, sound clues enter into the calculation. Unless one believes that an enemy squad could CRAWL, completely undetected, 100 meters over open ground and, exhausted, assault the CA-endowed squad hiding behind a wall.