Ithikial_AU

Brilliant.  So the aftermath of the events of CMCW linked directly to CMSF in 2008 which then lead to CMBS and ultimately to a 2030-2040 great power war...I am in.  Like we did in the alt-history for CMCW, the trick is to shape the narrative around shifts, disruptions and dynamics of power both internally and externally.  So spit balling:
- The loss of the war in CMCW has broad follow-on effects across the globe.  The Soviet Union collapses 5-10 years earlier, as a start point.  Historically the 90s were incredibly disrupted with respect to intrastate conflict, pull that 5-10 years earlier.
- The rise of non-state actors and regional powers is an easy step to make.  But we would need to take 9/11 off the board, it was too galvanizing.  Instead a mechanism that see the US draw back earlier is required that allows regional powers like Syria to emerge dominant enough to even try to resist a US/NATO intervention.  Economic is probably the way to go, perhaps back-date the 08-09 financial crisis.   This sees the US draw back initiallty but then is forced to intervene and keep intervening.
- US/NATO have to win and keep winning.  Intervention strategy (Team America) has to work earlier and longer in order for CMBS to happen.
- The emergence of other great powers (i.e. BRIC) as a response as pressure starts to build.  Climate change as an accelerant. 
- Boom.

GMT games has a boardgame game on this subject:  Next War Taiwan (there is also a Vassal module)... I am looking at it right now in our office bookcase where we keep our wargame collection.  As @The_Capt says though.. this is a very sensitive subject, fascinating, but sensitive.
Bil

Here it is
scenario file
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rz4us04wsayom4v/a weapon recovery test.btt?dl=0
save file
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf868tl4ofun7i6/a weapon recovery test 001 pickup .bts?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s3zrns98v50twqv/a weapon recovery test 001 pickup 001.bts?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5dl788aadk77k2/a weapon recovery test 001 pickup 002.bts?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiigc664t8mhwss/a weapon recovery test 001 pickup 003.bts?dl=0

Yes, generally pistol ammo also crosses over to the SMG, particularly the 9mm variety for the Germans. Picking up a weapon your squad has no ammo ready at the go is generally not a positive move. Plus the time it takes to strip your incapacitated buddy of all his magazines. I believe total weight held by the squad will also come into play. I remember playing as the Germans in CMSF2 and loading up on Panzerfaust3 and extra rockets and ammo. Essentially my pixeltruppen were walking around like this:

Great if your squads needs to mount a static defence, garbage for any form of movement. When my MG3 pixeltruppen went down, the others would not pick up the LMG given the total weight held by the remaining mobile squad members was already too high.
One little wish I've had is for the map type as listed in the editor would play some influence on what weapons are picked up. If in the editor the scenario is set on a 'City' map then the pixeltruppen would be more likely to make the effort to pick up SMG's and other close quarter weapons rather than bolt action rifles. Open terrain, then maybe leading more the other way. This is more of an issue for the WW2 titles where it's a bit more extreme given the lack of everyone having assault rifles.

It's been a shamefully long time (it was finished years ago) but here be The Steppenwulf's UI mod for SF2.



**It's currently awaiting authorisation so you'll have to be patient and keep trying the download**  

Please no. BF have a habit of predicting locations of conflicts before they happen when they make a modern title and Taiwan is a little close to home.  

For a moment there I thought they were Dragon's Teeth and thought oooh that would be cool, then realised we lack that type of obstacle in CM2.  Haystacks... I feel sorry for you already George.

For a moment there I thought they were Dragon's Teeth and thought oooh that would be cool, then realised we lack that type of obstacle in CM2.  Haystacks... I feel sorry for you already George.

Please no. BF have a habit of predicting locations of conflicts before they happen when they make a modern title and Taiwan is a little close to home.  

Please no. BF have a habit of predicting locations of conflicts before they happen when they make a modern title and Taiwan is a little close to home.  

Please no. BF have a habit of predicting locations of conflicts before they happen when they make a modern title and Taiwan is a little close to home.  

Any wargamer, including a CM wargamer, has the luxury of not needing to 'worry about tomorrow', or in other words "what happens after the scenario clock ticks over to 0:00". A real world commander has to worry about his formation's combat effectiveness for whatever unknown objective may come at them next. CM commanders can by default be far more risk taking than their real world counterparts given they don't have these burdens. They also don't have to watch as their buddies getting their heads blown off or needing to write letters home to grieving mothers. For example, "Your son died heroically as I ordered him to charge a suspected enemy held trench system on his own so I could spot the location of enemy machine guns. He was the last man in his squad anyway... and was close by... it was his turn."  
I'm using WW2 here, but when you read a historical account of an engagement it will likely take many hours more than what is depicted in a CM scenario as the process of advancing in enemy territory is at a glacial pace versus wargamers who don't have the burdens listed above. Forces are also more likely to disengage a lot sooner than a CM Commander, (MikeyD's comment about CM Commanders being French WWI generals is great!  ). You can read about engagements ending after one side experiences 10 casualties, while the CM commander throws in everything to make it happen, again because they don't need to worry about the shape and combat effectiveness of his force once the scenario clock reaches "0:00". (Okay, campaigns can be slightly different). To remedy this, a scenario designer can be brutally harsh with victory points assignment to force the player to try and preserve his force no matter what, but I'm guessing the posts about overly hard scenarios would skyrocket on this forums.
Does this make CM bad? No. In the end CM is a game based on reality, not reality itself. Thankfully! I'd hate to have me as my commander on the battlefield given my CM performance!  

Even then it's...

 
 

Even then it's...

 
 

Even then it's...

 
 

Any wargamer, including a CM wargamer, has the luxury of not needing to 'worry about tomorrow', or in other words "what happens after the scenario clock ticks over to 0:00". A real world commander has to worry about his formation's combat effectiveness for whatever unknown objective may come at them next. CM commanders can by default be far more risk taking than their real world counterparts given they don't have these burdens. They also don't have to watch as their buddies getting their heads blown off or needing to write letters home to grieving mothers. For example, "Your son died heroically as I ordered him to charge a suspected enemy held trench system on his own so I could spot the location of enemy machine guns. He was the last man in his squad anyway... and was close by... it was his turn."  
I'm using WW2 here, but when you read a historical account of an engagement it will likely take many hours more than what is depicted in a CM scenario as the process of advancing in enemy territory is at a glacial pace versus wargamers who don't have the burdens listed above. Forces are also more likely to disengage a lot sooner than a CM Commander, (MikeyD's comment about CM Commanders being French WWI generals is great!  ). You can read about engagements ending after one side experiences 10 casualties, while the CM commander throws in everything to make it happen, again because they don't need to worry about the shape and combat effectiveness of his force once the scenario clock reaches "0:00". (Okay, campaigns can be slightly different). To remedy this, a scenario designer can be brutally harsh with victory points assignment to force the player to try and preserve his force no matter what, but I'm guessing the posts about overly hard scenarios would skyrocket on this forums.
Does this make CM bad? No. In the end CM is a game based on reality, not reality itself. Thankfully! I'd hate to have me as my commander on the battlefield given my CM performance!  

FR Rumble at Reitwein
2304x976
This in an out-take from Fire&Rubble that didn't get time to have tested to standard (though I have done many runs on it in Scenario Author mode, and in my own playtesting).
Meeting Engagement just to the west of Reitwein between Soviet 370 RD and attached armor elements versus elements of Reitwein area Volkssturm, Panther-Battalion "Brandenburg", a KG from the "Kurmark" Division, and attached stragglers from 9th FJ Division.
The scenario is fictional, but is derived from actions and forces in the area in attempting to enlarge/reduce the Soviet bridgehead over the Oder.
Play as either side. 1 plan for Axis, 2 for Soviet side. May also be suitable for HTH.


 
FR Rumble at Reitwein.btt

@Artkin, Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 was not with the 5th Panzer Division in September 1944 (or ever).  Possibly this is some confusion with the Heer Panzer Brigade 103, the personnel from the Stabs company, Panzergrenadier battalion and Panzer Pionier company of which were incorporated into the Division later on 9 November 1944.  A great deal more detail can be derived from the Division's Sept. 1, 1944 Kriegsgliederung:

Note that Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 5 was not with the division at this time.  By Oct 1, Pz.A.A.5 had returned to the division, so you can get more detail on its holdings from that Kriegsgliederung:

Wee update.
Overview of (slow) progress from first post. Spent time creating village of Jasienica. Which is the long village bottom centre of the image below.

Comparison with the map I'm working from (its a Russian 1:50 000 but also x-referencing with Polish 1:25 000 just contour inof and other stuff was easier to work with using Russian map as basis for overlay). I'm also checking in with Google earth but this place has changed a lot since 1944. It also shows the compromises I've made in creating the map within the game engine constraints. Few wee techniques used though. 'Dirt lot' tiles make good hard surface dirt roads you can run at any angle. With short grass at the edges it blends in well. Tad wider than required but means easier for player to plot movement orders. As I said I tend to avoid zig-zag roads from personal preference and aim more for the 'feel' of the road/track etc.

View of Jasienica - looking NW.

View of Jasienica - looking west along the main drag of the village.

Looking SE towards the village from the northernmost railtrack.

Overview of the map looking NE towards Tluszcz.

Ground level view from NW corner of the mpa at the railtrack looking south.

Oh and I intend to place lots of craters and then go back over and damage everything....

Looks amazing. Looking forward to another GeorgeMC eastern front slog.  
My views on the map editor, "Easy to learn, difficult to master". I'm in the same boat as I try to avoid but always fall into the trap of trying to be perfectionist with maps. It's really tempting when you are looking at the overlay at the same time as laying out buildings, roads and elevations.

Looks amazing. Looking forward to another GeorgeMC eastern front slog.  
My views on the map editor, "Easy to learn, difficult to master". I'm in the same boat as I try to avoid but always fall into the trap of trying to be perfectionist with maps. It's really tempting when you are looking at the overlay at the same time as laying out buildings, roads and elevations.

Hehehe. Forget the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we need the BF Wargaming Universe.  
Remember the Syrian War as depicted occurred following a series of nuclear dirty bombs going off across a number of unnamed western countries, so I'm sure most of NATO would be bogged down worrying about their domestic situation, clean up and containment. Plus their militaries are embedded in Afghanistan and Iraq so already stretched. The dirty bomb terrorist attack across numerous Western cities is also far more impactful than September 11 was, and would of crashed economic markets with the shock and disruption to trade and commerce; coupled with the GFC that was right around the corner at this time. (The US housing debt time bomb was already ticking). So the western world galivanting off to Iran unless seriously provoked is probably a hell of a stretch for their Governments and militaries.
My guess is all efforts are are made to draw down in these three countries a bit quicker than we saw in reality and demonstrate stability in an effort to calm markets. But just in time to deal with the Black Sea Crisis a decade later.  

Hehehe. Forget the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we need the BF Wargaming Universe.  
Remember the Syrian War as depicted occurred following a series of nuclear dirty bombs going off across a number of unnamed western countries, so I'm sure most of NATO would be bogged down worrying about their domestic situation, clean up and containment. Plus their militaries are embedded in Afghanistan and Iraq so already stretched. The dirty bomb terrorist attack across numerous Western cities is also far more impactful than September 11 was, and would of crashed economic markets with the shock and disruption to trade and commerce; coupled with the GFC that was right around the corner at this time. (The US housing debt time bomb was already ticking). So the western world galivanting off to Iran unless seriously provoked is probably a hell of a stretch for their Governments and militaries.
My guess is all efforts are are made to draw down in these three countries a bit quicker than we saw in reality and demonstrate stability in an effort to calm markets. But just in time to deal with the Black Sea Crisis a decade later.  

I've always leant a bit more towards WW2, largely due to the greater variety of units and formations on offer across the titles. Whenever a base game gets it's first module the replayability jumps up quite dramatically I think. CW module for CMBN, GL for CMFI and now FR for CMRT all seem to have that same effect on the game family. Now if only there could be titles set before mid-1943 to really bump up the variety even more.  
I certainly don't mind the modern titles but the more blink and you're dead lethality of the units in play plus the one sided nature of forces (in CMSF especially) can work against playing these games longer term. Now for the controversial part, I'm probably one of the few on these boards that has very little interest in the Cold War setting.  Early War WW2 > Cold War was always listed higher on my pipe dream wishlist agenda.

I've always leant a bit more towards WW2, largely due to the greater variety of units and formations on offer across the titles. Whenever a base game gets it's first module the replayability jumps up quite dramatically I think. CW module for CMBN, GL for CMFI and now FR for CMRT all seem to have that same effect on the game family. Now if only there could be titles set before mid-1943 to really bump up the variety even more.  
I certainly don't mind the modern titles but the more blink and you're dead lethality of the units in play plus the one sided nature of forces (in CMSF especially) can work against playing these games longer term. Now for the controversial part, I'm probably one of the few on these boards that has very little interest in the Cold War setting.  Early War WW2 > Cold War was always listed higher on my pipe dream wishlist agenda.