BletchleyGeek

In Poland or Germany?

Do you mean CMBS??

Very nice @BFCElvis and team, this is one of my favourite Eastern Front battles
Looking forward to learn about the other campaign too, a vignette taken from Vistula-Oder or Lake Balaton?

Hmm, interesting to read that "has not been decided yet". Limiting work on CMx2 to bug fixing and releasing modules would make sense, nearly 10 years after Battle for Normandy being released.

I get the impression you come back from the shops like this ...

I know warrant officers who would have had you on repeat restriction of privileges for your love of scruffy clothing and otherwise ... 😉
Just to add - professional soldiers look after their kit and the raggety-taggety look can be overdone and perhaps is not so common in certain environments as many may think ...

Same uniform same tour ...

Although this doesn't focus on the battle for Berlin - possibly of interest to eastern front fans:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p9tc
 

Hello everyone,
 
I just discovered this wonderful application
 
https://www.map.army
 
It allows you make your own maps laying military symbology (2525b) and GIS vector and raster data, over a map of the world. Allows saving the maps to their proprietary format, collaborative editing etc.

@waffelmann - drawing attention to it makes it worse 😏 - don't sweat it.

I found it first
 
 

It was actually the village of Kham Duc - although there was a military compound where a lot of the tribesmen and their families were hanging out along presumably with some US Special Forces types.,
The purely military bits on the map in my previous post were the airfield of which the buildings to the south of it formed part and one of the clusters of those buildings was an SF compound.  There were also about half a dozen outpost positions scattered across the various high features surrounding the airfield.  This is why it would have been a great mini Khe Sanh type battle as you have the fight for the outposts plus the battle for the airfield itself.  When I first looked at it, I could see that theoretically I could do it at one to one scale (the original map area was 4km x 2.7km).  Unfortunately the combination of elevation changes and number of trees were what caused it to CTD even after I'd cropped it to 3.9km x 2.2km, stripped a bunch of trees out and dropped the elevations.  I could probably eventually have got it to load with a bit more tree stripping but there was still a bunch of work to be done with all of the buildings (facades, roof and door/window layouts) and of course I hadn't even started purchasing units.  To make it representative of the action that would involve at least a battalion of US and irregulars, about a company's worth of spies to represent the tribesmen's families, a sh1t tin of fortifications to plonk around the airfield perimeter and to build the outpost positions and then at least a regiment's worth of VC.
I might try another crop at some point just to do the assault on the airfield but we'll see.

Originally it was intended to be Kham Duc (what I've now turned into the beginnings of a village was originally the northern part of an airfield).

You're right that slit trenches and fox holes were dug in gardens during the battle. Just unlucky with your choice of picture. Thankfully the location of that mortar pit has never been built on. ...

I don't want to alarm anyone, but there appears to be a HUGE problem with the Canadian uniforms in CMSF:2.
Have a look at these fellas that greeted me when I loaded up the Cunuckian campaign:

Year 2008. Arid CADPAT - check. C7A2s - check. BEWs - check. Olive green Load Bearing Vest circa Bosnia 1994 ... what in the tabarnak is this?
Alright, drama for the sake of comedy aside, this is a strange one considering in CMSF:1 Canadian troops were (correctly) represented as wearing all Arid CADPAT gear. Where as it seems for CMSF:2 a conscious decision was made to change the Canadian uniform artwork and clad troops in their ancient OG LBVs.
Yes, the Canadians kept using the LBVs well out of the 90's - even surviving the introduction of CADPAT. In fact the initial force into Afghanistan wore Temperate Woodland CADPAT and OG LBVs. Afghanistan c.2002 (source and  source) :

Not long after in 2003, the new Tac-Vests are introduced, albeit still in "Temperate Woodland"; the LBVs are never seen in combat operations again. (source and source) :

Then in 2004 Arid uniforms and C7A2s were introduced. Can you believe they still drove the ILTIS in Afghanistan in 2004? (source and source) :

"Arid uniform - Green TacVest" combo survived for a while, well into Op Medusa in 2006 (source) :

By 2007 however, the entire ensemble can be seen in Arid CADPAT; also issued ballistic eyewear is introduced (source and source) :

Thank you for making it to the end of my brief on The Woes of the Canadian Military Equipment Procurement.
Seems pretty clear that by mid-2008 CMSF timeline the gear would be all Arid CADPAT and new-pattern TacVest ... as it was in CMSF:1.
Anyone have any insight into what happened in CMSF:2 with the LBV's? @MikeyD or @BFCElvis perhaps?
Cheers!

It's a known fact that eating pineapple pizza before battle increases the accuracy of incoming indirect fire

The old flowchart is for the SF1 version ONLY. While the order of the battles and what happens next has not changed, the rest, refit and resupply variables have been modified to reflect the updates in the game engine since SF1. 
While I understand you were disappointed to encounter the exit zone error playing the updated SF2 campaign, this advice makes literally no sense. The updated campaign file is based on the original campaign, meaning the exit zone error was, and still is, in the original SF1 campaign. Not only will some one playing the original campaign run into this issue, they will also miss out on all the other updates improving the campaign. 
I did a speed run of the campaign last night as your comment about this being a bug in the campaign needed to be checked. I ceasefired in the setup phase of every battle not requiring a victory to move on. There was only one battle needing a minor victory to advance. I kept the tanks out of the battle as much as possible and did not suffer any tank casualties. In the Counter Attack battle, I started with 1 tank on the map and more than 3 tanks arrived as reinforcements. Since all the tanks in this particular mission are core file units, you must have suffered a tank casualty in a previous battle.
As for the British platoon HQ units being unable to call for artillery, this is a game engine issue and not a campaign specific problem. The issue has been reported in the official channels and should be fixed the next time a patch is released. Knowing this problem exists, and the importance of timely artillery and air support, I can only recommend doing your level best to keep any Forward Observers alive. There is nothing further I can do on this issue as any further work is above my pay grade.

Or you could remember stuff, stop assuming and read the briefings maybe?

I find that, when leading my men, if I have a low-cost victory and all (or most) survive, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
When my men die and suffer needless casualties and fail, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
 

 
 

Not tried it in a QB, bus as said used it in a few scenarios (not saying which ones...).
As an aside I've also started using (in some case) a victory objective around the area where the mines are (can be marked as 'known to player' or 'unknown') as either gives the player fair warning there are mines, and b/ as you can't count mines and other obstacles as victory conditions at least I can have the area they are in count.

That is sneaky! I will write that down as an idea for future games.
I have had opponents playing defender in QBs buying wire, and I don't think they regretted it. If you don't get engineers or tanks you will have your attack channeled into a KZ.
In terms of cost effectiveness, you could get a Panther instead and it could get stuck on a fence or a bridge without firing one shot. Wire doesn't get stuck (but can be breached or avoided).

That is sneaky! I will write that down as an idea for future games.
I have had opponents playing defender in QBs buying wire, and I don't think they regretted it. If you don't get engineers or tanks you will have your attack channeled into a KZ.
In terms of cost effectiveness, you could get a Panther instead and it could get stuck on a fence or a bridge without firing one shot. Wire doesn't get stuck (but can be breached or avoided).

What @MOS:96B2Psaid

Probably depends on if we are talking about Quick Battle / PBEM gameplay or scenario design.  In a QB you are allocated a certain amount of points to purchase your TOE.  So using points to purchase mines and wire and then placing mines under the wire might not be economical.  However in scenario design the designer does not have a purchase point system and doesn't have to worry about wasted points.  Instead, he has to worry about EVERYTHING else.          

I think demo charges can set off AT mines. It happened to me in "School of the hard knocks". The result was a huge crater and a KIA and a WIA among the engineers. Maybe there was't a warning sign after the explosion because there weren't other mines. But this is just my guessing.

The numbers are the number of meters in length the bridge is.
R = rail (but just to confuse when you come to wooden ones the R does not mean that). 
F = footbridge
W = wide
FYI Panzer IVs will cross any bridge but once you get into larger tanks you'll have issues. From memory the wee narrow stone bridges (Stone 16 etc) are problematic for wide heavy tanks are as the light bridges. I often mark the bridges in missions as to what they can take.