The Steppenwulf

Indeed -15 degrees temperatures I believe. It's all morale sapping stuff. When the Russians opened their offensive, first thing I thought was 'too early for the time of year in this region'. Cold temperature and mud drenched quagmires only add to the defenders combat factor.

I read that many Russian troops fear remaining in vehicles to sleep in at night and abandon them to camp out in forested areas instead. Fear created by the threat of Javelins and drones operating with IR capability being able to pick out heat signatures of vehicles. In turn generates falling morale - no faith in equipment.

Battalion Tactical Groups have a (flexible) combined arms structure - go open your BS scenario editor!

My understanding is that western intelligence has informed that the Russian military have not supplied and have made no preparations to use chemical agents. Nothing is fixed in stone of course, but there will already be a planned Nato response plan in the event that the intelligence picture changes.

Any aircraft supplied by Nato countries will need all its ID removed before being used by UKR pilots in combat. There 's also the question of what Nato information/communication encryption systems might be fitted in those aircraft that must not fall into the hands of the Russians. I'd suggest that's they have gone to Germany for these checks and modifications first. The Ukrainians have a host of airbases and non military airfields in the west of the country outside the zone that Russian fighter bombers seem to be operating within. As we know UKR AA systems have been effective in curtailing their areas of operation. What condition those airfield are in though, is a different question but I've not seen any evidence that indicates that all the western airbases were attacked by Kaliber missiles and are now inoperable, unlike those in central Ukraine. Personally I think 2 squadrons of Mig 29s will seal the Russians fate in this conflict. They have exposed supply columns and artillery batteries as we know. Low hit and run aircraft strafes on these exposed forces, under cover of an umbrella of stingers to protect them from Russia's counter air-to -air, and the stuttering Russian war machine could become a rout. Unless that is of course, Putin wants to bring other assets into the fight...

What is that? Is there a list or spreadsheet used by players at FGM?

Avoid SP for a lengthy period of time, only playing H2H. Playing H2H only will force a habitual acceptance of your own mistakes.

Have you seen my OOB list for SF2? This is not based on what is mentioned in the SF literature, though I'm sure I did check it at some point during the course of collating the info (and similarly found it limiting). It is however based on plausible formations (and the units composing those formations) operating within the given timeframe and likely to have been mobilised for the theatre of operation. The (plausible) OOB does admittedly possess gaps, mainly Syrian forces. Note also that US airmobile forces are omitted because airborne forces are not represented in the editor. My intention for producing this document was to offer a starting point for any content designers looking to write in some context or tactical back story that would test as acceptable for "authenticity". I think it would be cool to expand this info by inclusion of what we do know from the literature, as a starting point. Even better though would be for "the community" or any suitably inspired individual/s, to fill in the gaps by developing a comprehensive (albeit unofficial) campaign narrative. In this sense I agree with you - it would so much more depth and richness to the game, and in itself inspire creation of scenarios based around the "imagined" narrative. It's a fantastic mod awaiting creation (if you want it!) and you can add it alongside what I've produced (if desired) so as to complement the other.

Fair question! I put it in as a placeholder, since I'm planning to upload to moddb alongside SF2 UI there, just been busy with work matters over recent weeks so just not quite got round to final content check. There are some significant changes from the version posted on CMMods4, I think I changed the scale of the small arms to match icons on my SF2 UI for consistency. Added a few missing icons and a menu screen also. It will get posted before Christmas day since a break from work commences on the 17th giving me 2-3 weeks leisure. Thanks for your interest!

Apple were pushing devs to move to 64-bit years ago because they pulled support for it. I think 32-bit apps will not even run in Catalina o/s.

But they probably will require updating the engine to 64 bit to gain ANY better optimisation. That's been the elephant in the room all the time and should have been undertaken years ago.

Navigate to your main CM SF2 installation and locate the 'Data' folder. In there you'll need to create another folder (if you haven't already) and call it 'z_mods'. The z is the key because CM loads everything in the Data folder in reverse alphabetical order. So everything in a folder called z will override all other Data folder content. Download the mod which is a zip file, right click on it and and 'extract to' the newly created 'z folder'. Or you can move the zip into the 'z folder' first and then 'extract here'. Once extracted you can then delete the zip file (unless you wish to keep it for back up) That's it - boot up and you'll get a different menu screen when the program opens- so you'll know you've got it right.

One very important thing I haven't mentioned about this mod is that I had an idea (a long time ago) to add all the brigade insignia into the branches slot. They are all there in the folder with a fair few exceptions (since it's a WIP). My idea was that I would collate them all in a spreadsheet for the player's information (e.g. probable brigade composition 2004-10). Developing this idea and the spreadsheet further, I thought it would be cool to write some VB code so that the player could 'automagically' flip the brigade insignia as desired (a bit like how JSGME used to work, if anyone remembers that mod tool). Anyway I decided to drop this idea because I realised players won't want to flip (or will likely forget to flip) the insignia every time they commence a scenario. I reflected that its actually got limited practical value compared to mod tagging. But the idea of using the branch icon is still sound me thinks, so the folder of insignia content is in the mod, but for best application of the insignia I'd recommend designers use a mod-tag. And use the abbreviation that I've applied to these files [all listed in column A of the spreadsheet linked below]. This way players can play scenarios with the correct brigade insignia as applicable to the designers intention. For reference, the spreadsheet with all the insignia and all the research for the force compositions: The Steppenwulf's SF2 Brigade OOB Spreadsheet I don't doubt that, despite my extensive research, there's corrections to be made to the OOB but let me know and I will edit, so it becomes refined over time.

SF2 UI mod

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**

No sure I understand. Are the months folders using mod tags? If not using mod tags, is this still a viable method? Great work btw - thanks for your effort and time to collate and produce it.

You were likely on fast. fast troops don't stop for nothing and will be wiped out if they don't come to a way point first. @chuckdyke has it - quality of troops! Crack ww2 airborne troops take longer to be suppressed and will undertake accurate counter fire when under fire. They also take much more crap before their morale degrades. All of this information and much much more is in the CM game manual. How about reading it?

Not disputing your experience of these weapons (I've never used them), but to be fair, the mg3 is not quite the 42 (all kinds of modifications and slight improvements apply to the mg3) and you are running comparisons with modern weapons with different calibres. Secondly you have to factor in at what sort of ranges the comparisons are taken. The 5.56 is going to be at a disadvantage at longer ranges. Anyway the point about comparison with the Bren and the 42 is the rate of fire, the latter gets more rounds down range but the recoil from doing so comes at a price. As for the points about suppression: modern western military thinking is to supply and use large amounts of ammunition in firefights.... and the core tactic in firefight training is getting rounds down range (learned directly from lessons in ww2). The reasoning is not that predominantly more rounds means you will kill the enemy (though it might do), it's 1. prevent the enemy from firing back at you 2. limit his ability to maintain visual on you. 3. restrict his ability to maneuver. 4. limit his ability to think, coordinate and implement a counter-plan. I used to be a soldier once, during a time the UK replaced the SLR with the SA80. There were a few reasons for the change but a lesson learned from the Falklands conflict was that the SLR with such a slow rate of fire, it just couldn't get enough rounds down range to dominate the firefight (they were facing the M16 used by the Argentinians). The SA80 however would offer that capability - carrying more rounds and expending more rounds - highlighting well this priority in tactical thought. Of course the Russians had done exactly the same with the Kalashnikov with the same tactical rationale. I don't use the pause button in this situation. The pause button generally carries dangerous consequences. Apply only when you've tried and tested it in specific situations. Again play the game and learn - how many more times! You're getting there! This is a different issue from the modelling of the weapon capabilities of the 42 and the Bren (it's best not to conflate your arguments). Nevertheless, the whole "running out of cover bug" is discussed extensively in other threads. I was one of the main complainants when it arose years ago, and I found ww2 CM totally unplayable for best part of 18-24 months. I've played at least a dozen games of CM over the past 18 months, since the substantive patch/engine update, and not seen anything that has come close to those issues. If you do, save the file and report it. My h2h buddy believes that playing scenarios that were created early on (up to 2015) are more likely to have pathing issues. I think he might be on to something: Pathing issues with terrain that's changed over past 10 years of the engines iteration could be one reason for panicked troops running away in incredulous directions. It doesn't mean everything's perfect with pathing with later scenarios, no, but it might be worth considering only playing scenarios created/updated post mid-2015. It might reduce undesirable incidences with pathing due to terrain. CM is one of the best supported games for modding. There is just so much that can be modded. The scenario editor alone is a brilliant too. Along with model and texture modifications we have some amazing mods and scenario content that is continually being developed - too much in fact to probably ever play. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if there are more mods out there for CM than any other game of its age! Engine modding - but this is different (as argued on the other threads), pathing problems above are a good case in point why it's a bad idea. Want more issues and problems? They will proliferate if everyone could change the core code to suit any old whim. It'll lead to insecurity about how and what you are playing. I want a stable and reliable version, just like (ironically) you are arguing for too.

Try a "slow" (crawl) movement command to move away from the axis of suppressive fire retaining the "hide". Still disagreeing? With regard to the MG42 you are aware that this weapons main quality is to suppress the enemy. It is not particularly accurate. My reading from your comment in the other thread was that you think "effectiveness" means its capacity to inflict casualties. This is easily misunderstood by players that come from other games like CoH and possibly other mainstream RTS titles. I know I played them myself! The MG42s in those games are misrepresented in this (not to mention ranges and everything else about those games that is disappointingly represented). In CM I've had frequent firefights [MG vs Bren gun by way of example] and the Bren is far more effective in terms of inflicting casualties but comparatively weak at the side of the MG42 with regard to its suppressive capability. But the Bren needs superlative cover to prevent getting suppressed and the German player can only stack the odds in his favour if he has another fireteam to flank the cover. You'll find that this game experience tactically checks out with what to expect historically. The tactics employed in CM correlate pretty well with the accuracy of the weapon modelling. That correlation is better than I've found in any other computer game thus far, otherwise I'd move on. I'd suggest that this is what Steve means when he talks about staying in business; for all the progression with the product the consumers would like to see, the company continue to sell their products. That's because if some other dev was doing it better we'd all stop purchasing BF's products. Ergo; Steve would be flipping burgers instead. He's right yeh... so perhaps cut the dev some slack!

Well no, because you didn't say that. But it's still wrong! Wrong because it's a value judgement about how much control you want in a game. At one extreme of the spectrum you could have everything controlled by the AI - wouldn't be much of a game because they'd be nothing left for the player to do. A large scale RTS game like Wargame or Total War really has to have lots of behaviours controlled by the AI, otherwise the player would be tasked out, overwhelmed! Playability = 0 CM however is not that sort of game, there are no higher level strategic or operational game functions to task your brain with. CM is a tactical turn based game. And many of the micro-management functions like this are commensurate with a game that deals in function details. To illustrate the point further, let's assume you are right and it should be controlled by the AI. Another forum user drops by and like you rudely demands that all fire commands should be controlled by the AI. What do you think about that suggestion? Another ill mannered individual drops by and demands all types of movement should be AI decisions... We wouldn't have much of a tactical turn based game anymore would we? Playability = 0. Now granted, I realise unless you knew about cover commands in CM (though "Hide" and its respective animation should provide a clue), the newbie will suffer at the hands of a more experienced player. But that's characteristic of the learning curve for any game. The newbie needs to learn to play, just as he/she might with Wargame, see that is part of the experience. Sorry you can't dig this one!

Units taking fire (as indicated by the suppression meter and outlined in the responses above), can be prevented altogether from the behaviour you state by setting a short fire arc together with "hide" command. When to keep heads completely down like this depends on the player's judgement of risk. The scale of risk depends on range and cover & concealment, weighed against the level indicated on the suppression meter. However incurring a single casualty when a unit is laying casually prone is generally a strong indicator that you should go full heads down, or else other casualties will almost certainly follow. Hope this helps, but perhaps instead of just complaining about the tactical side of the game, why not play more and experiment and learn how to play it better. Even better, you can flatten that learning curve by using the forum to read about how others play. There are plenty of effective tutorials out there.

Looks great, but CMBS scenarios are currently set between June - August. Cannot reflect winter conditions in the present modelling of summer terrain. Meaning it's just eye candy, yes??

Two commonwealth H2H scenarios that I've played recently that stood out from the last dozen or so CW games played this past year: Attack on Verries Ridge (small size scenario - I wouldn't normally choose to play small battles, but this is tight and tactical, it's great for honing ones skills fighting in a small battlespace) CW Contact Front (small to medium size scenario - similar to above, little room for error if playing against a solid or tricky opponent) Both these games are very well balanced for draws so any other outcome can be dissected and appreciated by both players. That's probably the main reason they stand out as particularly good in my view.

Indeed, that's an interesting observation because my initial suspicion was that it was a win 10 update underlying the issue. I'm apt to blame win 10 updates because I've found they are a general cause of computing problems. I've suppressed that conclusion because logically to me, it makes more sense that it's GPU code. Still my gut instinct is that it's windows 10. Just not sure what the connection would be with Win 10 interacting with OpenGL.

Thanks for both these responses. I had tried Radeon's own screen capture utility also, but that didn't work either, but it's possible I guess that I missed something if it works for others. xbox game bar tried also, as above - may be need to experiment more if it's working for you. That said, pasting anything into Corel from clipboard (tried that and didn't work) is still a daft workaround in any case. I just don't understand why Corel (my preferred and long used screen capture method because I can immediately edit the pics) no longer works in CM. Never had any problems with this in any game for over 10 years. OBS studio is the one application I overlooked and didn't try, probably because I've hardly ever used it for anything. This does sound promising so shall try this next. Thanks again!