Glubokii Boy

I too miss those early things...and yes...one of the benefits of jumping back to 41 would be... it would feel 'fresh' ... by that i mean it would be a greater change of equipment and perhaps even tactics compared to going to late 43 for example... 44 and 43 have far more simulareties compared to what 44( 43 ) and 41 has... It would provide more of varid gameplay compared to simply move backwards a few month... that would be a good thing imo

A good one ! Oohh, well...Spelling never was my strongpoint...Not even in Swedish.

I guess that if it fits within your basic scenario idea... You could make a small part of the para-force arrive as reinforcements. Late...AT THE DESIRED TIME... Give this para reinforcement unit a high/ very high UNIT-objective value for getting KILLED (points to the germans).. This will kind of force the remaining part of the para force to remain in place to provide a 'buffer zone' to allow this high value target to escape to the exitzone without taking much fire. Ones this unit is secured and of the map. the remaining paras can leave... It will be up to the player to decide how large a force he will need to keep behind to protect the extraction of the high value unit...The others can exit as desired... Maybe this high value unit could be the battalion HQ for example. Arriving at a weakened state and very low o ammo and morale simulating that the commander have gotten wounded and that the safe extraxtion of this unit is of the highest priority... If the bulk of the paras leaves before this unit is save. It will be garantied to get killed by the germans... Mission failure ! Or at best a draw if other objectives have been met...

I don't like LATER ! it's an uggly word...it should be removed...

A flak jacket is always a nice thing to have...You never know when it might come in handy As far as i'm concerned atleast...Please post away ! The forum currently is in a bit of a waiting mode it seems...Not much things being discussed/posted lately... new topics and ideas are always welcome imo... Mind you i'm no administrator though...

that is an option offcourse...and probably what they will do. But with regards to the 'reverse timings'...the same holds true with things like Moscow... Playing in reverse orders we will probably first get to play operation typhoon and - the first winter battles - for quite some time and only after that be able to play the initial invation (Barbarossa). I would much rather have it the other way around

i agree with this. from having watched a few youtube videos...they look like a pure click-fest to me...most players don't even seem to zoom in much at all but rather plays it fully zoomed out...making the nice graphics a fairly mout point. to be honest. it looks plain boring ! that might not be the case though...but that is what it looks like to me with my limited knowledge of the game. i might try a demo at some point but i hardly condidder it a competitor to CM...at all. Nice graphics...sure. But then what ? the actuall terrain seems to have fairly limited impact for example...

I was just thinking...after the soon to be released CMRT module... Would it make sence for BFC to skip straight to 1941 and operation Barbarosssa ? I know the current plan is to take advantage of the already finnished games and modules to use the equipment and OOBs and such from those games to speed up the development of the next few eastern front games...gooing in reverse order from1944 to 1943 to 1942 etc... I can't help it but this feels a bit 'wrong' ...i would much rather play through the war in the right order. 41 to 42 to 43 etc... Take Stalingrad for example...First we get to play the Russian counterattack and associated battles in the Winter of 43...then after we have done that for a year or to... only then do we get to play the beginning part of the Stalingrad battle...including the full Case Blue in one of the 1942 games... It would be better to start with Case Blue and then follow that up with 1943 imo... The question is... Should BFC take the plunge now...and spend the time developing entirely new units and formations to allow for a 1941 Barnarossa game and the progress through the years in the right direction ? imo YES ! Besides being allowed to play the war in the direction as far as the years go...I can see additional benefits with such a change in strategy... If they do develop the 1941 units and formations for Barbarossa they will have... A decent foundation to begin working on CM2 CMAK and probably also the early war Western front... Many units needed for those games will already have been developed for Barbarossa Switching the direction like this will give BFC a good opertunity to begine working on these two entirely new game famelies... north africa and early western front. Perfect, i say ! If they stick with the current reversed direction with the years...they pretty much have nothing left to do as far as WW2 basegames go... besides completing the eastern front...in the reverse order The other option is better imho...

I see primarely two opppertunities for the finns... - A minor nation pack for CMRT that would include the finns. - Some kind of early war module/pack that somehow would include the first russo-finnish struggle. I fear that we will have to wait quite a while for any of those though... As i understand it the current plan for the eastern front is to move backwards one year at a time with one or two basegames and a few modules for each year. It will be a LONG wait to see anything covering 1939, 40....Question is...is CM2 still a thing at that time ? (CM3 ??) I also kind of belive that BFC will prioritize a 1943 basegame as their next product for the eastern front rather then a minor nation pack for 44, 45. On top of that...to be able to include the finns some new animations and gameplay-features will also need to be included to allow for ski-troops. Finns without their skies...are no real finns Hopefully things will start to run somewhat more smothely for BFC from now on. They have been struggeling for the past few years and not much in the way of new products have been released. If not. The wait will be long...at best...or we might not see the fiins at all...

i love your optimism

IIRC this is already in the game... As long as you do not move (or open fire) with your AT-guns or AFVs they are considdered to be in a concealed possition and are harder to spot... This is not graphically represented but rather abstracted... but it is in the game as far as i know

have you considdered buying CM1 ? like Frenchy56 mentioned CMBB do include a full compliment of finnish forces...and there are a decent amount of scenarios covering this part of the war avaliable... sure...its an older game...but still very playable ... And as a bonus...you will not only get the finns...but the whole eastern front is covered in that game. Including all the minors. lots and lots of content... you are able to buy that game very cheapaly now...well worth a try if you like the finnish front. I doubt we will ever see finnish troops in CM2 anytime soon...

Google... Kohlenklau finnish and you will find a link to a CM thread covering this project... i would provide the link but i don't know how to copy it while typing on my phone

I belive it was Kohlenklau and a few others that had a finnish front project going...including mods. I don't recall how much stuff they managed to complete before Kohlenklau decided to take a break from CM or where to find it... what they did complete might be avaliable at CMMODS or the scenariodepot... if not...i don't know where to find it...

i'm with IanL on this...best test each battle individually i belive... When testing battle 2 'tweak' it in such a way to represent the most likely casulty-level, ammo situation from battle one...i"m sure you have some sence for what those casualties are likely to be...preferably ömake something like maybe 3 different versions - via tweaking these levels - to test various likely results from battle one... Next...do the same with battle 3...what is the likely situation after battle 2. make a few versions of that and se how things play out in battle 3. If you are happy with how the 3rd battle tweaks play-out...with regards to difficulty level of the enemy and the likely looks of your remaining forces... now maybe it is time to try the campaign so far...to see if things actually plays out fairly well as espected... it it does... tweak battle 4 to reflect the situation after your test campaign playthrouh... test this 4th tweaked battle...tweak battle 5 and test it.. add the desired battle versions 4 and 5 to the campaign and test it again... it will be a hell of a lot of playtesting...i know... finding some playtesters to help out would most certanly be preferable...to not get burnt out by all the playtesting... but if you cant find any doing something like above is what i would do... it is a lot of work though... campaigns are a beast to design...especially when it comes to testing...

yepp...you can. Atleast when designing scenarios. Is it possible in QBs though..?

thanks for your pointers.... i have been temted to try and do a little something i the Normandy setting for quite some time now...using the latest game engine and having the full compliment of modules and vehiclepack to chose from will allow for many possibilities ... i will probably give this DCS map thing a try and see if it is a nice tool to use...

its an intresting idea...more options and flexibility could never hurt...or could it ? one risk with giving TO MUCH freedom to the player/scenario designer might be that the realism level will go down...significantelly ! we might see some very wierd 'fantacy' forces in the scenarios/QBs... as far as i know...REALISM is what the majority if CM players value very highely... in this regard the way that BFC have opted to handle unit selection...by picking a formation and from that deselect what you do not want/need is a very clever move... this usually keeps both the player and AI forces on a decent realism level compared to RL... that is a good thing imo... i would very, very, very much like to see more formations being released though...from various timeframes and areas.... that would be totally cool...i desert map for example could be used for many, many scenarios...not just CMSF 2 if we indeed had the required formations... its a shame that BFC is such a small company...if only they had the resourses to design such formations they would sell like hotcake i'm sure

True...I guess that the boccage-type graphics is not avaliable for this map and that they are using various trees to simulate this instead... Might makes it a bit tricky to know wich fields are surrounded by the boccage and wich are not...Not ideal i guess... I wounder if the locations and shape of the fields are correct though... If they are... and the size of the cities and villages is time specific with a fairly correct building placement... I may give this a try...to make a map using DCS Normandy as a base...and see how it works... I don't have DCS up and running currently though so this will have to wait a while...

Hello... Finding good time-specific areal photographs as well as ground level pictures from 1944 of your desired location for a scenario can be tricky. This got me thinking... Does anybody know how accurate the Normandy map for DCS-world is ? I'm pretty sure that things like roads, rivers, streams and such things are very accurate...But how about the different fields...are they correctly represented or are they just kind of randomely designed ? Same with villages and cities...Are they a good representation of the RL 1944 timeframe ? If the map indeed is fairly accurate it could be a good source for CM Normandy map making. Using both the editor wiew (zoomed in to the right level to show buildings and hedges, boccage and stuff) and well as the in-game wiew. Using the PRINT SCREEN button will allow for taking pictures of the desired map area... thoughts ?

when you say you got hundreds of individual teams... i guess that you are playing the russians ? If this is so...you should know that HIGH numbers is what makes them russians... i think that it is stated in the manual even... 'playing the russians you will be commanding one level up...if you as the americans, brittish or germans use a platoon to carry out an assignment...as the russians you will be using a company. simularely in situations where others use a company the russians will be using a battalion... this kind of results in a rather high unit count when playing the russians... If you are not discurraged and feel that you can afford them...other titles...especially CMBN and CMFI usually have a somewhat smaller unit count in their scenarios IIRC...

i for one most certanly apprisate the work that guys like sgt squarehead, MOS:96B2P, RokinHarry and a few others are doing... imo their experimentations with the editor is something that benefits us all...new tricks and tips are found during their work with regards to how to get the most out of the editor... Thank you, guys ! Even if thing like taxicabs, police stations, anti-drug warfare may not be everbodies cup of tea... idea that spring from these projects may very well become useful in 'ordinary' scenarios also...

I fully understand that every idea, every suggestion, can not be brought into the game. Some prioritations/selections has to be made. Ideas that will benefit more people...ideas that are asked by more people ought to take priority. That is perfectly fine. But even smaller, more unique ideas...LIKE THIS ONE should not be forgotten or ignored imo. The developmenttime required to add something like this to the game does not sound like a massive task.... The updates should obviously include the more important (time consuming) improvements but perhaps some of these smaller things could also be squeezed in there from time to time... as a little bonus ... This idea might not be the most important one out there but i don't think anyone would mind to get the option to do what the Sgt suggests...It would not be a negative...and if the time to implement it is rather low...why not...

Maybe the headcount for individual units could default as FORMATION... Meaning it will be a randomish number close to the one selected for its organic HQ (formation)... And if the individual units has a specific headcount selected... That would be the number choosen...all the time. No randomness !

I don't really understand this. sure... If you set the entire battalion (or some other formation) to 50 percent i can understand some randomness... But if you specify the headcount for a single unit...a sniperteam for example... There should be no randomness ! Why should it ?