AlexUK

Help!
I've finished a campaign build, BUT the zip file is 26MB...therefore breaches the 20MB limit on https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/
If anyone can help it'll be appreciated. Already to go on the 16th Dec as well!
 

December 16th 05:35, the “Ghost Front” erupts in a maelstrom of noise and violence as Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein begins.
The Rollbahn D Campaign contains 35 linear scenarios built as historically accurate as I’ve been able to achieve. 
You control the fortunes of KG Peiper, SG Knittel, and Panzer Brigade 150, along with elements from KG Hansen, KG Sandig, and the 3. Fallschirmjäger-Division.
Boy did this project snowball!
The Campaign begins with a choice. Either starting at the very beginning or on Day 3 of the offensive. The latter will be an easier route as you’ll have not suffered any losses to your core units. I’ve included here what it takes to progress within the Campaign as not every engagement is balanced. The scenarios range from small to medium to Ben Hur like epics. 
I’ve made minor changes to the Day 1-2 scenarios based on the feedback from the Rollbahn D Part 1 Campaign.
Day1-2
SN01: Murky Merlscheid / Fallshirmjager Regiment 9 / Minor Victory
SN02: Leaving Lanzerath / Fallshirmjager Regiment 9 / Minor Victory
SN03: Minen The Gap / Spitze / Minor Victory
SN04: Breakthrough / Spitze Kompanie and FSJ / Minor Victory
SN05: Hurrying Through Honsfeld / Spitze and Gndrs / Draw
SN06: Bull in gen China Shop / Spitze and Spitze Komp / Minor Victory
SN07: Butchers Of Baugnez / Spitze and KG Peiper / Minor Victory
Day 3 
SN08: Laying Down The Recht / KG Hansen / Minor Victory
SN09: Poteau The Priority / KG Hansen / Minor Victory
SN10: Storming Stavelot / KG Peiper / Tactical Victory
SN11: Trois Is A Crowd / KG Peiper and FSJ / Draw
SN12: Jabos! / KG Peiper / Tactical Defeat
SN13: Probe At Stavelot / KG Peiper and FSJ / Minor Victory 
SN14: Neufmoulin Rouge / KG Peiper / Draw
Day 4
SN15: Duel In The Mist / KG Peiper and FSJ / Minor Victory
SN16: Too Tight At Targnon / KG Peiper / Tactical Defeat
SN17: Vorauskompanie Searches For Gas / SG Knittel / Tactical Defeat
SN18: Ster Way To Heaven / KG Peiper, Sandig, SG Knittel / Tactical Defeat
Day 5
SN19: Stationary At Stavelot / SG Knittel / Major Defeat
SN20: Chewin Them Up At Cheneux / KG Peiper / Tactical Victory
SN21: Treachery At Les Tcheous / KG Sandig / Draw
SN22: Closing The Door / SG Knittel / Draw
SN23: Ambush At Chenai / KG Sandig / Draw
SN24: Violence At The Preventorium / KG Peiper / Draw
Day 6
SN25: KG X Factor / Panzer Brigade 150 / Tactical Defeat
SN26: No Prizes At Noupre / KG Hansen, SG Knittel / Minor Victory
SN27: Punishment At Parfondry / SG Knittel / Tactical Defeat
SN28: TF Jordan Storms Stoumont / KG Peiper / Draw
SN29: Cold Hearts At Froidcour / KG Peiper / Tactical Victory
SN30: Persistence Prevails / KG Peiper / Draw
Day 7
SN31: Borgoumont Blitz / KG Peiper / Major Defeat
SN32: Kicking Coblenz / SG Knittel / Total Defeat
SN33: Festung La Gleize / KG Peiper / Tactical Victory
SN34: Hansens Surprise / KG Hansen / Draw
Day 9
SN35: Katz Und Maus / The Survivors / Minor Victory
 
All the maps are my own, apart from Cheneux, which is stock that I’ve modified. Ranks/uniforms can be inaccurate as command units are above the battalion level.
Each Scenario will be available as a separate download in January.
 
Good Luck!
 
 
 
 

Would bve good to have a shortcut button to select the last plotted way point of a selected unit. At the moment I have to click on a unit, then click on the last way point (which is often quite difficult to select). Would speed up orders quite a lot for me. 

Is shooting at unspotted AFVs or infantry in your LoS that are spotted by friendly units considered cheaty? Is shooting up a tree line that has zero spotted units but looks like where you would put defenses considered cheaty? If an infantry runs into a building and disappears in the clutter, is shooting at their last known position in the building still considered cheaty? If tanks are crossing a field behind a smoke screen or light woods and you are having trouble getting a hard spot on any of them, is it cheezy to area fire through the field hoping to get a hit or a suppression? Also, how is it done in real life.  Does an AFV go rolling through an enemy village firing at windows in hopes of suppressing enemy bazookas or RPG teams?  Do those rules change from WWII to the Cold War to modern combat? Lots of questions, I know, but they all are related to the same question: Essentially, #7. Do you have to wait until your unit spots an enemy unit before shooting at it? 

Yes, I expect a very bitter fight for it regardless of how the rest of the battle pans out. 
Hmmm...Cromwell profile picture...not a fan of an Irishman. I'm seeing a theme...
***
Friendly Forces
My battlegroup is primarily drawn from units of the 22nd Armoured Brigade, 7th Armoured Division. The heavy hitter of a British Armoured Division, in reality by August '44 most Commonwealth armoured divisions rarely fought in their typical brigade formats, the BHQs acting more as tactical headquarters for mixed BGs of 1 armour, 1 infantry battalion + misc. elements. The 22nd is no different, but the stresses of keeping a cross-channel supply line up to snuff, plus nonstop combat since early June, makes the BG a bit more shambolic than its paper ideal.
For example, the entirety of A Squadron, 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards (the junior armoured regiment) is currently struck from the order of battle due to material and manpower losses. Surviving crews and 'runners' have been absorbed by B and C squadrons, who are near full strength as a result. We are borrowing "A" Squadron from the 8th Kings Royal Irish Hussars (the armoured recce regiment) to fill out our combat strength. While this expedient solves the power of combat strength, it complicates greatly the horizontal transfer of timely information between fighting elements. 
The balance of the battlegroup is filled out by the divisional motor regiment, the 1st Battalion of the Rifle Brigade. A halftrack mounted regiment, they are hovering around 70 percent strength and most of the rifle coys have disbanded their scout and anti-tank troops to make up the strength. The sole exception to this is A Coy, who have managed to hang onto these elements, for what worth that may prove. The support company provides us with two heavy machine gun platoons plus a mortar platoon (off map) with 4 x excellent 3 inch mortars. 
A single troop from the 11th Hussars (confusingly, yet another recce regiment, but more traditionally organised) provides a point element for the entire force. They are divided into an armoured car section and a carrier section. Alongside "A" of the 8th Hussars, they have long been in contact with the enemy and we are joining them. 
Fires are provided at the higher level by an entire battery of Sexton self-propelled 25lb guns. They possess a prodigious amount of ammunition in excess of 800 rounds, plus ample smoke - perhaps the single greatest asset in WWII titles, imo. A platoon of 4.2 inch "chemical" mortars round out the fire support, notable for their high amount of white phosphorous rounds - again allowing for prodigious and near-instantaneous obscuration fires. 

Enemy Forces
The balance of the enemy forces in Normandy are nearly surrounded further to the south. The shoulders are being held, in the main, by shattered remnants of enemy infantry formations of earlier set-piece attacks (e.g.: Op Totalize, Tractable) who now find themselves on the outside of the forming pocket. Additionally, battle-group sized elements from an SS-PanzerCorps are in the area, trying to punch a hole in the perimeter, or holding open hacked-open escape routes. Smartest thing is to assume I will fight an all-arms force, not greatly dissimilar to my own. Having been in contact with the enemy for some time now, forward elements have produced a fairly comprehensive intelligence picture: 

Not surprisingly, enemy concentrations of infantry appear to be all along the river itself, and concentrated primarily in the East village. Farm 001 and 002 (Obj "TOM") are also clearly occupied, and are supported by some type of anti-tank gun. The lone infantry contact in between Hill 202. and Pt. 201.7 is almost certainly an OP or LP. Nothing in this disposition appears to be reinventing the wheel, its a competent deployment at a glance with ATGs on, perhaps, obvious positions, but with dominating fields of fire over the centre rolling terrain.
Courses of Action
What to do? What to do, indeed. The rather milquetoast enemy deployment doesn't immediately proffer a dynamic solution, there's no smoking gun or yawning gap that I can see. Any movement down the middle is going to invite disaster, even with the many small hills and valleys I could probably use for cover. I'm going to have to go up one of the flanks, which means potentially putting a strong force in a complex bottleneck. 
To minimize that risk I will be conducting a command pull. I've identified two potential courses of action:
 

1. Moving in the dead ground formed by KT1, assault or infiltrate across the water obstacles in the vicinity of Farm 001 and attack to seize OBJ "TOM", then use the ridge formed by Hills 205.2, 204.1 and 202.7 as a springboard for a general attack; or


2. Maximising use of dead ground on the right, skirt around hill 207.8 and close up towards Obj "OAK", attacking either towards the East Village or punching deep towards Obj "DICK" before rolling up the enemy flank. 
Either route will have to be probed and recce'd to see which one is held in greater force and is easier to force. This brings me to...
Unit Tasking
Either COA, being generally variations of the same plan, can therefore result in somewhat uniform tasking and organisation. I will divide my battlegroup into three distinct elements. A forward element drawn from the 5th Troop of the 11th Hussars, an infantry-heavy company team following in close support and a heavy reserve which can be 'pulled' to whatever route I decide is the most viable. 

The recce will be deployed in their organic sections, UCs on the left, as the terrain is more complex and closed-in and dismounted recce will be more necessary. The troop 2IC moves with them. On the right, the armoured car section, with the troop leader in tow, will probe on the right, which is generally more open and will likely need more firepower and survivability (a relative term) to probe forward. 
Moving  behind either of them will be a company team from B and C Coy of The Rifles, supported by an intimate-support troop from C Squadron of the 5th RIDG. This will allow these forward elements to fight for information and overcome minor resistance encountered, and equally fight for room to deploy my main element on whatever route I deem the most feasible. Equally, the company team that does not identify the main effort will remain a useful screening force and perhaps confuse Draper as to my actual intent and main effort. I've made them infantry heavy as either route ultimately favours a boots-on-the-ground approach to overcome initial complex terrain, mainly the river.

Finally in reserve or in long-range support is the balance of the battle group, seen below:

The balance of C Squadron will deploy in battle positions on the many hills and points near my line of departure and can provide direct fires on the high ground on the far side of the river. In the event the enemy has a lot of heavy metal of their own, this fire may be of dubious value beyond keeping the enemy interested and under fire. Their HE, however, will be useful at any range against soft targets and built-up areas. I can also, if the opportunity arises, add to this firepower with the anti-tank troop organic to A Coy of The Rifles. Likewise, how I employ the MG platoons will be decided in the moment, either massed as a pseudo-indirect fire weapon at longer range, or broken up into intimate support of the platoons. The point here is to be flexible.
I got to be honest here, I got a gut feeling I'm reading the situation wrong and I'm already feeling like the first course of action will be the most viable.

Does that mean Mac will never get it? An unpleasant surprise.... 

Also circumference of the penetrator.  APDS are basically big bullets, APFSDS are big darts.  Same gun volume, very different effect

Density of the round (tungsten vs DU) and not all propellant or HE is created equal.

It's 1525h on August 18th, in some village near the river Dives, just northwest of Falaise. Further to the south, Canadians (and the Polish) are launching a decisive effort across the "neck" of an emerging pocket, fighting equally ferocious actions on the hills overlooking the river valley as they are in the small towns that dot the valley floor itself. 
It's clear to everyone, even if no one is acting like it: Jerry is finished in Normandy. Word has now come from on high that our division is to 'get ahead of the game' and begin pushing to the river Seine. This will mean smashing into German units fighting to hold open the escape route as they latterly also try to expand it. 
So the battlegroup conducts a hurried O group in a tiny cluster of command vehicles...
 

Whilst throughout the village, in laager, the squadrons resupply even as the COs conduct their troop level o groups. In two hours' time the whole lot will be moving forward to join units already in contact with the enemy for a late-afternoon effort. 
 
***
I've been inspired by MMM and Bud's own DARs to begin one of my own, and in any event, it's been a long while since I've done one, having mainly dedicated AAR efforts to single player.
My opponent, James (goes by the handle Draper) is an old buddy of mine and I filmed a few of our slapfight PBEMs wayyyyy back in the day when we were both teenagers and had no idea what the hell we were doing. We've played steadily ever since and know one another quite well, so I figured this would make for a particularly interesting DAR. We've had a handful of medium matches against one another recently, mainly infantry-centric affairs, and both wanted to open up with winter break providing us with more time. Draper's a teacher and I currently run a pro-bono advice centre at a University in the UK, so we have the luxury of being beholden to student's schedules. 
The scenario we're playing is "forging steel", a side-swapped variant of GeorgeMC's "Schmiedestahl" my little group has had bouncing around for a bit. I am playing as the British attackers, and it will be interesting to see how the tactics I use will naturally have to differ from the default German-attacking scenario. 
For the time being here's a look at the map and objectives. 

 

Battle Damage Assessment
As my forces are now on the objective the effects of my fire are coming to light. I'll simply post the screenshots without captions, these are all found at different locations and I can't see all of them by any means.







MMM
 

No, just no. If you're talking about graphics from the year 2000, then sure, but too many things that were acceptable back then just don't cut it any more:
1. The shadows look awful
2. Long-distance rendering of objects is really bad - hilltops covered with trees become as bald as a billiard table beyond about a thousand meters
3. Performance with the latest and greatest hardware is unacceptable, especially as map sizes increase (anything over about 30 FPS is almost never seen). 
4. Fog and flame effects look awful.
5. On a lesser note,but still there, the vehicle models are starting to show their age - seriously, is this the last computer game (and yes, these are all computer games, whether you like it or not) where the main gun barrels and wheels are 8-sided objects?
Don't get me wrong - CM does a lot of things right, but a lot of other things are vastly outdated. 

CM is a unique animal. It is not a "computer game". It is a tabletop historical wargame translated to exploit the things that computers are good at. If you have ever sat at a 6 x 3 table and pushed miniatures around, it is the best iteration of that hobby yet. Its graphics more than suffice to represent the elements required to a still-startling degree of fidelity to "real life". It retains gamist features in places, but does not rely on them like many tabletop wargame rulesets these days do. The skybox is way better a background for the game than any wargame club hall I've ever been in, and the ruleset is more intricate a simulation than any hand-calculated set of rules could come close to matching.

But if you expect the total perspective immersion of modern computer games out of it, you're going to be disappointed, cos it ain't that.

As to "all the games are the same", that's true on a very broad and superficial sense, but if you actually play 'em the "progression" between the titles is noticeable. There are common principles, but they are consequences of the fidelity of the simulation: the principles of warfare don't change much. The available tools do, however.

What a SUPER deal!! 
D'you see what I did there? 
Now.....About that 'Newer, New Stuff':

The Sixty-Eighth and Sixty-Ninth Minutes
KT4
On the left the StuG continues to fire its MG into the treeline and we spot an infantry squad/team retreating.

On the right both the Landsers who were pinned regain their senses and both make it back to the waiting SPW.




Objective ROT
The numbering system and how we left it last time:


The assault continues. I start to move 1 Zug up and take casualties in both 2 Gruppe and 1 Gruppe within seconds of one another. The shots seemed to come from C2 and were fired down the street between sectors A and B.


The Tiger and some guys from 2 Zug start to take the building under fire.

It's not long before he's spotted. A DP gunner, the last man standing from his team or squad.

He doesn't last long under the weight of my fire, too many eyes and guns.

The Ivans in B2 are taken back to the rear for processing. This is a good sign as it means he doesn't have any presence in sector B by the looks of things.

The last man from one of the ATG teams is still up and kicking in E2 and gives his position away.

He too doesn't last long.

More of the enemy are seen retreating towards D3 and some of them make it. It was 2 infantry teams/squads and 1 HQ team, I cause 2 casualties that I can see. That building will be getting some Teutonic love in a bit.



We also get a spot on another HQ unit evacuating sector E. This one has a pistol, company/squadron HQ perhaps?

A curious thing happens, it looks like a mortar spotting round lands not too far from the Tiger HQ panzer and 1 Zug. I can't imagine he has LOS on whatever he was trying to hit anymore given the number of HQ teams I've seen retreating. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The dispositions at turn's end.

SITMAP

All's quiet on the right. I would expect that should he try and move any armour through KT2 3 Kompanie will hear it, they are deployed in the woods.
On the objective it's time to step it up a bit, he's clearly drawing back. How far remains to be seen. I suspect he may have pulled his tanks right back as I have not heard or seen anything of them at all.
MMM

Sorry it's taking so long for the next update everyone, I am not finding much spare time at the moment with sick kids and sick parents (don't ask!).
I've got about 10 turns to write up so where appropriate I'll batch them together as not a huge amount happened in some of them.
In the meantime I thought I'd upload a picture of the planning sketch I did for this battle way back in August. The numbers have changed since I did fancy graphics for this  DAR and I identified a few more pieces of Key Terrain etc but this is typically how I record my planning, most of which I do in my head. This in combination with my OOB spreadsheet gives me all the info I typically need to get started, and I'll continually reassess and reapply METT-T (and draw new diagrams if needed - did it in my last battle against this opponent) where appropriate when the situation changes.

MMM

Yes, another recommendation for the big bundle. It's easy for me to spend your money but I think it's a good idea because it will give you many more choices for downloadable content -- scenarios and campaigns. Even if a scenario/campaign is Market Garden-centric, the author may have used a piece from another part of the bundle, which you'd need to play it. With the big bundle, every CMBN mission is in play. The big bundle includes the battle pack and vehicle pack right? In US dollars I think it's an extra $15 to get the whole works over just Market Garden. Best of luck whatever you choose and good hunting commander.

Ah, I see what you did there....
Regardless, what have we learned on this thread so far?
- John Kettler is feeling better and posting good stuff.
- There was a battle at Bin Ba and brave people died.
- Australian nationalism is alive and well
- Western militaries are not ready for a peer fight of any serious size
- Do not try and take on Combatintman lightly.
- CM brings the world together and will no doubt contribute directly to a world where we no longer need militaries.

Points for trying but I am not sure the target is listening.  The plus side is this discussion took me on a bit of journey on the question.  So closest I could find to a recent true urban warfare example was the re-taking of Mosul in 16-17.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mosul_(2016–2017)
So this took 9 months and was really more of a hybrid warfare fight than a true conventional peer-on-peer fight but it fits the bill close enough.  If you look at the numbers the Blue/Green force had over 114K combatants clearing a city of 180 sq kms with thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of densely packed buildings (a freaking nightmare).  Red Force had approx 6-12k in forces but we are largely talking uncons so all types and weirdness there.  

By true urban warfare standards this one was actually pretty light.  About 7k Blue force casualties and pretty much all of Daesh in a 9 month grind.  Compared to Stalingrad this was a minor side action.
To put that into perspective the entire US Army regular force is about 485k, with NG and reserves that number can get as high as about a million but I doubt more than half are combat forces.  Toss in the Marines and you might get another 100k So what? The US military as it stands today would have been challenged in this fight.  That is probably 15-25% of the entire US land field force eaten up in one city against an adversary whose capabilities fall roughly into the "tethered, highly challenged one eyed goat" territory.  Nuke and Bypass indeed.   

There is charging in blind and there is audacity. From what I've read the Sov perspective is that audacity shortens the fighting by seizing chances that a more cautious approach would lose. The corollary is that the overall shortening of the main conflict is better than a more cautious approach in money and manpower. Maintaining momentum is the key to how the Sov wanted to fight. 
 
It's easy to see how they came to that perspective. Early in the GPW(Great Patriotic War) the Germans were audacious and brushed aside Sov troops that were just barely not in position yet, grabbing huge advances and capturing millions of Ivans. Late GPW was a meat grinder for both sides. The meat grinder was better than losing, but the Sov thought hard and long on how to avoid a repetition of the late war attrition tactics. Audacity and echelons was the answer they came up with. 
 
How well that would work at the pointy end of the stick is one of the reasons for a game like CMCW. 
 
H

Ok … so let’s start with what ChuckDyke said:
“Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”
He posted a video about the Battle for Binh Ba in South Vietnam 
Let’s see what I said in response:
“Binh Ba was hardly Hue, Fallujah, Berlin or Stalingrad though was it?  This was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties. The Australian Army lacks the size and experience to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village so MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
For those not familiar with Binh Ba, this is a contemporary map.  The grid squares are 1km so the total mapped area is 4km². 

Note that it does not fill that area.
Moving on then to the Australian Army’s own doctrinal publications as an example:
According to Land Warfare Publication-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments,
The urban environment is classified into the following zones:
a. the city core,
b. the core periphery,
c. commercial ribbons,
d. residential sprawl,
e. industrial areas,
f. outlying high-rise areas, and
g. shanty towns
This is just one reason I stated that Binh Ba was not an urban environment as it only has one of those characteristics.  The same publication cites the battles for Fallujah, Grozny, Hue and Stalingrad in its examples of urban combat.  That publication makes one reference to Binh Ba as the preface to Chapter 7 – Building Clearance as follows (my bold):
The battle was triggered shortly after 8.00am when a Centurion tank travelling through the village was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Initial intelligence suggested there were two Viet Cong platoons in the village. From the strength of the fire met by the company sent to deal with them, however, it was apparent that the enemy presence was much greater. There followed several hours of devastatingly fierce fighting. Twice tanks swept through the village, returning enemy fire by blowing open the walls of the houses. Then each house was cleared room by room by the infantry. By nightfall the village was still not secure and fighting continued in the area the following day. When the battle was finally over the enemy toll was 91 – at a cost of just one Australian life and eight wounded.
The battle of Binh Ba posed the perennial problem of the war in Vietnam – how to separate the enemy from innocent civilians. The occupation of towns and villages by the Viet Cong was a deliberate tactic designed either to ambush the relieving troops or to cause the Australians to use an excess of force.
Now ChuckDyke initially said (my bold):  “Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”  My response said:  “MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
Taking my argument that the Australian Army lacks the capability to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village let’s go back to LWP-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments.  Its Combined Arms Scenarios section (Chapter 8 refers) shows a Company Team attack in the context of a Battlegroup.  The example imagery map for that scenario has the Battlegroup boundary covering three streets and 22 buildings.  Hold that thought …
The Australian Army is basically capable of deploying a division of three combat brigades.  This would be war of national survival stuff as its more recent deployments where the usual premise of ‘to deploy one, you need three’ comes into effect has been to deploy nothing bigger than a brigade.  Australian Army brigades sit in the three to four battalion range.  Being generous let’s say four battalions which gives you four battlegroups.  Keeping one in reserve, because it is good practice to have one then according to the example in the Australian Army’s official doctrine on urban operations, a brigade can conduct an offensive operation comprising nine streets with 66 buildings.  If we go for the war of national survival then, assuming one brigade is the divisional commander’s reserve, then that is 18 streets and 132 buildings.
Here is a map of Hue where some of the calculations above have been applied to illustrate the point:

The image below is the zoomed area that I have marked as a green rectangle in the overall city map.

So in simple terms, according to the Australian Army's own doctrine, a brigade can conduct an attack on a small corner of a city.
My point about the capabilities of the Australian Army is based on having served in it and knowing what it can and cannot do which I think the argument presented above demonstrates.  It is no more an insult than saying the Australian Army cannot deploy a parachute battalion.  Why?  It doesn’t have one.  Facing up to reality and knowing your strengths and weaknesses is an important discussion to have.  Nations/militaries that overestimate their own capabilities and don’t challenge them generally end up coming second in wars.  I recall that the British Army claimed (and bored everyone to death) that they were the masters of limited war/COIN because of Borneo, Malaya, Northern Ireland and the killer tactic of wearing berets/soft hats only to end up having to eat humble pie in Basra.  There are few people in British military circles and veterans who served there who disagree with the assertion that Basra was an utterly miserable performance on the part of the British Army.  One of my friends was killed there by the way so I have little interest in denigrating the sacrifice of those whose lives were changed there.
On then to impugning the courage and sacrifice of veterans … Recalling that ChuckDyke said that my comments would not be welcome in an RSL (Returned Services League – a veteran’s association) I pointed out that I have been a member of it for 10 years.  Later ChuckDyke changes his position on the RSL and decides that it is not such a good thing after all because of the way it treated Vietnam Veterans.  A claim I don’t dispute, it is well documented, and it was not the organization’s finest hour.  Anyway – I think we can agree that his position on the RSL is inconsistent.  Whatever the argument, my membership subs help Australian veterans and while serving in the Australian Army I collected in Brisbane and Sydney for Legacy ... a veteran’s charity.
For my part, I have been and continue to be a member of the RSL.  I am also a member of the Royal British Legion … you’ve guessed it … another veteran’s association.  This month I have given the equivalent of three full working days (in addition to my day job and my hobby ‘job’ for Battlefront) collecting for the Poppy Appeal plus assisting with the organization of, and attending, a cross laying ceremony at the town church as well of course as attending Remembrance Day itself and participated in the RBL committee meeting at which this most important appeal and other issues affecting veterans were discussed.
One of those issues was our disgust that the County level RBL have decided that organizing the ANZAC service at the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery on Cannock Chase is ‘too difficult.’  My branch is now taking it on and I am one of the lead members in this initiative.  The majority of the Commonwealth dead there are New Zealanders.  A country whose army I have never served in but the people commemorated there are fellow ANZACs.  Most of them died of Spanish Flu which the more ungenerous might say wasn’t a war death.  However, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission rightly designates them as war deaths and, incidentally, many of them had fought some hard actions on the Western Front before being brought back to the UK.  Hardly the behaviour of someone with no respect for the fallen.
Nowhere in the phrase "this was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties," do I denigrate veterans.  Non-descript village is a fact is the number of casualties and participants on both sides. 
Anyway, I think I’ve made my point.

Does that mean Mac will never get it? An unpleasant surprise.... 

This has been sat on my hard drive in an 'almost finished' state for a couple of years now.  Prompted by this thread:
I decided to finish it off.
Some tasters ...
Scenario Image:

Strategic Map:

Operational Map:

Tactical Map:

Overhead Comparison CM and Google Earth

Eye Level Comparison CM and Google Earth:

The basic premise is that Russia attacks the Suwalki Gap after a period of tension on the Russian and Belarusian borders with NATO (sound familiar anyone ...).  This mission is set in Lithuania's western border with the Kaliningrad Oblast where a US force has hurriedly deployed in response to a threat of a thrust east out of Kaliningrad in support of the Suwalki Gap attack.
The map is 3,328m x 1,920m ...
Watch this space ...

That appears to be the case, yes. For every title. Unpleasant surprise is exactly correct. 
 
Dave

I'd get the bundle - you'll end up wanting to get CW for sure. 

There it is...I suppose you want to see my manager next. 
No, we are not tweaking based on your feedback (beyond the Tac Air Controller, which I did most of the legwork on as your responses were extremely vague) and you should not walk away thinking that.  We are tweaking based on MKs feedback because it is good.  It shows screen shots of an end-mission screen and layout which does not look right.  It let me narrow down a feature that was left out by mistake.
Of course I made a mistake and am acknowledging them, that is why I am posting here for all to read and not offline.  
As to this whole "hurt puppy" routine, take it somewhere else.  You have been loud, entitled and rude pretty much since you dumped on this forum.  Hell, you came back for a big "I told you so" moment, and now you fall to the ground a "wounded paying customer".  You gave BFC legal currency, they gave you a game and we will continue to support that game, including fixing tweaks and errors.  None of it bought being simply rude to the people who are trying to build the best game  with what they have for a community they have been a part of for over 20 years.

Repeat after me the "Soviet Campaign Player's Lament"
- I am a good CM player, this is but one campaign of many.  Built by a bastard with bile in his heart, I shall rise above...even in defeat
- I lose for reasons, not excuses.  I win on talent, not luck.
- In the campaign, I am the Devil's Red Right Hand.  I will shed my elegant ways and become the Hammer of War.  As my pixeltroops fall in droves, I feel nothing but righteous impellation 
- On Mission 3, I will try the left flanking through the woods because nothing else seem to work.