DougPhresh

Just subtly mentioning that we had C9's with the C79 optical sight before we had M777s and RGs (Nyala in game). Also, for any scenario designers, make sure 2RCHA is fanatic and elite.

I would think that there would be platoon and company signalers with manpacks, and the sections would have vehicle radios (as you point out) at the very least. I would be surprised if sections didn't have some sort of radio link to platoon HQ when dismounted.

This is something that bothers me about the ww2 titles. I'd like to be able to get infantry battalions with their vehicles, without having to use motorized battalions. In BN and FI for instance, I'd like Commonwealth infantry units to have their Bren carriers for the carrier sections and to tow the AT guns, without using a Motorized unit! In BS the tank element of Russian recce units is stripped out, which is a pretty important component!

In all fairness, by Bagration the Soviets had narrowed production down to a few types and had pretty uniform organization of units as well. It's a far cry from the bizarre array of equipment and formations of 1941, but it also worked much better. There were not many tactical missions that would require anything other than a tank or infantry formation with typical equipment.

1 AWP would be nice to have. It would give another red force to use, and Polish voices are already in the engine. TOE and OOB are very similar to the Russians, so not much to be done on that side. A fair bit easier than adding Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians, and for both sides too!

I was going to say I remember a module adding REDFOR air assets but had no recollection of BLUFOR having AD.

A Soviet attack, conducted well, with the right forces is boring, predictable, and almost unstoppable. For a variety of reasons the Arabs were no more able to do this even with Soviet equipment than the ARVN were able to have the same kind of success as the French or Americans despite being similarly equipped. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html

Wargamer, The Flare Path on RPS and Real and Simulated Wars were all happy to see the CMSF2 Demo, and those seem to indicate the mood of the grog press, which is hopeful. As much as this kind of study sim is niche, I think that the industry has shown a willingness recently to work on UI, distribution and pricing, the 3 things that wargames draw the most criticism for. If you look at Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, TOAW:IV, the Graviteam titles, even what's been shown for Rule the Waves 2, the core of wargames is as deep as ever but has been made more approachable by being easier to use, easier to find, and easier to afford.

Tripod mounted. The Battlegroup had most of the infantry weapons co. but left the TOWs and .50's behind when out on patrol. The thermals on the TOW let us see if the Afghans in the fields at night were digging wells or ditches or placing IEDs. This was in the Canadian Army where fancy optics are less prolific, I'd guess the Germans may do the same.

That's exactly what we used to TOWs for on my Afghanistan roto. It was the best way to see what was going on out there.

The demo is fantastic. That Alamo scenario is tough! I mostly play quick battle in the newer games, since battalion-level scenarios on huge maps are somewhat rare. I remember SF having some really good scenarios and campaign missions though.

Didn't realize there were other gunners on the forums. My solution is always the same, 155 crewed by 2 RCHA.

I'd pay $35 to have South Africa in CMSF2 and another 70 for France and Italy in CMBS. The biggest issue I'd see is deciding what order to add things, I can see people clamoring for any of the top three rows guaranteed. If you think about CMSF NATO having Canada, Netherlands and Germany, it doesn't seem so bad...

If I won the lotto, I think I would invest in making it happen.

I would pay at least $100 for SPMBT in the CM engine.

I think it's a better command, I'd just also appreciate being able to have individuals within teams move in bounds.

If there's one command I'd like back from CM1, it's the individual fire-and-movement. I think it was called assault? up, he sees me down, as opposed to the current assault which seems to resemble the CM1 advance.

If anything, I'd like to see this formation type in all series. I imagine Russian mechanized forces would be more likely to encounter ad-hoc Ukrainian forces than coherent units after a day or so of a hot war.

@ASL Veteran think of it in the context of the Napoleonic Wars: sure the Old Guard and Horse Grenadiers draw all the attention, but they were a very small part of Napoleon's Army, and while present at Waterloo, the actions of the regular regiments were more significant. Similarly, the handful of elite Germany units (LSSAH, HG, Panzer Lehr) is a very small part of a military that by and large marched on foot and was supplied by horse drawn baggage trains. It would be nice to have more scenarios or campaigns that depict the actions of a typical battalion or company trying to accomplish a typical mission, in typical terrain with typical equipment.

It's worse when you see the crew arrangement.

You would think from how certain segments of the wargaming community go on about fighter aces, panzermen, tank armour, StG 44's and so on that the Wehrmacht had won the war. The better military is the one that wins. Depicting how they won makes for good wargames. Better a Sherman or T-34 that's there than a Tiger with a broken transmission in a separate panzer battalion, 200km down the front.

I think the problem with wargames using the flashiest and biggest is that it contributes to this Axis-biased hardware-obsessed type of amateur history that skews away from an accurate depiction of the second world war. The frontal armour and main guns of Axis AFVs meant very little in the scheme of strategic, operational, or tactical warfare.

That's the standard MSVS. The Artillery and Engineers have a longer cab.

That, was a big part of it. Bisons are overall more useful in my opinion. ML and MS are both not very mobile off-road. The MSVS is not a military truck by design but an International truck modified for military use. I think in a Battlegroup in a hot war zone you would mostly find Bisons.

That's strange. In my experience I couldn't even get them to load in the editor! I wonder why.