DougPhresh

A 155mm round is about 100lbs compared to the 30ish lbs of a 105mm. In the early 2000's a lot of NATO planners assumed artillery would be standardized to 155mm but operational experience has shown that cheap, light, mobile guns are valuable. I'd rather have a 105mm on call than a 155mm tied up supporting other units. More tubes are generally better than fewer state of the art tubes with precision rounds.  I think the Russian way of war is on the right track in that regard.
See also the return of 60, 81 and 120mm mortars to NATO after all those theorists thought precision CAS would replace organic fires.
When I joined the military as a field artilleryman, even at the school staff were bemoaning the End of Artillery because everybody was reading about how armed UAVs, small diameter bombs on CAS, land-based CIWS, Hell even tactical lasers had made artillery obsolete. I think NATO thinkers get tied up in the latest and greatest until the next conflict. Look at all the loony ideas before Vietnam, or even throughout the 70's and 80's.

A 155mm round is about 100lbs compared to the 30ish lbs of a 105mm. In the early 2000's a lot of NATO planners assumed artillery would be standardized to 155mm but operational experience has shown that cheap, light, mobile guns are valuable. I'd rather have a 105mm on call than a 155mm tied up supporting other units. More tubes are generally better than fewer state of the art tubes with precision rounds.  I think the Russian way of war is on the right track in that regard.
See also the return of 60, 81 and 120mm mortars to NATO after all those theorists thought precision CAS would replace organic fires.
When I joined the military as a field artilleryman, even at the school staff were bemoaning the End of Artillery because everybody was reading about how armed UAVs, small diameter bombs on CAS, land-based CIWS, Hell even tactical lasers had made artillery obsolete. I think NATO thinkers get tied up in the latest and greatest until the next conflict. Look at all the loony ideas before Vietnam, or even throughout the 70's and 80's.

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.

Don't be so hard on them.. I'm sure all seven Mac users appreciate that the patch was delayed again to make sure it works also on their machines  
You wouldn't really feel good playing the game knowing that somewhere in the world, a lonely mac user sat quietly whimpering in the shadows, rejected by his gaming community, would you?
For my part, I wouldn't be able to bear it. Solidarity, brothers! Just because a few people choose to play on a widely unsupported gaming platform shouldn't mean that I should enjoy any special privilege just because I bought a Windows PC. All animals are, after all, equal, and the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.
So carry on and show patience, comrade...

I can only speak to Afghanistan, but much more time was spent hunkered down because of mortar fire or pot shots disrupting a patrol than pitched battles with the Taliban. In my own experience it was less pinned-down hugging the earth for dear life (most of the time!) and more that, okay we now have to deploy, find cover, form into a section attack and so on. That kind of suppression is modeled pretty well in CM, as you can't carry out a routine move under fire.

e: Quick question since a dev has responded - in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work?  Did units move differently under fire before?

Seen, I'll post over there. I checked and armour is not a mission type in any of the other titles!

NATO uses the following fuze settings: Proximity, Time, Point Detonating and Delay, in common jargon for missions those are VT, Time, Quick, and Delay.
Those fuzes can be used with different times of shell, but generally carrier shells (smoke pots and illum) have time, WP is PD, and HE can have any of the other types.
There is not anti-armour 155mm shell in NATO inventory besides DPICM.
To neutralize armour in indirect fire you would use HE Quick or HE VT. HE Delay produces fewer fragments, and as you noted a direct hit will kill armour anyways. Since you can't ensure a direct hit with unguided indirect fires, you want to produce fragments to wreck antennas, optics, external stores etc etc.
He Delay is a great for targeting structures or fortifications though.

I had posted a thread on this earlier too. Consensus I saw was we don't know, but think it's delayed fusing.
 

The upgrade info will be up shortly. I think Steve needed some sleep or something.
It will not be long.

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. 😉
 

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. 😉
 

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.

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.

Just this week Steve finally added Stinger AA units to the TO&E of various Blue Force armies. CMSF2 Red force has always had SA-16 / SA-18 Igla AA missiles. The Shilka AAA vehicle, which comes with the NATO module, can now (very effectively) target aircraft, as can the ZU-23-2 pickup 'technical', also in the NATO module.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Even with my napper removed from my body, by the foul Charlie Stewart x 2.  I can agree with Doug and ME.

Worth quoting with a hearty "Amen"!
Michael

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.

@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.