domfluff

For the USMC, I think it varies in practice with the mission, but something like this should be correct: (From MCTP 3-10C, Employment of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs) )

There are quite a few things that the UI could do better, or even information that is hidden from us that would be useful. It's not like it's a huge problem, but it's not great either.

Yes, in single player I try to only react to contacts known to a unit, or pre-planned area fire ("2nd platoon will crest the hill and put fires onto the buildings opposite"), so this is vital. I wish there was a way of enforcing this in-game, but there are some deep problems with doing that. We have far too much available information in Combat Mission. There's no way to enforce that for multiplayer of course, so I don't bother. It's still useful to share spotting contacts and the like, so I will, but I don't let the lack of them hold me back.

I've loaded up a few battles now, and they've all been updated significantly. Three that I know really well are ATGM Ambush, Al Huqf Engagement and UK Sabres at Dawn. All now have "SF2" after their name, to differentiate them. The first two are pretty much unrecognisable. Extended maps, vastly different troops, etc. Amazing stuff. The latter (which was much stronger to begin with) changes significantly with the introduction of water and bridges, but is otherwise pretty much as it was. So.. yes. It looks like all of the battles (in all modules) have had something done to them. Which is incredible really, there's a stupid amount of content in this release.

Yeah, there's a flag for "Brittle" (which is visible in the UI) - if you're broken (with no casualties) then this is switched on. Brittle troops can still return to 100% morale (they'll show "OK), but will lose morale much faster from then on, so each of the stages will fill up faster.

CMSF, even version 2, generally has far less complex maps than the later games - even with the changes, there isn't anything like the topological complexity of some of the CMFB maps. Unit density is also usually much lower, and the maps are frequently smaller (since the originals were much more limited in size, and a lot of the changes are either not changing map size, or extending them a little). I wouldn't be surprised if this was the major contributor really. What I *have* noticed is that the weird extra in-game slowdown that the CMSF 2 trees seemed to cause in the demo seems to be gone, which is very good news.

@Lethaface I am. I've posted on a FewGoodMen, but haven't had any pickup yet. Can't start it tonight, but tomorrow?

The old manual just has "armor missions prioritise anti-armor rounds", which doesn't help. I've used them before to target through roofs, which seems to have the expected effect (and would be explained by delayed fuses). From memory, a direct hit from a 155mm should kill pretty much any tank, and the shrapnel will do a number on most armoured vehicles. Delayed fuses sound like the most plausible 155mm mission type, since airbusts would presumably shrapnel too soon. Whether you'd be better taking HE or "armor" is a good question though, and I don't think it's trivial - it might be better to use normal HE if you're trying to take out IFVs and the like?

I much prefer Iron for this reason. If I have a squad ahead scouting for a platoon, I want to make sure that the second team remains in visual contact to the first - and Iron is the easiest way to do that.

Will give this a poke when the the game is in front of me, but according to the manual you should be able to. (e.g., Tank Companies should have: T-55MV, T-62MV, T-72M, T-72M1 and T-72AV)

Each time the bars fill up, the unit will drop a morale state. This will bounce back over time (if the shooting stops). There's also a permanent modifier of some kind with losses, which will limit what the peak of morale can be. Since the rate the bars fill up is determined by the soft factors, they're more of a relative indicator than an absolute one - it's more important to know that the unit is "shaken" than it's got three yellow bars filled in. Some of this relative/temporary effect can be blindingly obvious - if a squad is cowering under mg fire, then it's pretty clear what's going on. Based on both of the above, I've been a lot more mobile with my HQ units of late. They're frequently conducting a leader's recon, or running between squads to shore up C2 or share spotting contacts with the teams that need it. One nice consequence of the leadership modifier on the HQ unit is that a high leadership HQ can more effectively lead from the front, whereas a bad one should be kept back and out of danger.

Second observation - you have far more control over the Fighter groups than the Combatant groups in Quick Battle selections, at least in terms of configuring options. The combatants have configurable HQ units, so you can control the makeup of your core weapons, at least - MGs, RPGs and the like, but the rest of them just have whatever they have.

Were you playing as the Syrians? That'll do it. Seriously though, noting which scenario this happens in is going to be important.

Time to start testing in earnest. First point - Civilian Density is not a setting like Electronic Warfare (chosen at setup and costing you points), instead it's a feature of the map. A random city map I poked had a "very high" density, so I imagine it varies.

Alt-M is movie mode, Alt-B is night graphics

There are no Advanced Squad Leader-style "national modifiers". Soft factors and equipment can, however, make a huge difference in quality - in Combat Mission Shock Force, even with the same soft factors the Syrian army is not on the same level as the US, simply through available arms and armour. A WW2 US platoon can put out a much higher volume of fire than an Italian one, so would typically win a one-on-one firefight. The mechanics behind soft factors are something of a black box, but @Josey Wales has done some excellent work in puzzling them out. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/the-relationship-between-soft-factors-morale-fatigue.26498/ In his findings, the leadership value only affects the squad themselves, and doesn't "filter down" at all. There is still going to be a leadership effect, albeit sideways - if the subordinate squads have a valid C2 link, then they will have some defence against suppression, etc. Since the HQ unit being suppressed will knock out that C2 link, then higher leadership HQ units will stay un-suppressed longer, helping the platoon as a whole. In terms of how C2 works in the game (surprisingly sophisticated), MOS:96B2P has an excellent guide here:

Excellent, thank you Mark. It's extremely difficult to make a plausible Quick Battle opponent, given the range of possible forces involved. This definitely sounds like a sensible base.

Just looking at the screenshots above, this feels like that AAR you did based on the "Germans can't win in the woods" comment on CMRT.

Nope. Marines campaign is from Marines module, British in the British module. NATO contains Dutch, Germans and Canadian campaigns and scenarios.

Not really, for a couple of reasons. Main one is that each soldier in a unit spots individually, so one dude might be able to see, whilst the rest can't. You can get a good idea of LOS by using the Target command, either from their current position, or another waypoint. You can also gain an awful lot by dropping the camera to eye level and having a look around. It's definitely something which is an issue with CM's UI, but there isn't really an easy solution, given what's being simulated.

That's based on the upgrade page: The CMSF1 Base Game Upgrade works with an original Battlefront purchased CMSF1 Base Game license key.

You won't need to CMSF 1 installed. The upgrade bit is that it (apparently) uses your old CMSF 1 activation key (haven't gotten there yet), but that's it.

Give them some time, they'll be dealing with quite a few (including mine)

What was said previously was that the core campaign and the Marines campaign would ship updated, but the NATO and British campaigns would ship with their original versions, to be updated later. It was also said that all scenarios would be updated. No idea if any or all of that still holds, of course, but that's the expectation.

Seems like a good place to cease. Worst case is that you both hold an objective, and you look like you've caused more damage than you've taken, for a minor victory.