sttp

Now I start to read the manual... DOH!! Oh well...  😂
I made this for myself and maybe some of you will find it useful as well.
Also attached two PDF versions for Letter and A4.
I'll update it if I got something wrong
Fixed Zealand.

 
CMFI Nations QB [A4].pdf CMFI Nations QB [Letter].pdf

Now I understand.  You are wanting a random campaign generator.  Sounds like a cool idea.  I also hope it is on Battlefront's list. 

I'm a very long term lurker (well, since CMBB) but have quit playing and/or purchasing anything BF releases. It's not hatred, just disappointment with company policy, charging for performance patches, late deliveries, poor communication with the community, and massive amount of gate keeping I see here by people hostile towards anyone who questions company policy. I would love to see things go back to the way they used to be, but unless that happens myself and many others will likely be spending less money. The general attitude towards Battlefront I see these days is similar to mine, not exactly hostile, but not terribly impressed or looking forward to their products anymore. It's not really sustainable, one only has to look at the activity level on this site to see how much smaller their customer base has become. No need to stick your heads in the dirt.

There are two possibilities here, that would give much of the feel of campaigns - much of the enjoyment of which comes from following the same unit over progressive battles:
1) To import units from a saved game into a new QB
2) and to import a map from a saved game into a QB
(or both)
It wouldn't be as hard as a whole Quick-Campaign; it would be fun to play over slices of a Master Map; and it would allow players to follow a unit through several battles.

Let's not over-complicate this. A lot of things are hard to do, but get done anyway. Also by small independent game developers.
Of course nobody expect a magic campaign generator that can produce quality campaigns like KG Peiper at the push of a button, but a basic map generator would not be that hard to code, and a simple system to assign types of missions, plonk down some deployment zones and objectives could definitely be done. It's all about scoping the project right.
In the end, it depends more on priorities than on whether it's too hard to do. The reason we don't have a campaign generator right now is that Steve clearly thinks other stuff would be a better use of the time. Which is fine with me. But the idea of a random campaign generator is good. It's one of the things I would get excited about in a new release. Having pixeltroops speaking with Australian accent isn't - no offense to the Aussies 
 

So I've spent the last weekend giving Graviteam a real chance for once. I've had MiusFront it in my game library for a long time already, but being the CM fanboy that I am, I never really made a serious effort. But now as I'm growing slightly disatisfied with CM's lack of progress/innovation, I decided to try GT out more seriously. 
The bad:
Graviteam's AI is no challenge. Lacking a multiplayer mode, this means that any fun I might have with the game will be short-lived. This is the single most important point of this review. After one weekend of playing, I'm already tired by AI suicide charges.  Graviteam's UI is a nightmare beyond description, both in the tactical battles and even more so in the operational mode. I call "fanboy" on anyone who thinks differently on this point. Nobody seems to understand how the various indirect fire methods really work. Even the expert tutorials just tell you which combinations of buttons you should have checked, without fully understanding what they do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mabye it's bugged.  The campaign aspect is certainly interesting, but it's more on the "game" than on the "simulation" side of things. They way battlemaps are cut out of the campaign map means that positions that could very well support each other are simply "cut off" (but to be fair, this is even more noteworthy with many CM maps...). Also, the whole reinforcement/battlegroup aspect is rather questionable. Battalions are represented by single companies (the other companies are in reserve, not present on the battlefield). The good:
The visuals are more simulation-like: For example, tracer rounds are simulated - these really have a huge impact on the overall aesthetical impression of a WWII battle. Another thing that struck my eye is that tree models are more realistic than in CM (in CM, tree trunks are much too thick). From what I've seen so far, clear areas on most GT maps also feature a lot of small bumps that provide cover to prone infantry. The more realistic impression of GT is also related to the "tight" reaction of individual soldiers. While the overall animations of GT soldiers are a bit clunky at times, they tend to stand up and run faster than CM soldiers, who sometimes seem to react/move in slow-motion.  GT gives the player less control over some aspects, which leads to command friction that is a bit lacking in CM. For example, GT has an interesting "command delay" system to prevent the player from micro-managing too much. As it has been discussed, friction is of particular importance when it comes to tank-infantry coordination. Here, properly scaled maps also help a lot - tanks are simply faster than infantry! But you will only start to understand the implications of this if you play on realistically sized maps. Graviteam's maps are realistically large. The same cannot be said for CM quickbattle maps. Situational plausibility. One thing I particularly like in GT was that both the mix of troops you lead into battle as well as your overall goal for a battle somehow seemed more plausible than in most CM games. The second point is probably related to the campaign mode, which ties the operational and the tactical levels closer together. Due to their fine, time-consuming level of detail,  CM battles need to deliver a lot of action in a short time-span to be fun, even if the resulting high intensity of the action is very unplausible. GT is very different here. As they're real time, battles play out very fast. Long periods of "nothing" can be bridged very quickly by speeding up time. This means that GT can portray the intensity level of WWII engagements (with a few exceptions, obviously) much better. Casualties are lower overall, engagements develop slowlier, don't necessarily end in full escalation. Also, in the campaign battles of GT, you never know how many and what kind of troops the opponent still has in petto. You could find yourself in a very asymmetrical/unbalanced battle (it's okay because retrat makes sense and you don't lose too much precious game time if you do it...). In CM, by contrast, the balance lies within a single game/scenario, not on the campaign level.  It features some details that are missing in CM: e.g. telephone units that lay wires; flares.  Also, you can set the density of an infantry formation. I wished I could spread out my soldiers in CM too... Offside the core functions, one also needs to point out that modding CM seems to be much easier and that CM features an awesome map/scenario editor. 
So overall, I would say that Graviteam has a more realistic/simulationist visual appeal, while CM's visuals are a bit more "table top like" (and very detailed at that!) which also has its own charm. In terms of gameplay, the overall combat situation (mix of troops, map size, goals of a battle, intensity of engagements) is more plausible in GT, while the actual mechanics are probably more convincing in CM (precise positioning, effects of cover and concealment, etc). Any advantages that Graviteam might have, however, are strongly mitigated by the lack of multiplayer support, and severely hampered by the atrocious and clunky UI. CM is the much more polished and user-friendly series.
So both games have their merits. I think I will stick to GT for a more "contemplative", laid-back singleplayer experience (let's just watch the action) and to CM for a more competitive, highly invested tactical multiplayer experience.

Based on BFC's release history over the last few years, I would be very careful about interpreting the statement from BFC Elvis in that way. i mean, I want you to be right, but it just feels like we've been here several times before.

From its last page, it got shelved due to time constraints.
Also, I remember another one of its creators saying in a different thread that he stepped away due to frustrations caused by single-player TacAI problems introduced by the 4.0 upgrade.  Those problems did not get resolved until 2.5 years later by a patch that introduced additional TacAI problems. (The 4.0 upgrade and its ridiculously delayed and flawed "01" patch do NOT rank among BF's finer moments.) 
 By then, though, this project appeared to have been abandoned.  A shame. 

Well, I have continued with CMx2 training.  I am not a noob, but I think the missions are good for me.  I completed CMBN, CMFI, CMRT, and have CMFB to do.  Yes, I am playing them in order of release.  (Also, I have been playing Alea Jacta Est the classical wars of Rome.  This is not a sandbox game like TW & PD games.)
But I am here to talk about GTMF as I have gotten more time with it.  I playing Shilovo as the Germans in 42.  The op has I think 13 turns.  The terrain is wooded, open, and village ... flat and rolling.  The forces vary between all infantry, motorized, and armor.
The style of play is very different from CM which is both good and bad.  Did anyone ever play Panther Games?  I was a team member.  I you played that one, then you will know there were no turns.  But order delays and time made it very different than many operational games.  How so?  Well, things don't have a beginning and an end.  Yes, strictly speaking an order is given and it with be carried out until termination.  But you quickly learn that the wait for termination is often counter-productive.  Why?  Suppose you order an attack.  I see my attack has succeeded and broken through.  I could wait for the conclusion which involve exploiting beyond the objective, regrouping, and finally securing.  That will take 4 hours of simulated time.  Then, I may have another order like to take up a defensive position.  So, 6-8 hours could go by before the force gets to that defensive position.  If the enemy gets there during that time soon, he could deploy heavy weapons and dig-in.  So, you see my point.  You want to detect the changing state on the ground and react as soon as it is reasonable to do so.  This was the heart of PG's system.
Now, GTOS/GTMF are not exactly like that.  The order delays are not nearly as "painful" in PG full realism was called "painfully realistic".  The delays exist more to discourage micro-management than to simulate the famous OODA loop.  But it is still very much about detecting/sensing transitions; rather than being like a city builder where one step is completed before another ... and all is meticulously done in space and time.  You will have some critical units which you will want to micro-manage.  The best example I can think is an FO and TRPs.  We are talking controlling 3-6 men, but very important.  However, in general, you may not even command platoons (which can be commanded as squads), but at the start of a battle combine platoons into forces.  The force will then get missions like:  clear the woods, deploy in the tree line across from the town to keep enemy occupied, another larger force may be using smoke to make a frontal assault, etc...  The orders you give will take care of lines, spacing, close to contact, close to close combat, close to grenade range, bound, run, find cover, ...  Go mounted or dismounted in support of ...
So, I am defending this town as the Germans on hill over looking a river; in particular a bridge which is the only crossing point for armor.  I will have armor up in about 12 hours.  I have already taken the town and bridge in a prior battle.  I know the Red Army (intel) will be coming across the bridge and mainly hitting one side of the town.  This is suggested, but not guaranteed, in fact, I am very fearful of the woods on the other side since they get close enough to fix bayonets before they are spotted.
I place most troops in buildings mainly on the side overlooking the river.  I set up some TRPs at the bridge choke point.  I set up my very limited ATG resource on a center of the river island which the bridge crosses hoping to catch armor in a cross fire; turn them into a natural road block.  But my real armor plan is to retreat.  I don't have as much as a stick of chewing gum to try to get a T-34 to throw a track.
The battle begins and there is a very heavy preplanned barrage by Soviets of one end of the town.  There are many wounded and KIA.  Besides the heavy losses, this concerns me as it not directly across from the bridge.  I am wondering if I can trust my Intel.  The Red Army has been known to give their officers false plans until the last minute to foil interrogations.
But the intel turns out to be correct when they come.  My TRPs are spot on, but enemy comes well strung out preventing an easy massacre; they will rally after crossing.  My other main problem is that I have great TRPs, but only a few minutes are arty for a two hour battle.  I will draw blood, but by no means will this break their attack.
The Red Army takes the bridge in the first 30 minutes.  This does not bother me.  The town, Shilovo, is everything.  The bridge is one of those objectives that is easily traded ... there are no blowing bridges in this game.  From the river up the town is a steep slope with little natural cover.  However, there are enough shell holes and some former positions that fire and maneuver is quite feasible.
It was said, "How can enjoy the beauty of an RTS?".  Well, I spend most of 60 minutes watching the USSR work their way further and further up the slop and closer to the town.  So, this is no movie.  This is tense live drama.  If they manage to reach buildings and get a toe hold, the whole nature of the fight will change.  Breaking their grip on the town will require many more lives than gunning down Russians climbing the slope.
So, each little group of Russians is a drama.  A few drop to lay down fire, and couple of others race forward.  Yes, we are in a much better position.  But every now and then, a bullet finds one of my men, and I hear "Sheise, Ich bin getroffen."
It has been 60 minutes, the volume of Red troops is starting to wane, and they don't seem to be able to make any closer to the streets than 50M.  Occasionally, a single courageous Russian dashes the final distance, but so far, they have all been gun down before finding an empty building.
Having watched this drama, I am pretty sure this is the main (only) attack.  I now shift the rest of my troops to this flank as I see the Soviets have lost their momentum.  It will take far less now to break the attack.  There are no more green flares sending new platoons our way.  If anything, I am expecting orange smoke, and the attack to be recalled.  But the Soviet command treat their men as dogs; they may just die here.
It has now been 90 minutes, there is no new activity down by the bridge.  If there are reserves, they are not going to be thrown into this attack.  Yet, there are many Russians holding on tenaciously.  No doubt, they would rather face German bullets to Bolshevik bullets.  I order a general attack down the slope to a shell marked area of my TRP.  It is time to push the Russian off my position, and guarantee the bridge will be ready for armor when it arrives.
The first few Germans bursting out the town don't elicit a response, but as their numbers swell, the Soviets either lay down their weapons or turn tail and try to beat my men to the bridge.  The ones on the slope won't make it, but the ones at the rally point may fight another day.
This battle was full of graphic drama.  I think if you are playing this game right, there is plenty of time to appreciate the full glory of the graphics.  Of course, you will always miss something ... but it is the nature of things.  Also, with experience, you soon realize where to bring the camera.  Events tell you where and when an arty strike is starting or new enemy has been spotted or heavy fire is being taken.
---
I originally said this style is better and worse.  You can play in broad strokes.  The AI handles little details like smoke or calling in mortar strikes.  On the other hand, you know with the ability to control 5 men units, positions would fall easier and casualties would be lower.  What you lose in control, you gain back in the campaign game.  You feel more attached to your men in CM; because I ordered them across that street ... they died on my direct orders.  However, on the other hand, I feel more attached to the Town of Shilovo.  German blood is splattered on the buildings.  We have repelled 3 attacks already.  Nothing tells me probe, attack, assault, meeting engagement ... I have to decide will I risk Shilovo if I detach a platoon to go for the bridge.  Will Battalion say I was reckless or demonstrated initiative so that the tanks are not held up?  This operation is not just an exercise in moving shells, men, and armor.  It is a test of German martial skills.  Can German commanders read the battles?  Take ground when needed?  Hold when needed?  Preserve troops for tomorrows push as opposed to squander them and hide behind some notion of maintaining German honor.  For many, the war will be over in hours or minutes, but for our nation and army, we fight the long fight.
I hope this has helped you to get sense of GTOS/GTMF (NOTE:  GTOS is the precursor.  The later is the better game, but the former is well worth it if you are running older hardware.)
PS:  This is not an inducement to give up CM.  I have the battle of Trushinko waiting for me, but tonight is CM time.  I am enjoying the best games on the market for WWII tactical combat.  It is a wonderful time to be a gamer.

Does anyone actually talk about CMX2 anymore.
Not really, especially if on another site.
Face it , its a system that now has been around for many years. There is not going to be any great new or major changes.
For those of us that like the game and the system, its a time where us die-hard players get some new toys or features to let us
play around with a new scene as to area of the conflict, but no, its not a brand new toy that is going to pull in a bunch of new enthusiasm.
 
Until a CMx3  engine comes out with all sorts of new approaches to the same old challenge of how best to reflect combat as to how it actually plays out will we see any massive wave of forum discussions and tons of debate and discussion on how that system could be improved to do it even better.
But when a new engine ever does come, it will be as different as CMx1 was to CMx2
and I am sure that magically there will be plenty of activity on the forum from long lost players and new players that we have never seen before.
 

Regardless you managed to fill what was an interesting thread with chaff.

Personally I'm thankful we have this one currently active to draw in all that waste.

Yea, it would be. Like I said earlier I kinda wonder if the research that BF is doing for these games is actually worth it in the sense that it doesn't actually trickle down to the players. You have to have the knowledge beforehand, and by the description of the "research pain" it seems unlikely if any players actually do. Taking the old info from CM:BB or CM:AK would be sufficient. Like if you aren't making the player a stakeholder in your level of detail what is the point of it? I can't easily confirm anything BF is doing is correct, I can't easily figure out what the differences are between June '44 and December '44. That should be a huge selling point, but they don't take advantage of it.
Yea, I recall Warts 'n All jumping down some dudes throat in a discussion about captured equipment because he made a youtube video he didn't like? SOmething like that, I don't tend to follow Combat Mission's social media scene. And unlike this current thread it was a pretty interesting topic until it got derailed.

Yes, but the problem is that many newish posters on the forum were not been around as those issues that were hashed and rehashed many times (often many years ago); sometimes "supporters" respond respectfully but as often as not they respond with an unwarranted degree of exasperation and condescension for bringing such and such topic up again.  
I suspect that if you're seeing less back-and-forth than you expected, it is because people with critical questions or comments just don't post as often.  As you point out, on other forums this board's reputation is that it is not welcoming of critical comments, and I don't think that that reputation was is completely unearned.
While I agree that not very many juvenile morons post on this forum, that is mainly because the games do not appeal much to juvenile morons.

I wonder if Honda would sell many cars if it ignored users comments about what they liked and disliked about its cars, or if only positive comments appeared on its website?

yes i would love a CM encylopedia within the game, click on a vehicle , weapon or unit and "goto history" would be awsome

Please speak for yourself.  The fact is that there are plenty of fanbois on this forum, and they do not encourage candid discussion of the game.  If the fanbois don't like labels perhaps they should stop labeling everyone that voices the slightest criticism as a hater or troll.  I'm happy to hear a wide variety of opinions on this forum.

RE: Scenario design overall
What building your own scenarios does, at least for me, is point out the limitation more than just sticking with QBs and premade scenarios. Once you start opening the system up and you realize that there is  a lot you can';t do with the limited amount provided. Sure you can do jeeps and artillery if you want, but that isn't particularly interesting. Take 37mm's Heaven and Earth... That is a dramatic change that is only possible because CM:SF has a relatively broad stable of units. CM:SF, in fact, can do a decent job of representing various conflicts outside of its actual ~3 month time period thanks to the existence of so much Cold War Soviet kit. Some of my favorite CM scenarios were African and Middle-East civil war scenarios. These are scenarios which are well outside of the scope of the game as made, but there is sufficent breadth to make possible.

And really what you are doing is using basic building blocks (infantry with Warsaw Pact weaponry, T-55s, BMP-1s, etc...) to create interesting engagements that only broadly resemble the TO&E of any actual Nation that would be fighting with these weapons. In fact you can do a modern battle with "Kurdish" forces using American equipment fighting "Isis" troops with stolen American equipment and various Soviet era vehicles even though there isn't anything close to a well researched layout of these forces in the game.
 

You are ignoring the obvious solution here and imagining that you'd have to release some absurd "uber game". DCS, for example, has a Core Launcher and numerous modules which in the end create a single mega game. The layout of CM, as it stands, would be adaptable to that selfsame system.

Rather than having ~6 families each with separate launchers and separate modules. You would have:

CORE LAUNCHER
Which hosted each family

Family Module
Which would be the base game for each time period.

Child Module
Which would be individual modules that are financially attached to a family module.

This layout is far from ironic and would actual be a pretty rational system if BFC wasn't as far into the separation system that they currently have. Since with a single "parent" you wouldn't have ~6 different engine upgrades and patches but instead just a single. While you could still have CM:BN, CM:FB, CM:FI as they exist.
 

I get the feeling that 76mm is talking more about some of the complete formations. Within the editor there are quite a few formations that you can pick which essentially aren't ever used as a whole within CM, but are instead already being broken up by the scenario designer/QB player.
 
 

That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.  

You mean mix-and-match, like in forming kampfgruppe or task forces?  Forces were "mixed-and-matched" all the time, so I have hard time understanding what is ahistorical about that?   But if you'd prefer to "break" yourselves by fixating on the formal TO&E of units which have never, and probably will never, feature in a CM scenario, don't let me stop you, although to compare another approach to the inclusion of lightsabers is a bit rich.
Sorry, but in a game featuring up to battalions of digital soldiers in a digital environment built upon many thousands of assumptions and estimates of various degrees of accuracy, to suggest that the range and accuracy of officer sidearms can "make all the difference" is completely ludicrous.  For example, in a "historical tactical sim" I would expect that the TacAI would be vastly more important than minutia such as this, and yet it remains (and given the nature of the beast, will always remain) work in progress.

While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making?  Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research).  Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them?  For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions?  Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines?  Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor?
If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products.  I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a  unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart.
With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.

I used to love playing and modding the CM games (gen1 and 2) and still check in once and a while. I still have them installed even but I just can't bring myself to play them any more, for years now. My "criticism" is enshrined in the forums so need to rehash. Needless to say I still have a sadness about how I see the "death" or near death of the series. It's like a gaming relationship breakup, I probably shouldn't even be here, it's like checking in on an old girlfriend from years past, creepy! lol  
Now, "IF" we ever get a proper version 3 maybe we can rekindle the lost relations!   

The incremental approach for CM2 development has worked well for some years and put some very well deserved $ in BF's pockets.  But, I feel a boredom setting in.  Each module has virtually identical gameplay value as the previous - just adding a few new units, and perhaps a few bugs cleaned up.  Until there is another big step forward in evolution I predict a slow decline as we saw with CM1 over the past 6-7+ years.  The amazing work that Aquila has accomplished for graphics and the outstanding innovations of designer like MOS with his TOC and COUP scenarios has been exciting.  Perhaps the "Heaven and Earth" project will breathe some new life into the system for a while.  But, after playing the CM game series since 1999 for over 20 years, I find my interest flagging.  I have always bought whatever BF released immediately.  But, I just can't summon the interest to preorder the new CMFI module (as yet).  And am sad about that - like an old friend fading away...
 

Started some CM vids for AARs/DARs....
'Fortress Grosshau' is the subject of the first series.  Excuse my weak graphics card and awkward narrative delivery. I think I'm going to start writing scripts before recording narration. Score is original music (I'm a professional musician among other things.)  Try to watch in full screen for the full cinematic effect.
All inspiration comes from watching vids by Usually Hapless, Josey Wales, Ithikial and Double.  You guys set the bar!
 

I wish that would work reliable, i try that several times, i even mentioned that in the first post(or second?) i made in this thread. I have had squads parked right outside a 1x1 house right by the door, then let them "assault" into the building, i saw the first team run in the close door as they should, and the 2nd team still took the long way around to the other door. So it does not work reliable  
 
Maybe you are right, ... maybe i get back to it another time.

It's not a big deal.
Thing I really miss from CMBB/CMAK was show all path behavior.  I don't believe you needed any unit selected.  BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU COULD CLICK ON ANY PATH, AND IT WOULD ACTIVATE FOR EDITING WITHOUT HAVING TO FIND THE ROOT UNIT.