The_MonkeyKing

How much are you guys willing to pay for a remake of CMA in 4.0 engine or with a totally new campaign all together? I am willing to put down a solid $60!

I think the ATGM are one of those units that make sense on a larger strategic scale that what is present in CM games. they exist as an defensive Anti Armor detachment for mobile infantry, by all regards a static TOW2 launcher makes more sense in CM because its cheaper and stealthier, but its less mobile. but in CM's scale that doesn't matter.

the same issue exists in the WW2 titles too with Marders, they make very little sense to take, since in their role they are inferior to a Pak40. Its only when you zoom out a step that things make sense.

that being said I'm still happy to have them, because I don't feel like CM should be made into a super competitive game. Its more fun to Roleplay an understaffed Panzergrenadier Div force than figure out some sort of strict meta for how the game should be played.

One thing that does help is the new 'hull down' command. Park your vehicle hulldown to a line of approach and just sit there. You should at least get one good shot off before they react. If you try maneuvering into position within sight of the enemy try doing it behind a cloud of smoke, then hope as the smoke dissipates that you spot him before he spots you.
I read something interesting awhile ago. During one training exercise at a gunnery range the vast majority of Bradley gunners failed to hit their target with TOW, and a sizeable  number failed to launch at all! TOW doesn't seem to exactly be a 'magic bullet'.

they are basically the modern equivalent to a Marder, they are primarily defensive ambush weapons. Use their mobility over their stationary counterparts to move away to reload. (edit: they can be effective at killing or annoying infantry hiding in buildings too, this is the only offensive role i can see for them)

In my experience they do about as well as a Tank on the defensive (key word there) at sub 500m ranges, with the big deciding factor in many of these engagements being who spots who first, giving the defenders a pretty massive advantage. Their advantage over tanks in this realm is simply cost.

In theory the ATGM carrying vehicles are good at engaging targets from a long distance. But that requires a good, uninterrupted LOS, which is not going to happen to often on most of the maps. The tank would always fire first, while the ATGM is much slower than the tank gun projectile. Plus tanks are well protected in comparison to the light vehicles, that carry ATGM. So in real terms, the tank destroyer vehicles won't be very useful. The infantry teams are much more effective because they are easier to conceal than the vehicles. In one epic, defensive battle that I played as a Stryker company against Russian mech batalion, the Javelin teams killed about 10 tanks, while all the TOW-2B Strykers got killed before they even fired at the enemy. I just don't find those vehicles very useful. 

"...requires a good, uninterrupted LOS, which is not going to happen to often on most of the maps."
Ivanov hits the nail on the head.  It's very rare to experience long range combat the way the weapons systems were designed for on CM2 maps... with the exception of CMSF and the large desert maps designers often make.  Which is why so many of us are excited about CMSF2.

I would prefer forces to be something that could be exported and imported as a separate file.  Eg you could have a bunch of saved XML forces created by yourself and third parties, that could be loaded into QBs.  These could be hosted on one of the repositories as eg  "6,000 point, 1944, mixed force, US Army".

The below is something womble posted a few years back and I kept it in my notes for QB vs the AI.  It's been awhile since I played a QB vs AI but this is still valid AFAIK.  I paraphrased his original post below: 
You can, if you're picking AI forces yourself, mitigate the "putting units in inappropriate groups" problem by making sure there are enough formations in the force to have "some of everything" in each group. Rather than picking one Battalion "head", then chopping out everything but the AT platoon (4 guns) and a company (3 rifle platoons and a heavy platoon) of infantry, pick four Battalion headers and chop out everything but one AT gun, some Rifle squads and an MG or two from the Heavy Platoon for each Battalion. AFAICT, the AI assigns alternating Formations to the default 2 groups, and will leave one group empty if you just pick the one Formation. Or if you pick a Formation for infantry and another for Armour, you'll have all the Infantry in one setup zone, following one set of orders, and all the Armour elsewhere, operating according to a different timetable which probably won't support your infantry's route.

The key to having an enjoyable QB experience is to never let game pick yours or AI's forces. Pick them manually in a whatever composition you will want to fight with/against.
But before you'll start purchasing forces - pick and preview the map manually. Find the one that seems like an interesting one to fight in and stick with it.
Like are you in a mood to use Ukrainian infantry to attack a Russian outpost that would have some tanks in it? Then go ahead - have yourself infantry with a support of lightly armored but heavy punching BTR4E and give an enemy some T72B3 or T90A. Want to set up a "tower defense" scenario as americans versus heavy russian armored advance? Buy a ton of foxholes, minefields, sandbags and a lot of infantry with ATGM while giving an enemy an advantage in points and fill his roster with nothing but tanks in an 'assault' scenario where you are the defender. Just set up the game according to your wishes.

I would like to know this as well.

Just wanted to check in, say hi, and explain how the work is done.
Now that the holiday season is over, I actually have a few hours of spare time to work on the next video.

Those are plans for the future.

Instructive and  interesting video series, Maybe a few more videos covering aspects of modern warfare covering the differences between this and WW2 eg ATGMs drones, APS etc 

As far as the Aachen campaign goes- it’s helpful to divide the maps into “sectors”. This could be a single city block, for instance. Have a plan for the order in which you will tackle each consecutive sector, ending with the intended objective. Like any battle, if you have a fresh reserve, that can handle any mop-up or unforeseen circumstances. If not, focus your available forces in roles like "support", "assault", etc. Know the capabilities (fatigue state, etc.) prior to the battle. This will help with figuring out how to use them best, and which forces can do the heavy lifting of clearing any surviving defenders from VLs.
Have an AFV and some heavy weapons and a few squads to lay down suppressing fire, then have a few squads as assault forces. I generally split these, and basically do the same thing as the “assault” order, but I’m choosing which men enter the building, and with which buildings. 
I generally play RT, so I am not splitting forces extensively.
I am also surprised when I watch the great AARs on Aachen about how much covered terrain is underused. When I made the campaign, I figured people would be using a particular stream, or a particular route of attack- but they rarely do! As the maps are based off of period maps, these "covered routes" are maybe not as obvious as maps made "from scratch"- but they are out there, as they were when the battle was fought.

Hello...
From one of the CMFB Campaigns...One of the larger city battles i know of....
It's a rather long AAR though...
 

Shameless self-promotion:
 
This is a scenario from fortress italy.

This topic helped me a lot:
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118142-help-with-urban-combat-tactics/#entry1581986

Well, at least with addblock the site makes sence.